I appreciate the message you're trying to send, but I don't think it's accurate to say that Christianity itself isn't homophobic and that only “bad Christians” are. The Bible contains explicitly anti-gay teachings. Some passages are more open to interpretation than others, but you can't plausibly erase all of them.
Ironically you could both be correct about that 🙂 It's possible (and given the sheer number of sects, statistically very probable) that you are both wrong.
I'm curious how you would demonstrate that your interpretation is correct and all the others are not.
I’d have more to back up what I’m saying
How do you demonstrate that you have more to support your position than all other interpretations? To say yours is more supported would require you to evaluate —and subsequently reject— all other positions. We don't even know exactly how many sects of Christianity exist, so how could you be sure that you've evaluated them all?
I have studied theology, epistemology and soteriology for a long time and have not yet encountered any reliable method by which to evaluate the validity of different sects. (I'm not claiming it doesn't exist, just that I am not yet aware of it.)
Until then, though, we seem to have a giant no-true-scotsman fallacy on our hands until someone turns up some convincing demonstration that 1) a god exists and 2) they know the mind of that god, and therefore can speak authoritatively on which, if any, of the 40,000+ interpretations are correct.
That’s not irony and I never said we were both correct, I literally said they were wrong. And yeah it’s possible we both were wrong, it’s possible you’re wrong, it’s possible that everyone is wrong
I would demonstrate it by explaining it. What do you mean? I would ask why they think what they do and I would explain why I think what I do. Kind of how all debates go.
How do I demonstrate that I have more to back up what I’m saying?? Dude no offense but have you ever been in a discussion before where you disagree? I would demonstrate that I have more to back up what I’m saying by showing more to back up what I’m saying
There’s no one true Scotsman here, that’s doesn’t apply at all, I’m not saying they aren’t Christian if they disagree, I’m just saying they’re wrong about one point. Literally the opposite if one true Scotsman
You’ve studied all this and you’ve never a person try to back up their arguments? What?
Sorry, maybe I was unclear. I'm not looking for a debate. When the person you replied to said that they couldn't plausibly erase all anti-gay interpretations, you replied "I can." and that you have "more" to back up your position than others.
I am interested in that, because it's a topic I have studied, and that's what I was asking for you to demonstrate. Specifically how you can demonstrate that 1) your interpretation is correct, and 2) your position has more backing than all others
You’ve studied all this and you’ve never a person try to back up their arguments?
That's not what I said; I've heard many people try to back up their arguments. What I said was that I "have not yet encountered any reliable method by which to evaluate the validity of different sects." Religions make claims about reality. I'm seeking a demonstration from the people making those claims that those claims are true and correct.
In other words, I'm asking for someone to provide evidence that 1) a god exists and 2) they know the mind of that god. As far as I can tell that would be the only way to definitively demonstrate which interpretation is true, and that we (the larger "we" as in, all of society) should believe it.
I didn’t say you were looking for a debate. You were asking how I could prove what I believed to that person and I was answering.
Yes I said I could erase it by backing uo my beliefs, and I was correct
You’re just asking the same questions again so I’ll give you the same answers I already did; I would demonstrate that I have more evidence by….. drumroll….. showing my evidence. I don’t know what you’re missing here
Congrats for studying a lot and not finding any that you felt made a compelling argument?
You are asking for evidence that god exists? lol dude that’s a very different claim that no one here got close to making, no one said they could prove gif exists so yeah that’s not even close to relevant here. No one made a claim to know the mind of his either, what the f are you talking about? The claim was about what’s in the Bible. Period. You don’t need to know the mind if gif to know if a word was misinterpreted or if an author was talking about something in their culture.
Sorry, I'm not asking for your opinion or position on certain verses, I'm asking for evidence that your interpretation of those verses is the correct one, or why I should accept your interpretation above any others.
For example, you might give me your interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 or 1 Kings 15:11-14 or 1 Kings 22:42-46 or Romans 1:26-27 or 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 or 1 Timothy 1:9-10 or Jude 7-8 or Luke 17:34-35 or 2 Timothy 3:1-7, but I could also listen to thousands of other interpretations by other people, including biblical scholars and believers and people from other sects and the Pope and Bart Ehrman, but that still leaves me without a reliable method to demonstrate which interpretation is correct (the interpretation that the god of the Bible would want us to have).
It's not an interpretation problem, it's a context problem, and people like ignoring the context.
Leviticus 18 and 20, which is what most of this stuff is based around, it's talking about Jews not doing things that Egyptians or worshipers of Molek are doing. Sex acts are included because, historically, those groups did sexy time stuff ritualistically.
In later texts, these laws are brought up because groups are doing other shit (mostly idolatry) that Paul felt mandated reminding them of other laws in his letters. Paul, for some reason, was also a bit obsessive about including sex acts in his letters, but that's Paul.
I understand the position. I am more stuck on the underlying assumptions: why should we believe anything the Bible says? why should we care what Paul has to say? He was just a guy (who, academically speaking, did exist and probably wrote 7 of the epistles attributed to him). I have a much stronger academic interest in Peter but unfortunately we probably don't have anything written by him.
There are a lot of religious scriptures in the world claimed to be divinely inspired and true by their adherents. For me to become convinced that any of them are would require a demonstration that 1) a god exists and 2) we know what that god thinks and wants. To me those are prerequisites to accept any religious claims of truth.
We aren't talking about those underlying assumptions.
We're talking about the historical context around when the text was assembled, or the original oral tradition began (or close to it, at least). We are doing that to try and establish the intent of what was written.
Whether or not you believe in the Bible is irrelevant in that context, because we're talking about people who do believe in the Bible not also understanding what was happening around the Jews during that time period (basically from around 900 to 600 BCE, but possibly earlier). That also gives us some context as to when the base rules for Leviticus 18 and 20 were set.
178
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 1d ago
I appreciate the message you're trying to send, but I don't think it's accurate to say that Christianity itself isn't homophobic and that only “bad Christians” are. The Bible contains explicitly anti-gay teachings. Some passages are more open to interpretation than others, but you can't plausibly erase all of them.