>be me
>end up reading romans 1
>get to the part that says homosexuality is unnatural and deserves God's wrath
>feel sad
how do queer Christians interpret said chapter anyways?

stop taking the bible literally, it is a written fable.

personally i think the old testament is too old to be useful. remember jesus basically gave us the most important commandments of loving our neighbours and loving god. god is much more loving and forgiving in the NT

>>40382213 (OP)
How does that matter for trans women

>>40382238
NTA but Romans is literally in the NT. Also Christ said that not one iota of the law would pass away.
>>40382229
Wow thanks anon, you cured me of my religious brainworms.
>>40382246
I (a) have some same-sex attraction and (b) can see how the general thought behind it could be applied to trannies as well.

>>40382288
Well if you are gay it is an issue but if you get SRS you are the female sex so it would not really apply seems obvious to me.

Pauline epistles shouldnt be cannon. Paul was just some random murderer. James and peter didn't even like him they were just afraid of him

The gospel and teachings of Jesus are all you need to worry about. Pray, be ernest with God and ask for guidance and understanding. Keep in mind the old languages didn't specify biological sex, so there is a small amount of room for interpretation. If you're really worried about your standing, pray and ask.

>>40382366
I think you should give paul a fair shake, since without him the meaning of the gospels becomes essentially unintelligible.

>>40382213 (OP)
Ignore Paul and focus on Jesus. If it's not written in red then it isn't Biblically canon.

>>40382416
Paul’s letters are the best part of the Bible imho

>>40382399
2k year old Prophetic apocalyptic cults should be unintelligible without reading extra sources. They were called the MYSTERIES for a reason

I stopped being Christian.
Being bisexual is sort of like being colorblind. Attraction to men and women are different shades but of the same color like using an RGB slider. According to the Bible they're two colors that don't mix. This theology was written by people who see the world in a completely different way that reads as crazy to me. Maybe I am the one with the crossed wires but oh well I can't help but see it this way.

To put it another way what if you picked up the Bible and it said "2+2=5. This is not an allegory or metaphor or spiritual teaching, it is literally true." So you sit down and take out some coins and put 2 and 2 together. You see 4 coins. You've always known it's 4 coins, it's as obvious as breathing. Obviously it would be very hard to believe the Bible was telling the truth. It's like that but with sexuality.

OP unironically watch this in full. just do it. seriously. watch the entire thing. just trust me and do it even if you know of neither person

(podcast appearance by one of the hosts of "good mythical morning". I have never seen it and assumed they were dumb goofballs but this guy revealed himself to be very wise and insightful in this)

https://youtu.be/Y9wjVLKy8Xk

>>40382213 (OP)
How can you seriously accept these books as important when they were so obviously put together by a council of old men 1,000s of years ago? You might as well accept the book of mormon, at least the editing process for that makes more sense as a divinely inspired book.

>>40382213 (OP)
because it was pederasty back then or something

>>40382213 (OP)
I'm barthian/neo-orthodox when it comes to interpreting scripture. I don't think you can just rationalize everything but I do believe that as a whole human witness to the revelation/word of God is more flawed than is given credit for.

>>40384303
>but I do believe that as a whole human witness to the revelation/word of God is more flawed than is given credit for.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here tbqh
>>40384301
I've heard this argument before and it has some strength w/r/t this Romans passage. Though it unambiguously refers to men lusting after other men (rather than men lusting after boys, or something to that degree). However, the idea of men giving up their natural heterosexual attraction to women for sex with males doesn't really make sense unless it's for twinks or something (which seems to happen a lot today, lol).

>>40384341
Honestly, Paul's line of thought in Romans 1 w/r/t the corruption of humanity is kind of hard to follow as well.

>>40382213 (OP)
You are of coursing covering your hair and wearing a veil and making sure the other women in your church do as well as any good christian woman should as described in 1 Corinthians 11 by Paul right? Oh wait you aren't doing that? You think that part of the bible is stupid? Maybe the other stuff about homosexuality is also stupid?

>>40382213 (OP)
The Bible is to morality like a recipe book is to cooking. If you've got a solid grasp on the fundamentals you can feel it out for yourself. Prioritizing lust over love is immoral, but I don't think all forms of homosexuality are immoral. Being in love with someone and improving each other's lives and reinforcing your intimacy through sex cannot be immoral, it doesn't give me that feeling I get when I know I'm doing something wrong, quite the opposite

>>40384400
I'm boymoding. Also in currentyear when it's not a sign that one is married insisting on it would miss the point desu. I'm not inherently opposed to the idea though.

>>40384429
If that verse is only supposed to refer to cultural mores of the time why doesn't Paul say so? Surely it wouldn't be too much trouble for the divinely inspired Bible to insert some quick phrase about how Christian women should dress modestly FOR the time and place they find themselves? Why doesn't Paul just say that? Why does he say that Men are created in the image of God but women are created for the glory of men and that is why they must cover themselves as sign of authority over her? Surely you hold that it must be true because "hurr it's in the bibble!?!" It really doesn't sound like something that can be bent based on the culture but an unchangeable truth of creation?

Who made me this way if not god? I don’t worry about it and just focus on being a good person

>>40384902
Honestly I think you misunderstand Paul's style of writing, which requires one to fill in a lot of blanks anyways. Scripture needs to be read with an eye to literary genre (e.g. the speeches put in Paul's mouth in Acts are certainly not 1:1 reconstructions of Paul's speeches, given their dissimilarity with his writing style, but invented speeches that capture the sense of what was said were the norm in ancient histories).

>>40385157
Well Acts is written by the author of Luke if iirc so that makes sense.
As long as I am interpreting and filling in the blanks in the Bible to get the meaning I want I might as well just believe that what Paul is denouncing in Romans 1:27 is the immoral sexuality of the Roman Empire especially pederasty, adultery and using of slaves for sex and that has nothing to do with loving homosexual marriage in modern times or the act of male-male love in itself. It's all the same and hypocritical to bend one part of the Bible while insisting that the other part says what it says.

>>40382288
old law only applies to jews, not gentiles

>>40384341
What I meant that people who share my specific view on the nature of biblical inerrancy are often a lot more conservative (not necessarily politically, though that too) in their assessment on just how much error there is in the bible as neo-orthodoxy arose specifically as a reaction towards 19th century liberal christianity which among others tried to reconcile the bible with modern science and historical criticism from a logical and rational perspective ("natural theology"). Despite neo-orthodoxy literally being a reaction against natural theology the difference is not that great at all on the most practical level. I get that what I said was probably really confusing for someone that does not have a neurodivergent interest in theology.

The bottom line is that I think that the bible is valuable but flawed and not word-for-word divinely inspired truth same like many progressive christians today even if I disagree on a lot of the more high flying details. If you were for some reason actually interested I could go more in depth but I don't want to put out any more word salad to say a simple thing.

>>40387233
>If you were for some reason actually interested I could go more in depth
That'd be really cool :]. You don't have to though.
t. not especially well versed on the topic

>>40382213 (OP)
Also worth keeping in mind that even the most fundamentalist evangelicals cherry pick (also known as contextual interpretation which fundamentalism is in principle opposed to) even though they simultaneously insist that The Bible is divinely inspired, inerrant, literal truth. For an example Paul very clearly states in 1 Corinthians that women should shut up in churches for it's disgraceful for them to speak there but obviously women aren't banned from talking entirely in fundamentalist evangelical churches.

They are going to justify women being allowed to speak by once more quoting 1 Cor. 11:5 where Paul refers to women prophesying. This makes it so that "*akshually* Paul was probably not being literal when said women should not speak in churches". EVEN THOUGH in 1 Cor 14:34-35 Paul is EXTREMELY clear on the topic. "...women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak...". I don't agree with this ofc. but Paul is very clear that women can in fact prophesy but they should be forbidden from speaking in churches, full stop. That is logically consistent and there is no paradox there whatsoever. Hence there should be no reason whatsoever for a fundamentalist to question of Paul really meant it literally.

But because it's *too hyper-reactionary for all but the most deranged sickos*, they choose to cherry pick/contextually interpret instead to make it more palatable despite the lack of inconsistncy, despite the fact that their whole religious identity revolving around NOT DOING THAT.

>>40387304
2/2
(Much more rambly than the first part, ignore if you want)
Yet when it comes to Paul talking about homosexuals in Romans 1, for conservatives it's "the simple, literal truth written right there". If you were to say suggest to a conservative Christian that perhaps there is something to be said for giving the gospel and the recorded teachings of Christ primacy in case of perceived inconsistency within The Bible they will cry "Antichrist" and insist that there is nothing inconsistent in God hating that which he has created in his image as they see homosexuality as akin being born with a disability which in turn affects how they interpret scripture. For a conservative Christian the existence of homosexuals is one of the many "ills" present in our fallen world because that bitch Eve ate the apple and it could never never ever suggest that there was any room for contextual interpretation in The Bible. Despite doing just that in many cases like the example I gave above.

I know that what I said is not really an argument at all but I just wanted to highlight that it's not just queer or "Progressive" Christians that struggle with theological consistency. I hope that at least one person finds a pinch of value in my incoherent ramblings, it's half past midnight here.

>>40387758
>>40387767
most bible scholars agree that those passages from corinthians and timothy condemning women speaking were added later, by someone who was not paul. because, as you say, the passages that we know are him and are clearly in his style have no problem with women prophesying. either way, despite saying some things that i like ("christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law"), paul was a first christian ascetic who believed jesus would come again in his lifetime, and advocated celibacy on that basis. his sexual proscriptions are simply not relevant to us

>>40387824
Yeah. Which is something that fundamentalist Christians generally do not recognize as making any difference I don't think. Not that they would insist that all books of the bible were 100% word by word written in their original form by the very person we think they were written by. But the idea that a book might have had later additions by other writers is not in conflict with their view that The Bible is the literal, inerrant, infallible word of God that should be taken at face value unless something very strongly suggests otherwise. It is Scripture and it is all divinely inspired from the beginning to the end and if something was added later to a book that would a century or two later be included in the bible then it was added there for a reason and God clearly intended it to be Scripture just the same even though said passage is not followed anyone except sickos.

I was going to and did indeed write something on neo-orthodoxy compared to natural theology but since I have been replying to the wrong posts it's pretty clear that I could use some sleep first since it's a very crystal clear topic.

>>40388431
*not a crystal clear topic

>>40388431
yeah. univocalists gonna univoke, ig. my point is, as a queer person with a brain, i'm under no compulsion to abide by their ludicrous precept of univocality

>>40384902
They didn't have the same concept of time, history and culture we do.

>>40388431
As someone only familiar with judaisms neo-orthodoxy (not the same thing as reform) I'd be interested if you posted
>>40384902
The early Christians thought Jesus would return and bring about the messianic age within their lifetime, adding a "but just in case he doesn't, here's what you should do" just doesn't make sense for them

>>40382213 (OP)
Used to be about pedophiles. A chain of several biased translations saw the passage get changed to be about gays.

>>40388574
That's not romans, you're thinking of leviticus 18:22, and even in that case it is condemning MSM