Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapped
Not wanting to start an argument either, but I do think the thought that "gender is a social construct" is itself just a recent social construct.
However, I agree with you that the article fell short. The arguments these days ARE that gender and sex are distinct, and to simply say "the Bible recognizes no distinction between the sex and gender of a person"....I mean.....that's true, but the Bible isn't a book on that topic either. And while what the Bible says is important, there are mountains more components to the issue that they missed.
For example, gender identity and sexual orientation are two different topics/issues with two very different implications, and combining them in a mixed article about both misses opportunity for a lot more nuance.
|
Correct, the distinction in meaning is a newish development (last 100 years), but the idea of isn’t new regardless of the recent formalizations of the words.
To say the Bible doesn’t recognize the distinction sets up a pretty egregious framework for interpretation. The verses used are taken out of context as well. For example, the verse from Matthew. Jesus is answering a question about divorce, not gender identity. However, LSM uses Jesus’s answer on divorce and applies it to a different topic.
Here’s the verse:
“And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,”
**Matthew *19:*3-*4 *ESV
Just another example of LSM/The Recovery taking a verse out of the context it lives in, and applying to a context that it does not.
Regardless of one’s opinion, it’s a shame that this is really the only content someone in the Recovery has to reference if they are involved in one form or another with the issue.