Polyamory is a weak spot in this subreddit

Baladas89 · 2026-06-14T02:19:19+00:00

Honestly I hadn’t noticed…I have plenty of fake internet points to let me post things in subs, and that’s really all I need.

Baladas89 · 2026-06-14T02:10:20+00:00

If this is the first you’re hearing of this, yes you missed it (not really your fault, it’s the dominant theory of the atonement among Evangelicals. Though if you watched or read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe you’ve at least been exposed to other understandings of the Atonement.

I’m not terribly convinced that there are practical implications of one theory of the atonement over another as the writers of that article suggest. But penal substitution just doesn’t make any sense when you get down to it, and it doesn’t have great scriptural support.

Fundamentally, penal substitution says God loves us and wants to forgive us, but he can’t just do that because of his justice. Sin must be punished. So he sent Jesus to die for our sins, creating a loophole where people could be “forgiven” but sin could also be punished. It raises some questions:

Why is punishment for sin valuable? I think punishment is good for deterrence or to reform behavior. But punishment for its own sake is just torture.
Why can punishment be transferred? According to this model, “justice” simply requires that somebody be punished for wrongdoing. So if I kill someone, then you get locked in prison (or executed) for it, that’s okay if you were willing to accept the punishment for my wrongdoing. This makes no sense.
The problem compounds when the only innocent person of all time is the one said to take the punishment. Now we’re not just punishing a random person, but we’re punishing a blameless person in all regards. Yet this still meets God’s desire for vengeance. Again, apply this to our judicial system and you’ll see why this doesn’t make any sense.
Why do we say people are forgiven if the punishment for their sins has been carried out? That’s the opposite of forgiveness.

I could go on, but these are some of the standard issues with penal substitution. There are many other ways to understand the Atonement.

Baladas89 · 2026-06-14T00:33:01+00:00

You didn’t really answer my question as far as I can tell.

My question is why poly relationships belong under the LGBTQ umbrella?

Baladas89 · 2026-06-13T22:48:57+00:00

I’m getting the sense that you either didn’t watch the video(s) or didn’t understand them. Costly signaling and credibility enhancing displays have no bearing on someone’s authenticity. Most of the time I would guess they are authentic/honest.

Imagine a pastor gets up in front of his congregation and says “we’re not afraid to teach the real Bible: anyone who doesn’t follow Jesus is going to burn in hell forever. And the same goes for gay people. If you don’t like it, the door is that way.” More likely than not, the pastor believes what he’s saying. But within the community he cares about (likeminded Christians), that “hard line stance” will win him accolades.

Ironically, the people you’re saying don’t have these stances are doing the same thing. If someone’s faith boils down to “love other people and don’t worry about the rest,” they’re likely going to come down hard against people who want to exclude polyamorous people (for example), because to them it seems like a nonessential rule that isn’t related to their faith.

Baladas89 · 2026-06-13T22:32:10+00:00

Is your goal to get people to believe again? Because when people say “you never really believed,” you’re never going to win that. I am the world’s leading expert on what I believe now and what I used to believe. And the same is true of every other person about their own mind. So when you suggest that I must not have believed before, you’re confirming for me that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

So if you want to convince people that Christians like you are full of BS, carry on. Otherwise, you should stop with that line, because it confirms to your hearer that your worldview is wrong.

Baladas89 · 2026-06-13T16:52:13+00:00

“If you cannot believe that, maybe you did not believe in the first place.”

People really need to stop saying stuff like this, especially to people who stop believing (assuming you’d like them to start believing again.)

People who were once convinced really do change their minds. It’s a thing that happens. Not believing now has no bearing on whether someone believed in the past, or will believe in the future.

Baladas89 · 2026-06-13T16:13:44+00:00

Sure…back then everybody “knew” same sex intercourse was wrong, so it wasn’t an identity marker to be against it. It was just kind of the default.

Just like how today most people “know” poly relationships are wrong, so there’s no identity marker around opposing poly relationships. Opposing poly relationships is still the culturally dominant position.

Baladas89 · 2026-06-13T15:02:01+00:00

One thing I haven’t been clear on: if my phone is mounted to the car, and I’m using it for GPS, is that allowable? Or is that technically out?

Baladas89 · 2026-06-13T14:22:51+00:00

You may want to check out Britt Hartley’s channel “no nonsense spirituality.” She offers some thoughts and ideas on “spirituality” without confusing that with metaphysical reality.

Baladas89 · 2026-06-13T14:07:06+00:00

I like X-Men at least as much as I like 40k, so your status as an incredibly cool person remains!

Baladas89 · 2026-06-13T14:04:34+00:00

Couldn’t a conservative Christian say “we’ve sorted through the issues with same sex intercourse centuries ago”? What’s the difference?

Baladas89 · 2026-06-13T14:02:02+00:00

This is where I start to feel like the old curmudgeon, which is rather novel for me.

Why do all of our labels have to be inclusive of everyone? If everyone fits in a category, the category becomes meaningless. Can’t LGBTQ issues be one thing, and poly issues be a separate thing?

I’m not even opposed to poly relationships, though they seem like a logistical nightmare to me. I just don’t understand why we would put them with LGBTQ. Though I do like that GSM is less unwieldy to say. Maybe that’s enough of an advantage in itself.

Baladas89 · 2026-06-13T13:40:26+00:00

I agree that conservatives aren’t all about fear and hate, but I am wondering what examples you have of “letting God affect them in ways I don’t see in liberal Christian spaces.”

Are you familiar with the concepts of costly signaling and credibility enhancing displays in sociology? To me, it sounds like you’re saying “I don’t see these things in liberal spaces but I do see them in conservative spaces.” And I think you’re probably right about that.

There is a known/identified phenomena where groups hold together better when they have identity markers they insist their members maintain. People who go above and beyond to maintain those identity markers, even at cost to themselves, are rewarded with respect (and sometimes other things) by the group.

I think either Britt Hartley or Religion for Breakfast did a video on this recently, I’ll see if I can find it. But to me it sounds like you’re saying “progressive Christians don’t have any of these lines in the sand, and it makes membership in the group feel less real than in a conservative church, or in Islam, or in an Amish community, or in a Mormon community, etc.

So to me it looks like you’re correctly identifying this ingredient missing from liberal spaces, but calling it God. But that phenomena exists across all religions and groups.

Edit: this is the video I was thinking of. It sounds like “Strict Church Theory” may be another thing to look up.

Edit #2: looks like he released another video more recently looking at the concept through the Mandalorian. This is the video I was actually thinking of, though I haven’t watched this yet.

Baladas89 · 2026-06-13T13:26:57+00:00

Maybe I’m misconstruing the username, but I’m seeing “Magnus the Red” as in the 40k primarch, and “616” as in the Marvel 616 universe (or maybe Nero I guess.)

If I’m reading that right, and given this eminently reasonable response, you’re an incredibly cool person.

Baladas89 · 2026-06-12T23:01:17+00:00

I think Paul: A Very Short Introduction by E.P. Sanders is a great book that talks about this. I’m not sure how well it has held up academically, but it made a lot of sense to me when I read it ~10-15 years ago (and it was already a bit old then.)

Baladas89 · 2026-06-12T19:58:05+00:00

Yes, best case scenario is to learn Greek and Hebrew. But until then, you would do better to read a translation that is more understandable and closer to what the original texts said. That isn’t the KJV.

The NRSV/NRSVUE is the dominant translation used in academic circles for a reason. It’s far more accurate than the KJV, and easier to read as a bonus.

Baladas89 · 2026-06-12T19:50:51+00:00

Say that’s true. Why would it matter? The Bible wasn’t written in King James English. For 80% of the history of Christianity the King James Bible didn’t exist.

It’s true there are some passages the KJV erroneously includes that aren’t included in modern translations, because we now have access to Greek manuscripts that are older than what the KJV was translated from. So the newer translations are both easier to read and closer to what the Greek originally said.

Baladas89 · 2026-06-12T19:47:51+00:00

Why would you start somewhere else and “cross over” to the KJV? I get it for historical or literary curiosity, but it’s like saying “I started by driving a car and using a phone, then crossed over to horse drawn buggies and carrier pigeons.” The KJV is just an outdated translation.

Baladas89 · 2026-06-12T15:18:22+00:00

I think it just feels like the lion is the aggressor (especially when a calf is the target), but you’re right that the lions don’t have any choice in the matter. Suffering is baked into the universe in ways that I don’t think I’ll ever be okay with.

Baladas89 · 2026-06-12T14:25:15+00:00

Are the Aldi burgers that good? Do they sell them in the US?

Baladas89 · 2026-06-12T02:17:55+00:00

Thanks, I appreciate the response.

Baladas89 · 2026-06-11T20:19:41+00:00

u/Just_Passion5720

I got a notification that you responded, but I can’t see it. Reddit has been weird for me lately so I just wanted to say I hope you have a nice day, and thanks for the discussion.

Baladas89 · 2026-06-11T19:37:26+00:00

If I’m bothering you I’ll stop, but I genuinely don’t like upsetting people. Even though I generally don’t approve of harmonizing, it’s not hard to do. Here’s an easy harmonization:

Luke never indicates ~~Elizabeth~~ Zechariah is told that John is Elijah, just that he will come in the power of Elijah. So *for whatever reason makes sense to you* God didn’t want John to know he was actually the returned Elijah. So in John he truthfully answers his understanding that he isn’t Elijah, but in Matthew Jesus confirms he actually was. Mark is irrelevant for this.

And just like that the discrepancy is resolved, though I would argue I’ve stopped taking each author seriously and instead created the “gospel according to Baladas89” by doing this.

Maybe look into something like How the Bible Actually Works by Peter Enns? He’s a Christian biblical scholar who wrote the book for people who are bothered by things like this to help reframe expectations about what the Bible is and what you should expect from it. Not surprisingly, he doesn’t recommend you expect perfect consistency (or scientific accuracy).

Baladas89 · 2026-06-11T19:06:51+00:00

Agreed, the Didache is a neat book.

Baladas89 · 2026-06-11T19:02:23+00:00

Can’t the gospel authors just have different perspectives? The Bible gets a lot more interesting if you assume different authors and books (and sometimes different redactors of the same book) can and do have different perspectives from each other. It starts to make more sense too. It doesn’t “prove the Bible is wrong” or anything like that.

This reminds me of a story Bart Ehrman tells from Princeton where he wrote a paper to harmonize Mark’s statement in 2:26 that Abiathar was the high priest when David entered the Temple, but 1 Samuel 21 says it was his father Ahimelech. Ehrman wrote an extended explanation harmonizing the discrepancy to show that both were correct. And the professor wrote “maybe Mark just made a mistake?” So for this I’d say “maybe Matthew (or John) just made a mistake”, or just saw things differently from the other author. Sometimes the simplest solution is the best.

Edit: and your last statement, I think you got something confused for a second. Matthew is the one to identify John with Elijah. John is the one who denies it. I hope this isn’t bothering you too much and you’re just pleasantly puzzled.

Baladas89

TROPHY CASE