Religion and homosexuality

[watervole]

I was reading an entry in communicator's journal and it reminded me of a chain of thought that I've had a couple of times recently.

Why is Christianity in some countries so determinedly anti-gay?

After all, the Bible condems many other groups (adulterers, usuers, bearers of false wittness, those who lack generosity to the poor, etc.)

Ah, wait, could it be, says the cynical water vole, that most people see themselves as potentially *part* of those groups?

I forget the exact statistics, but around half the population will probably commit adultery, sex before marriage is so widespread as to be almost the norm, many people lend money (that's what a savings account is).

The richest country in the world has a pretty poor track record when it comes to helping the poor in the third world.

It's a wonder the average Christian dares attend church. But wait! There is still a way to gain virtue, to be better than the next man/woman.

We can go and bash gays!

After all, they're a small enough minority, they aren't like us (and if we're one, well, at least we can hide it and pretend we aren't)

Good, now that's all settled, we can go and ask God to forgive all our other sins. After all, we've done our part.

And hugs to dougs and kerravonsen - I know you two don't take convenient bits of the Bible out of context.

Comments

[temeres.livejournal.com]

Covertousness is the opposite of charity. Where one rules, the other suffers.

That may sound like commonsense, but in terms of covetousness being generated by advertising ... Advertising creates sales; sales maintain manufacturing; manufacturing keeps people in employment; and employment gives people the money to donate to charity in the first place.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

But money donated to charities can also generate employment.

If I give to Shelter, I'm employing builders. If I give to a wildlife trust, I'm helping employ people to do survey work and construct fences. If I give to Greenpeace, someone has to build their ships, etc.

[temeres.livejournal.com]

I don't doubt that giving to charity keeps people in work. But the money ultimately comes from some form of economic activity, whether it's growing things or digging them out of the ground. And for profit.

Never thought you'd hear that from a self-declared commie, did you?:)

[watervole.livejournal.com]

INdeed, but most consumer spending is on neither food nor raw materials. Designer clothes are no better as a form of employment than carrying out plant surverys. Both are economic activities, both generate money which can be spent elsewhere.

If you want to go for primary production, let's employ more people on the land.

[temeres.livejournal.com]

Clothes (designer or otherwise) use raw materials, natural or synthetic. It's the profit made from food, clothes, and other goods made of raw materials that pays for the service sector (including plant surveys).

And if there were as many people surveying plants as there are in the textile industry, we'd have every last dandelion grid-referenced to the nearest inch.

I don't think you can have such a thing as a 'charity economy', though if an economist wants to prove me wrong I'll be more than happy to listen. What you can have - and I'm sure you'd agree with me that we should have - is regulation of primary and secondary production to ensure that the quest for profit does not have intolerably adverse effects on society and the environment.

What is and is not tolerable, of course, can be open to debate.