My mother is a fundamentalist Christian (unfortunately), and is strangely trans-positive (or at least trans-neutral) because a literal reading of the Bible doesn’t address trans issues.
And the literal reading of the Bible doesn’t say anything about being gay either. Just some poorly translated works written hundred of years after the “event”. I’d be curious if your mom would change her tune if a new edition of the Bible was written, that had explicitly anti trans wording, if she would change her stance.
You’re ascribing far too much logical thought to it. I’ve argued with her about editions and translations of the Bible. It’s purely irrational attachment to the idea of the Bible that her church uses as the indisputable and unchanging word of God. Which is a shame, because she’s an otherwise genuinely intelligent woman.
At least it stops at “I don’t believe in or support gay marriage, but gay people are people and should not be mocked, harassed, or excluded, as we are all sinners and should not judge one another.”
Well that’s as good as it will get at least! She’s allowed to think that, as long as she doesn’t actively try and prevent gay people from getting married.
I think she’s accepted it as part and parcel of the sinful world we live in that Jesus is gonna come and redeem any day now (or long after we’re dead, whichever).
This often gets said but despite wanting it be true it doesn’t really bear out. There are ways of deconstructing “man shall not lie with man” to the point of being unsure if it’s prohibiting male male sex in general or homosexual temple pederasty specifically. But it’s a little beside the point because the Torah also tells the Jews that the meaning of Torah would be plain to them, and general homosexual prohibition is what they always understood by it. Hopping to the new testament people often say Jesus didn’t address homosexuality, but he frequently condemned “debauchery” which is not how we’d refer to homosexual acts today, but debauchery is just a translation of the Greek “porneia” which meant unlawful sex as other ancient sources show and did include homosexuality as far as the Jews would have understood it (edit: clarified wording here). There are other oblique arguments, like Jesus saying marriage wouldn’t happen in heaven because everyone would be like the angels (who are all male), which implies a line of thinking where male male marriage is “obviously” not possible. And then you have a similar argument to the one employed by the Jews, that the new testament states the holy spirit would lead the apostles in “all truth” and the early church was unambiguously against homosexual relations.
I think the modern church should be accepting of all sexualities. But that’s more because I think the modern church should not be so wed to the Bible…
Got any sources about the porneia that doesn’t have any biblical sources?
Yes I will find some that are not behind academic paywalls
The Greeks had homosexual relations, so how was it outlawed?
I didn’t mean to imply it has a single universal application. The situation in which it was used would have been relevant because it meant sexual immorality in the general sense and how that’s understood depends on who you’re taking to. The greeks would have heard the word different to first century Jews. But my point was that Jesus was teaching first century Jews and they had a very well defined idea of what sexual immortality meant.
I might have made my point better by saying Jesus didn’t talk at length on numerous sexual laws like the Torah does because he simply reaffirms Jewish belief.
At the end of the day it doesn’t really matter
If two and a half billion people were basing their lives on The Lord of the Rings it would be a worthwhile area of study whether one believes in elves or not
My mother is a fundamentalist Christian (unfortunately), and is strangely trans-positive (or at least trans-neutral) because a literal reading of the Bible doesn’t address trans issues.
And the literal reading of the Bible doesn’t say anything about being gay either. Just some poorly translated works written hundred of years after the “event”. I’d be curious if your mom would change her tune if a new edition of the Bible was written, that had explicitly anti trans wording, if she would change her stance.
You’re ascribing far too much logical thought to it. I’ve argued with her about editions and translations of the Bible. It’s purely irrational attachment to the idea of the Bible that her church uses as the indisputable and unchanging word of God. Which is a shame, because she’s an otherwise genuinely intelligent woman.
At least it stops at “I don’t believe in or support gay marriage, but gay people are people and should not be mocked, harassed, or excluded, as we are all sinners and should not judge one another.”
Which is more I can say for most fundies.
Well that’s as good as it will get at least! She’s allowed to think that, as long as she doesn’t actively try and prevent gay people from getting married.
I think she’s accepted it as part and parcel of the sinful world we live in that Jesus is gonna come and redeem any day now (or long after we’re dead, whichever).
This often gets said but despite wanting it be true it doesn’t really bear out. There are ways of deconstructing “man shall not lie with man” to the point of being unsure if it’s prohibiting male male sex in general or homosexual temple pederasty specifically. But it’s a little beside the point because the Torah also tells the Jews that the meaning of Torah would be plain to them, and general homosexual prohibition is what they always understood by it. Hopping to the new testament people often say Jesus didn’t address homosexuality, but he frequently condemned “debauchery” which is not how we’d refer to homosexual acts today, but debauchery is just a translation of the Greek “porneia” which meant unlawful sex as other ancient sources show and did include homosexuality as far as the Jews would have understood it (edit: clarified wording here). There are other oblique arguments, like Jesus saying marriage wouldn’t happen in heaven because everyone would be like the angels (who are all male), which implies a line of thinking where male male marriage is “obviously” not possible. And then you have a similar argument to the one employed by the Jews, that the new testament states the holy spirit would lead the apostles in “all truth” and the early church was unambiguously against homosexual relations.
I think the modern church should be accepting of all sexualities. But that’s more because I think the modern church should not be so wed to the Bible…
Got any sources about the porneia that doesn’t have any biblical sources? The Greeks had homosexual relations, so how was it outlawed?
E: at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter because it’s a made up story.
Yes I will find some that are not behind academic paywalls
I didn’t mean to imply it has a single universal application. The situation in which it was used would have been relevant because it meant sexual immorality in the general sense and how that’s understood depends on who you’re taking to. The greeks would have heard the word different to first century Jews. But my point was that Jesus was teaching first century Jews and they had a very well defined idea of what sexual immortality meant.
I might have made my point better by saying Jesus didn’t talk at length on numerous sexual laws like the Torah does because he simply reaffirms Jewish belief.
If two and a half billion people were basing their lives on The Lord of the Rings it would be a worthwhile area of study whether one believes in elves or not
At the end of the day, as I pointed out, it doesn’t really matter because it’s not real.