hendrik

Yeah, I'd say the humanist perspective can't be wrong. I personally think we should add some Rationalist arguments and especially something like ideas from Effective Altruism. Wanting to convince someone on the internet of your perspective regularly has little effect on the world (in itself). And all the yelling really makes my head hurt. Some of it leads to people digging even deeper trenches and they spend all their day focused on some weird rigid ideas and details as if that was the issue. And that's the predominant way of talking about the subject.

It's not. The issue is that people suffer and die. And that needs to stop. And we need to find a way to address it.

I'd expect you to become subject to wrong decisions by moderators. Because they deal with agitated people all day and they're likely biased into thinking you're just another one of the dozens of people they deal with each day.

And there is a lot of confusion and accusations. I've been on the receiving end of that as well. Though I rarely engage in the discussion. I welcome the effort to use reason, though. And do something to stop all the yelling and start going somewhere. It's not easy. And all the things are connected.

I think the main issue is that the Bible isn't concise enough for a supposed divine book. It rarely tells me useful things and what to do in my modern life in the big city. Instead it has a lot of passages about camels, living in the bronze age and so on. And I think that's because of what it is. Written by humans, a long time ago, shaped by their perspective. If God had wanted it to contain absolute truth, he shouldn't just have appointed them to write it, but handed out some absolute truth.

And I can see how we can interpret all kinds of things into it. We definitely have the "Christians" who focus on hate. Who run around with these "God hates fags" signs and they find all kinda of things to make other people's life miserable. We have several variants of Christianity and they disagree on many details. We had things from the Spanish Inquisition to today's more liberal times. All based on pretty much the same text. And why is that? Are 99% of people throughout history, and the other variants of current Christians all just wrong and on the wrong path and I'm the only one understanding it correctly? Or who is? Because I really need to know if I'm expected to follow it.

I think it's because Christians do in fact base their morals not just on straightforward literal bible verses. That's why they genuinely and wholeheartedly held different beliefs in the middle ages. That's why they're able to adopt to societal progress. We don't just make women's life miserable any more. They got the right to vote and they're supposed to have equal opportunities now. We even allow them to become teachers. And that's pretty much in direct violation of the bible. Yet I have some friends who are teachers, some even for religion. And the protestant church here even has a male and a female priest and she doesn't view her role as to stay quiet and bear childs. The catholic church which I've grown up in thinks that's not how it's done and they don't appoint females. (Plus she has some formal education on scripture and the inner workings of the Church, so I trust she knows more about it than I do.)

Point being: Women's rights are not an achievement of the church. They didn't sit down, have a covenant or concile and then changed the world to be more open towards women... It's the other way around. Society made progress, and it was a long hard fight. And people adopted.

I think it's basically the same thing with the stands towards LGBTQ+ people.

And we have a few other issues in the catholic church, like Maria 2.0. And the vatican's long held ideas towards contraceptives which are highly problematic because it contributes to spreading HIV.

I have little issues with you and your personal belief system. The issue is that we're all part of the same world and it has quite some impact. And the church still has a big influence. They employ some of my friends, they run entire hospitals and more, several big charities... They shape society. And I'm everything but indifferent towards that. And I don't view myself as an outsider, because I'm living amongst Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics and all sorts of people. We're really one because we share the place we live in. And it matters what we do, both individually and collectively.

I have a problem with people who say scripture has to be taken literally. None of the people I talked with, even with ranks in the Church or a formal education in scripture, has ever told me that, and that's all there is to it. I know such people exist, though. It's not the way I learned it. They gave me the text, but also added context, historical context and told me how we're fitted with a brain with the capability to reason, to understand meaning, and I need to use it. And that got me to where I am.

Luckily the community around me mostly shares what I recognize in your comments as well. How "The gospel" means "good news" and that's the central point of how you're supposed to practice it.

Edit: And to add some conclusion: I sincerely think all the laws governing sexuality, like outlawing anal sex, or teaching how the death sentence is appropriate for coitus interruptus (contraception) are the way of the Old Testament. It's in the spirit that humans are meant to suffer for sins, not enjoy life. And that has been replaced by the "good news" part and the new covenant.

I mean what do you think? Do you think intimacy being enjoyable is God's crude way to punish us, or is there more to it after Jesus? Do I deep-clean the couch and break all the pottery and not sit down in my own home for half a month each month or do you think the invention of the washing machine and sanitary products changed how we deal with female biology? And what's with the female priest in the protestant church here? I've listened to her speak in the church and she views that as her job. I don't even have to revert to the Old Testament to judge. Paul has a very clear stance on that. What's correct in your eyes? Because I think this is very similar to what we're talking about. And answers to these questions could help me understand how archaic cleanliness rules apply to modern times, and how more liberal approaches in society translate to scripture.

No, I'm not a Christian. I'm sorry, now I think I should have lead with that, or not failed to recognize you were under the assumption I was... I have such an upbringing, I've been part of the church. But I myself don't have the belief in me, that what's in the Bible are factual truths. Still, that doesn't stop me from being interested in Jesus, his life and teachings. And to some degree the scripture itself.

And thanks for the good conversation and your perspective. I learned a lot of things. And I looked some up. My intention was basically that, not proclaim you were wrong. That'd be very hypocritical if I were to try to prove you wrong on the basis of scripture, which I don't even have as the basis for my own morals. I still think these things matter, though. And I follow how the catholic (and protestant) church around me has started blessing same sex couples, they have campaigns now for plurality and welcome such people amongst themselves. And the attached youth organizations sometimes take part in rainbow events like pride month. At least where I live. And from what I get from our conversation, we're likely on the same page here, when I say I welcome that and I think it's a "good" advancement the church made. (It wasn't always like this.)

I think with "the act" itself, we can't settle our differences. I think the entire limitation of sex to procreation isn't right, and I don't base that on scripture. You gave me quite some insight about your perspective, and I still struggle with the translation and the context it is in and its interpretation, but I think I have at least some understanding now.

Yeah. And I think it's far from ideal that everyone is yelling at each other on the internet. We have to remember that we're talking about actual people dying, often in horrible ways. And we should actually do something about it. Empty armchair activism or misinformation or just instrumentalizing them so we can have a nice fight on the internet isn't very ethical. Also doesn't do these people any good, it mainly leads to more hatred in the world.

I think that's fine. At least from the "dump" perspective, because you're not just dumping something but tend to what you post. And you're part of the conversation so you add something of substance there.

God cannot be evil.

Yes, I'm wrong here. I think it's a bit of a technicality. He created evil (Isiah 45:7) and no matter if he commits the same thing as evil, per definition that never makes him be evil.

What about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, or the many miracles He performed?

I think it's a metaphor. And not even the most important one (to me). I think the important part is that he died for us. And then they added some more fluff to the story. It really brings it home and sets him apart as the messiah if there's an added resurrection. And well, I think performing miracles was quite common for prophets back then and paranormal things happened often. Muhammad also performed many miracles including similar ones like providing supernatural food. Various other people did supernatural acts. And people split the sea and did all kinds of things in the Old Testament.

I'm still very unconvinced about the entire homosexuality thing. I mean the Romans text is kind of the God of the Old Testament, needy for valudation and full of wrath. And then he was pissed and gave humans sexual desires contrary to nature. And that and the "shameless acts" are a bit unclear. Whatever that is supposed to mean if I'm not allowed to interpret it. I'd say men loving each other in a genuine way surely can't be that, there's no shame or harm in that.
The Corinthian thing is more it. Still needs context though, since it requires knowledge about sex practices back then and what has been considered immoral by society back then, because it mostly refers to that. And then we have the translation in the way.

My big issue, if that's not concerned with pederasty... What part of the New Testament is? Or is age just not the problematic part of it, ...that'd be completely fine to do for Christians..., just the same gender needs clarification?

Puh. Ich hoffe ein kalter Schauer, weil das wäre mal eine Abwechslung zu dem was mein Rücken gerade tut.

You aren't in any position to condemn the inspired word of God.

If it promotes adult men sleeping with underage boys, or is indecisive about it, I'll just refuse that kind of "inspiration". I think it's immoral. God can strike me down for that if he likes, and if he's in a position to do that, still doesn't change my mind about the subject.

The "although" I placed there was because [...]

Yes, you were talking about something else. People just tend to lose me when talking about God's unconditional love and then following the sentence up with a "but" or "although". I think we agree here. I have reason to believe the New Testament is about unconditional love. And that's reflected at many places in it. Most people add a "but", or "although", an we're immediately in dangerous territory. And the people calling themselves Christians and waving signs with "God hates fags" didn't understand the core of that the New Testament stands for. They're simply wrong. But that's not what you said.

In the old times God was kind of evil. He send plagues, told people to kill each other including all women and children, just the young girls are okay to keep. Nonchalantly drowned pretty much all animals which were pretty much innocent in mankinds wrongdoings. Or he casually dropped them on their heads. It's not like that any more for Christians. That's replaced by Gods unconditional love for his children. And the way of Jesus isn't to blame them and lecture them on how they're wrong all the time. But specifically omit that and show them just(!) the love, and that gets them where they need to be. So that's why I think we should never follow up such sentences with a "but". (And you lost me, which was due to me.)

Are you talking about the plagues of Moses? If that's the case, then what do you propose happened?

I propose it's part of the supposed origin story of a tribe. And the hardships they had to endure. I have no reason to believe superstitious things happen and physics can be contradicted. Plague of locusts exist and all kind of other things. But not random frog droppings in the way portrayed there.

Btw that's also the source for the (6000 years) young earth theory, because as part of the origin story, it includes a family tree and you can add the numbers up.

You are drawing a huge and dangerous brush over here. [...] It is obvious then that stuff like that is up for interpretation. But then when you get to Paul's epistles [...]

I think my main issue is that I completely fail to understand how I'm supposed to know which is open up to interpretation and what's meant to be taken literally. Am I supposed to use reason and my deductive skills here? But that's kind of interpretation again. So I can't do that. And to my knowledge the Bible doesn't really come with an instruction manual what's true and what's over exaggerated or just a nice (but false) story. Or do I just take what some other human said as word for it?

why do you grant homosexuality an exception?

I tried to explain that before. Because it's not there. The text doesn't use the word homosexuality, but "Arsenokoitai". And the passages regularly add constraining adjectives. Which just isn't the case for adultery. The translation is way more forward for that one. And we have more occurrences in the Bible which make it very clear that that one isn't just meant within a certain context, or comes with exceptions. Also Jesus talks about other important issues himself, but for homosexuality that's all in parts added by other people. So that's why I treat that differently.

I mean we have a bit more of an issue here. I started with "depends on whether you ask the church or Jesus". So I'm not really bothered by what Paul thought or wrote down, or covenant theology tells me. If homosexuality were to be important to Jesus, I'd expect it to show up in the Sermon of the Mount or something, and him clearly addressing that big issue. Or I'd like to read some nice parable on how he went to the gay club. But curiously enough, these passages don't exist.

[...] Arsenokoitai

Yeah, I read some 3 page essay on how that word was used. I know "every reputable translation of the Bible translates it along those lines" but that doesn't make it correct to translate it to a different word in and view it from a different perspective / a different context 2000 years later. I think it's ambiguous at best. And skipping the 3 pages and making it about todays homosexuals is an oversimplicifaction and simply wrong.

[...] Eisegesis, not Exegesis

I'm not that educated on church doctrine, but do we even have access to exegesis? I mean sure technically the scripture is the meaning by definition. But isn't what Paul writes already something like eisegesis? I mean he's a human and he interpreted and spread the teachings for us.

no evidence in the text anywhere that it could be indicating pederasty

Well, I think pederasty is very wrong. If that part of the Bible fails to recognize or even mention that, I condemn the scripture for that.

Romans 1:26-27

Again, that's Paul's summary of Hellenistic legalism. That's the entire context of that part of Romans.

Trying to claim that Jesus fits in any secular political viewpoint (leftism, conservatism) is a very shallow view and completely incorrect.

I know. The entire left/right spectrum is completely incorrect. But I gave some examples of what kind of person Jesus was and if he advocated for the people and the weak, or for the strong ones and the establishment. He happens to have quite some overlap there with core leftist ideology.

you'd have dinner with the adulterers [...]

And I think here, you're absolutely right. Although [...]

There is no "although". He clearly left out picking on their "sinful state" the way the other people did. He went there and all he had was love. It's not super straightforward but I'm pretty sure we can skip lecturing them on those kinds of "sins".

By reinterpreting the Bible in your own way [...] Essentially, if I disagree with the Bible, then I'm the one who's wrong. Not the Bible.

Yeah I mean good luck with that. It's full of contradictions, stuff that was written after Jesus. You need to believe the earth is 6000 years old and rectancular with angels in the four corners playing the trumpet on doomsday. (Which should have happened a long time ago, but it didn't.) And you can't even tell whether it's okay to eat Shrimp or a cheeseburger unless you do Eisegesis. Slavery and a lot of things we view as wrong today aren't technically outlawed by the Bible and it really depends on what part of it you refer to when judging. Then we have weird parts especially in the old scripture like you can't go to church if you're missing a testicle or you're asian. And I'm pretty sure all the raining frogs and so on is made up and not meant to be taken literally.

I think pretty much any mosfet / h-bridge / motor control board with pwm should do.
If you have those 4-wire fans with a pwm input that accepts 3V3 logic, you might even be able to attach them directly to the ESP:

• https://github.com/KlausMu/esp32-fan-controller#wiring-diagram-for-fan-and-bme280

But that's not all fans, I had some mixed results with that.

Uh, that's mainly your opinion. I'm pretty sure both passages you gave remain contested. It's likely about male pederasty or prostitution while sex between men in general might be completely fine. And we know for example what Paul's role was, and that was to do politics, not quote Jesus verbatim. So you have to look at the context. That part in Romans is mainly a summary of Hellenistic Jewish legalism, not anything new, not even really about Jesus. It's the customs of the jewish people.

Corinthans again doesn't condemn homosexuality, but you need to read several paragraphs on ancient greek and history to even understand what the word even means. It's not as easy as "homosexuality" to which it has been wrongfully translated.

I don't see a strong argument why male homosexuality should be wrong. Most other passages also talk about it in the context of violence or abuse. And we can all agree that's wrong. But a loving homosexual relationship is a different thing. And then someone still needs to quote some bible verses to me regarding lesbians, trans-people, ... They're obviously accepted and loved by the Christian community, are they?

Jesus taught us not to accept man-made bullshit like right-wing politics or hate. He's figuratively come to earth to oppose conservatism. He taught us to use our own brains instead and try love and understanding towards other creatures. And have respect before God's creation. Which includes a variety of sexual preference and identity. Especially being the underdog and caring for the weak people is what he did and central to leftist-liberal ideology. And opposed by the right.

And I think if your objective were to be to follow the footsteps of Jesus, you'd have dinner with the adulterers, go visit the prostitutes and embrace them, let them wash and perfume your feet. And have everyone give money to the poor. Not do anything else, especially not shit on them. Because that's what he did.

And he wasn't super fond of the Church either. I mean he went there and yelled at people for what they did to his father's place. Opposed the clerics....

So how does that suddenly translate into nazis, slaveowners etc? That's clearly wrong by his teachings. On the contrary, he came to abolish exactly these kinds of things.

Likely depends on whether you ask the church or Jesus. We don't really have any reliable information, but if he really was a hippie preacher, telling how god loves all of his creatures, and how you can't hate on each other... He must have been pro Lgbtq+

But that's just my take on it. Most people who call themselves Christians might disagree.