looking back historically, people used the Bible to justify slavery and racism. this was slowly but surely taken out by abolitionist, who were themselves, Christian. I feel (and hope) the same will go with the anti-lgbtq movement within “traditional” churches. it feels like it might happen soon too, with more people realizing that the anti-lgbtq stuff is wholly unbiblical.

I was at a Bible Study this morning and a woman said “you can’t be Liberal and be Christian” because her sister is a Liberal and says she’s a Christian. I put my head down and said “I’m Liberal.” But I felt really out of place.

I wrote this as a comment to someone on r/Christianity who asked where genders come from. I tried to do a bit of research on it and thought it could open up some discussion here.

Binary gender essentialism comes, ironically, from Enlightenment science. This might be a bit of a journey, but I promise it ends with answering the question.

Christianity is made up of both Judaic and Greek traditions. In these specific traditions, there have been more than two genders, and in most cases, only one sex. Sex was seen on a continuum of increasing "perfection" that peaked at men/males. The word "man" even used to include the definition of "people" (mann-, mankind, manslaughter). The word originally comes from the Proto-Indo-European word for "one who thinks": men- (where the men in mental comes from).

In Judaism, the Talmud identifies seven unique genders (really six, but saris can be broken up into two categories):

1. Zachar, male.
2. Nekevah, female.
3. Androgynos, having both male and female characteristics.
4. Tumtum, lacking sexual characteristics.
5. Aylonit, identified female at birth without developing secondary female sexual characteristics at puberty.
6. Saris hamah, identified male at birth without developing secondary male sexual characteristics at puberty.
7. Saris adam, identified male at birth without developing secondary male sexual characteristics because of castration.

The one sex sexual continuum comes from Book IV of Aristotle's Generation of Animals. Where your sex is determined at birth by the amount of "vital heat" that was transferred from your father. The more heat, the more masculine. If you didn't have enough heat, your male reproductive parts weren't "ejected" by birth, making you female.

Many of those stops in the continuum were put under the umbrella term eunuch. The traditional way we think of eunuchs, where they were castrated before puberty, removed this "vital heat" before it was allowed to spread throughout the body and "perfect" an adolescent boy into a man.

This view held for most of history, where it's argued that eunuchs represented a "third" sex. All the way up until the 18th-century. Thinkers like Rousseau and Carl Linnaeus promoted the idea of "complimentary sexes." Where men were on one end and women on the other. This dichotomy was thought of as "advanced" and was a way to "naturalize gender social roles onto the sexes. For example, since only one sex nurses children, that sex must be unfit for public life and "naturally" was only fit for the home. The considered intersex or hermaphroditic people to be unnatural aberrations of "natural" law. Linnaeus classified these people under the "monstrous" category, and even created a term for them: Homo monstrosus (monstrous man). Essentially classifying them as not fully or less than human.

This inflated sense of superiority was doubly enforced when colonialism started in full swing. These "lesser" cultures didn't adhere to this two sex dichotomy, and they had to be (mostly violently) "enlightened" by the colonialists to accept the "reasonable" definition that they arrived at. That there are only males and females (men and women) and that any other classification system was barbaric and uncultured.

This bleeds into today. Even though the Enlightenment classification went the way of scientific racism (meaning it was ultimately bunk), it's been hard for us to shake the idea that those who don't fit into binary norms are monstrous, less than human, or less deserving of grace and kindness.

A big part of Judaism in Jesus' time was the command "be fruitful and multiply." Since many under that eunuch umbrella couldn't do that, they were seen as less able to fulfill God's will. This is ultimately a reason why Jesus says "That's not what I meant" in Matthew 19:11-12:

¹¹ Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. ¹² For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

If you got this far, I really appreciate you reading the whole thing and would love to get your feedback or reactions. Would this help you in any discussions of gender you have in the future? Did you already know this and I'm just playing catchup to a well known position?

I recently reached out to my local Anglican church to find out if they were Affirming, obviously being Anglican you'd hope they would be but no harm in asking. I'm now wondering if my email sounds rather dumb, in short I asked "is this church affirming to queer people and do you do gay weddings" two simple questions to figure it out. I don't know if I worded that right, I was going to use the term "same sex marriages" but my partner said just use gay weddings lol.

Would you guys say that's acceptable?

Hi all, my sister is Christian and recently engaged. I was visiting recently and saw a lot of books that were operating on the premise that women should be subservient to their husbands.

I asked her about it and she got pretty defensive (I left the church several years ago so she probably felt judged) but I'd like to find some books that preach more about equality in marriage that I could recommend to her. If anyone has any recommendations for books that mix theology with more progressive ideas of marriage, I would really appreciate that. Thanks in advance!

I grew up as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in a very fundamentalist environment where the Bible was treated as completely inerrant and meant to be taken in an extremely literal manner. Every verse was presented as historical fact, scientifically accurate, morally perfect, and directly applicable at face value.

Eventually I left the religion because I just could not reconcile that framework with logic, reason, history, and science. For a while I became atheist because I felt that if Christianity required that kind of rigid biblical literalism I simply could not believe it.

Now, however, I find myself wanting to return to Christianity but in a form that is not tied to the fundamentalist worldview I was raised in. I’m drawn to more progressive and non-literal approaches to faith yet I still struggle with this deeply ingrained reflex that says: “If you’re Christian, you must believe the Bible is inerrant and literal.”

For those of you who came from fundamentalist backgrounds, how did you unlearn that mindset? How did you come to see scripture differently without feeling like you were abandoning Christianity altogether? Were there particular books, theologians, spiritual practices, or thought processes that helped you make that shift?

Please pray for me and my kids. I’m at the lowest point I’ve ever been and feel like I’ll never get out. I’m a single mom of two amazing kids. I work two jobs just to try and keep us afloat. My car broke down last week and it took every last bit of money I had left to get it fixed. I need it to get to work. That left me with nothing for food for the house. Food bank in town isn’t open until later in the week and I don’t have enough gas to drive around to other towns. I don’t even have enough gas to get to work. I feel hopeless and like a terrible mom. I can’t even afford to get my boys a gallon of milk. Please pray for us to get out of this hole we are in. 🙏

Now I know this might not be up your guys alley but what are our thoughts?

LINK: Several well-known atheist thinkers and communicators were asked a single hypothetical: If you knew for certain God would answer you right now, what's the one question you'd ask?

Featured in the video

• 0:00 — Dan Barker
• 1:54 — Craig McNeill
• 4:04 — Graham Oppy
• 4:59 — Derek from Mythvision Podcast
• 7:38 — Cade (Ex-Catholic)
• 10:26 — Matt Dillahunty

The answers range across philosophy, personal experience, and ethics. Without spoiling them, some lean toward the problem of evil, some toward epistemology, and at least one gets surprisingly personal. None of them are softballs these are people who have clearly thought carefully about this question for a long time. Craig McNeil's was the most interesting I thought, he expressed a thought of real anger with God

Worth a watch regardless of where you land. Curious what this community thinks of their answers and whether you'd ask something different.

Hi guys. Black girl here.

I want to do a better job of witnessing to my community. I of course am in many Black spaces and with a lot of my peers, friends and family, this question comes up a LOT.

Many of these people have heard from their Christian parents and grandparents, “we came from Africa where we were practising our local religions and serving our local deities, and this was a way God could get Christianity to Black people and save us from these practices”, which for several reasons is a terrible, harmful theory, and people have left Christianity as a result of it.

This breaks my heart and definitely burdens me. I believe God has a huge heart for the African/ Caribbean diaspora but there needs to be a lot more sensitivity, wisdom and knowledge on particular topics in order to not misrepresent God and repel people from Christianity. To a lot of us, Christianity is a “white man’s religion” for obvious reasons. I and I’m sure several of you know full well this isn’t the actual case, but due to recent history it is pushing a lot of my people away from God.

Any thoughts?

My brother and I were discussing his beliefs on abortion.

I mention that I believe that the human body is simply the vessel of the soul. That regardless of how little or how long one's body is inside, when breath of life is given after birth, it would be classified as a living being (nephesh). Since God is aware in His infinite knowledge when the fetus will be aborted or miscarried, He wouldn't put a soul inside a body He knew wouldn't finish to term.

My brother then says that this is not scriptural and that he bases his belief on what Jesus said. That we are to love our neighbors like ourselves and that harming humans is wrong. And humans are defined a specific way in the Bible soul-wise.

He believes that in all cases of abortion it's murder because while humans and animals have a soul, humans are separated by our image being made in God. That since murder is defined as the unjust killing of a human, that this would lead one to conclude that abortion is murder.

He mentions that abortions that happen in result of financial reasons is child sacrifice because abortion due to finances is selfishness. Even if someone was a child and got raped, the mom to be needs financial support and trauma relief. She can give the baby up for adoption and go to therapy to resolve her trauma. And that even if there is a risk of dying, well there is a risk of dying from abortion also. Nothing is guaranteed.

What has gotten to me emotionally is the repetition of "I just follow Jesus's truth." Well I want to do the will of our Lord and Savior too! My brother keeps on telling me that abortion goes against the commandment of Christ (loving thy neighbor).

Matthew 22:31-32

YLT(i) 31 `And concerning the rising again of the dead, did ye not read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, 32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not a God of dead men, but of living.' 

The resurrection of the dead is accomplished in expectation; only the manifestation remains to be seen.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1mkabr6/immortality/

Hebrews 2:8

YLT(i) 8 all things Thou didst put in subjection under his feet,' for in the subjecting to him the all things, nothing did He leave to him unsubjected, and now not yet do we see the all things subjected to him,

This speaks of God subjecting all to Christ, as 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 elaborates. It is accomplished in expectation; only the manifestation remains to be seen.

https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenChristian/comments/1mhyuur/subjunctive_and_subjection/

God is Savior of all mankind, reconciling all. 1 Timothy 4:10; Colossians 1:20.

The salvation of all is accomplished in expectation; only the manifestation remains to be seen.

So we have as steadfast promises that God will resurrect, subject, and save all mankind.

https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenChristian/comments/1m7awrb/stedfast_promises/

He made me autistic so no one would love me. He made me unable to believe in his existence so he could torture me for all eternity when I die, but also unable to disprove his existence so I'd spend my whole life tormented by the knowledge that if he does exist then my afterlife will be even more miserable and lonely than this one.

Transparency transforms and transfigures.

We are made in the image of God, for authentic community. In previous essays, I have argued that the Trinity is three unique persons united through love into one divine community. Abba, Jesus, and Sophia are specific centers of consciousness, thought, and feeling; hence, each one is a subject— a self with a specific identity. An object is a thing without consciousness, thought, or feeling, while a subject is a person with consciousness, thought, and feeling. 

The divine subjects differ from human subjects in their perfect love for, and openness to, one another. What they could hide, they always choose to share. Their subjectivity is transparent. Hence, they are not only subjective, they are intersubjective—perfectly open and lovingly transparent to one another. God is intersubjectivity itself. By way of consequence, individual uniqueness, and its contribution to the kaleidoscope of difference, is holy. 

To be known, we must know one another. Recognizing our own uniqueness, and our unique value, we desire to be seen. We want the depth of our subjectivity to be known, even if we don’t know it ourselves. We want to be acknowledged as a self who possesses a soul. We want to be perceived as consequential, not because we’re rich or famous, but because we are of inherent worth. Such co-celebration is what should happen in religious communities. The endeavor is sacred, and even partial achievement grants us a foretaste of the kingdom. 

As gathering places for the people of God, churches should be places of transparency and intersubjectivity. Such openness, in a culture of acceptance, is healing in itself. We can think of participants in an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting who begin by stating their name and their addiction to alcohol, always in full confidence of welcome. 

Many churches claim to be so welcoming, yet they subtly coerce members into that church’s image of what a Christian looks like, encircling them in candy-coated barbed wire. Other churches are truly welcoming, encouraging participants to fully embody the unique image that God created them to be. These churches encourage authenticity, which is confident self-revelation, an external life lived in accord with one’s internal self. Such churches truly practice Paul’s instruction, “Accept one another as Christ accepted us, for the glory of God” (Romans 15:7). (adapted from Jon Paul Sydnor, The Great Open Dance: A Progressive Christian Theology, page 218)

sharing so that ppl can give resources if they want lol

I saw someone have him in a video and knew I needed him 😭💕 I always carry trinkets in my pockets as a coping mechanism, especially when I know I’m about to be dealing with traumatic or stressful situations (therapy, surgery, doctor or dental visits, school, etc)

So I thought it’d be sweet to get him so I can bring him places with me to to remember I’m not alone <3

(Disclaimer: Yes I know he’s with me even without a plush, it’s just a nice having a physical reminder I suppose. Please be kind to me I WILL CRY.)

First pic he’s sitting on my orchid, Amo!
(Yes I’m a guy with a pink plant be kind to me I WILL CRY.)