One of apostle Paul’s letters implies one of the first gentile churches had a considerable number of homosexuals.
many of the pre-Nicene Creed churches were woman run, too. too many people believe the myth that the roman empire converted to Christianity, when really they converted Christianity to romanism.
Come join the church. Wear fabulous robes, live together and form close relationships with people like you from the same gender. Sing together, get free housing and food. Celebrate a life of not marrying a woman rather then have people judge you for it. Share your passion for your one love which we picture as a masculine sky ruler. No homo though. Absolutely no homo, why would you think we are? Do you think we are it must be because you have unpure thoughts yourself. You should join us to find salvation, let’s talk about your sinfull nature in this private room so you can join our definitely no homo order.
It’s been kind of an open secret for a long time that there are an outsized number of Catholic priests who are gay.
I suppose if you want to or feel you have to remain closeted, it’s probably not a bad gig. You’re not allowed to marry and therefore no one is going to hound you about it.
Could you please post relevant chapters and verses?
Conservative Christians (mostly Catholics and Evangelicals) tend to have pretty warped views on human sexuality that come from a highly patriarchal perspective.
Part of their aversion to queer people comes from the idea that being queer is a choice. There’s more to it than that but this “choice” is an important component in ostracizing queer people. It’s ironic considering I don’t know any straight people who consciously decided they were straight.
Sadly, I believed it was a choice at one pojnt, until the irony was pointed out to me and made me reconsider what I thought I knew about sexuality.
The fact is, there are many depictions of and allusions to sex in scripture; some positive and some not. It is a grievous error to interpret a depiction of sex in scripture as an endorsement or the absence of a specific depiction as rejection thereof.
Sex and sexuality are gifts from God and deserve to be treated as gifts. Any scriptural depiction of sex that runs counter to this is wrong. There is also basically no support for denying people in loving same-sex relationships the opportunity to enjoy those gifts.
Reminds me of the pastor that preached about choosing to be straight every day, and struggling with the evil gay thoughts. Like mate… You’re gay. Or at least bi. If someone says it’s a choice that’s a huge self report.
Part of their aversion to queer people comes from the idea that being queer is a choice. There’s more to it than that but this “choice” is an important component in ostracizing queer people. It’s ironic considering I don’t know any straight people who consciously decided they were straight.
I’d argue it isn’t really ironic, because in their minds, everyone is naturally hetero. And the “choices” they’re talking about are the sex/romance acts themselves, not the drive/desire/urge that fuels those acts. And they tend to believe that whether you’re actually doing the ‘straight things’ or the ‘gay things’ in the bedroom is the only real difference between the two groups of people.
The acts are indeed choices, technically, that’s why they’ll often talk about the gay/queer “lifestyle”. In my experience, once you get someone with this mindset to understand that the root of the difference is deeper than that, that a gay male, for example, perceives males exactly the way that a hetero male perceives females, they don’t take long to come around after that and be at least tolerant of it, even if the notion grosses them out.
Being queer may not be a choice but having sex with the same gender most definitely is. Here’s the thing, there’s nothing in the Bible thats against same sex love. There are actually several same gender relationships mentioned and there is no mandate against them at all. So when queer people say ‘love who you love’ they’re right. You can love who you love and no Christian can use the Bible to condemn that.
The problem comes with same gender sex. There are definitely several verses that condemn that without equivocation. So, what does that mean for a queer Christians. It means that in order to be true to your faith you can love the same gender but control yourself to not have sex with them. And for those who wish to mock that, its not much different that any other person, we all have to use self control. Just because you’re straight doesnt mean you can have sex with whomever you wish either.
You can shoot the messenger if you want but, I didnt write the Bible. I just read it and studied exactly what it says. You’re free to reject it just like any other belief, you just cant say you are a believer in Christianity and then openly reject what it very clearly says and say you are true to your faith.
Just wanna point of that the original of this comic is about “the intolerant left”. Maybe not the best to spread around.
It’s not being spread around by this post. When something becomes a ‘meme format’, the original message is no longer present, and using the format to make a meme about something unrelated absolutely does not imply any sort of endorsement of the message in the original, nor does it have any impact of the prevalence/awareness of that original message. No one who isn’t already aware of the original message is going to learn it via this new meme.
Another example, the myriad memes made out of that one bit from a Chick Tract where it talks about hating Jesus because he speaks the truth, with the variable being what goes in Jesus’s speech bubble. None of those memes are an endorsement of the religious zealotry of Jack Chick, either explicitly or implicitly.
It does imo. Using the original formatting with little to no changes lends credibility to the original message, considering how recognizable it is.
Actually, until you mentioned it, I’d actually completely forgotten what the message in the original said.
So you honestly believe that this is ‘lending credibility’ to the messaging in the original Chick Tract?
https://i.redd.it/se0v7a6ludb11.jpg
Really?
Yes. Making a bad thing the basis of a good thing undercuts the latter and makes the former seem less problematic.
I’ve actually been thinking a lot lately about how the tendency to only make light of bad things without addressing it does little to diminish it, and in actuality just gives it space to grow and get worse, and this feels like that sort of situation. So I’m addressing the problematic foundation, not letting it fester in obscurity.
Yes.
Then how do you explain the fact that the particular source material I used as an example is most popular among the non-religious? Does that not directly contradict your assertion?
the tendency to only make light of bad things without addressing it does little to diminish it
But then again, the goal isn’t actually to diminish the original. The message of the original quickly becomes completely irrelevant, once it’s been ‘harvested’ as a meme format. As such I don’t think it’s fair to criticize the people creating/spreading the memes for doing a poor job of opposing the original message–they literally don’t even know what the original message even is nearly 100% of the time and don’t care even more nearly.
I’m not asserting anything or criticizing anyone. You’re taking this much more personally than it’s intended. All I’m doing here is pointing out the problematic origins of the comic. You asked me to explain why that matters and I did. You’re not going to convince me otherwise, and I’m not interested in convincing you either. If anything, it’s something for others to consider. Have a good day.
I’m not asserting anything or criticizing anyone.
You clearly criticized the OP for posting this meme, and also clearly asserted that you believed doing so amounted to bolstering of the message in the original image.
You’re taking this much more personally than it’s intended.
What on Earth did I say that made you think I was taking anything you said personally? Can you give me an example?
It really sounds like you’re just making things up now, that’s your first two sentences now that make zero sense.
All I’m doing here is pointing out the problematic origins of the comic.
No, that’s not all you did. You also asserted that because of those origins, that posting an unrelated meme using the same graphic/visual ‘base’ bolsters the message of the original.
You asked me to explain why that matters and I did.
And then I gave a clear example that directly contradicts your assertion, and asked you to address the contradiction. Which led to this comment full of straight-up fabrication that I’m replying to now.
You’re not going to convince me otherwise, and I’m not interested in convincing you either.
“Convincing” is for subjective matters, matters of opinion. You asserted something to be true, I responded with information that contradicts the assertion.
Refusing to acknowledge that information and trying to reframe this as an argument about something subjective, so that you can wave it off as an ‘agree to disagree’ matter that neither of us can be actually correct about, did not go unnoticed, lol.
Makes sense, as most self-proclaimed “centrists” are almost always right-wingers who don’t want to admit it.
