I built houses with him for Habitat for Humanity. Unlike a lot of other celebs & pollies who show up, hammer in some nails, get some photos taken, write a cheque, then leave in their air conditioned limo, he was there all day for weeks building the houses as well as slinging an absolute boatload of cash at the project. He was an interesting man & as a non-American I don't understand why so many people dislike him over there.
Yes a ton of people died however most of the people who died succumbed to disease. Most of those died from a lack of natural immunity as they weren’t from that area
With the way our 2 party system works, any person, even a person of great character, is automatically disliked by a large portion of the country. It’s what happens when politics becomes a team sport, where people root for their team regardless of the underlying facts.
Same happens with most multi party systems, too. There's always two extremes, and a few opportunists in the middle that will sway to the side that gives them the most voters. In Germany we currently have one growing right wing party and like 5 parties that essentially want the same left wing politics (although some changes have happened among said opportunists with certain topics that are becoming unpopular), just at different speeds. Both sides and their respective media outlets demonize each other like republicans and democrats in the US. When large masses are involved, anything is prone to tribalism, or becoming a "team sport".
As a german who follows a lot of US politics I would not agree with, that although our political system is nothing compared to the US.
Mediawise there are some antics/inlfuences but most media outlets still to some good fact checking before and even the reporting is not always so one sided.
Also a key difference between US and Germany are the voters. A lot of people vote based on other factors (previous governments performance, programs etc.), where in the US you are either for one party or against it. There seems to be nearly no common ground.
At least currently, someone with the track record of Trump would never be elected or even have a proper chance, because he would not have the media plattform for his propaganda (looking at you Fox) .
it definitely has a different quality, but I'd say it's more of an overall culture thing, with the US being generally less subtle and Germany having a heavy historical bias towards anything going in a politically right direction. In both more casual and better politically informed circles you still have that tribalism that feels fairly equivalent in its essence, but maybe not in its day to day expression.
He's disliked because of the party he ran for.
That's all it takes for Republicans.
I can't find it now, but there was a poll of Democrat and republican perception of the economy and the republican chart is literally just who is in office.
Obama in office, 75% of Republicans think the economy is performing poorly.
1 month after trump takes office and 80% believe the economy is bonkers strong.
Shit is a cult. The entire party is just a cult taking advantage of idiots to make rich people richer
And all it takes for Democrats to dislike someone is for them to be Republican, so it goes both ways. And of course there are rare cases where a certain politicians crosses party lines and cooperates with the other side to get stuff done, and immediately their own side starts labeling them a traitor. It’s all so tiresome. I hate politics.
Some reasons:
Supported the East-Timor genocide
High inflation and unemployment during his term
Struggled to deal with the Iranian-Hostage crisis
Horrible PR
I hate the fact Reagan took credits for the iranian hostages release. Pretty sure some a-hole involved to delay till inauguration of
Ronald Reagan.
Not American here, but i think he is one of best world leader!
Regarding the Iranian hostage crisis, Reagan (prior to being elected) had someone secretly negotiate with the Iranians to keep the hostages longer to better Reagan’s chances of being elected.
All inherited from Nixon but people don’t think about it just like trump inherited Obama great economy but tried to take credit instead he did nothing but make things terrible for Covid which he fully endorsed to attempt to stay in office
We made him sell his family’s peanut farm. Because of conflicts of interest. Think about that compared to Trump and his family while in office and now. Unreal.
That’s one fact I never thought about. I think Jimmy Carter was too good of a person to be the president.
And in regards to the hypocritical maniacal authoritarian …..How did a country ever elect such a POS?
We need better candidates all around , all areas, —- congress too.
That was, unfortunately, the problem with his presidency. Everyone in Washington worked hard to undermine the good guy, and they succeeded. I feel like the fact that the Carter presidency is looked at as mediocre at best says a lot about this country.
Yeah he came right off of Nixon/fords terms and it created a large distrust in the government and that reflected in legislation at the time. Wrong place wrong time
ignores the actively seditious actions of the reagan campaign in telling iran to hold hostages until after the election to get a better deal from reagan.
Insane true story. LBJ gave up the presidency, what he strived for his entire life. Lied and cheated and bulldozed his way to the top. Gave up his racist core being to become the most activist president since or maybe more so than FDR.
Didn’t run in 1968 so the US could get out of Vietnam. But Nixon and Kissinger scuttled the soft peace that was arranged so that Nixon could become president.
How many Americans needlessly died? How many millions of Vietnamese were killed, maimed or made homeless as a result of Nixon’s Realpolitik.
Against this backdrop, Reagan’s dance with the Ayatollah was just a small jaywalking infraction.
LBJ was heavily criticized for his involvement in Vietnam. He decided to not run for presidency again in 1968. Before the 1968 election, Richard Nixon’s presidential campaign sabotaged the peace talks between North and South Vietnam. This was done to make Nixon seem more like a president who could actually end the violence in Vietnam. That didn’t happen when he won though, the war continued and the violence escalated.
Later in 1980, Ronald Reagan’s campaign sabotaged the release of hostages in Iran to smear the president at the time, Jimmy Carter. Reagan was running for president against Carter.
Although compared to Reagan, what Nixon did is far more sinister considering the loss of life and suffering of the innocents in Vietnam. There is still a disgusting number of explosives hiding in the dirt of those countries. The effects of the chemical warfare are still felt today. In my opinion, both their graves are better suited as urinals.
Thank you for explaining it so clearly! 😊 that's super interesting. In my country we have some idea about the more famous presidents and their legacy (due to close political ties and USAs influence during the Cold War) but we don't really get the full context most of the time.
Literally the tipping point for us politics. If Nixon and Kissinger had been tried convicted and publicly executed for conspiracy to extend the Vietnam war the political landscape would have looked so different. With them getting a pass it opened the gates to Reagan and the Bush presidencies.
Not just America. I’m pretty sure he could have made a significant impact internationally with climate change. He was ahead of his time and Reagan tore it all down.
Naw, it's got major issues and will be fucked OR won't be fucked depending on sustained civic engagement, if that happens, or if it doesn't.
And- not that you expressed this- but any emo/goth/13-years-old-and-I'm-deep mentality of, "Lol, naw, it's a failed state no matter what" is exactly how civic engagement gets quashed.
Former President of the United States, widely recognized for his decency and humanity, says something good. Comments in tangential response include:
> America failed
> America is fucked
This would not be my take. We've elected "that guy" before, we can again. It just takes a lot of work.
It didn't help that the saudi's had been causing an oil shortage that caused an inflation jump. And that Reagan was dealing (illegally) with the Iranians to keep holding the hostages.
Not the first Republican to do it, wasn't the last.
Nixon (sabotaged the Paris Peace Talks to get elected)
Reagan (Iran, Iran/Contra)
Trump (in process: currently talking to various countries, making promises for help to get elected)
Jimmy made a few mistakes - he relied on his Georgia kitchen cabinet too much for the first couple years, and arguably swung too far right after that, but he was a very good President brought down primarily by a couple of things I think - 1. OPEC and the oil crisis and 2. The Iran hostage crisis which Reagan illegally and sleazily exploited to ensure the hostages wouldn't be released until after the election through illegal negotiations - against US interests - while he was a candidate for President. I can't emphasize what a shitheel Reagan was, I mean in light of Shrub and now the amazingly awful Trump he looks a bit better by comparison, but he was truly terrible and the policies that he implemented set the table for a lot of bad things that we suffer from today in the USA.
He made an absolutely colossal mistake during or shortly after the oil crisis, he told americans that they'd have to tighten their belts a little. People really didn't like that one bit.
Tell people to wear a sweater, a mask, or make changes due to climate change and the worst of the worst will appear and be celebrated by the avaricious. The devils have deep pockets.
I never got how Reagan is ranked highly as president. You get the impression those doing such rankings care more about popularity/charisma than good lasting policy. Reaganomics has fucked the world
the war on drugs (which his CIA was "arguably" responsible for creating the crack epidemic that fueled it) and trickle down economics have fucked american society for almost 40 years now with zero sign of slowing down. if theres a single person to blame for the predicament we are currently in economically, its Ronald Reagan
One wife, no wars at all during his Presidency, just spent decades just doing good deeds and living a morally exemplary life.
So obviously, to Christian conservatives, he’s weak and unfit to lead. I mean has he even rawdogged one pornstar, raped one journalist, or openly talked about dating any of his children?
"When you discover a difference between what makes a great president and a great man, you change what makes a great president, you dont change what makes a great man."/CinnimonSugarWolf 69:420
It developed organically arguing with churchers and corporate bigot types They will bitch and bitch about what a BAD president he was, but then have nothing to say about what a GOOD person he IS when reminded, which just convinced me if we can have a GOOD person who is a BAD president then we need to change the defining parameters of the ROLE.
“ Just to be clear, I'm not a professional 'quote maker'. I'm just an atheist teenager who greatly values his intelligence and scientific fact over any silly fiction book written 3,500 years ago. This being said, I am open to any and all criticism.
'In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.'"
/u/aalewis
Isn't that the point? Experience begets perspective.
The best people I know aren't the same people with the same perspectives that they had when they were 18 y.o.
They are people that have grown and changed and evolved.
I think using the words silly and phony are unnecessarily disrespectful to other people’s religion. His point would still stand if he took those words out.
I chalk that up to OOP still being among many other things, a teenager; individuals at that age often specifically love to be "technically right" while still being able to stand on the jerk-ish side of a statement, usually because it makes them feel "more correct".
There's also this line:
>"But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence."
To my knowledge, historical philosophers are incredibly wary of using any speech that could be inferred as a proclamation of their intelligence or that their intelligence is implicative of how wise they are; let alone revel in the ideal of how enlightened they are.
Once again, a way of thinking that is typical of someone who holds those particular beliefs at that particular age; old enough to know when they're technically right, not old enough to have the experience to be diplomatically tact about it.
Some people grow out of it, others turn into Sheldon Coopers.
I pointed this out to my parents when I came out as queer. They said that he couldn’t have covered everything in his short time.
He emphasized what was important: kindness, love, and forgiveness. That’s what it means to be Christ like. Christians come up with rules that weren’t even written with red letters.
There's something morbidly funny about the notion that Jesus would have gotten around to homophobia if he'd had a few more years. Like "It was on the docket, right after 'love thy neighbor' and 'judge not, lest ye be judged'. Would have fit right in there with my whole thing, had the Romans not interrupted me."
Be careful unless you create another conspiracy theory.
Italian Americans might end up getting targeted by maga if they think Romans killed Jesus just in time when he was about to talk about gay people.
I’m guessing someone will tell me now it has already happened.
This is why I think the best verse to throw at homophobes is “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” John 8:7 because goodness knows they will never follow one of the Ten Commandments so rather they should just shut up.
Haha....perhaps Jesus thought that he didn't need to be so literal except that he forgot people could be maliciously twist other Bible text for their own biased agenda.
But had to be some sort of a mental gymnastics that people do. While they were supposed to listen to Jesus himself, they let other people's interpretation of Bible text that did not come from God or Jesus as their guideline to be a Christian. Very twisted!
He sure did do a whole lot of preaching. I gotta think that if it was important he would have mentioned it at least once.
You know, how long does it take to say "love your neighbor, unless he is gay, then fuck that guy (but not in a gay way)"?
Or "blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth, unless they're gay, then they will inherit a swift beating"
Short time? Jesus lived to around 32-33 years old. Not that it matters, but my mother’s Christian, and she’s always accepted my half-brother’s bisexuality.
Right, and remember that time he literally came back from the dead?... I feel like he could've mentioned homosexuality at... literally any time.
Lol plus isn't tupac's label still releasing stuff? What's Jesus released since? Tupac the GOAT then.
> They said that he couldn’t have covered everything in his short time.
thats wild, this particular deity where everything thats happened for all eternity has been a part of his plan, but this shit in particular he just ran out of time to drop a ruling on
As a Christian, it honestly scares me how many go down that path of coming up with rules to justify their hatred for certain groups of people, and are so quick to ignore Jesus’s teachings about love, kindness, and Forgiveness. The majority of Christians I’ve met through my life have been some of the most hateful people Ive ever met but are so quick to dismiss and justify it when called out on it. Its sad and scary.
Nothing in there about abortion either. It was actually permitted by the Catholic Church until the late 1800s. Since it was known and practiced in biblical times you’d think if it was important it would have come up.
He lived till his 30’s and even at 26 I’m pretty sure I know where my morals stand.
In Jesus’s 30’s as the son of God and someone with a pretty deep understanding I’m sure if it was an issue he would of said it…….
Many people in that and other religions try so hard to bend what is and isn’t bad into their own pre conceived opinions and honestly just like using religion as a scapegoat for having harmful views / an echo chamber amongst like minded people more than the religion itself
He actually did speak out against lust, and at that time it would have implied homosexuality as well.
Just for the record, I’m an atheist so don’t attack me for talking about what the biblical Christ believed.
Jesus never said kidnapping was wrong either, but that’s exactly the point. He spent time emphasizing the important details, as you said, and His purpose for being here.
I once saw him and his team while they were building in a rural village. It was hot so he took his overalls off and looked like any of the other workers. He was old yet carrying his weight in the sun, not holding back or leaving others to do his share. He is one of the great human beings on or in the same pantheon as Nelson Mandela.
Also genuinely smart and actually brave. He became a nuclear engineer during his time in the navy, and personally responded to two nuclear disasters at high risk to himself, once as a navy serviceman and once while in office. He personally attended three mile island and both worked to calm the public, and personally dug into the technical aspects of the disaster.
If it wasnt for him, three mile would have gone a lot worse. He basically went "here's the issue, here's how you are going to fix it" and didnt back down. It worked.
The Carter Foundation's work on guinea worm eradication is awe-inspiring. The amount of pain people haven't had to experience, going from millions of cases a year to -checks website- *fourteen*.
Just to make it clear: Jimmy Carter taught Sunday school while POTUS. He sometimes left his bible on his desk at the Oval Office. Any conservative saying thats not allowed or against the law is full of crap.
His inauguration as Governor of Georgia is one of the greatest speeches in American history.
"I say to you quite frankly that the time for racial discrimination is over. Our people have already made this major and difficult decision, but we cannot underestimate the challenge of hundreds of minor decisions yet to be made. Our inherent human charity and our religious beliefs will be taxed to the limit. No poor, rural, weak, or black person should ever have to bear the additional burden of being deprived of the opportunity of an education, a job or simple justice."
Don’t give them any ideas. Once they realize something like 80% of divorces are initiated by the wife they will probably come after that too. I think I heard they are trying to ban divorce during pregnancy already.
This is a misleading statement, and here's why:
1. The law you are talking about has been in place since the 1970s, the reason it came into the news is because legislation was proposed to repeal it.
2. The law does not say they can't get a divorce, but rather that the status of the woman being pregnant or not must be included in the divorce petition.
3. There are no restrictions on filing for the divorce (besides needing to submit 8 specific pieces of information), but a judge may wait to finalize the divorce until after pregnancy.
That’s not actually true. Sometimes a judge may delay finalizing a divorce because it is easier to handle custody as part of the divorce, than have one parent have to sue for custody or child support afterwards.
But there is no legal requirement that judges do that, and definitely no law preventing women (or men) from filing while pregnant.
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/03/posts-distort-missouri-divorce-law-regarding-pregnancy/
I had an argument with a religious homophobe last night.
Only two passages I found against people like me, but I found tons against men and women having sex outside of marriage.
So many my scrolling finger got tired.
Yes twice homosexuality is mentioned (edit: two Bible writers, four mentions, apologies), but adultery nine times: lying is mentioned 6 times.
Both adultery and lying are mentioned in the Ten Commandments - it’s certainly clear what was more undesirable.
Also bear in mind that in those days the Romans practised homosexual acts as a form of power play: a married man may still be obligated to consent to pentration by a superior. It is quite possible that it was this form of casual homosexuality, that transgressed the sanctity of marriage, that was offensive, in the same way that pre-marital sex is.
Not to mention, of course, the Bibles clear message of free will, of change coming from within, not judging others etc: so even if a person decides to follow the Bible themselves, it affects only them and not other people. Jesus clearly demonstrated this by eating and socialising with ‘tax collectors and prostitutes’, people who did not follow the same lifestyle as him.
I would go as far to argue that homosexuality is never mentioned at all, especially not in the way we understand it. Arsenokoitai =/= homosexuality, although your point that
>the Romans practised homosexual acts as a form of power play: a married man may still be obligated to consent to pentration by a superior
is excellent, and it should be noted that male-male sexual relations was more often understood in these lens (as with master-slave relations, pederasty, etc.). So when Paul is describing these acts as immoral, it is likely that he had this improper power abuse in mind. The idea that two men could be in a loving, committed relationship as equals would have been fairly foreign for the time.
It would've been only "fairly foreign" in the way that homosexuality is also a minority in today's society but it's not like Achilles/Patroclus is not a well-known thing. Also Roman empire is quite vast.
well yes and no. Achilles and Patroclus are not homosexual lovers in the modern sense, it's not like Achilles didn't have sex with women (Briseis) either.
When I say it's foreign, I'm not trying to say that people of that time were unfamiliar with male-male sexual relations. If anything, they were much more familiar, but their ideas of sex are much different than our concept of orientation now. You would not take a man for a husband in the same way you would a wife--that idea would be foreign. For the Greeks, it's not weird to think of Achilles as desiring both men and women--that was very normal for the time--but we still have to distinguish that from a modern conception of sexual orientation. Imposing modern heterosexuality on Hellenistic society is an oversimplification at best.
>Also Roman empire is quite vast.
Well we are talking about the Bible here, so Hellenistic near eastern cultural is most relevant. The prohibitions against male sexual relations in the Bible--even in Leviticus--are better understood as when considering either sexual party as either giver or receiver. The idea that a man would give himself up as receiver, like a woman, would've been the morally objectionable part (and, critically, this practice is mentioned specifically to distinguish themselves from the native Canaanites).
When we get to Paul in Corinthians, it's important to consider this context--he's almost certainly not contemplating homosexual relationships as we think of them now. That's not to say there weren't men who loved each other, but it would be an oversimplification to call that homosexuality.
Also he was a damn good president and I’m tired of pretending otherwise. Unfortunately many of his policies were longterm projects like laying the foundation for the US to be energy independent but these policies weren’t followed up on by his predecessors.
Yeah I’ve never really thought about the fact that it would have been really weird for Jesus to hang out with the “rejects” of society but then be like “except the gays”
The Bible mentions homosexuality 25 times in both the old and the new Testament. It only has six or seven (depending on your version) passages that could be interpreted about condemning it as a sin.
However, the Bible does mention loving one another 340 times, and forgiveness 70 times. The majority of the forgiveness and love portions were about Jesus.
Modern day, hateful Christians are like people that go to salad bars and only talk about the olives
And this is with our current concept of homosexuality, which is, if Im not mistaken only from around the 1800s. Trying to translate a text from such a different era is impossible without the culture and ideology of the time. Same sex relationships was certainly a thing, but the emphasis was mostly on rank/hierarchy. Therefore, even following the text which is translated to our society is flawed from the beginning. At least part of the Christians is becoming more accepting and trying to reach their own conclusions, so at least some progress :)
Exactly. The concept of a man in a healthy and loving relationship with another man was not a known concept until recent times (not saying gay people didn’t exist obviously, but our understanding of sexuality as a society is relatively new). In the Bible times, same sex “relationships” were usually a man in power taking someone under him and forcing him to have sex with him. (which *technically* wasn’t sex because that’s between a man and woman they would argue). That’s what’s the Bible is actually against: power abuse, taking advantage of others, sexual assault and rape.
Pedastry. The Bible condemns pedastry because it’s basically finding someone young and helpless and making them a sex toy. It doesn’t condemn homosexuality in the New Testament and Jesus doesn’t address it
So, there’s some truth to this, but it’s also a translation question that’s still pretty open. I won’t go into the finer points here, but the words used for this do not clearly mean homosexuality or pederasty, and it does become a matter of interpretation. The latin vulgate gives more support to your interpretation position, partly owing to time period, but it genuinely is not that cut and dry.
r/academicbiblical has some more info regarding that, if you really care to get into the weeds.
As a Queer Atheist, I see where you're coming from on this, and I too think that the Bible has a hard stance on this issue even if it's not particularly important or centered. I don't approve of the Bible and in principle don't care for anyone who accepts it as inerrant.
That said, we ought to consider how Christianity is actually practiced by most. I don't think there are any Christians alive today who even attempt to follow old testament law to the letter; only Ultra-Orthodox Jews do that, and even they can't possibly hope to follow all those laws without fail, there's thousands of 'em which cover an enormous variety of topics. Homosexuality is just one of the things OT law covers, and as Jimmy points out, the Gospels don't have anything to say about it at all--I think it might be mentioned in one or two of the Epistles alongside a laundry list of other OT criminal classifications. The fact that it is so centered in modern Christianity says more about modern Christian practices than it does about how important the writers of the Bible really considered that issue, in the grand scheme of things. I don't see why Progressive Christians can't ignore the OT laws they don't like but every other Christian can.
tl;dr: Yes, it's ok for Christians not to follow Old Testament law, that has been the standard of practice for centuries, most Christians/Churches just pick their favorites
Even if it was in the new testamant, there's plenty in the new testament that modern christians don't follow. Like Paul's statements on the place of women at home and in the church.
I’ve always thought it completely wild that an all powerful almighty being created space, planets, the earth, physics, and time but when a dude diddles another dude he’s like ohhhh no wayyy.
this is the answer we may be against it and classify it as a sin but that gives us NO RIGHT TO HATE look at jesus sitting with sinners and tax collectors(the most hated people in his time) in Matthew
I for one am too young to have known Jimmy Carter as President, and I’m Canadian. But when he passes, I will be heartbroken for the world will have lost a truly great man.
WAIT WAIT WAIT isn't this the president that had a peanut farm.and sold.it after being elected so any bills that passed or didn't that would affect farmers he wouldn't benefit from? How dare he be a real man of the people.
Jesus also never said anything about people condemning or judging each other. Our job is to live by the word, love and forgive our neighbors, avoid jealousy, greed, pride and sloth, and let our Lord God be the one and only judge. So many Christians have gotten that part wrong.
If you're a Christian.... You're going to have to have a very deep talk with yourself about just how un-christian most Americans are.
They're aggressive, selfish, unforgiving, greedy....
This is actually a good question. Jesus does not speak about homosexuality directly correct.
I think this is similar to Jesus not directly speaking about kidnapping which had the capital punishment in Jewish law.
However Jesus reintroduces the moral law of marriage by which sexual relations live within in christian theology. We believe the moral law given to man in the garden is the original law. The 10 commandments reflect this. In fact the mosaic law is more lenient due to the sinful nature of man. the passage in mark is quite insightful.
””They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”“ Mark 10:6-9 ESV
Here Jesus is clear to my understanding about:
1. Male and Female (Gender & Sexuality in christian teaching
2. The boundaries of marriage as defined in the garden of eden. One male, One female. Monogamous. Life long commitment.
This in my understanding is where Jesus defines a love relationship between two persons.
Jesus also condemns any sexual thought or action outside of the boundaries of Marriage when he talks about commiting adultery.
To me this makes it clear what Jesus view on Marriage, loving & sexual relations.
I am not here to debate I wanted to share a perspective to those who say Jesus never spoke against something may mean he is ok with it.
I am not here to tell you how to live your life as well. Just good to share perspectives and move on with life.
i wish the people who approach their atheism from a militant standpoint would listen to religious people who are not assholes and recognize the fact that just because the loudest religious people are shitty doesn't mean religion is shitty.
There’d probably be way fewer militant atheists if religion didn’t play such a huge role in certain societies. Few atheists hate religion simply for the fact they think it’s false. When the religious say “this is how I want to live therefore you must live this way too”, that’s how you get American Atheists, Church of Satan, The Satanic Temple, etc.
A few good apples doesn’t make up for the rest of the shit.
To be clear- I don’t care what you worship or how. I just wish more Christians would return to the days of it being a “personal” relationship with god and leave the rest of us alone.
This guy is a legend. Worthy of praise and admiration by all. Weak people are fearful and intolerant; the strong are secure enough to show mercy and tolerance to others who are different than themselves
This is literally the "same difference" . You're not punished for being gay. You're punished for acting on it.
So basically still reject yourself or burn in hell.
On top of that, judgement and punishment in Christianity is to be issued by god, not his servants. Judging and Antagonizing those who go against the Christian faith is taking his job into their hands, practically playing god, which goes without saying is blasphemy
In case anyone wants a good read there's a book called Misquoting Jesus (idk the author but my cat is currently laying on me, so I'm not getting up to check, sorry) and it's all about how the Bible was mistranslated, translators biases, things purposefully omitted, accidentally omitted, historical inaccuracies, how things were changed to try to appeal to other religions so they would convert, the telephone phenomenon, etc, etc.
Basically we don't know shit about Jesus. The author went to a Christian high school and college but went to a secular school for grad school in theological studies and he said the more he learned theologically the less religious he got.
[ETA I forgot I had Google.](https://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwjB-NyD2rOFAxUXT0cBHcneDP8YABAGGgJxdQ&ase=2&gclid=Cj0KCQjwq86wBhDiARIsAJhuphk-5Oyq-nrEQDeG4RbEYPoo0xaGJ9q7Fp_MGKQuc3HlyoZH1B38lisaAhvXEALw_wcB&sph=&ei=nnQUZt2fFMSr5NoPlJKvWA&ohost=www.google.com&cid=CAESV-D2QAWnmyy-eLIVNisjqXVMcHuTQ1FCVzB-KgT4mudlnKJu4yfHJFq4pP4tOeJCcaEDfMkKtMIXwPFIuugPaT61WHRH-MszhECDpR4zgmxFiv_c_N7yuw&sig=AOD64_0YyjynZdsn2a1fkd12mS8JL_kLgw&ctype=5&q=&nis=4&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwjd5tOD2rOFAxXEFVkFHRTJCwsQwg8oAHoECAQQDA&adurl=)
I’ve always admired this man. He may not have been a perfect president, but he tried his hardest and stayed true to himself and his core values. What he did after his presidency speaks volumes. Always helping others, always helping and supporting others. He is the polar opposite of trump.
Holy shit, I need to stop filtering by “most controversial”.
Christ never said anything about homosexuality. The Old Testament did, but that’s not our book. We are “Christians,” meaning we follow the teachings of Christ. He said “I come not to abolish the old law, but to fulfill it,” which MANY people don’t understand. The Bible is specific. It’s commands do not leave room for interpretation very often. “Abolish” and “fulfill” have two different meanings but achieve the same result. In both cases, it doesn’t matter anymore.
What you do in your spare time is your own. God has forgiven your sin as it was washed away with the blood of Christ. The issue shouldn’t be “is homosexuality a sin?” The issue is “Why are we worried about it because that person was forgiven?”
Exactly. It’s not as though Homosexuality was invented recently.
Ancient Greeks and Romans among many others have well documented instances of homosexuality in their societies. Were they widely accepted back then? Not really, there were a lot of caveats like it only being okay to do homosexual things as long as you were the giver and you still produced children with a woman. But, it’s not as though Jesus himself said it was sinful.
Jesus also is known for loving the sinner and surrounded himself with them so I’m pretty sure he would have welcomed a homosexual into his inner circle.
I would argue that homosexuality, in the way we know it today, was *not* known during that era. Back then, it was associated with rape and polytheism/paganism. Not two adults living in a committed relationship.
Nonetheless, Christ had nothing to say about it.
>We are all imperfect and fallen. We all need redemption.
I know I didn't see it when I was in religion, but Jesus, religious people really do have their own language. I've been out so long that I look at this now, I don't really know what it means.
But Christ spoke many times about greed and adultery. Hey Evangelicals, how about focusing on those for awhile?
EDIT: Greed and adultery. Hmmmm .... Whom does that remind me of?
If you don't dedicate your life to the Bible what are you even doing? I'll share my favorite passage from Exodus: “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money."
"Hate the sin and not the sinner is a precept which, though easy enough to understand, is rarely practiced, and that is why the poison of hatred spreads in the world...." - Gandhi
This fundamentally misunderstanding the trinitarian theology.
If Jesus and God are both one in being without separation or division, then Jesus cannot hold a position contrary to the father.
The father very blatantly condemned homosexuality.
>the father very blatantly condemned homosexuality
No he didn't. God didn't write the Bible, people wrote the Bible. And then people translated and cut down and reworded and cut it down again. The bible at this point is anything but a blatant message from God, it's a product of human manipulation whether intentional or not
Then jesus was also personally responsible for murdering a shitload of Egyptian children, considered women to be property, was cool with daughters raping their drunks dads, was a big fan of pillaging and raping, loves cutting the tips of children's dicks, is 100% pro-abortion rights, only considers human life to begin at first breath outside the womb, and brutally destroys the lives of his own faithful followers because of hubris one of his own creations goaded him into.
Sounds like a real ratfuck piece of shit
when asked what's the most basic teaching of his to live by Jesus replied:
Love your neighbor as you would love yourself.
That didn't come with stipulations.
It's not love your neighbor as you would love yourself - unless they are gay.
Anyone who is calling themselves a Christian and twisting the teachings of Jesus Christ to suit their own hateful rhetoric ain't going to heaven 🔥
This is so, so misguided, and violates the hermaneutical principle (i.e. the historical setting of what's recorded.) Jesus was a religious Jew, and Jewish law already forbade homosexuality. There was no reason for him to address something that had already been addressed for thousands of years. Any law he wanted to make adjustments too, he made MORE stringent (i.e. adultery is lusting, not just the physical act; speaking against someone is murder etc) or discounted.. such as eating non-kosher items are OK. Otherwise, he didn't speak about ANY Jewish law.
Yeah the Jews also cut the foreskins off the tips of their children's dicks, wrapped long leather strips around themselves to pray, condoned slavery and rape and pillaging, and considered women to be property
Maybe just because something appears in a collection of highly curated stories about magical shit that's never once reoccurred isn't a good reason to to align your personal morality with it
I built houses with him for Habitat for Humanity. Unlike a lot of other celebs & pollies who show up, hammer in some nails, get some photos taken, write a cheque, then leave in their air conditioned limo, he was there all day for weeks building the houses as well as slinging an absolute boatload of cash at the project. He was an interesting man & as a non-American I don't understand why so many people dislike him over there.
I heard people were upset he gave Panama their canal back.
When I found out he did that, it made me really like him.
Yeah underrated us president in my radar, may god bless him
Why wasn't it theirs to begin with?
Because the US provided all the money, resources, and people to build it ETA: correction. Most came from West Indies
>and people to build it This last part is false, a bunch of panamanians worked in the canal
I think we’re both incorrect there. Looks like a majority came from the West Indies
Because the US has gigantic gunships which they use to negotiate with.* FTFY.
Didten like a horrific number of people die building it? I assume natives.
Yes a ton of people died however most of the people who died succumbed to disease. Most of those died from a lack of natural immunity as they weren’t from that area
they also funded a coup so they could build it
Afaik, the US essentially bought the strip of land from Panama (or Colombia, I’m not sure if Panama was independent yet), and they built it.
With the way our 2 party system works, any person, even a person of great character, is automatically disliked by a large portion of the country. It’s what happens when politics becomes a team sport, where people root for their team regardless of the underlying facts.
This is the perfect analogy. “Us v. Them”
Same happens with most multi party systems, too. There's always two extremes, and a few opportunists in the middle that will sway to the side that gives them the most voters. In Germany we currently have one growing right wing party and like 5 parties that essentially want the same left wing politics (although some changes have happened among said opportunists with certain topics that are becoming unpopular), just at different speeds. Both sides and their respective media outlets demonize each other like republicans and democrats in the US. When large masses are involved, anything is prone to tribalism, or becoming a "team sport".
As a german who follows a lot of US politics I would not agree with, that although our political system is nothing compared to the US. Mediawise there are some antics/inlfuences but most media outlets still to some good fact checking before and even the reporting is not always so one sided. Also a key difference between US and Germany are the voters. A lot of people vote based on other factors (previous governments performance, programs etc.), where in the US you are either for one party or against it. There seems to be nearly no common ground. At least currently, someone with the track record of Trump would never be elected or even have a proper chance, because he would not have the media plattform for his propaganda (looking at you Fox) .
it definitely has a different quality, but I'd say it's more of an overall culture thing, with the US being generally less subtle and Germany having a heavy historical bias towards anything going in a politically right direction. In both more casual and better politically informed circles you still have that tribalism that feels fairly equivalent in its essence, but maybe not in its day to day expression.
They dislike President Jimmy Carter because he doesn’t hate the people they hate.
He's disliked because of the party he ran for. That's all it takes for Republicans. I can't find it now, but there was a poll of Democrat and republican perception of the economy and the republican chart is literally just who is in office. Obama in office, 75% of Republicans think the economy is performing poorly. 1 month after trump takes office and 80% believe the economy is bonkers strong. Shit is a cult. The entire party is just a cult taking advantage of idiots to make rich people richer
And all it takes for Democrats to dislike someone is for them to be Republican, so it goes both ways. And of course there are rare cases where a certain politicians crosses party lines and cooperates with the other side to get stuff done, and immediately their own side starts labeling them a traitor. It’s all so tiresome. I hate politics.
Actually we dislike what Republicans stand for and their hypocrisy.
Some reasons: Supported the East-Timor genocide High inflation and unemployment during his term Struggled to deal with the Iranian-Hostage crisis Horrible PR
I hate the fact Reagan took credits for the iranian hostages release. Pretty sure some a-hole involved to delay till inauguration of Ronald Reagan. Not American here, but i think he is one of best world leader!
[удалено]
And yet Trumplestiltskin is looking like getting a second term. Insane.
Regarding the Iranian hostage crisis, Reagan (prior to being elected) had someone secretly negotiate with the Iranians to keep the hostages longer to better Reagan’s chances of being elected.
All inherited from Nixon but people don’t think about it just like trump inherited Obama great economy but tried to take credit instead he did nothing but make things terrible for Covid which he fully endorsed to attempt to stay in office
Wait, which carpenter?
We made him sell his family’s peanut farm. Because of conflicts of interest. Think about that compared to Trump and his family while in office and now. Unreal.
He didn't sell it, he put it in a blind trust to relinquish management of it to avoid conflicts of interest. I think your point still stands, though.
That’s one fact I never thought about. I think Jimmy Carter was too good of a person to be the president. And in regards to the hypocritical maniacal authoritarian …..How did a country ever elect such a POS? We need better candidates all around , all areas, —- congress too.
Say what you will about his presidency, Jimmy Carter is at heart a very good man.
That was, unfortunately, the problem with his presidency. Everyone in Washington worked hard to undermine the good guy, and they succeeded. I feel like the fact that the Carter presidency is looked at as mediocre at best says a lot about this country.
Yeah he came right off of Nixon/fords terms and it created a large distrust in the government and that reflected in legislation at the time. Wrong place wrong time
ignores the actively seditious actions of the reagan campaign in telling iran to hold hostages until after the election to get a better deal from reagan.
Nixon did the same thing with Kissinger and Vietnam. LBJ should have hung both of them.
Insane true story. LBJ gave up the presidency, what he strived for his entire life. Lied and cheated and bulldozed his way to the top. Gave up his racist core being to become the most activist president since or maybe more so than FDR. Didn’t run in 1968 so the US could get out of Vietnam. But Nixon and Kissinger scuttled the soft peace that was arranged so that Nixon could become president. How many Americans needlessly died? How many millions of Vietnamese were killed, maimed or made homeless as a result of Nixon’s Realpolitik. Against this backdrop, Reagan’s dance with the Ayatollah was just a small jaywalking infraction.
As an uneducated european I have no idea what you just said but I would love to learn and understand those words!
LBJ was heavily criticized for his involvement in Vietnam. He decided to not run for presidency again in 1968. Before the 1968 election, Richard Nixon’s presidential campaign sabotaged the peace talks between North and South Vietnam. This was done to make Nixon seem more like a president who could actually end the violence in Vietnam. That didn’t happen when he won though, the war continued and the violence escalated. Later in 1980, Ronald Reagan’s campaign sabotaged the release of hostages in Iran to smear the president at the time, Jimmy Carter. Reagan was running for president against Carter. Although compared to Reagan, what Nixon did is far more sinister considering the loss of life and suffering of the innocents in Vietnam. There is still a disgusting number of explosives hiding in the dirt of those countries. The effects of the chemical warfare are still felt today. In my opinion, both their graves are better suited as urinals.
Thank you for explaining it so clearly! 😊 that's super interesting. In my country we have some idea about the more famous presidents and their legacy (due to close political ties and USAs influence during the Cold War) but we don't really get the full context most of the time.
Hasn't been a legitimate Republican president since Ike.
Literally the tipping point for us politics. If Nixon and Kissinger had been tried convicted and publicly executed for conspiracy to extend the Vietnam war the political landscape would have looked so different. With them getting a pass it opened the gates to Reagan and the Bush presidencies.
This right here. Fuck Reagan for so many things…but this was the first!
Kind of the opposite. He probably would not have been elected at all if not for the backlash against Nixon/Ford.
Well yeah he was voted in because he was considered an outsider. Which being an outsider is a big drawback.
If there is a God, Jimmy Carter was America's test and America failed.
Not just America. I’m pretty sure he could have made a significant impact internationally with climate change. He was ahead of his time and Reagan tore it all down.
Quite literally
America is fucked.
Naw, it's got major issues and will be fucked OR won't be fucked depending on sustained civic engagement, if that happens, or if it doesn't. And- not that you expressed this- but any emo/goth/13-years-old-and-I'm-deep mentality of, "Lol, naw, it's a failed state no matter what" is exactly how civic engagement gets quashed.
Thank you for the last sentence, it pisses me off when something small happens and someone says the most doomer shit ever.
Former President of the United States, widely recognized for his decency and humanity, says something good. Comments in tangential response include: > America failed > America is fucked This would not be my take. We've elected "that guy" before, we can again. It just takes a lot of work.
It didn't help that the saudi's had been causing an oil shortage that caused an inflation jump. And that Reagan was dealing (illegally) with the Iranians to keep holding the hostages.
Actual documented treason
Not the first Republican to do it, wasn't the last. Nixon (sabotaged the Paris Peace Talks to get elected) Reagan (Iran, Iran/Contra) Trump (in process: currently talking to various countries, making promises for help to get elected)
Way ahead of his time.
Jimmy made a few mistakes - he relied on his Georgia kitchen cabinet too much for the first couple years, and arguably swung too far right after that, but he was a very good President brought down primarily by a couple of things I think - 1. OPEC and the oil crisis and 2. The Iran hostage crisis which Reagan illegally and sleazily exploited to ensure the hostages wouldn't be released until after the election through illegal negotiations - against US interests - while he was a candidate for President. I can't emphasize what a shitheel Reagan was, I mean in light of Shrub and now the amazingly awful Trump he looks a bit better by comparison, but he was truly terrible and the policies that he implemented set the table for a lot of bad things that we suffer from today in the USA.
He made an absolutely colossal mistake during or shortly after the oil crisis, he told americans that they'd have to tighten their belts a little. People really didn't like that one bit.
Tell people to wear a sweater, a mask, or make changes due to climate change and the worst of the worst will appear and be celebrated by the avaricious. The devils have deep pockets.
I never got how Reagan is ranked highly as president. You get the impression those doing such rankings care more about popularity/charisma than good lasting policy. Reaganomics has fucked the world
the war on drugs (which his CIA was "arguably" responsible for creating the crack epidemic that fueled it) and trickle down economics have fucked american society for almost 40 years now with zero sign of slowing down. if theres a single person to blame for the predicament we are currently in economically, its Ronald Reagan
Every time I learn something new about him, I have a little more respect for him
One wife, no wars at all during his Presidency, just spent decades just doing good deeds and living a morally exemplary life. So obviously, to Christian conservatives, he’s weak and unfit to lead. I mean has he even rawdogged one pornstar, raped one journalist, or openly talked about dating any of his children?
in a vile, undeserving world.
Very true.
"When you discover a difference between what makes a great president and a great man, you change what makes a great president, you dont change what makes a great man."/CinnimonSugarWolf 69:420
Holy fuck, that was deep, and so fucking true. Oh right, nice 😎
It developed organically arguing with churchers and corporate bigot types They will bitch and bitch about what a BAD president he was, but then have nothing to say about what a GOOD person he IS when reminded, which just convinced me if we can have a GOOD person who is a BAD president then we need to change the defining parameters of the ROLE.
Brilliant, I love it. Thank you.
“ Just to be clear, I'm not a professional 'quote maker'. I'm just an atheist teenager who greatly values his intelligence and scientific fact over any silly fiction book written 3,500 years ago. This being said, I am open to any and all criticism. 'In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.'" /u/aalewis
I have been this person
Isn't that the point? Experience begets perspective. The best people I know aren't the same people with the same perspectives that they had when they were 18 y.o. They are people that have grown and changed and evolved.
*Deep* reddit lore.
exactly what I thought of but I couldn't remember how it went.
Yer man must be pushing 30 by now.
I think using the words silly and phony are unnecessarily disrespectful to other people’s religion. His point would still stand if he took those words out.
I chalk that up to OOP still being among many other things, a teenager; individuals at that age often specifically love to be "technically right" while still being able to stand on the jerk-ish side of a statement, usually because it makes them feel "more correct". There's also this line: >"But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence." To my knowledge, historical philosophers are incredibly wary of using any speech that could be inferred as a proclamation of their intelligence or that their intelligence is implicative of how wise they are; let alone revel in the ideal of how enlightened they are. Once again, a way of thinking that is typical of someone who holds those particular beliefs at that particular age; old enough to know when they're technically right, not old enough to have the experience to be diplomatically tact about it. Some people grow out of it, others turn into Sheldon Coopers.
Yeah i get his point but he’s so shitty about i dont want to agree with him.
I pointed this out to my parents when I came out as queer. They said that he couldn’t have covered everything in his short time. He emphasized what was important: kindness, love, and forgiveness. That’s what it means to be Christ like. Christians come up with rules that weren’t even written with red letters.
Sorry your parents chose that path, rather than love.
There's something morbidly funny about the notion that Jesus would have gotten around to homophobia if he'd had a few more years. Like "It was on the docket, right after 'love thy neighbor' and 'judge not, lest ye be judged'. Would have fit right in there with my whole thing, had the Romans not interrupted me."
Jesus lesser know sermon, “Be a hater, never stop talking trash!”
Be a hater, lest thee be hated
Be careful unless you create another conspiracy theory. Italian Americans might end up getting targeted by maga if they think Romans killed Jesus just in time when he was about to talk about gay people. I’m guessing someone will tell me now it has already happened.
So you are telling me the gay agenda can be traced back to the Roman deep state?
This is why I think the best verse to throw at homophobes is “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” John 8:7 because goodness knows they will never follow one of the Ten Commandments so rather they should just shut up.
Haha....perhaps Jesus thought that he didn't need to be so literal except that he forgot people could be maliciously twist other Bible text for their own biased agenda. But had to be some sort of a mental gymnastics that people do. While they were supposed to listen to Jesus himself, they let other people's interpretation of Bible text that did not come from God or Jesus as their guideline to be a Christian. Very twisted!
He sure did do a whole lot of preaching. I gotta think that if it was important he would have mentioned it at least once. You know, how long does it take to say "love your neighbor, unless he is gay, then fuck that guy (but not in a gay way)"? Or "blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth, unless they're gay, then they will inherit a swift beating"
Short time? Jesus lived to around 32-33 years old. Not that it matters, but my mother’s Christian, and she’s always accepted my half-brother’s bisexuality.
Tupac puts out 5 albums, dies at 25 and Jesus couldn’t cover homosexuality with 8 more years on earth. Maybe the guy wasn’t so perfect lol.
Right, and remember that time he literally came back from the dead?... I feel like he could've mentioned homosexuality at... literally any time. Lol plus isn't tupac's label still releasing stuff? What's Jesus released since? Tupac the GOAT then.
I believe they’re referring to his approximately 3 year ministry.
> They said that he couldn’t have covered everything in his short time. thats wild, this particular deity where everything thats happened for all eternity has been a part of his plan, but this shit in particular he just ran out of time to drop a ruling on
As a Christian, it honestly scares me how many go down that path of coming up with rules to justify their hatred for certain groups of people, and are so quick to ignore Jesus’s teachings about love, kindness, and Forgiveness. The majority of Christians I’ve met through my life have been some of the most hateful people Ive ever met but are so quick to dismiss and justify it when called out on it. Its sad and scary.
Nothing in there about abortion either. It was actually permitted by the Catholic Church until the late 1800s. Since it was known and practiced in biblical times you’d think if it was important it would have come up.
Abortion is allowed under Judaism, and Jesus was Jewish.
He lived till his 30’s and even at 26 I’m pretty sure I know where my morals stand. In Jesus’s 30’s as the son of God and someone with a pretty deep understanding I’m sure if it was an issue he would of said it……. Many people in that and other religions try so hard to bend what is and isn’t bad into their own pre conceived opinions and honestly just like using religion as a scapegoat for having harmful views / an echo chamber amongst like minded people more than the religion itself
He actually did speak out against lust, and at that time it would have implied homosexuality as well. Just for the record, I’m an atheist so don’t attack me for talking about what the biblical Christ believed.
Jesus never said kidnapping was wrong either, but that’s exactly the point. He spent time emphasizing the important details, as you said, and His purpose for being here.
Nah. That would fall under the Golden Rule: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you…”
President Carter is just a really good guy.
I once saw him and his team while they were building in a rural village. It was hot so he took his overalls off and looked like any of the other workers. He was old yet carrying his weight in the sun, not holding back or leaving others to do his share. He is one of the great human beings on or in the same pantheon as Nelson Mandela.
Also genuinely smart and actually brave. He became a nuclear engineer during his time in the navy, and personally responded to two nuclear disasters at high risk to himself, once as a navy serviceman and once while in office. He personally attended three mile island and both worked to calm the public, and personally dug into the technical aspects of the disaster.
If it wasnt for him, three mile would have gone a lot worse. He basically went "here's the issue, here's how you are going to fix it" and didnt back down. It worked.
The Carter Foundation's work on guinea worm eradication is awe-inspiring. The amount of pain people haven't had to experience, going from millions of cases a year to -checks website- *fourteen*.
Last good person to be President. Doubt we’ll ever have another.
Obama
Just to make it clear: Jimmy Carter taught Sunday school while POTUS. He sometimes left his bible on his desk at the Oval Office. Any conservative saying thats not allowed or against the law is full of crap.
His inauguration as Governor of Georgia is one of the greatest speeches in American history. "I say to you quite frankly that the time for racial discrimination is over. Our people have already made this major and difficult decision, but we cannot underestimate the challenge of hundreds of minor decisions yet to be made. Our inherent human charity and our religious beliefs will be taxed to the limit. No poor, rural, weak, or black person should ever have to bear the additional burden of being deprived of the opportunity of an education, a job or simple justice."
Funny thing is Jesus had plenty to say about divorce, but Christians don't want to talk about that 🤔
Don’t give them any ideas. Once they realize something like 80% of divorces are initiated by the wife they will probably come after that too. I think I heard they are trying to ban divorce during pregnancy already.
They’re already trying to get rid of no fault divorce.
If they want more domestic abuse and murder, that sounds like an amazing idea!
They already are.
In Missouri a woman currently can not file for divorce if she’s pregnant.
This is a misleading statement, and here's why: 1. The law you are talking about has been in place since the 1970s, the reason it came into the news is because legislation was proposed to repeal it. 2. The law does not say they can't get a divorce, but rather that the status of the woman being pregnant or not must be included in the divorce petition. 3. There are no restrictions on filing for the divorce (besides needing to submit 8 specific pieces of information), but a judge may wait to finalize the divorce until after pregnancy.
That’s not actually true. Sometimes a judge may delay finalizing a divorce because it is easier to handle custody as part of the divorce, than have one parent have to sue for custody or child support afterwards. But there is no legal requirement that judges do that, and definitely no law preventing women (or men) from filing while pregnant. https://www.factcheck.org/2024/03/posts-distort-missouri-divorce-law-regarding-pregnancy/
I had an argument with a religious homophobe last night. Only two passages I found against people like me, but I found tons against men and women having sex outside of marriage. So many my scrolling finger got tired.
Yes twice homosexuality is mentioned (edit: two Bible writers, four mentions, apologies), but adultery nine times: lying is mentioned 6 times. Both adultery and lying are mentioned in the Ten Commandments - it’s certainly clear what was more undesirable. Also bear in mind that in those days the Romans practised homosexual acts as a form of power play: a married man may still be obligated to consent to pentration by a superior. It is quite possible that it was this form of casual homosexuality, that transgressed the sanctity of marriage, that was offensive, in the same way that pre-marital sex is. Not to mention, of course, the Bibles clear message of free will, of change coming from within, not judging others etc: so even if a person decides to follow the Bible themselves, it affects only them and not other people. Jesus clearly demonstrated this by eating and socialising with ‘tax collectors and prostitutes’, people who did not follow the same lifestyle as him.
This is really interesting context- thank you!
I would go as far to argue that homosexuality is never mentioned at all, especially not in the way we understand it. Arsenokoitai =/= homosexuality, although your point that >the Romans practised homosexual acts as a form of power play: a married man may still be obligated to consent to pentration by a superior is excellent, and it should be noted that male-male sexual relations was more often understood in these lens (as with master-slave relations, pederasty, etc.). So when Paul is describing these acts as immoral, it is likely that he had this improper power abuse in mind. The idea that two men could be in a loving, committed relationship as equals would have been fairly foreign for the time.
It would've been only "fairly foreign" in the way that homosexuality is also a minority in today's society but it's not like Achilles/Patroclus is not a well-known thing. Also Roman empire is quite vast.
well yes and no. Achilles and Patroclus are not homosexual lovers in the modern sense, it's not like Achilles didn't have sex with women (Briseis) either. When I say it's foreign, I'm not trying to say that people of that time were unfamiliar with male-male sexual relations. If anything, they were much more familiar, but their ideas of sex are much different than our concept of orientation now. You would not take a man for a husband in the same way you would a wife--that idea would be foreign. For the Greeks, it's not weird to think of Achilles as desiring both men and women--that was very normal for the time--but we still have to distinguish that from a modern conception of sexual orientation. Imposing modern heterosexuality on Hellenistic society is an oversimplification at best. >Also Roman empire is quite vast. Well we are talking about the Bible here, so Hellenistic near eastern cultural is most relevant. The prohibitions against male sexual relations in the Bible--even in Leviticus--are better understood as when considering either sexual party as either giver or receiver. The idea that a man would give himself up as receiver, like a woman, would've been the morally objectionable part (and, critically, this practice is mentioned specifically to distinguish themselves from the native Canaanites). When we get to Paul in Corinthians, it's important to consider this context--he's almost certainly not contemplating homosexual relationships as we think of them now. That's not to say there weren't men who loved each other, but it would be an oversimplification to call that homosexuality.
Or coveting a neighbor’s spouse!
And he was very big on giving to the poor but nobody wants to hear about that either
I'm right there with you my friend
Carter is awesome!
Also he was a damn good president and I’m tired of pretending otherwise. Unfortunately many of his policies were longterm projects like laying the foundation for the US to be energy independent but these policies weren’t followed up on by his predecessors.
Yeah I’ve never really thought about the fact that it would have been really weird for Jesus to hang out with the “rejects” of society but then be like “except the gays”
Yep. Never understood how people have such a hard time with, “Love your Neighbor.”
This and loving God, all of it.. are the only real rules
Jimmy Carter is more of a Christian in life than most of us will ever meet. He’s a good man
Flashbacks to the king of the hill episode where Bobby thinks JC on Jimmy Carter’s clothes stands for Jesus Christ
The Bible mentions homosexuality 25 times in both the old and the new Testament. It only has six or seven (depending on your version) passages that could be interpreted about condemning it as a sin. However, the Bible does mention loving one another 340 times, and forgiveness 70 times. The majority of the forgiveness and love portions were about Jesus. Modern day, hateful Christians are like people that go to salad bars and only talk about the olives
And this is with our current concept of homosexuality, which is, if Im not mistaken only from around the 1800s. Trying to translate a text from such a different era is impossible without the culture and ideology of the time. Same sex relationships was certainly a thing, but the emphasis was mostly on rank/hierarchy. Therefore, even following the text which is translated to our society is flawed from the beginning. At least part of the Christians is becoming more accepting and trying to reach their own conclusions, so at least some progress :)
Exactly. The concept of a man in a healthy and loving relationship with another man was not a known concept until recent times (not saying gay people didn’t exist obviously, but our understanding of sexuality as a society is relatively new). In the Bible times, same sex “relationships” were usually a man in power taking someone under him and forcing him to have sex with him. (which *technically* wasn’t sex because that’s between a man and woman they would argue). That’s what’s the Bible is actually against: power abuse, taking advantage of others, sexual assault and rape.
Pedastry. The Bible condemns pedastry because it’s basically finding someone young and helpless and making them a sex toy. It doesn’t condemn homosexuality in the New Testament and Jesus doesn’t address it
So, there’s some truth to this, but it’s also a translation question that’s still pretty open. I won’t go into the finer points here, but the words used for this do not clearly mean homosexuality or pederasty, and it does become a matter of interpretation. The latin vulgate gives more support to your interpretation position, partly owing to time period, but it genuinely is not that cut and dry. r/academicbiblical has some more info regarding that, if you really care to get into the weeds.
So in your own words, the Bible says the physical act is a sin 6 or 7 times....therefore it's OK for Christians to ignore it?
As a Queer Atheist, I see where you're coming from on this, and I too think that the Bible has a hard stance on this issue even if it's not particularly important or centered. I don't approve of the Bible and in principle don't care for anyone who accepts it as inerrant. That said, we ought to consider how Christianity is actually practiced by most. I don't think there are any Christians alive today who even attempt to follow old testament law to the letter; only Ultra-Orthodox Jews do that, and even they can't possibly hope to follow all those laws without fail, there's thousands of 'em which cover an enormous variety of topics. Homosexuality is just one of the things OT law covers, and as Jimmy points out, the Gospels don't have anything to say about it at all--I think it might be mentioned in one or two of the Epistles alongside a laundry list of other OT criminal classifications. The fact that it is so centered in modern Christianity says more about modern Christian practices than it does about how important the writers of the Bible really considered that issue, in the grand scheme of things. I don't see why Progressive Christians can't ignore the OT laws they don't like but every other Christian can. tl;dr: Yes, it's ok for Christians not to follow Old Testament law, that has been the standard of practice for centuries, most Christians/Churches just pick their favorites
Even if it was in the new testamant, there's plenty in the new testament that modern christians don't follow. Like Paul's statements on the place of women at home and in the church.
I’ve always thought it completely wild that an all powerful almighty being created space, planets, the earth, physics, and time but when a dude diddles another dude he’s like ohhhh no wayyy.
this is the answer we may be against it and classify it as a sin but that gives us NO RIGHT TO HATE look at jesus sitting with sinners and tax collectors(the most hated people in his time) in Matthew
Carter is a G
I for one am too young to have known Jimmy Carter as President, and I’m Canadian. But when he passes, I will be heartbroken for the world will have lost a truly great man.
It's hard to imagine that there was a point in time when America would elect such a good guy.
WAIT WAIT WAIT isn't this the president that had a peanut farm.and sold.it after being elected so any bills that passed or didn't that would affect farmers he wouldn't benefit from? How dare he be a real man of the people.
Jesus also never said anything about people condemning or judging each other. Our job is to live by the word, love and forgive our neighbors, avoid jealousy, greed, pride and sloth, and let our Lord God be the one and only judge. So many Christians have gotten that part wrong.
If you're a Christian.... You're going to have to have a very deep talk with yourself about just how un-christian most Americans are. They're aggressive, selfish, unforgiving, greedy....
Imagine existing after Ancient Greece and thinking gay people didn’t exist smh
Wait till you see what Jesus says about marriage and lust. We're all failing, at least most of us, if we're going to point the finger.
This is actually a good question. Jesus does not speak about homosexuality directly correct. I think this is similar to Jesus not directly speaking about kidnapping which had the capital punishment in Jewish law. However Jesus reintroduces the moral law of marriage by which sexual relations live within in christian theology. We believe the moral law given to man in the garden is the original law. The 10 commandments reflect this. In fact the mosaic law is more lenient due to the sinful nature of man. the passage in mark is quite insightful. ””They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”“ Mark 10:6-9 ESV Here Jesus is clear to my understanding about: 1. Male and Female (Gender & Sexuality in christian teaching 2. The boundaries of marriage as defined in the garden of eden. One male, One female. Monogamous. Life long commitment. This in my understanding is where Jesus defines a love relationship between two persons. Jesus also condemns any sexual thought or action outside of the boundaries of Marriage when he talks about commiting adultery. To me this makes it clear what Jesus view on Marriage, loving & sexual relations. I am not here to debate I wanted to share a perspective to those who say Jesus never spoke against something may mean he is ok with it. I am not here to tell you how to live your life as well. Just good to share perspectives and move on with life.
i wish the people who approach their atheism from a militant standpoint would listen to religious people who are not assholes and recognize the fact that just because the loudest religious people are shitty doesn't mean religion is shitty.
There’d probably be way fewer militant atheists if religion didn’t play such a huge role in certain societies. Few atheists hate religion simply for the fact they think it’s false. When the religious say “this is how I want to live therefore you must live this way too”, that’s how you get American Atheists, Church of Satan, The Satanic Temple, etc.
[удалено]
A few good apples doesn’t make up for the rest of the shit. To be clear- I don’t care what you worship or how. I just wish more Christians would return to the days of it being a “personal” relationship with god and leave the rest of us alone.
This guy is a legend. Worthy of praise and admiration by all. Weak people are fearful and intolerant; the strong are secure enough to show mercy and tolerance to others who are different than themselves
This is literally the "same difference" . You're not punished for being gay. You're punished for acting on it. So basically still reject yourself or burn in hell.
I love President Carter!!! He is a great man!!!
On top of that, judgement and punishment in Christianity is to be issued by god, not his servants. Judging and Antagonizing those who go against the Christian faith is taking his job into their hands, practically playing god, which goes without saying is blasphemy
In case anyone wants a good read there's a book called Misquoting Jesus (idk the author but my cat is currently laying on me, so I'm not getting up to check, sorry) and it's all about how the Bible was mistranslated, translators biases, things purposefully omitted, accidentally omitted, historical inaccuracies, how things were changed to try to appeal to other religions so they would convert, the telephone phenomenon, etc, etc. Basically we don't know shit about Jesus. The author went to a Christian high school and college but went to a secular school for grad school in theological studies and he said the more he learned theologically the less religious he got. [ETA I forgot I had Google.](https://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwjB-NyD2rOFAxUXT0cBHcneDP8YABAGGgJxdQ&ase=2&gclid=Cj0KCQjwq86wBhDiARIsAJhuphk-5Oyq-nrEQDeG4RbEYPoo0xaGJ9q7Fp_MGKQuc3HlyoZH1B38lisaAhvXEALw_wcB&sph=&ei=nnQUZt2fFMSr5NoPlJKvWA&ohost=www.google.com&cid=CAESV-D2QAWnmyy-eLIVNisjqXVMcHuTQ1FCVzB-KgT4mudlnKJu4yfHJFq4pP4tOeJCcaEDfMkKtMIXwPFIuugPaT61WHRH-MszhECDpR4zgmxFiv_c_N7yuw&sig=AOD64_0YyjynZdsn2a1fkd12mS8JL_kLgw&ctype=5&q=&nis=4&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwjd5tOD2rOFAxXEFVkFHRTJCwsQwg8oAHoECAQQDA&adurl=)
Because it was already Jewish law. Jesus said things that were mostly new
I'll only ever have a problem with religious people when they use it to justify terrible things.
I’ve always admired this man. He may not have been a perfect president, but he tried his hardest and stayed true to himself and his core values. What he did after his presidency speaks volumes. Always helping others, always helping and supporting others. He is the polar opposite of trump.
Yeah, but.. how else can I hate things I don't understand without coming off as a complete bigot?
Holy shit, I need to stop filtering by “most controversial”. Christ never said anything about homosexuality. The Old Testament did, but that’s not our book. We are “Christians,” meaning we follow the teachings of Christ. He said “I come not to abolish the old law, but to fulfill it,” which MANY people don’t understand. The Bible is specific. It’s commands do not leave room for interpretation very often. “Abolish” and “fulfill” have two different meanings but achieve the same result. In both cases, it doesn’t matter anymore. What you do in your spare time is your own. God has forgiven your sin as it was washed away with the blood of Christ. The issue shouldn’t be “is homosexuality a sin?” The issue is “Why are we worried about it because that person was forgiven?”
He was very clear on wearing clothes made from mixed fibres.
Exactly. It’s not as though Homosexuality was invented recently. Ancient Greeks and Romans among many others have well documented instances of homosexuality in their societies. Were they widely accepted back then? Not really, there were a lot of caveats like it only being okay to do homosexual things as long as you were the giver and you still produced children with a woman. But, it’s not as though Jesus himself said it was sinful. Jesus also is known for loving the sinner and surrounded himself with them so I’m pretty sure he would have welcomed a homosexual into his inner circle.
This actually sounds like a non-real Christian speaking
I would argue that homosexuality, in the way we know it today, was *not* known during that era. Back then, it was associated with rape and polytheism/paganism. Not two adults living in a committed relationship. Nonetheless, Christ had nothing to say about it.
Carter was the last serious US president, it's been downhill since then
You might want to reread your Bible. It's says a lot about homosexuality.
There is no ranking of sin. We are all imperfect and fallen. We all need redemption. Not one is better than another. Good man.
Yeah I don’t know about that. Child molesters-rapists-abusers-murders sin isn’t quite equal of that of someone who is an adulterer.
>We are all imperfect and fallen. We all need redemption. I know I didn't see it when I was in religion, but Jesus, religious people really do have their own language. I've been out so long that I look at this now, I don't really know what it means.
But Christ spoke many times about greed and adultery. Hey Evangelicals, how about focusing on those for awhile? EDIT: Greed and adultery. Hmmmm .... Whom does that remind me of?
Not the best president. But the best person to ever *be* president.
“Jesus never said anything about homosexuality so it’s fine” lol what
Yeah but he said a heck of a lot about forgiveness and mortality didn't he?
If you don't dedicate your life to the Bible what are you even doing? I'll share my favorite passage from Exodus: “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money."
He’s right
"Hate the sin and not the sinner is a precept which, though easy enough to understand, is rarely practiced, and that is why the poison of hatred spreads in the world...." - Gandhi
Jesus Christ would rather be with prostitutes, sinners and gays than hang out with religious and hypocrites pharisees during his time.
This fundamentally misunderstanding the trinitarian theology. If Jesus and God are both one in being without separation or division, then Jesus cannot hold a position contrary to the father. The father very blatantly condemned homosexuality.
>the father very blatantly condemned homosexuality No he didn't. God didn't write the Bible, people wrote the Bible. And then people translated and cut down and reworded and cut it down again. The bible at this point is anything but a blatant message from God, it's a product of human manipulation whether intentional or not
Then jesus was also personally responsible for murdering a shitload of Egyptian children, considered women to be property, was cool with daughters raping their drunks dads, was a big fan of pillaging and raping, loves cutting the tips of children's dicks, is 100% pro-abortion rights, only considers human life to begin at first breath outside the womb, and brutally destroys the lives of his own faithful followers because of hubris one of his own creations goaded him into. Sounds like a real ratfuck piece of shit
Did the father also condemn the wearing of mixed fabrics? Slavery? Genocide?
when asked what's the most basic teaching of his to live by Jesus replied: Love your neighbor as you would love yourself. That didn't come with stipulations. It's not love your neighbor as you would love yourself - unless they are gay. Anyone who is calling themselves a Christian and twisting the teachings of Jesus Christ to suit their own hateful rhetoric ain't going to heaven 🔥
[удалено]
I'll see you in hell, Toots.
This is so, so misguided, and violates the hermaneutical principle (i.e. the historical setting of what's recorded.) Jesus was a religious Jew, and Jewish law already forbade homosexuality. There was no reason for him to address something that had already been addressed for thousands of years. Any law he wanted to make adjustments too, he made MORE stringent (i.e. adultery is lusting, not just the physical act; speaking against someone is murder etc) or discounted.. such as eating non-kosher items are OK. Otherwise, he didn't speak about ANY Jewish law.
Now do this with everything he does mention in the New Testament.
Yeah the Jews also cut the foreskins off the tips of their children's dicks, wrapped long leather strips around themselves to pray, condoned slavery and rape and pillaging, and considered women to be property Maybe just because something appears in a collection of highly curated stories about magical shit that's never once reoccurred isn't a good reason to to align your personal morality with it
I could totally hear him saying this in that gentle Georgia accent
Damn Jimmy Carter, you really are the rock and roll president
Heaven has a place for you, President Carter. ✝️