It Gets Worse, Gwen Stefani Caught Following Anti Gay Rights & Right Wing Accounts

[Leoooo 2,345]

1 hour ago, Meruk Holland said:

Paul absolutely had a political impetus to spreading Christianity. He used to to justify the power of governing authorities and the imperative to obey the establishment (Romans 13:1-7), that is the most political thing you can do with religion. That's nothing to say on how he uses his writings to create a moral code where women aren't allowed to speak in church, slaves are required to obey their masters, and men who lay with men are condemned as "contrary to nature" and they would be "receiving in themselves their due penalty for their error" (Romans 1:26-27). These aren't just theological ideas, they are political. And even if Paul never intended it that way, the Church became authoritarian because of his implementations and writings. Either he was malicious in pushing his own agenda or he was reckless and set the precedent for future architects within the Church to push their agendas with his example. 

The whole idea that there was rampant debauchery and promiscuity was largely propaganda meant to damage political rivals and defame pagan practices. Whether Paul and other writers bought into that propaganda is another story.

Further, Greek and Romans did have healthy same-sex relationships at the time, they were just healthy by ancient standards. We see them as unhealthy now because they were hierarchical and power imbalanced. But at the time, in all ancient cultures, that was virtually every relationship. It was the standard practice that girls would be married off as young teens to adult men. Women were more akin to property. Exploitation wasn't the concern with Christian authors because they didn't see that aspect as aberrant. Power imbalance was a part of every relationship, but ironically, relationships between men was the closest to egalitarian. By our standards, these were actually healthier than almost all heterosexual couples of the time (Greeks were better about it, because Romans required the bottom to be a lower status).

The ancient world did not have the modern concept of homosexuality, but they did have clear queer analogues. It wasn't a paradise, these analogues had their own issues of permissibility, social expectations, and discriminations. But it's erroneous to also think of them as completely divorced from our modern understanding of queerness. 

I have to say I do enjoy reading your replies (& feel like I've learnt something) my main issue is that Christianity already existed before Paul. He was persecuting an established Jesus movement before his conversion and claims in his letters to preserve traditions about Jesus that he says he recieved rather than created -then spending the rest of his life proclaiming that message, at enormous personal cost. You can reject his theology, but “political opportunist who created Christianity” doesn't fit that evidence.

Romans 13 is also much less straightforward than “Paul advocated authoritarianism.” It is politically significant, but Paul himself was imprisoned, beaten and persecuted by governing authorities. The passage also describes legitimate authority in terms of punishing wrongdoing and promoting good - it isn't simply “whatever the government does is God's will.” That's a debated passage, not a smoking gun for Paul's political agenda.

Same with the women point. I agree the Pauline material is uncomfortable, but “Paul said women aren't allowed to speak in church” is too simple when the same Paul explicitly discusses women praying and prophesying in worship in 1 Corinthians 11. And some of the most hierarchical Pauline letters have disputed authorship. 

I'll also concede my ancient-sexuality argument was too simplistic (a bit cringey actually I do regret ) You're right that Greeks and Romans had same-sex relationships that don't map neatly onto modern sexuality. My orgy comment was a misfire.

The ancient world had same-sex relationships, but it did not have our modern concept of sexual orientation, egalitarian same-sex marriage, or “gay” as a stable identity category. So I don't think it's historically justified to take Paul's condemnation of particular sexual behaviour and turn it into “Paul hated gay people”. He wasn't addressing that category. Whether his underlying theology can or should be applied to modern same-sex relationships is a separate question.

And honestly, I'd love to know what Paul would say if he were writing a letter to modern-day London. What would he say to two men who love each other, are faithful to each other, care for their friends and community? I don't know, And neither do you. We can interpret his existing writings, but neither of us can honestly claim to know what he would say about a social and relational category that he never encountered in this form.

Edited August 22 by Leoooo

[Leoooo 2,345]

1 hour ago, PartySick said:

I have far too much religious trauma, grounding in reality, and pure hatred for delusion to take certain conversations here seriously sometimes  

It's wild...debating the fictional representation of a potentially real historical figure that maybe lived 2000 years ago as if who he did or didn't shame has any bearing on the modern world and how we should or shouldn't see each other now  

Religion is nuts, superstition is nuts, and treating people poorly because you're religious and superstitious goes beyond being nuts and into being offensive and you should be silenced and condemned for it, not debated with as if you have an actual position. Religious bigots should be diagnosed as clinically insane and deprogrammed from the abuse and indoctrination they almost certainly suffered as children.

Fealty to deities, especially relatively new ones like the Christian god, should have died out generations ago. Sometime around us discovering Earth was round or at least when germ theory was a thing idk  

One of the few things that'll actually make me livid enough to rant  

I actually really empathise with a lot of this, especially the religious trauma part. I don't think anyone should be mistreated, excluded or taught to hate themselves because of someone else's religious beliefs, and I completely understand why that can make religion itself feel intolerable.

But as the person here who's openly said that I love Jesus, I did feel a little caught in the crossfire of this 😂. I don't think I'm being “delusional” or asking anyone else to believe what I believe.

I had an experience that was extremely real to me. For almost a year I was experiencing genuinely terrifying physical sensations that appeared only after what I'd got myself into spiritually. I was days away from seeking psychiatric intervention ( probably sectioned cus they would think I'm insane, I found nothing online about it) Completely breaking down I prayed to Jesus, essentially with nothing left, and the sensations stopped. Completely. I then felt this huge rush of love and peace and just burst into tears. As someone who used to dabble with party drugs, I never had a more intense euphoria than immediately after that - 10 am on my bedroom floor as a raging homo who loved tarot, spells and Gaga (sometimes all at once) 

Ofc you dont have to believe that Jesus caused it. You don't even have to believe my interpretation of what happened. There are plenty of possible explanations you could give me, and I'm genuinely not interested in forcing you to accept mine. Honestly I don't think my experience gives me the right to tell anyone else what they should believe either. It just gives me a reason to believe what I believe.

So I'm very happy to condemn religious bigotry while also being allowed to say that my relationship with Jesus has been one of the most positive and grounding things in my life. Those two things can coexist.

Edited August 22 by Leoooo

[Controversiaga 17,097]

10 pages later…

goes to show you how religion really is the thing nobody can ever universally agree on and will constantly be fighting over..

so stupid 

[Leoooo 2,345]

8 minutes ago, Controversiaga said:

10 pages later…

goes to show you how religion really is the thing nobody can ever universally agree on and will constantly be fighting over..

so stupid 

Honestly I don't think there has been any fighting in the religious discussion here, just some interesting points / debates - Ive definitely learnt things I didnt know and I'm grateful for that 

Improving my theology on a Gaga forum, granted, was unexpected 

Edited August 22 by Leoooo

[onTheBrink 1,718]

It started as a thread about Gwen Stefani 

Edit: On a serious note, I have respect for people who have found surrender in a power greater than themselves. Most of the people I know irl who are Christian couldn't give a f about what it says in Leviticus 17:12 or whatever, they just have faith in a loving power greater than themselves and it gives their life meaning. Christianity as used by the Moral Majority etc is not God, not Christianity. Islam as used by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda terrorists is not Allah, not Islam. We all worship the same thing. A hippy listening to Ray Of Light feeling spiritual is experiencing the same thing as a Christian granny in a pearl necklace doing some gardening content and peaceful.

Edited August 22 by onTheBrink

[HotLikeMexico 6,732]

1 hour ago, Controversiaga said:

10 pages later…

goes to show you how religion really is the thing nobody can ever universally agree on and will constantly be fighting over..

so stupid 

And get WPs over.