0
community for lgbtq+ christians or those learning about christianity
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2025
0 points (50.0% liked)
New Communities
19144 readers
8 users here now
A place to post new communities all over Lemmy for discovery and promotion.
Rules
The rules for behavior are a straight carry over of Mastodon.World's rules. You can click the link but we've reposted them here in brief, as a guideline. We will continue to use the Mastodon.World rules as the master list. Over all, be nice to each other and remember this isn't a community built around debate. For the rules about formatting your posts, scroll down to number 2.
1. Follow the rules of Mastodon.world, which can be found here.
A. Provide an inclusive and supportive environment. This means if it isn't rulebreaking and we can't be supportive to them then we probably shouldn't engage.
B. No illegal content.
C. Use content warnings where appropriate. This means mark your submissions NSFW if need be.
D. No uncivil behavior. This includes, but is not limited to: Name Calling; Bullying; Trolling; Disruptive Commenting; or Personal Criticisms.
E. No Harrassment. As an example in relation to Transgender people this includes, deadnaming, misgendering, and promotion of conversion therapy. Similarly Misogyny, Misandry, and Racism are also banned here.
2. Include a community or instance title and description in your post title. - A following example of this would be New Communities - A place to post new communities or instances all over Lemmy for discovery and promotion.
3. Follow the formatting. - The formatting as included below is important for people getting universal links across Lemmy as easily as possible.
Formatting
Please include this following format in your post:
[link text](/c/community@instance.com)
This provides a link that should work across instances, but in some cases it won't
You should also include either:
or instance.com/c/community
FAQ:
Q: Why do I get a 404?
A: At least one user in an instance needs to search for a community before it gets fetched. Searching for the community will bring it into the instance and it will fetch a few of the most recent posts without comments. If a user is subscribed to a community, then all of the future posts and interactions are now in-sync.
Q: When I try to create a post, the circle just spins forever. Why is that?
A: This is a current known issue with large communities. Sometimes it does get posted, but just continues spinning, but sometimes it doesn't get posted and continues spinning. If it doesn't actually get posted, the best thing to do is try later. However, only some people seem to be having this problem at the moment.
Image Attribution:
Fahmi, CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons>>
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes
So, what is the contradiction here?
Just because we're all sinners isn't a licence to sin.
That does not answer the question.
Do you think a "divorced Christians" community would be a contradiction?
If they were affirming unbiblical divorces, or seeking to remarry and encouraging it, yes
You haven't even seen what the community is about and yet you are ready to pass judgement on it.
You're both kinda silly.
Divorce is very much in the Bible. In both Old and New testaments.
Honestly I don't think I've ever met anyone calling themselves a Christian who has actually read the Bible from cover to cover, aside from actual pros (that is actual students of theology).
I was. I did. Now I'm not. And it's not a coincidence.
Christianity is unsuitable with itself, for Christ's sake. It would be literally impossible to follow the Bible with the amount of contradictions there are.
That being said all monotheism is hot garbage.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_monotheism
Name one contradiction and I'll address it. Not going to do all 400
"Make it easier for me to ignore facts"
Wtf are you smoking
I am not answering 400 supposed "contradictions" on a Lemmy thread 💀
As if you could.
You've not even read the whole thing, I would bet.
Much less being able to suss out literally hundreds of contradictions. So what you're saying is "it doesn't matter how ridiculous and contradictory Christianity is, I would never accept that being the case, no matter the evidence. I've made up my mind and there's no changing it. It's called having faith."
Argumentum ad nauseam
Oh you're at the infantile "I'm gonna name a fallacy as an argument" stage of your development. Congrats on turning 16.
Unfortunately, what you're doing is called argumentum ad logicam.
More commonly known as the fallacy fallacy
You literally sent me a graphic I had to zoom in on alleging 439 "contradictions" in the Bible and telling me that my argument is invalid because I am refusing to answer every single one in a lemmy thread. I volunteered to answer any one you propose to me. Just not all 439, for the sake of time.
Sent "you"?
No, I posted one, and no I'm not saying that's the reason.
You're saying that the Bible being literally filled with contradictions doesn't matter, and you base that on there being too many contradictions to answer in a Lemmy comment.
If you were arguing in good faith, you could arbitrarily pick some and show why they're not actually contradictions. But you can't. You can't do it to a single one, let alone all of them.
And despite that, despite whatever, there is NOTHING that you would accept as proof of Christianity and monotheism being bad.
Literally nothing.
It doesn't matter that historically monotheism is obviously violent and crazy, it doesn't matter that the Catholic Church has been systematically raping little boys for God knows how long, NONE OF IT MATTERS TO YOU.
You're literally arguing in bad faith. Yet you pretend as if naming a fallacy makes you right. Then you get even more ashamed when I point out how nerdy and wrong it is to larp a philosopher by answering with a pretentious latin form of a fallacy. I point it out with a pretentious Latin form for the fallacy you used. Then you still refuse to actually produce any rhetoric.
Like I said, there is NOTHING that would change your mind in this. The ultimate bad faith.
You posted a graphic with 439 alleged contradictions. I need to verify them actually being contradictions to answer your comment. But I have literally spent my time as I have grown up reading and investigating these alleged contradictions and couldn't find any holding water. If you want me to arbitrarily pick one for you, I can. I just thought it would be best to let you pick a favourite.
I don't see how other self professed monotheists raping little boys disproves monotheism. That's like saying evolution isn't real because scientists in that field also argued for eugenics. And yes, it does matter to me. Child abuse disgusts me at my core and I would love nothing more than to see these people drowned with a millstone... Although that's probably too kind to them.
Anyway, Random number generator told me "205". "At what time of day was Jesus crucified?"
Mark 15:25
John 19:14-16
Precise timekeeping is a modern innovation. Back then, they divided the day into quarters. Third hour could mean any time in the late morning or afternoon. Sixth hour could mean early or late afternoon. These people were eyeballing the sun.
That would require actually reading the Bible. Have you? I have. As I told the other person, I've had a Christian confirmation when I was 15.
Disproves? As in, we're going to argue whether a single God actually exists? Don't be childish.
My proof is that the the Bible isn't the word of God is the Bible itself.
Eventually God can't make a triangle which doesn't have three angles. Because then it wouldn't be a triangle, see? You can go ahead and start looking into those contradictions, although I assume that if you actually do, that will be the most Bible you've ever actually read.
Yet you defend the system which makes it possible in the first place, became the act of rape is so disconnected from you supporting Christianity that you think it's morally alright to still "believe" despite the massive and SYSTEMIC raping of children the Catholic Church did.
It doesn't matter what hour Jesus died in. It matters that there's contravening accounts. If there's a contradiction, both obviously can not be correct and thus the Bible can not be the infallible word of God, despite claiming so.
Yes I have read the Bible. I was Baptised in my early 20s. A triangle with four angles isn't a failure of power, it's a failure of language. We have a four angled shape God can create. It's called a Quadrilateral.
Rapes happen in hospitals and schools - does that mean proponents of healthcare and education are defending a system that makes it possible? Shame on them, I guess.
If you had a criminal court case, and you only had one witness, it would be less reliable than one with two witnesses.
And what is scripture made out of again? God .. or language?
You're really gonna make me go through all the tedious examples of how illogical monotheism is? No thanks.
The whole Bible, not just bits which you found through googling it? The actual, whole book, from cover to cover?
You read the whole Bible before deciding everything in it is true and thats definitely possible, despite there being sentences like "God can create triangles with angles of ≠ 3?"
Alright, well, you do you m8.
If you show me a healthcare system that has as much systemic rape in it that Catholicism does, I'll show you a healthcare system which I criticise and advocate to reform.
I'm sorry but I'm not smoking crack and can't keep up with you.
If you had one witness with red paint on their face, saying "a guy threw red paint on my face", and then you went on to lool for the guy mentioned, and found him, with an empty bucket of red paint and red paint all over his hands, it would be more believable than having a two guys — one with blue paint on him and one with yellow paint on him — saying "a guy threw red paint on us", especially when you then don't find any red paint anywhere, and even the local stores say they don't even recall ever seeing any.
I've read the Bible. I don't just Google it.
I'm literally a Protestant. I oppose "seals of confession" which allowed most of this abuse to happen. Abuse can still happen, just like how it can happen in schools and hospitals. I don't tolerate it.
Except that's not what's happening. One guy said "Jesus was executed around Friday morning" and another guy said "Jesus was executed around the afternoon", and these are two guys from 2000 years ago who's only method of timekeeping was to look at the sun, and they split the day into quarters, it is a lot more understandable. Now say Jesus was executed at around 11am. That would both qualify as morning and around noon. If anything, it shows that they weren't corroborating a made up story and actually witnessed something, since they both gave their estimates of the time.
I guess you are too eager to preach and are missing the point of my inquiry.
I am not saying "there is no contradiction in Christianity", but "who are we to say that a gay person can not be accepting of Christian teachings?"
No eagerness here. Just very boring facts, which you have to ignore to make your case.
The Bible literally instructs to stone people wearing two different fabrics at the same time. A leather jacket and jeans (cotton) ? That's a stoning.
Just because your society hasn't moved past beyond having to pretend childish books are real, doesn't mean everyone here will agree. There are still people here who claim to be Christian, but the Nordics are very secular and you'd never have anyone be upset that something is "against Christianity".
The US is almost a theocracy nowadays, which is so ironic, given how it began and what the founding fathers actually argued for.
Accepting Christian teachings/ Christian values is not the same as taking the Bible as irrevocable truth, much less as something that should be used as a law code.
Only fundamentalists would argue as such.
Ah, so it's the "no, actually I am a Christian, despite not following any of the rules. I just make up my own".
And you don't see why ideology like that is mocked in some very secular countries?
If you claim to be Christian, but then take literally everything to mean whatever you want it to mean, except when it's something you don't like (when religious people protest it's always "It's not in the Bible!" = "it's against Christian values which is the term we're just calling our feelings but here's a clip from the book we don't believe in"), then why are you calling yourself a Christian to begin with?
The answer is because you're afraid of denouncing Christianity and organized monotheism as the bullshit they so very clearly are.
What are these "Christian values" of yours then? Oh the very core or Jesus' teachings, which is the very core of pretty much any even remotely functional ideology, the golden rule; do unto others as you'd have done to yourself.
It's not in any ways inherently Christian. Judaism, Confucianism, Islam, Buddhism and various others all have it.
So if that's all you're taking from Christianity and nothing that's unique to Christianity, then why call your values Christian? Because you dislike explaining yourself to annoying older relatives, that's why.
But if you can come out as trans, then surely awkward conversations with conservatives are already on the books, so why not go all in and actually take the smart stance in religion as well.
I'm not an atheist, by the way. I used to be. Just like I used to be Christian. First I grew out of Christianity, and then I grew out of atheism. So I don't know what you think I'm "preaching"?
Notice I did not say "I am a Christian", but "accepting of Christian values". If you can not understand this difference, I am not sure how much I can help.
All your rant after that is built out of a strawman, so there is no point in arguing further.
Please do elaborate on what you mean.
How else would I know? What you're saying seems to have literally nothing to do with Christianity.
You can't state what said values are, nor do you say whether your "acceptance" of them means you try to follow them or if you believe in them?
The fact you can't really find those answers should be a hint to the amount of indoctrination around organised religion, for the reasons I've explained. I had it when I was around 18, one night at the night club, we were outside for a smoke, and this ~10 years older guy just enquires — in somewhat good faith — why I wear the cross around my neck. It was a golden cross and I got it as a confirmation gift at 15.
But the question stuck with me, and I ended up taking it off. I don't remember whether on the spot or months later.
But the facts are that if people genuinely just go with whatever we think is moral at the time, then why on Earth would anyone claim to found their moral ideology on a book they have to literally mostly ignore?
It doesn't make sense.
Now if you'd just asked "do you think you can be accepting of people who act according to the golden rule", then ofc the answer is "well yes, there's zero reason why you wouldn't".
Pretty much the only reason you're asking this is because you know that "Christian values" can refer to conservative transphobic values as well. I'm sure the ones you're asking for aren't, but you're aware it's a possible meaning of the word.
So please, elaborate. I can't read your thoughts, so I can't actually know what you mean unless you explain what you mean by "Christian values"
A very short description would be to look at the Bible not as prescriptive rulebook which we should be using to measure ourselves against, but as a descriptive collection of stories that can help us make sense of human nature and understand that all these "contradictions" are not meant to be solved, but manifestations of our fallibility.
E.g, I see the story of Babel and I don't think "that's why we have different languages in the world" or "if you try to reach God by other means than salvation, He will punish you" but simply "technological progress and science alone are not enough to bring us closer to some utopia (closer to God)". I think of Kosher diets not as "if you eat pork you are a bad person and deserve eternal damnation", but "at that time and historical contexts, pork meat was full of deadly pathogens, so it would be wise to avoid it".
This is just scratching the surface and it would take a bit more time than I have now, but I will try my best to answer you later.