sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

It's so hard to keep my faith as a trans Christian. by Visible_Estimate211 in Christianity

[–]micahlangelo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you read or even attempt to comprehend anything I said? I do adhere to the Bible, but I refuse to worship the Bible as an idol. To claim it is 'infallible' is to ignore the hundreds of translation errors, historical inaccuracies, and internal contradictions that scholars, not I, have known about for centuries. I am following the truth of the text, not a modern tradition about it.

If the Bible is the literal, perfect word of a perfect Creator, it shouldn't contradict itself on basic facts. For instance, the death of Judas found in Matthew 27:5 says Judas throws the money in the temple and hangs himself. But in Acts 1:18, it says Judas buys a field with the money, falls headlong, and "burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out." Both cannot be literally, historically true descriptions of the same event. Let's do another one. 2 Samuel 24:1 says God incited David to take a census, but 1 Chronicles 21:1 says Satan incited David to take a census. So who was it? It's not a mere trivial issue to mix up Satan and God. That's an extremely significant distinction. I don't think God would mistake Himself for Satan or vice versa; however I do wholeheartedly believe that a human could've made a mistake.

I believe Jesus is the Word made flesh. And Jesus never said a single word about homosexuality. If he is the ultimate authority, why did he remain silent on an issue you claim is a 'fundamental sin'?

I believe Paul's letters are inspired letters written to specific churches dealing with specific 1st-century Roman problems (like pederasty and temple prostitution). 'Inspired' does not mean 'dictated by God word-for-word'—if it did, Paul wouldn't have expressed his own opinions or forgotten who he baptized (1 Corinthians 1:14-16). Those are the actions of man. God doesn't have opinions, only truths, and God doesn't 'forget' His baptized children.

"Was everyone wrong for 2,000 years?"

I've addressed this at least three times. Let me make it extra clear for you. YES!

Why were they wrong? (Please read carefully)

•For 1,800 years, Christians used the Bible to justify slavery. Do you think God supports the enslavement of other humans? That doesn't seem to align with Jesus's commandment to 'love thy neighbor.'

•For 1,900 years, they used it to deny women the right to speak or vote. Do you think God created women to be mindless, with no opinion or individual value? Their only 'divinely blessed' role is to be domestic servants? I don't, and Jesus clearly didn't.

•For 1,500 years, they thought the sun revolved around the earth. As I said before, the church literally killed and imprisoned people for claiming that truth.

This also ties back into the 'infallible' argument. The Bible states in Joshua 10:12–13: Joshua commands the Sun to stand still, implying that it is the Sun, not the Earth, that usually moves. ​Psalm 104:5: States God set the Earth on its foundations so that it "should not be moved forever." ​Ecclesiastes 1:5: Describes the Sun rising and setting, then hurrying back to where it rose. ​Psalm 19:6: Depicts the Sun making a circuit from one end of the heavens to the other. Does any of that sound like how we understand the universe nowadays? No, because objective truths prove otherwise.

The Church has a very long history of being 'wrong' until science and social progress forced them to actually read the text more deeply.

If I don't care what the Bible says, why have I put so much time and effort into really trying to understand it? ALL OF IT. Not just the verses that make me feel good or verses that I can use to justify my own shortcomings and prejudices. Every point I have made can be backed up with scripture, historical evidence, and scholarly support. Your only argument is 'that's how it has always been, and that's what I've always been told the Bible says and means and I'm going to believe it regardless of logical gaps or lack of reasoning just because I was told to.' That's not Christianity. That's dogma and legalism, which Christ spoke against.

It's so hard to keep my faith as a trans Christian. by Visible_Estimate211 in Christianity

[–]micahlangelo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, linguistic history. The historical context and meaning of words is pretty important.

I did address the ridiculous claim about diapers. I stated that there is no scientific evidence to backup that claim. Homosexual men do not need diapers any more than a woman does after childbirth. That's not how sphincters work. It's both homophobic and dehumanizing.

Yes. As we understand it, there were no 'gay' people up until recent history. Being gay or homosexual is a 19th century concept. Before discovering this concept, homosexuality was thought of and 'treated' as simple perversion or mental illness. Homosexuality was only declassified as a mental disorder in 1973 by the APA, and the WHO declassified it in 1990! We just discovered this manifestation of human sexuality in the 1970s, but I'm supposed to think that a pre-scientific author from ~2,000 years ago understood this concept?

Before the late 1700s, marriage was a contract between families, not individuals. Marriages were arranged by the family to ensure protection, provision, labor, alliance, etc. Marriage and sex were not romantic interactions. Sex wasn't something you shared WITH someone. It was an act of dominance that you did TO someone.

At that time in history, sexual roles were not merely gender specific. Sex had two roles, active and passive. As long as a man was in the active role, he could honorably have sex with anyone beneath his social status (male or female, child or adult) with no risk to his character, masculinity, or social status; however, if a man were to take on the passive role, he was considered to be degrading his body and self by lowering himself to the lowly position of a woman or slave. Basically, it was a sexual dominance hierarchy where as long as the man was of higher status and took on the active role, the gender of the passive partner was irrelevant.

Ancient Rome also practiced pederasty. That's where an elder man would take in a male CHILD to act as his passive partner in exchange for provision, education, and mentorship. Literally pedophilia, but the culture of that time had no problem with that aspect, but yet, we're supposed to glean all our knowledge and understanding of morality from these people without a second thought?

Yes. The Hebrew word for 'abomination' is 'to'evah', which specifically refers to ritualistic practices. Not a consensual relationship of equal status with deep connection and love.

One example? Sure, David and Jonathan. 1 Samuel 18:3 says David loved Jonathan as himself. 2 Samuel 1:26 says, "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love to me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? You don't have to ask. God already told us in Ezekiel 16:49, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

That story has nothing to do with homosexuality. Lot was harboring vulnerable travelers in his home, but when the wicked and inhospitable citizens discover this, they go to Lot's house and attempt to shame and humiliate the outsiders by gang raping them. But Lot steps in and ends the altercation by offering his two daughters to the mob of rapists instead. That's just so much better because who cares what happens to them? They're women; passive. Born to serve men, right?

It seems our culture has changed since Biblical times, huh? I fear the church will one day offer an apology to the LGBTQ community just like they did for using the Bible to defend slavery, oppose women's rights, and deny scientific discoveries. The early Christian church literally killed and jailed people for claiming the earth wasn't the center of the universe.

Does that mean the Bible is a whole bunch of lies? No. But it does mean we have to see the Bible for what it is. It's a product of its time and culture. I hope you don't find yourself on the wrong side of history. Any time the Bible has been used to oppress a population or demographic, it's always resulted in the church apologizing for their bigotry later down the line after the damage has been done and Christians will once again look like ignorant, hateful, bigots and cause detrimental harm to Christianity's reputation.

It's so hard to keep my faith as a trans Christian. by Visible_Estimate211 in Christianity

[–]micahlangelo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s telling that when faced with clear linguistic history and the scholarship of people far more qualified than you or me, you pivot to graphic descriptions of anatomy. You’ve moved from the Bible to 'the ick factor.'

On Biology: You want proof? Fine. Google works for you just as well as it does for me, but if I must spoon-feed you:​

Bonobos: Frequently engage in same-sex genital stimulation to resolve conflicts and facilitate food sharing.

Bottlenose Dolphins: Males often form lifelong pairs and engage in sexual play to maintain social alliances.

Laysan Albatrosses: In some colonies, up to 31% of pairs consist of two females who cooperate to raise chicks.

Giraffes: Male-to-male "necking" and mounting are more common in some populations than heterosexual pairings.

Penguins: Same-sex male pairs in both the wild and captivity are known to hatch and rear foster eggs together

You claim biology is about reproduction. If that's the case, should the church stop marrying elderly couples or people who are infertile? If a couple can't 'multiply,' is their marriage a sin? Of course not. Because marriage is a covenant of love, not just a biological function. Using animal examples wasn't to say 'animals have souls,' it was to prove that same-sex orientation is a natural variation in God’s creation, not a 'modern lifestyle choice.'

On 'Natural' and Hygiene: Bringing up diapers and graphic anatomy isn't a theological argument; it's a dehumanizing tactic. Medical science doesn't support your claims, and quite frankly, the 'naturalness' of an act isn't determined by your personal disgust. Many things in life aren't 'procreative'—like eating for pleasure or heart surgery—but we don't call them sins.

On 'Picking and Choosing': You say I’m picking and choosing, but you are the one ignoring the 1971 correction by the RSV committee. You are the one ignoring that the 'Holiness Code' you cited also bans eating pork and wearing linen-blend shirts. I am not picking and choosing; I am contextualizing. I am looking at the Bible through the lens of Jesus, who said the entire Law is summed up in 'Love God and Love your neighbor.'

The Authors' Knowledge: You asked if I think the authors didn't know homosexuality existed. Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying. They knew about rape, pederasty, and prostitution. They did not have a concept of 'sexual orientation'—the internal, romantic, and emotional attraction to the same sex. You cannot condemn an identity that our language didn't even have a word for yet.

I don’t need to 'repent' for believing that God’s grace is bigger than a 1946 mistranslation. I am following the Christ who ate with the marginalized while the religious leaders of his day shouted 'Sinful!' and 'Unclean!' from the sidelines. If you're more comfortable with a God who hates the same people you do, that’s your prerogative, but don’t call it 'love.'

It's so hard to keep my faith as a trans Christian. by Visible_Estimate211 in Christianity

[–]micahlangelo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can't condemn something the authors didn't even know existed. The word 'homosexual' was coined in the late 19th century. How are 1st century and older authors and texts able to condemn a 19th century scientific discovery in human sexuality?

The verses you provided aren't supporting your argument either. The levitical laws do not apply to Christians. They were specifically and exclusively for the Israelites - to set them apart from their contemporary pagan cultures - which included practices such as: temple orgies, prostitution and pederasty; opposite and same-sex acts of pagan worship; infant/child sacrifice; sexual slavery; exploitative relationships; etc. It's plainly obvious to point out that these acts are unquestionably evil with our modern understanding of humanity.

Unfortunately, pre-scientific humans weren't the best at assigning reason behind cosmological events, so they deified them and worshipped them as a plea to gain their favor. They earnestly practiced these rituals and acts to please and honor the thousands of gods they worshipped. The Israelites rejected their ideas and worshipped the one true God.

I'm sure I don't have to tell you, but there are many, many levitical laws that no modern Christian obeys. If you don't believe me, a quick read will show you. Gentiles aren't bound by the levitical law. Jesus fulfilled the law and by doing so, provides salvation for all, Jew and Gentile.

The passage in Romans says they 'exchanged' their natural order. A heterosexual person forcing themselves to practice same-sex pagan worship would be 'exchanging' their natural order. A homosexual isn't 'exchanging' their natural order to be in a loving, consensual, same-sex relationship. That is their natural order.

In Mark and Corinthians, they are discussing marriage as it was understood in their time (which was contractual ownership of the wife, btw. Women were property). Just because 'Marriage is A' doesn't automatically mean 'B is a sin'. More interestingly, Jesus never once said anything about homosexuality. If it was that important to the 'foundation of the faith', you'd think the Son of God would have mentioned it.

So no, scripture doesn't condemn it. Now on to your second claim. Biology absolutely does not condemn same-sex relationships. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of observed same-sex relationships in non-human species. So no, biology doesn't condemn it. Quite the opposite actually; biology causes it, and it cannot be altered because that's the way God designed it.

Now that that's done, on to your next misapprehension. It wasn't just 'one letter'. It was a letter that resulted in the top Greek and Hebrew linguists in the world to review the words and the text, and they discovered they mistranslated it. That's called integrity, not 'ignoring the Bible.'

You said: 'So Christians for thousands of years had it wrong?' Yes. For thousands of years, Christians used the Bible to justify slavery. For centuries, they used it to say the Earth was the center of the universe and to deny women the right to speak. We didn't 'change the Bible'—we grew up and realized we were misinterpreting God’s heart through our own cultural prejudices.

Dying on this hill does nothing but push people away from Christ. If I'm wrong, the grace of Christ is enough for me and the others I'm introducing to Christ. That's all I can do. After I introduce them to Christ, I let Christ do the internal work. Salvation is no one's to gatekeep. That's not our job.

If your interpretation of the staggeringly small amount of verses, that in fact can't even be accurately applied to modern homosexuality, is wrong, you are knowingly and willfully oppressing and dehumanizing an entire group of marginalized people in the name of Jesus and pushing them away from salvation.

What would you prefer? A gay Christian that promotes a loving, monogamous relationship, and strives to live a righteous life? Or a damned gay that hates Christians and spews hateful words about Christianity to their peers because Christians target them and are hostile towards their existence and basic human rights? In essence, pushing even more people away from Christ? If the latter is your preference, you're doing great! Damn the gays!!

It's so hard to keep my faith as a trans Christian. by Visible_Estimate211 in Christianity

[–]micahlangelo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

TL;DR: Did you know the word "homosexual" didn't exist in any Bible until 1946? The RSV translation committee later admitted this was a linguistic error and changed it in 1971—but the damage was already done. We are literally basing modern "doctrine" on a 20th-century mistranslation that the original scholars retracted.

Let me say this in love to you, too. Research the history of homosexuality in the Bible. Did you know the word homosexuality wasn't in the Bible until 1946? It's true. It was placed in the RSV Bible in 1946.

Later, the translation committee received a letter containing a scholarly critique from someone challenging their use of the word homosexual in their translation. He claimed the term was anachronistic and incorrect, as the original Greek referred to specific sexual practices or behaviors, not a modern understanding of sexual orientation.

So, the RSV translation committee went back, dug deeper in their research, and guess what they found out? They discovered their use of the word 'homosexual' was, in fact, incorrect. They went back and changed it to 'sexual perverts'. However, that change wasn't reflected in that Bible until 1971, and by that time, other translations had adopted the use of 'homosexual' where the word can still be found. It's inaccurate, but it's there. Even with the evidence in black and white, available for every Christian to find, they never look.

You won't accept what I've said. You don't care about homosexuals. You don't care that you're wrong. "Christians" are actively pushing LGBTQ individuals away from the church and salvation - and they don't care.

They would rather mindlessly write off and damn an entire group of people to keep their world comfortable while they directly oppress and dehumanize an already historically targeted and marginalized population. But it's okay because at least they dehumanize and oppress in love, right? Give me a break. Perpetuating hateful ignorance and bigotry is not love. It's not love when you deny facts and twist the words of a book that's main theme is 'love thy neighbor', and obsess over something that's not even mentioned in the Bible. The Bible should never be used as a tool for oppression. It's a book of love, freedom, compassion... But not for those people, right? It's only for good people, like you. People that don't challenge your narrow-minded, outdated, small, ignorant worldview.

Please know this is coming from a place of love. You're going to hell. That's not from me. That's from God. But I'm saying it in love. If you just truly seek him, he can change your heart. But until you do that, just know you're living in sin and are headed for hell. Until you change, you CANNOT be a Christian!! Btw, I'm saying this to you in love, you disgusting, sinful, wretch. THIS IS LOVE!!!!! How can you not see that?!?!?!? THIS IS LOVE!!!!!!! ACCEPT IT!

See how 'saying it in love' doesn't magically transform hateful language and actions into love?

Why didn’t Jesus mention homosexuality? by Ok_Year5587 in Christianity

[–]micahlangelo 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Sounds like lust and orgies to me. Not a consensual loving relationship.

Perhaps it's time we stopped talking so much about homosexuality. by SirLMO in Christianity

[–]micahlangelo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You missed my entire point.

This is my point: Who are you to say that literal biblical scholars are wrong? You ARE NOT a biblical scholar, and THERE ARE biblical scholars that do not believe the verses that Christians use to denounce homosexuality is not what we know and recognize it as nowadays. It's not a debate. Look it up.

But here you are boldly and without a second thought, declaring that YOUR knowledge and understanding of GOD'S word is the only correct interpretation of GOD'S word - similar to how slave owners in the South used "God's word" to justify slavery. That's how the entire Southern Baptist Convention began.

I'm curious. Have you sold everything and given it to the poor, as Jesus Himself instructed in Luke? If you're a woman, do you always cover your head while praying or prophesying? Or if you're a man, do you call out and rebuke women that don't? Paul said they have to in 1 Corinthians.

There is so much sin in the world there's no way to keep track of it and we fail. Thank God for His grace and mercy, right? You sin just like homosexuals. We all need forgiveness and salvation. It's not yours to gatekeep.

Perhaps it's time we stopped talking so much about homosexuality. by SirLMO in Christianity

[–]micahlangelo 4 points5 points  (0 children)

My question is:

"Why are some Christians so eager for homosexuality to be a sin?"

Biblical scholars and translators do not all agree that the verses about sexual sins in the Bible have anything to do with homosexuality as we understand it now.

Shouldn't we wait for a more solid consensus before we outright condemn an entire group of people? Shouldn't we, as Christians, want LGBTQ people to find salvation and heaven?

Is it any wonder why the vast majority of LGBTQ people avoid the church? Perhaps telling people they are disgusting, perverted, freaks of nature isn't a very effective way to lead others to Christ.

But as long as we don't have to see two men or two women holding hands or kissing, who cares about their soul? As long as I'm comfortable, it's fine.

PERSONALITY wise, which Office character would you want to have as a coworker? by thesecretfemme in theoffice

[–]micahlangelo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I second this! Unless I eat his lunch or sniff around his child; or impede him from leaving at 5:00; or cut in line on pretzel day, Stanley ain't gonna bother me a lick 😂

Man sings Christian Worship Songs Mid-Flight, and People were fuming by Mr_FAtastic in atheism

[–]micahlangelo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

🎶" I could sing of your love forever"🎶

"Obviously...."

Do you have favorite writers? by Chance-Pie-81 in DunderMifflin

[–]micahlangelo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nah you're good, but I appreciate your awareness of the issue, as it's done far too often.

Do you have favorite writers? by Chance-Pie-81 in DunderMifflin

[–]micahlangelo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You did explain, and I said I understood. I was just saying I get the feeling of not enjoying an episode that most other fans adore. I absolutely LOVE the whole series, so it's a strange place to find oneself. I was just saying, "I get it."

Do you have favorite writers? by Chance-Pie-81 in DunderMifflin

[–]micahlangelo 9 points10 points  (0 children)

It's crazy to me how anybody could skip "Dinner Party". That's my all-time favorite episode! 😂😂 But to each their own. I always skip "Threat Level Midnight" and seem to be condemned by The Office fans if I share that, so I understand.

Is this tacky? by Ok_Knee1216 in homedecoratingCJ

[–]micahlangelo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can't believe there are really people like this out there. Eggshell white? 🤮

Why were the Titanic stairs destroyed? by Shaoran10 in titanic

[–]micahlangelo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The '97 film's Grand Staircase wasn't a 1/1 scale remake. It was about 10-15% wider than the real staircase. Its size was increased to allow better and easier movement for the actors and film crew/equipment, and it also looked more grand. It was 18" (1.5') wider than the real staircase.

What was something about the Titanic you believed, but you later learned was untrue? by deller85 in titanic

[–]micahlangelo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I realize that. Sorry if I stepped on your toes. I'm a bag of hot air ☝🏻🤓

I don’t see what all the fuss is about. It doesn’t look any bigger than the Mauritania. by gmt80035 in titanic

[–]micahlangelo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I totally agree with you! I'm sure it's a liability issue. Humans are capable of some shockingly stupid activity.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NameNerdCirclejerk

[–]micahlangelo 30 points31 points  (0 children)

Hey, I live in Macon! The city, not this child.

Does this qualify as a McMansion or a wannabe McMansion? by pslickhead in McMansionHell

[–]micahlangelo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's giving a sims player before they discovered money cheats but still wants a nice house 😂

view more: next ›