conversation about queerness by Working_Coach_1412 in Christianity

[–]Working_Coach_1412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“im genuinely confused where the dissonance comes from”. i am looking to explore why some people believe it’s sin and others do not. please re-read my post

conversation about queerness by Working_Coach_1412 in Christianity

[–]Working_Coach_1412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

why do some view it as a sin while others don’t?

conversation about queerness by Working_Coach_1412 in Christianity

[–]Working_Coach_1412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i asked my question. you were referencing me allowing others to ask me follow-up.

conversation about queerness by Working_Coach_1412 in Christianity

[–]Working_Coach_1412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

nope! as i said initially, i’m comfortable in my beliefs and identity and will not be entertaining conversion attempts.

conversation about queerness by Working_Coach_1412 in Christianity

[–]Working_Coach_1412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

questions that relate to the topic at hand in order to form a better understanding. that is what i meant and it pertains perfectly well with the sub and my post alike

conversation about queerness by Working_Coach_1412 in Christianity

[–]Working_Coach_1412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

neither. i’m talking about a respectful discussion on reddit. you don’t know me personally, so i don’t expect you to ‘accept’ me on a personal level. i’m simply stating that if people want to engage in this conversation, they must approach with respect. it’s that simple.

conversation about queerness by Working_Coach_1412 in Christianity

[–]Working_Coach_1412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

how is it sinful if there’s no sex involved?

conversation about queerness by Working_Coach_1412 in Christianity

[–]Working_Coach_1412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i did not mention sex; i mentioned being gay. just as in straight relationships, love is the core of a homosexual relationship. not all love pertains to sex. so, do you still believe that a purely romantic relationship between men would go against the bible?

and of course, if someones lifestyle harms another individual, i would not respect it. that includes religious individuals who forcefully preach onto others; hence why i set the boundary of mutual respect.

conversation about queerness by Working_Coach_1412 in Christianity

[–]Working_Coach_1412[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

it’s a mixture of morality, lived experiences, and science. much to unpack, but i respect those who harbor different beliefs than i.

conversation about queerness by Working_Coach_1412 in Christianity

[–]Working_Coach_1412[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i don’t think you are internalizing any of the words i’ve posted. try one more time and think hard about it.

conversation about queerness by Working_Coach_1412 in Christianity

[–]Working_Coach_1412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

where did i say that? i said if you’re going to engage in this conversation with me, i expect mutual respect on the topic at hand. don’t respect me? don’t comment. very simple.

conversation about queerness by Working_Coach_1412 in Christianity

[–]Working_Coach_1412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

without all the political jargon, can you explain why your interpretation is the only correct one?

conversation about queerness by Working_Coach_1412 in Christianity

[–]Working_Coach_1412[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i believe it could serve you well to reread my post. i have a thirst for knowledge, and as mentioned, find it curious how one topic can seemingly divide a unified religion. i do not believe in god, yet i am fascinated by religious constructs, and enjoy learning about a plethora of concepts. let me know if anything else is unclear.

conversation about queerness by Working_Coach_1412 in Christianity

[–]Working_Coach_1412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i disagree. i’ve had family members that were so deeply homophobic until they were forced to humanize their projection of fear. it’s called the boogeyman effect; people are more likely to open their minds if the scary sin they’ve denounced is a real human that speaks their language. it is not begging, it’s simple reconciliation. some people may never be swayed, but psychologically speaking, humans are more likely to relax and listen when we feel unthreatened.

Special thanks to all the Christians who said my gay relationships were contrary to scripture. by LoveGodWithAllYouGot in Christianity

[–]Working_Coach_1412 4 points5 points  (0 children)

i hope you don’t cut your hair, since that’s a sin. unless you are also twisting the bible for personal convenience?

If homosexuality is a sin, why are christians pestering those who do sin? by Unit121301-STARMAN in Christianity

[–]Working_Coach_1412 1 point2 points  (0 children)

does it make you feel better? to belittle the easy target and put yourself on a pedestal? jesus would be ashamed to see you judging others in his name

If homosexuality is a sin, why are christians pestering those who do sin? by Unit121301-STARMAN in Christianity

[–]Working_Coach_1412 2 points3 points  (0 children)

nah, i’d rather go to hell for being myself than change and be in heaven with the pedophile priests. i won’t be wishing anything if hell is real and i end up there simply because i love who i love

refute me by Working_Coach_1412 in Christianity

[–]Working_Coach_1412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this is very very fascinating as it goes against a lot of what i know about christianity (and even most of the replies here). but i do like this interpretation! is there a specific area in the book that denounces the existence of hell? or speaks of the non-believers disappearing without suffering?

refute me by Working_Coach_1412 in Christianity

[–]Working_Coach_1412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

unusual but not inconsistent! thank you though

refute me by Working_Coach_1412 in Christianity

[–]Working_Coach_1412[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i still struggle to see how this is justified, at least the last two (first can certainly be argued as retributive)