News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Religion, Violence, Tolerance and Progress: Nothing to Do... by lopmotr on Thursday October 22, 2020 @07:37AM (#24856949)
On a bigger scale, Christians used to be anti gay for seemingly their whole history, then when others in the same western society decided gay is OK, they suddenly decided that Jesus was telling them to be tolerant all that time and all those earlier Christians had somehow got it wrong.
Re:Religion, Violence, Tolerance and Progress: Nothing to Do... by rayiner on Thursday October 22, 2020 @09:26AM (#24857740)
I think there is a strong element of that. But Jesus himself actually said almost nothing about homosexuality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testa...

The traditional Christian view of same-sex activity derives from more direct statements made by Paul, and Jesus’s general statements about sexual immorality. What Paul actually meant about homosexuality depends on ambiguous translations from the original Greek. Moreover, Jesus’s prohibition on sexual immorality depends on what counts as sexual immorality. Christian denominations that accept same-sex marriage interpret these statements differently. This is particularly easy in Protestant Christianity because it accepts that the Bible is the work of people and that it must be interpreted.

On one hand, I think you’re correct that a lot of this is results-driven rationalization—looking at the Bible anew with the desire to reach a particular end goal. That in and of itself isn’t necessarily that big of a deal, though. We do the same thing in the law, with texts that are far less ancient and where the original meaning is far more apparent. The Supreme Court just decided this year that Congress had already banned discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity back in the 1960s.

But there have also been theologically relevant changes. It wasn’t until the 21st century that it became widely accepted as a matter of science and sociology that homosexuality is innate and not a choice. These facts are enormously important theologically. Christianity is not in the business of affirming peoples’ choices. But an overriding principle is that God created each person individually and knows and loves each person. Within that framework, an orientation that is innate is very different from behavior that is a choice. Moreover, an overriding purpose of Biblical marriage is to have and raise children. In the United States, large scale studies showing that huge numbers of gay couples were raising children together were released in 2011, based on 2010 census data. This went largely unnoticed among folks who don’t see child rearing as an essential purpose of marriage and life generally, but is tremendously important for deciding that same-sex unions fall within Christian (and other traditional) understandings of what is a marriage.

Re:Religion, Violence, Tolerance and Progress: Nothing to Do... by tertius on Thursday October 22, 2020 @10:27AM (#24858371)
Paul was a Jew. He was only ever relating in the NT what the Old testament was teaching. So it's very easy to understand what he was saying if you reference what he was quoting.

On sexuality being innate/not a choice. The Bible does not prohibit any innate characteristics, it prohibits actions. Actions are always choices. Homosexual actions are what the bible prohibits, the Old Testament first and then repeated (and quoted) in the New Testament.

Marriage is not involved in these prohibitions.

Re:Religion, Violence, Tolerance and Progress: Nothing to Do... by yamrzou on Thursday October 22, 2020 @10:02AM (#24858116)
Another basis for the Chrisitian (also the Jewish and Islamic) view on homosexuality is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#Religious_v...
Re:Religion, Violence, Tolerance and Progress: Nothing to Do... by earthboundkid on Thursday October 22, 2020 @09:40AM (#24857853)
Jesus spoke about eunuchs, who in modern terms would be “trans”.
Re:Religion, Violence, Tolerance and Progress: Nothing to Do... by tertius on Thursday October 22, 2020 @10:16AM (#24858256)
Not quite. Their goal re: castration was not to become female or identify as such.
Re:Religion, Violence, Tolerance and Progress: Nothing to Do... by earthboundkid on Thursday October 22, 2020 @04:39PM (#24863057)
For there are some agenders, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some trans, which were made trans of men: and there be ace, which have made themselves ace for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Re:Religion, Violence, Tolerance and Progress: Nothing to Do... by tertius on Friday October 23, 2020 @11:39AM (#24870635)
Again, the goal, even with the english words changed in your paraphrase was not about appearing/embracing as a different sex/gender. It was in abstaining from sexual activity through castration or choice.
Re:Religion, Violence, Tolerance and Progress: Nothing to Do... by earthboundkid on Friday October 23, 2020 @03:08PM (#24872751)
I said elsewhere in the thread: “Early Christianity was pretty plainly against sex as such, straight or gay.” I think this verse supports it.
Re:Religion, Violence, Tolerance and Progress: Nothing to Do... by tertius on Friday October 23, 2020 @03:38PM (#24873026)
Please share your thoughts as well as the verse you think supports it.

I don't see it just from reading this verse (and knowing the section).

Re:Religion, Violence, Tolerance and Progress: Nothing to Do... by earthboundkid on Thursday October 22, 2020 @09:40AM (#24857838)
Early Christianity was pretty plainly against sex as such, straight or gay, but I don’t think Christianity per se is more anti-gay than any other religion. Gay marriage in the modern sense just didn’t exist anywhere, afaict, and Christianity was against sodomy but not fanatically so until the early modern era. The real anti-gay paranoia seems to me to be more of a product of early modernity than a specifically Christian thing.