Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

I agree that some "purity gospel" teachings have made people uncomfortable with their own bodies. For example, I don't find myself bent out of shape by girls wearing shorter shorts and don't agree with the degree of taboo applied to nudity in America. I also think this only contributes to over-sexualization rather than reducing it.

I just don't see that as "my religion". That's not what I believe. In a certain sense an Eastern Orthodox Christian and a Missouri Synod Lutheran both have the "same religion", but for practical purposes they do not.

Don, we've discussed this on an old account of mine so at this point I'm pretty convinced you are set in your beliefs and more interested in publicly lambasting mine. But, for the sake of this thread, fine.

In the source you linked most of the references in scripture were from the Old Testament. I am a Christian, which means I am part of a new covenant with God. Just like I can wear mixed fabrics, I believe that owning slavery is a flagrant violation of the Second Great Commandment: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

All but one of the New Testament sources were from sources besides Christ. Fallible men, whose words hold some value but are certainly imperfect. I realize this belief separates me from a majority of Christians, but it's far from the only objection I have to particularly Paul's Letters.

As for the quotation from Luke, I read this in the same way I read, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's," as a rebuke of petty earthly concerns. In that verse, he certainly wasn't endorsing taxation, as he later spoke of tax collectors in Matthew 9:12 as among "they that are sick".

I'm not sure why you infodumped a landing page at me or why you think I'm a fan of slavery, but you left multiple (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44548475, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44548632) so I'm going to consolidate responses. The Ten Commandments were obviated by the New Covenant, so I don't understand why you think God would need to add a new commandment. The Roman Catholic Pope is also not "my pope"; I don't believe in that concept at all and am not a Roman Catholic.

To your question, "are you for not either changing it or renouncing that religion?" I have thought about renouncing Christianity in the past, yes. I had a very long questioning phase, and continue to question. Much of that questioning has led to fruitful conversations with friends from a number of different religious backgrounds and shaped by beliefs. It has also led me to break with the structure of most denominations.

Lastly, why I'm not "doing something?" I already allocate my time, talent, and treasure to a local charity I co-founded some years back. I deeply believe in its mission and know all those resources go to good use, unlike with many large, international NGOs. It helps people from my town, if mostly from the other side of it. I believe in rightly-ordered love, and in working to take care of a problem I can see and understand and work to remedy, thanks to the advantage I have being present in this town, before looking elsewhere.

This is, as a matter of fact. Both sides of my family are essentially universally obese. I grew up with it. I saw lots of it. I am probably genetically predisposed, but I'm not giving my DNA to one of those sketchy testing companies, so I can't say for sure.

It's not an issue of metabolism. I've walked in on people sneaking a junk food binge at 1:30AM too many times to believe this. I've seen all the sneak-eating, all the extra oily sauce when they think "well it's a salad", to believe that.

Diet and exercise are actually great long-term fixes, they're just not easy. We can see this pretty well by how reducing appetite via a GLP-1 agonist helps to decrease body fat, even with older-generation drugs that act almost entirely by just reducing appetite and increasing satiety rather than by additional mechanisms. There are also benefits like increased muscle mass increasing one's BMR so the same-size meal might no longer cause one to gain fat.

I understand that it's complex. It doesn't mean I want to blame or castigate people. I can empathize strongly with struggling against impulses to sin.

Both sides of my family also have extensive history of alcoholism. This has caused me to be very, very careful around alcohol, because despite a predisposition, drunkenness is still a sin. Somebody may have anger issues, but clocking somebody is still a sin. Many of us will have all these impulses or commit these sins. Most of the time, my reaction is to sit and empathize, particularly for "victimless crimes" (rather, sins where the only victim is one's own soul.)

There is a radical proportion of American Christians which believes this, yes. I'm fine with calling out those beliefs. That's not my issue here, more tarring Christianity broadly, or even specifically those of us who hold conservative social beliefs but don't believe in imposing those via state coercion.

I don't see any moral benefit to forcing people not to sin. There's no virtue when there's no choice.

Yes, I would. Just like with proposed bans on alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, I understand the motives (particularly when I look at the rash of wife-beating that encouraged the temperance movement, for instance) but oppose the proposed solution (banning those things).