I have seen these seemingly contradictory views particularly from Muslim comrades. However, this is not limited to them.
This post is a genuine question not a rant, so please treat it as such.
I have seen these seemingly contradictory views particularly from Muslim comrades. However, this is not limited to them.
This post is a genuine question not a rant, so please treat it as such.
As a former evangelical Christian, I can only talk to the Christian side of things, and will leave other religious texts alone.
The Bible has a few things relevant to this discussion:
(1) Many Christians view the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross as a fulfillment of the old law–essentially invalidating strict adherence obligations to what’s laid out in Leviticus. This brought in a new covenant which (though there are other rules mentioned throughout the new testament) essentially boils down to “love god and love others.” Paul even describes the situation as “all things are lawful, but not all things are edifying (good).” With this view it’s easy to say that God has freed us from moralistic obligations (such as refraining from same sex relationships) as long as we love everyone and direct people to God.
(2) The Bible tells a story of 2 cities being destroyed by god for their wickedness. One of his friends actually bartered with God to save one if something like 5 righteous people could be found in the city, but that quota wasn’t met. Prior to their destruction, however, God sends some masc presenting angels to warn one of his followers to gtfo so he doesn’t die. Upon seeing these sexy new hunks in their city the townsfolk demand the follower of god let them fuck the angels. Instead the follower of god let’s the townsfolk fuck his daughters (women were property, so this substitution protected his new friends at the cost of basically breaking an expensive dish). Some view this as a story of god wiping out the cities for their homosexual tendencies, but it’s more accurately a story of god wiping them out for their practices of sexual domination as an act of humiliation.
(3) The Bible says god created man and woman. Some view this as an affirmation of a strict gender binary. The Bible does not, however, list everything God created with specific detail and it doesn’t draw a distinction between trans and cis folk.
(4) Modern English translations say that a man shouldn’t lie with another man as one lies with a woman. This is viewed by some as an overt condemnation of same sex relationships; however, this can also be interpreted as a condemnation of sexual domination (a la number #2) or a criticism of the ongoing practice of pederasty, when an older man fucks a younger man in an act of manipulation or exploitation. This is embedded in a longer passage about lust and idolatry.
(5) The recognition of marriage as a holy covenant endorsed and before God is reflected in the idea that a man will leave his father and mother and become one flesh with his new bride (a de facto woman). This is used as an example of god’s love for his followers. There’s no condemnation of same sex relationships in this passage, merely a passing statement reflecting the social norms at the time regarding marriage.
(6) There’s the idea in the Bible that all sin is abhorrent to God equally, and that all mankind has sinned and betrayed God equally. That is why the sacrifice arc of Jesus is in the story–a way to redeem the fallen and unify people with God. If same sex relationships are wrong and so is getting drunk, lying, or overeating, than who are we to condemn that practice so long as it doesn’t hurt other people?
There’s a few other comments about the circumstances and practices of the Bible without direct passages.
(1) The Bible is a disparate collection of letters and books written of an age and people for that age and people. It does contain some passages that provide useful advice that’s not necessarily supposed to be taken as divinely inspired doctrine. This is a blatantly heretical take from an evangelical perspective, but is clearly borne out in writings attributed to Paul. His letters were to specific churches to help them deal with specific issues they were dealing with at the time and are obviously not intended to be a governing cannon for all god’s people. He even admits at times that he’s interjecting his own thoughts and not those inspired by god. He is providing good life advice from a position of respect, not of divine authority.
(2) There are countless instances of polygamy and concubines in the Bible that are not strictly condemned aside from optics (like “what’ll people think if the king is a removed?”). Many of god’s favorite people kept harems. There’s also no condemnation of lesbians. King Solomon had 1000 women–you telling me he never once got sucked off while watching some girls go down on each other?
All in all, if the Bible is viewed not as a strict literal list of commands (which reflects the diversity of the text and the circumstances of its creation) there’s sparse condemnation if any.
I was raised in a Christian cult. I was reading the Bible, and Paul explicitly said the following was his opinion, not inspired by God. Meanwhile, the cult was telling us he was just being humble, and it was indeed the word of God.
It was pretty confusing from a literal-minded, autistic kid perspective
I sorta left it to fulfill my life purpose as a dirty, heretic commie, I guess? Still got close family members trapped in it, sadly.
Edit: Original comment was meant to be a reply to OP, I just tapped the wrong button, sorry.
Fascinating. From responses, I’ve realized it’s more of an interpretation matter rather than a strict bigotted message. If you don’t mind me asking, why did you leave evangelical Christianity and into what? I come from an already pretty secular upbringing, so I lack the experience of being in a religion to begin with.
I’m an agnostic atheist.
I saw a lot of pain and hurt caused by the church. People raped by their pastor father and grandfather hiding behind religion. Pastors covering up heinous acts in their own churches and being elevated to positions of power. Constant pedantic infighting, subjugation of women, shunning of others, etc.
None of these instances are necessarily reflexive of errant doctrine rather than evil people, but it did open my eyes to look a little deeper. That reveals things like traditional missions work being used, not for spreading the gospel, but for self aggrandizement/pity and with the effect of westernization rather then genuine converts; biblical inconsistencies calling into question the belief of intrinsic inerrancy; the use of biblical writings as a cudgel rather than a guidebook for ones own life; and the purposeful, blatant misinterpretation of scripture to “prove” preconceived notions (i.e. 1 Corinthians 6:19 being used to mean smoking is a sin rather than as a justification for why one should not sleep with a prostitute as it actually means).
So what do you do when so many people around you who claim to believe in the literal interpretation of scripture don’t actually act like they do? You start finding out about the world.
At some point you have a choice, accept all the evidence before you that the world is old and life evolved over a very long time and religion evolved along with people and society, or you reject the evidence of your eyes and the opinion of experts who know more than you and bury your head in the sand. I couldn’t reject what was provably and evidently true and that was that.