1013
Georgia Senator Vows to Protect Girl, But Then Runs Away After Learning She Is Trans
(www.erininthemorning.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2024
1013 points (96.0% liked)
Not The Onion
11845 readers
419 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The Bible is very clear. Christianity is fundamentally anti-LGBT. Stop following it if you want to be a good person.
I'm not going to argue the point that homosexuality and at least the modern interpretation of the Christian faith are adversarial at best but the Bible is anything but clear on anything let alone LGBTQ. You quoted one of dozens of different English translations let alone any other language. Hell in one of the most popular translations, the King James Bible, the man had the word "tyrant" removed from it so the peasants wouldn't get ideas
Completely disagree. The Bible is clear on almost nothing except the LGBT. All the games of translations won't change the repeated commandments of the OT against the LGBT, the endorsement of the rules of Moses by Jesus, the repeated and clear statements by Paul, the +20 centuries of understanding of the meaning of those OT passages, or how Christianity has traditionally understood them.
Yeah I quoted KJV. So what? Here is as many translations as you want
https://biblehub.com/romans/1-26.htm
Stop apologizing for the text, you know what it says. You know why Sodom was destroyed, you know why Jonathan's "friend" was described as such, you know what Elijiah said about the destruction of Sodom, you know what Leviticus says twice about consensual LGBT relationships, you know what Deuteronomy says about the trans and what Leviticus says, you know what Paul said twice, you know what famous commentary writers like Philo said, and you know that Jesus consistently supported the sexual norms of his culture and argued they didn't go far enough.
I did the same thing you did when I was finding my way out of religion. "It wasn't really slavery", "it wasn't really genocide", "it wasn't really anti-gay",.... I didn't want to believe what was right on the page. The Abrahamic religions have been clear and are still clear to this day about what their texts say. They are irredeemably hateful.
You misunderstand. I think the Bible in any form we can understand it in today is utterly meaningless and is impossible to apply practically to any situation regardless of context. It can't be used by bigots to justify their hatred of any given minority and it can't be used to globally define the Christian ethos.
But it is used. This is not on me. They are the ones dragging this book into our time. All I am doing is pointing out what the book actually says.
Sure you can make the argument that the Bible is a product of Christianity and not a blueprint for it. Hence the text does not have to be followed and you can still be a Christian. Now who is making that argument? I certainly have never heard anyone who identified as a Christian make it. The very closest are the Catholics who at least are willing to admit the text isn't perfect which is really not in the same ballpark.
Live by the sword die by the sword right? Ok well they have made their religion about their book. I didn't tell them to do that, they choose that. So turns out the book is shit. What does that make their religion?
What is the field or area of inquiry that focuses on in inconsistencies like that? What is him removing the word tyrant reprrsentative of in terms of a field that exists to root out that kinda bullshit?
Like biblical scholasticism or like what focuses on examining the original language primary text and comparing the authenticity/integrity of the translated comparison target?
Textual analysis is the blanket term. There isn't really primary text, there are a bunch of slightly different ones that get combined together. What's more the process seems to have started way in the beginning. The first gospel shows signs of being multiple texts/traditions that were combined.
I don't think the Bible was even written down or at least there aren't any surviving copies from that time. This seems to be the oldest copy of the Bible, it's in Greek and from the fourth century. So it's already been translated and it's from at least 300 years after Jesus died. So we'll never really know what "the original Bible" said.
Yeah I'm always reminded of this piece https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CPjWd4MUXs .
One of my favorite fantasy shows 🙂
Sounds to me that the passage is saying "God made people gay".
Well I don't see that but it really doesn't matter. "and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."
Paul wasn't a top thinker. Even when it seems to occur to him that if God is the architect of all things no one can be punished for doing the wrong thing he just invokes the devilish forces (that God allows to operate) to step in. His conception of free will and judgement are not complicated they just aren't thought out very well.
Christ never knew you.
Given that he never existed I am positive of that. At most he could only "know" me in the sense the Easter Bunny could. You know, not at all.
Now instead of talking about me why don't you address what I said? Might be more fruitful
I think I responded to the wrong poster. I meant to say that to the person saying (falsely) that the Bible condemns queerness.
Have they never heard of David and Johnathan? Does Jesus taking twelve men and washing their feet mean nothing? Was John not the Beloved disciple?
I am a queer Catholic, and it deeply angers me when people believe that the two are mutually exclusive. The current wave of LGBT hatred (in the USA, at least) started with the Evangelical church in the 1940's. It is not some ancient and infallible dogma.
Forgive me for causing you anger, I spoke only to gently admonish and correct the sinner.
The Bible does condemn being LGBT.
Sure and why doesn't the Bible say explicitly what their relationship was?
Means nothing. Clearly a call back to the references in the OT of the same act.
And?
The Catholic Church had literal torture devices specifically for male homosexuals.
I think if you scroll up you will see a decent breakdown of all the references to homosexuality in the Bible, but if you want you can just look at what Paul said twice.
No worries. Save you some time I have been an open atheist since 2018.
Hatred begets hatred.
I spoke to inform both the believer and the non-believer.
There are Christians in this world who have taken Christ's words to heart and strive to live in His image daily. This way of living inevitably leads to compassion.
There is the Church of Peter, and the Church of John.
The Church of Peter is the Earthly institution that instructs the faithful and leads to a life filled with Love.
The Church of John is the Church of the Beloved disciple who put his head on Christ's chest and listened to the heartbeat of the One who Created Love.
These two Churches are present in all people, at all times, throughout history. They shall never fail, as long as there is suffering in the world. This is why the faithful call them eternal.
When these two Churches are in harmony in the soul of the individual, and in the soul of the World, there is harmony. When they are in disharmony in the soul of the individual and the soul of the world, there is chaos.
Christ has Illuminated the soul of this individual, and there is only harmony.
This harmony is available to all, whether Jew or Greek, male or female, believer or non-believer.
Forgive me for being unclear in my communication, and I pray your soul knows this peace.
Right lot of assertions here without a lot of evidence to back any of it up.
As I pointed out the text is clearly anti-LGBT and the historical application is as well. Sure if you pick and choose verses you can get different results, that doesn't mean the other verses aren't there. It just means that you went about it buffet style.
Big part of the reason why I left. Got tired of defending the Bible.
The scripture is a perfect mirror of the human heart.
One with a heart in alignment with God will use the scripture for goodness. One with a heart out of alignment with God will use the scripture for evil.
It was written by mortals, who are intrinsically flawed. The message it strives to convey is absolute and incorruptible.
Errors in scripture are inevitable, the Bible is a literary device, but the essence of the teaching is incorruptible.
All humans strive for perfection, but the concept of perfection is illusory. Anything truly perfect is inconceivable to the limited human mind.
The history of those that have used the scripture for evil is long. The history of those who have used the scripture for good is equally long.
Christ commanded us to love one another, do we not fulfill the commandment when we are in love?
Gotcha so the text is anti-LGBT. Which is my point. It is not a matter of perspective, it is what it literally says.
Ah you're tangling with this guy. I wouldn't worry about him. He's very angry and set in his ways. You can argue until he has nothing left, he just wants to pass his pain along wholesale. Stay safe my friend.