Thread: The millstone that is S**** L****** Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029948
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
Right, that's it Steve.
You are a pointless, sanctimonious pustule on the body of Christ, and can fuck off to the furthest possible point of fuckness. And, when you get there, infinitely further.
You are a millstone round the neck of the Ship, who poisons the well of every thread he ever comments on with his self-righteous obsessive ramblings.
You may indeed go to hell. Or I will: one or the other, but not sharing eternity with you will make the price a joy to pay.
I shall leave it at that, and leave the field open for those whose life's work you take such millstone-like joy in writing off.
That is all.
[Linkfix. —A, HH]
[ 20. February 2016, 12:21: Message edited by: Ariston ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The offending post is so, well, offensive, that it deserves to be properly linked to in all its glory.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
One does wonder how he copes psychologically with - to use what is apparently his preferred mode of expression - piss and spunk coming out of the same hole.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
One does wonder how he copes psychologically with - to use what is apparently his preferred mode of expression - piss and spunk coming out of the same hole.
Probably by observing his own mouth and its capacity to spill shit in all directions simultaneously. The apparently impossible thus becomes commonplace.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Is this the right time to point out to Steve that his toothbrush has shit on it ?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Thank you for calling this smug little fuck to Hell. Thank you.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
He is an annoying twit, isn't he.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
He is an annoying twit, isn't he.
Size isn't everything.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You know, I would have a lot less of my time wasted here if people would try assuming that I am not stupid
I don't think anyone thinks you are stupid. Pity, if you were, there would be an excuse.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
'outside the box'
Absolutely nothing you have said on the subject is anywhere except firmly in a box. Maybe you are stupid after all.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
what the biblical teaching actually variously does or does not find problematic.
The bible is an inconsistent mess if one does not apply interpretation. So you are choosing an interpretation which precludes LGBT.
But I can understand why you hate the idea of a penis in your arse as your head is so firmly planted in the path.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You know, I would have a lot less of my time wasted here if people would try assuming that I am not stupid
Sometimes one gives the benefit of the doubt so many times, and has it thrown back into their teeth so many times, that they have to come to the sad conclusion that the person they are talking with really does have shit for brains. They can come to no other conclusion.
They assumed for as long as they possibly could that this fuckwit did not have shit for brains, until the overwhelming quantity of data completely wiped the notion off the table.
Whether this fits anybody here, is above my pay grade to say.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Oh FFS. Really.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
Quoting from the thread linked at the start. This isn't going to be terribly Hellish, but here is a better place to respond than on-thread (I think - I have a pitchfork poised posterior if wrong).
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Snags;
quote:
Steve, simple question:
Do you understand, or can you intellectually accept, that it is entirely possible for someone to be gay (or 'Gay' if you prefer) without having had a same-sex sexual interaction of any kind?
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Also, it can't surely have escaped Steve's notice that the CofE has women priests as well as male clergy ... and that women priest's don't have willies. If a woman priest is gay then she isn't going to be putting her willy anywhere soon because she doesn't have one ...
by Doublethink;
quote:
Cos so many lesbians just grow a penis when they cut their hair and put on the doc martens.
You know, I would have a lot less of my time wasted here if people would try assuming that I am not stupid and I can see the obvious - and therefore I'm most likely not making the foolish points you're trying to impose on me ...
I don't think you're stupid. Do you think that if three (at least) people who are all quite different and come from very different places in terms of life, experience, sexuality, theology and churchman(person)ship are all failing to spot the delicate nuance you're seeking to introduce that perhaps you haven't been that clear? Perhaps, actually, you're not communicating what you think you are?
Obviously it's a subject on which knees can jerk, and I've been bitten in the past for posting something that was clear to me and not to others, so I try to read carefully ...
quote:
... but making different and slightly more 'outside the box' points.... This is how 'absent-minded-professory types like me think things through and if you'll bear with it you may ultimately find it useful.
... and I can read nothing 'outside the box' in what you've posted. In fact, almost everything you've posted appears to be orthogonal to the main thrust and context of the OP.
quote:
One of the points I am making here is precisely that this whole issue is dogged by cross-purposes including a considerable cross-purpose about the definition of 'gay' and people's understanding of what the biblical teaching actually variously does or does not find problematic.
Bollocks, quite frankly.
Other than in very specific academic cases, or for pearl-clutching, nit-picking, issue-dodging twatbags, I would have thought that the common usage of gay when referring to sexual orientation is crystal clear. Given that this is not an academic symposium (although it could be argued it's a nit-picking festival at times) the general, common usage, of 'gay' when relating to matters of sexual orientation would be a good place to start, no? That being someone who is not sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, but is sexually attracted to members of the same sex.
That there is a whole mess of stuff around sex, gender and wotnot further down the road isn't relevant. Pretty much everyone gets that 'gay' means "boys who fancy boys" and "girls who fancy girls". If you want to further define what constitutes boy/girl, rock on, but it's not pertinent to the original thread.
Note that in that, I posit, commonly accepted definition there is no indication of actual sexual activity, no statement towards promiscuity, fidelity, abstinence or any such. It's just about attraction. Anything else is read in.
quote:
And if people don't attempt to unravel the cross-purposes they'll get into futile arguments like much of the current one....
There was no futile argument. There was a discussion as to whether gay clergy who stay within the fold of the CofE are or are not 'useful idiots', and the degree to which it's murky.
The only argument cropped up when someone dumped a truckload of external assumptions into the mix and started talking about something totally other.
If you don't think you were doing that, you're going to have to do a better job of showing your workings.
quote:
As far as this thread goes I think I've said all that needs saying on the anyway rather obvious implications for the issue of the CofE's 'establishment' and similar ideas in other denominations. Exploring what 'gay' does/doesn't mean (and how that may affect the OP question) is what I'm here to do....
The thread had NOTHING to do with the CofE's establishment. NOTHING.
It also had NOTHING to do with "exploring what 'gay' does/doesn't mean".
So can you perhaps see why people might think you're a mono-maniacal tub-thumping blinkered cunt* for dragging all that irrelevant stuff in?
If you want to explore what gay does or doesn't mean, start a thread about it. Don't crap all over someone else's thread on a totally different subject. Or just buy a dictionary.
Fox ache.
Whilst you're at it, you might want to start one on the meaning of "biblical meaning" although brace yourself for a shock, because it turns out that people aren't in 100% agreement on what the "biblical meaning" is on a whole host of issues.
Funnily enough I often find your stuff interesting, as in lots of ways I suspect you come from a not dissimilar background to myself. There just seems to be some fundamental lack of understanding what should go where when it comes to posting. Which I guess from your perspective is probably inappropriately appropriate, in context.
*OK, it might get a bit hellish
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Your starred term is more correctly expressed as Jeremy, as in the rhyming slang.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I do think he is stupid.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Ahem! Showing my age, I know, but the original rhyming slang is Berkshire - which is why some of us get intense enjoyment hearing stuffed-shirt types refer to 'berks' thinking they are being restrained in their language.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Sorry everyone I forgot where I was posting before..
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm also talking about 'sexuality'; I'm querying the current understanding of that issue and trying to assert the biblical understanding for Christians...
This website is not for you to assert things as fact. The thread in question was not something you can use to broadcast your ideas which are only tangentially to do with the thing you want to talk about.
If it was WE COULD ALL FUCKING TALK ABOUT OUR PET SUBJECTS ON ANY FUCKING THREAD. How hard is that to understand? Why do you lack the self-awareness that not everyone wants to hear your assertions over and over again?
The issue here is not that your views are totally unacceptable, but that you fail the basic grammar of netiquette which asks you to stick to the subject and don't go bringing in things that you want to talk about on unrelated threads.
quote:
The Bible says three basic things here...
Frankly, I doubt anyone currently gives a shit what you think the bible says.
quote:
3) It is wrong/inappropriate and disrespectful of sexuality and humanity for people to do what can only be regarded as a parody of sex between two men. And by reasonable extension between two women....
That right there is an opinion you are entitled to hold. But it isn't a fact that you can wheel out in any given discussion even when the OP is clear that this is not the assumptions we're making for discussion in the OP.
quote:
And Christians in the church are meant to exemplify God's teaching...
See the thing is that it is not unbelievable that we could have a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Mormon wanting to use these boards.
Let's just imagine that a Mormon wants to talk about a Dead Horse subject with relation to the theology and practice of their religion. Rightfully they start a thread in the correct part of this website: Dead Horses. Maybe they're asking whether people have an opinion as to whether being gay is compatible with the Mormon theology of Prophets.
It is a bit unlikely this would ever happen because I doubt many of the rest of us know enough about Mormon theology and practice to comment.
But let's just imagine a group of users of SoF do and want to discuss it here.
Question: would it be acceptable for you, Steve, to post to that thread decrying the Mormon religion as being heretical, against the New Testament, against the teaching of Menno Simmons and so on?
Let's examine how SoF defines acceptable behaviour here, the 10 Commandments
1. Are you being a jerk? Are you trolling or flame-baiting? No, technically you are not quite trolling - but you are throwing down something which prevents other people from engaging with the OP and instead has them turn focus to you and your comments about their religion. If we all did that, there wouldn't be anything to discuss because someone would always pipe up "ah yes, but this God thing - it's all bollocks, right. Prove to me that God exists, prove to me that Joseph Smith really existed.. and so on."
So yes, you're being a jerk.
2. Have you engaged brain before commenting? For sure you think you've thought about the subject and are attempting to get to the bottom of the issue, albeit at a level beyond that mentioned in the OP and by the participants of the discussion thus far.
But in another sense no, because you've not engaged your brain to the extent of getting the self-awareness needed to realise that the thing you want to discuss is not the thing that everyone else is talking about.
So no, you haven't engaged your brain. In fact, you've decided that whatever anyone else says or wants to talk about, your need to assert things as you see them overrules the normal norms of discussion.
3. Are you attacking the issue not the person? Well yes you are attacking an issue but not the issue - because of the above.
4. Are you getting personal and do you need to take it to hell? Hard to be definitive in this hypothetical example.
5. Are you easily offending, easily being offended? To some extent the discussion here is predicated on the basis that someone is always going to be offended by someone else's words. But the idea is not just to rubbish someone else's beliefs: so if you were just posting to assert that Mormonism is wrong, then ISTM that you are simply being offensive.
6. Are you respecting the crew? Not for me to comment.
7. Are you posting illegal content? Probably not.
8. Are you crusading - defined as "pursue specific agendas and win converts"? I think that if you only post in such as way as to assert your opinions as fact, and that you often or always post on the same subjects, then you're getting pretty fucking close to crusading.
9. Are you advertising? Probably not.
10. Do you have more than one identity? I've no idea.
On that basis, I think there is probably evidence that you're breaking a good number of the rules of engagement here.
It seems to me that you are able to contribute to conversations constructively, but only when they are conversations that you want to have and which are dictating the direction of discussion. When that doesn't happen, you seem to think you have free rein to change the parameters of any other discussion until it becomes the one that you do want to discuss.
That is almost the definition of annoying.
And then, to top it all off, you'll no doubt not bother reading or responding to posts where people actually attempt to engage with you and instead constantly harp back to your three favourite causes.
Frankly: just FUCK OFF already.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But I can understand why you hate the idea of a penis in your arse as your head is so firmly planted in the path.
That' s an alarming as much as humorous mental image.
Does anyone else here, where this topic is concerned, feel like shutting themselves in a soundproof room and shouting
AARR-GGGGGGGGG.........!!!!! for as long as it takes to feel better ?
Posted by starbelly (# 25) on
:
Thanks for drawing my attention to that thread, I had forgotten that such idiot evangelicals like this are still around!
My personal favourite line is:
quote:
Should perhaps be pointed out that the financial power of evangelicals arises because they are not compromising the gospel and are preaching something solid, worthwhile and counter-cultural rather than something vague and woolly and more concerned to be cosy with the world than to stand for God. The lack of financial power elsewhere is precisely because they have a compromised and so ineffective message in general.....
CLASSIC!
Neil
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Self-righteous obsessive rambler indeed.
He's got a real thing about anal and oral sex hasn't he?
I wonder if he shouts his foul views as loudly in RL? - I imagine he pretends to be tolerant and kind there ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by starbelly:
quote:
the financial power of evangelicals
What? Where is it, and how can I get some?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What? Where is it, and how can I get some?
C'mon now, that's obvious (altogether now): you just read and apply the clear orthodox teaching of the bible.
You are welcome.
Posted by starbelly (# 25) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by starbelly:
quote:
the financial power of evangelicals
What? Where is it, and how can I get some?
I was broke as an evangelical, I am broke now...
If you are looking for some I did see a man on the TV claiming we can all be rich if we just sent him an envelope full of cash...
Neil
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by starbelly:
I was broke as an evangelical, I am broke now...
Me, I'm more of a broken evangelical...
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The offending post is so, well, offensive, that it deserves to be properly linked to in all its glory.
It strikes me as more offensive given the context of that post too; Steve, even if your post linked to above is completely correct, and even if I completely agreed with you*, it would still be offensive.
As you go along dismissing people with such cavalier disregard for their humanity, you hurt them. Many of the posters on that thread were struggling with difficult and complex feelings, including feelings of the futility of the years they had out into their calling and similar. To come along and drive a tank through that, not caring how much you hurt, maim and damage is surely about as unbiblical as it gets. Loving your neighbour doesn't come with provisos and get out clauses.
It's not just some dry academic debate where you can joust away with the verbal equivalent of tourney lances, it's real people you are striking with your carelessly flailed barbs and blades, and whatever your point or agenda, making it as you are by causing injury to other people is not acceptable either in general civilised discourse or in the sort of community striven for in the Bible, which should surely be holding itself to higher standards than secular society.
*lest there be doubt, I don't agree with you. I don't agree with what you say the Bible says about homosexuality. Please see here for a better summary that I could give, a link for which I have often been grateful to Joan the Outlaw Dwarf for providing on the first page of this epic thread .
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Does it not seem that the ability of a denomination to extract funds from its adherents is most highly-correlated to the apparent idiocy of said demographic. For example, Scientology seems to be rather prosperous, and they're all crazed fuckballs.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Hostly furry hat on
mr cheesy, while I'm not going to comment on your analysis re the 10Cs, I am going to comment on whether it smells a bit of Junior Hosting.
And yes, it does a bit.
So let's have no more of that, thank you. It's not like anyone lacks ammunition, or can miss the target. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
DT
HH
Hostly furry hat off
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
... please remember that you are talking about people and intimate parts of who they are. If you love someone, try and think about how you would feel if someone told you that your feelings for them were sinful or the result of a handicap, and were not proper love. This precious bond that you share with another person is being declared at best second-class. Be aware of this in your arguments; be sensitive to others' feelings.
Amen ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
The financial standing of American Evangelicals has been consistently eroding for the last 30 years, thanks to the Republican candidates they tirelessly pimp for, then get reamed up the ass by. And yet they claim they don't like reaming up the ass. Go figure.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The offending post is so, well, offensive, that it deserves to be properly linked to in all its glory.
It strikes me as more offensive given the context of that post too; Steve, even if your post linked to above is completely correct, and even if I completely agreed with you*, it would still be offensive.
I'm going to defend Steve L a bit on that, as it was me who started the use of rather crude and offensive language for gay sex*, and I think the objectionable post was more an attempt to up the ante a bit in terms of bluntness of speech than to be insulting. I think Steve's post was a failure of rhetoric rather than a failure of compassion.
I disagree with practically everything Steve says on this subject, but I do think he is honestly and non-maliciously trying to discern and apply God's will. I value his attempts to do this very much, as I move closer and closer to the view that the traditional conservative teaching about homosexuality is indefensible - Steve is tying himself up in knots about "the meaning of gay", in appearing to despise (as "soppy") feelings of love which elsewhere he purports to value, and in failing to engage with any concept he can't find in the Bible, and the reason for this is that the conservative view can't be maintained without doing violence to truth and morality. Steve is trying, though, and I appreciate that.
(*I was intending the make the point that the approach of making discussions of homosexuality all about sex is actually impolite, so used impolite terminology - Steve seems to have missed that point)
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
I'm going to defend Steve L a bit on that, as it was me who started the use of rather crude and offensive language for gay sex*, and I think the objectionable post was more an attempt to up the ante a bit in terms of bluntness of speech than to be insulting. I think Steve's post was a failure of rhetoric rather than a failure of compassion.
I disagree with practically everything Steve says on this subject, but I do think he is honestly and non-maliciously trying to discern and apply God's will. I value his attempts to do this very much, as I move closer and closer to the view that the traditional conservative teaching about homosexuality is indefensible - Steve is tying himself up in knots about "the meaning of gay", in appearing to despise (as "soppy") feelings of love which elsewhere he purports to value, and in failing to engage with any concept he can't find in the Bible, and the reason for this is that the conservative view can't be maintained without doing violence to truth and morality. Steve is trying, though, and I appreciate that.
I don't appreciate it at all. If he wants to apply his interpretations of the word of God and his version of the Bible, let him apply them to himself and to you and leave everyone else alone.
His Constantine like stance that he knows the single correct interpretation of the Bible is tiresome in the extreme when he keeps butting in on other threads to rant it.
Steve, The reason we assume you're stupid is that you've been told people want to converse without your interjection of your obsessions yet you continue.
If you could get someone to stick a penis down your throat and keep it there, perhaps we wouldn't keep hearing the crap you post over and over and over again. There's nothing we've missed from what you think is outside the box subtle nuances. It's all crap.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I disagree with practically everything Steve says on this subject, but I do think he is honestly and non-maliciously trying to discern and apply God's will.
There are a great many things in this world that are capable of doing a great deal of harm without malicious intent.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
It's difficult to "scratch beneath the surface" with Steve and discern his "gut feelings" - but I'm with Eliab on this. Problem is that he (Steve) will argue until the cows come home and never seems to realise that (a) there are much more nuanced points of view than his binary ones and (b) that his readers are losing the will to live.
By the way, knowing that he is a railway enthusiast, I wonder what his views are on nationalised British Railways vis-a-vis privatised rail operators? Presumably his anti-Constantinian will not allow for the former, whether they were better or worse than the present set-up?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Just to add a brief fuck-you for using your autism as an excuse for being an arsehole. I have autism too, that means I try to keep an eye out for situations where I'm prone to being an arsehole unintentionally and apologise if I miss them. You use autism as an excuse to carry on being an arsehole so, once again: fuck you.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I disagree with practically everything Steve says on this subject, but I do think he is honestly and non-maliciously trying to discern and apply God's will.
There are a great many things in this world that are capable of doing a great deal of harm without malicious intent.
This is true. I think that if you are seriously trying to apply the Bible, and end up with a position which is obviously untrue* and damaging, that's a sign that you've gone wrong somewhere. Not re-thinking at that point is a fault. It's just not the same sort of fault as deliberately using scripture to injure people you despise - which some anti-gay Christians do. I don't think Steve is like that.
(*on the current DH thread Steve is getting pretty close to saying to gay Christians that if only they would realise that they aren't actually gay, that being gay is a worldly, not a Biblical concept, then the 'problem' would magically go away. They could then accept that "gay" isn't who they are, it's just something they do, and they could give it up cheerfully and not have to worry. That's seems to be where Steve's arguments are taking him, and he ought to realise that it's a load of balls. It would take very little empathy to realise that. I'm not defending Steve on the charge of being culpably wrong, I just don't think he's motivated by malice.
Specifically, I don't think the post quoted as offensive was really as malicious as it seems when taken out of context. It was more in the way of being a "hey, look, I can swear, too - what does that prove?" response to me.)
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I disagree with practically everything Steve says on this subject, but I do think he is honestly and non-maliciously trying to discern and apply God's will.
There are a great many things in this world that are capable of doing a great deal of harm without malicious intent.
For example the persecution of the Anabaptists in the 16th century. Most of it was done honestly and non-maliciously by those following what they were sure was correct biblical interpretation.
That matters very little. To hear the cries of pain in the postings in the thread and watch Steve try to hijack the thread for his obsessions and his arrogant assumptions that everyone else stupid and he's got it all figured out and will go on at length doesn't make me care that he's doing it out of honest and non-malicious motives. Why Eliab thinks that's important is beyond me.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
*lest there be doubt, I don't agree with you. I don't agree with what you say the Bible says about homosexuality. Please see here for a better summary that I could give, a link for which I have often been grateful to Joan the Outlaw Dwarf for providing on the first page of this epic thread .
Thank you for that link to Joan's post which I read ages ago and had forgotten. I wish she was still posting.
Huia
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
That matters very little. To hear the cries of pain in the postings in the thread and watch Steve try to hijack the thread for his obsessions and his arrogant assumptions that everyone else stupid and he's got it all figured out and will go on at length doesn't make me care that he's doing it out of honest and non-malicious motives. Why Eliab thinks that's important is beyond me.
Because it means that there's some point in having the discussion with him.
If Steve L hated gay people, and valued the Bible because it gives him a way to hurt them, there'd be no reason for discussing the Bible - that wouldn't be what he cared about.
If I'm right, the opposite is true - Steve L doesn't especially want to be mean to gay people, but loves the Bible, wants to follow it's teachings, and is therefore saying homophobic things because he thinks that's where it leads. There seem to be quite a few Christians (myself included) who are conflicted in that way - not wanting to be homophobic, not wanting to ignore scripture, and not quite comfortable with the way that they are reconciling the two. It's quite easy to be tactless, or to misunderstand, or to offend, when one is in that position - but those things are challengeable. Because the intent isn't to offend, the fact that one has offended can prompt a re-think.
I'll concede that there's no actual evidence of Steve re-thinking anything, but we can hope.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
That matters very little. To hear the cries of pain in the postings in the thread and watch Steve try to hijack the thread for his obsessions and his arrogant assumptions that everyone else stupid and he's got it all figured out and will go on at length doesn't make me care that he's doing it out of honest and non-malicious motives. Why Eliab thinks that's important is beyond me.
Because it means that there's some point in having the discussion with him.
If Steve L hated gay people, and valued the Bible because it gives him a way to hurt them, there'd be no reason for discussing the Bible - that wouldn't be what he cared about.
If I'm right, the opposite is true - Steve L doesn't especially want to be mean to gay people, but loves the Bible, wants to follow it's teachings, and is therefore saying homophobic things because he thinks that's where it leads. There seem to be quite a few Christians (myself included) who are conflicted in that way - not wanting to be homophobic, not wanting to ignore scripture, and not quite comfortable with the way that they are reconciling the two. It's quite easy to be tactless, or to misunderstand, or to offend, when one is in that position - but those things are challengeable. Because the intent isn't to offend, the fact that one has offended can prompt a re-think.
I'll concede that there's no actual evidence of Steve re-thinking anything, but we can hope.
I think the problem is that you eventually tire of the "I'm not homophobic but I have to act that way because God is" line.
Cf. women priests.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Yes, but that doesn't mean the holder of that POV is necessarily malicious, just annoying and - and here be the rub - in some cases damaging.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: quote:
I'll concede that there's no actual evidence of Steve re-thinking anything, but we can hope.
I think the problem is that you eventually tire of the "I'm not homophobic but I have to act that way because God is" line.
"You" the listener, or "you" the homophobe?
Because if you mean the first, I agree, but being straight, I always have the option of taking a break from the conversation (gay people, of course, are frequently not allowed that option).
If you mean the second, I hope so. I hope people get tired of defending the indefensible, and tired of defending themselves against charges of bigotry, and begin to explore other ways of being faithful to the Bible.
[ 22. February 2016, 11:44: Message edited by: Eliab ]
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
It's difficult to "scratch beneath the surface" with Steve and discern his "gut feelings" - but I'm with Eliab on this. Problem is that he (Steve) will argue until the cows come home and never seems to realise that (a) there are much more nuanced points of view than his binary ones and (b) that his readers are losing the will to live.
By the way, knowing that he is a railway enthusiast, I wonder what his views are on nationalised British Railways vis-a-vis privatised rail operators? Presumably his anti-Constantinian will not allow for the former, whether they were better or worse than the present set-up?
Should SL decide to share those thoughts about railways on this Hell thread, you may well be on your own ...!
Tubbs
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
*lest there be doubt, I don't agree with you. I don't agree with what you say the Bible says about homosexuality. Please see here for a better summary that I could give, a link for which I have often been grateful to Joan the Outlaw Dwarf for providing on the first page of this epic thread .
Thank you for that link to Joan's post which I read ages ago and had forgotten. I wish she was still posting.
Huia
I have wondered from time to time whether the site editor should consider providing a link to that thread to those managing the CofE listening process, with the observation - "read, mark, learn and inwardly digest". Joan's observations from about 15 years ago stand up rather well.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
There seem to be quite a few Christians (myself included) who are conflicted in that way - not wanting to be homophobic, not wanting to ignore scripture, and not quite comfortable with the way that they are reconciling the two.
This I do not understand. There are plenty of things in the bible that most Christians ignore or interpret away.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Is this the right time to point out to Steve that his toothbrush has shit on it ?
Oh to edit Leviticus for just one day. I would quickly mark through anything that had to do with how consenting adults express themselves in private and write some much needed passages about this very subject. Even this link doesn't touch on what I consider a big source of the problem -- people flushing the toilet with the lid up so that a cloud of bacterial rises up and over takes the innocent toothbrushes in their holders.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Should SL decide to share those thoughts about railways on this Hell thread, you may well be on your own ...!
I suspect you may be right ... I was just ruminating on whether that his theological and ferroequinological views were congruent or disparate. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
There seem to be quite a few Christians (myself included) who are conflicted in that way - not wanting to be homophobic, not wanting to ignore scripture, and not quite comfortable with the way that they are reconciling the two.
This I do not understand. There are plenty of things in the bible that most Christians ignore or interpret away.
100s of things, as Eliab must know!
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Is this the right time to point out to Steve that his toothbrush has shit on it ?
Oh to edit Leviticus for just one day. I would quickly mark through anything that had to do with how consenting adults express themselves in private and write some much needed passages about this very subject. Even this link doesn't touch on what I consider a big source of the problem -- people flushing the toilet with the lid up so that a cloud of bacterial rises up and over takes the innocent toothbrushes in their holders.
Curiously, I had reason to look at this subject elsewhere the other week, and found (but cannot find again) a site where some science had been done on this topic. It was claimed that there was no more contamination by gut flora where the toilet seat was left up during flushing than where it was down, and indeed no more than in other areas around the home. The only concern the writers had about toothbrushes was if there were some infection in the home. Sneezing and coughing being more of a problem, apparently.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I was just ruminating on whether his mortequinological and ferroequinological views were congruent or disparate.
FTFY
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Curiously, I had reason to look at this subject elsewhere the other week, and found (but cannot find again) a site where some science had been done on this topic. It was claimed that there was no more contamination by gut flora where the toilet seat was left up during flushing than where it was down, and indeed no more than in other areas around the home. The only concern the writers had about toothbrushes was if there were some infection in the home. Sneezing and coughing being more of a problem, apparently.
There are bacteria such as E.coli everywhere in the environment so the media regularly report studies that find levels are high in all kinds of places: on lift buttons, on door handles, on toothbrushes, etc and so on.
This does not actually mean that there is really human faeces in these places nor does it mean that handling them would lead to diarrhoea or worse.
In fact E.coli is a very generic group of organisms which are not really much use for identifying faeces presence. A group of bacteria called faecal coliforms are a much more reliable indicator of the presence of faeces, but even this is not necessarily an indication of dangerous faecal pathogens.
A friend of mine, who is a microbiologist, is collecting a list of these stories, and it is getting very long.
TL;DR: these bacteria are everywhere. Don't believe everything you see written in the HuffPo - which is mostly written by unpaid writers or overworked non-specialist journalists struggling to turn press releases into interesting sounding stories.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
That, and any fecal coliforms on SL's toothbrush are as likely from what pours out of his mouth as anything else.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
*lest there be doubt, I don't agree with you. I don't agree with what you say the Bible says about homosexuality. Please see here for a better summary that I could give, a link for which I have often been grateful to Joan the Outlaw Dwarf for providing on the first page of this epic thread .
Thank you for that link to Joan's post which I read ages ago and had forgotten. I wish she was still posting.
Huia
I have wondered from time to time whether the site editor should consider providing a link to that thread to those managing the CofE listening process, with the observation - "read, mark, learn and inwardly digest". Joan's observations from about 15 years ago stand up rather well.
It would probably save them time. There can't be many arguments about that particular Dead Horse that haven't at least been touched on by that thread.
I have to admit, I do feel sad when I see it slipping down the pages towards limbo. It's existed for so long, and there's some really good stuff on it. I keep hoping someone will bring it back to life again, unwieldy leviathan though it is.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Some time ago I printed out and filed Joan's handy-dandy cut-out guide from the beginnings of that thread covering the various stances that could be taken on that issue.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
There seem to be quite a few Christians (myself included) who are conflicted in that way - not wanting to be homophobic, not wanting to ignore scripture, and not quite comfortable with the way that they are reconciling the two.
This I do not understand. There are plenty of things in the bible that most Christians ignore or interpret away.
What precisely don't you understand? Or was that merely a rhetorical device?
You cannot possibly have been posting on the Ship for as long as you have and not picked up on the idea that Christians, even liberal Christians like me, do in fact see the Bible as at least some sort of material for guidance, if not actually authoritative. The fact that we interpret it, try to look at it in context, believe some parts to be no longer directly applicable, distinguish between specific commands to particular individuals and general rules for life, prefer symbolic or metaphorical meanings to the literal, fail to understand, fail to read, and (possibly sinfully) fail to obey some teachings can't be denied - but that doesn't mean you can jump straight to the conclusion that we're free to ignore any bit of the Bible without a qualm.
Even if you think we're kidding ourselves, and our practices amount to a de facto rejection of scriptural authority (which might be a perfectly arguable position) you must know that "ignore it if you don't like it" is not specifically acknowledged to be part of any mainstream hermeneutic. We at least pay lip service to the Bible.
And if one is trying to pay lip service to a text that appears to condemn homosexuality unequivocally, and one isn't a homophobe - that's a problem. It's not an easy one to brush away. You are too smart to pretend that it is.
My own views on the subject have changed - there was never a time when I understood or agreed with the idea that same sex relationships were wrong, but I was also never quite convinced by a revisionist reading of the clobber verses either. For a long time, my attitude was that the task of working out what they meant was one that God had given primarily to gay Christians and I should leave it to them.
Since becoming firstly a parent, and then a lay reader, I felt increasingly that wasn't enough, and I really ought to have a clearer view. The whole gay marriage debate then convinced me that the anti-gay side had not a single reasonable argument, and that the traditional reading of scripture was about as morally defensible as heliocentrism is cosmologically defensible - and I've argued fairly recently here that any other interpretation must be preferred to one that is so obviously wrong. But I'm still looking for an interpretation - I still think the Bible is inspired scripture. The clobber texts are still a problem for me, not something I can easily choose to ignore. Even though I am in practice "ignoring" them (I don't have a convincing way of "interpreting them away"), I'm not, and don't think I should be, entirely comfortable with that.
Which is why I don't think it's fair to blame other Christians for struggling with the same problem. I think some resolutions of that problem are wrong, damaging, offensive and blameworthy, and I think that Steve L's conclusions are demonstrably in that category, but nevertheless it is attempted fidelity to scripture and not hatred for gays that have got him there, and that does make a difference to how I engage with him.
Sorry if you think it shouldn't, but it does.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Except that now that he has been challenged to engage on the remarks that were called as being beyond the pale, he appears to have gone into hiding.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The clobber texts are still a problem for me, not something I can easily choose to ignore. Even though I am in practice "ignoring" them (I don't have a convincing way of "interpreting them away"), I'm not, and don't think I should be, entirely comfortable with that.
Sorry if you think it shouldn't, but it does.
Do you eat shrimp?
If so, how do you ignore or interpret away the shrimp clobber passages? Shrimp is called an abomination four times more than homosexuality is.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Eliab wrote:
quote:
I think some resolutions of that problem are wrong, damaging, offensive and blameworthy, and I think that Steve L's conclusions are demonstrably in that category, but nevertheless it is attempted fidelity to scripture and not hatred for gays that have got him there, and that does make a difference to how I engage with him.
I'm curious as to how you know this - that it's not hatred for gays. The two positions are not either/or of course; I mean, you could simultaneously maintain fidelity to scripture and hate gays. Well, I'm not sure which would come first.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Eliab,
Most Christians are not conflicted about divorce, the actual prohibition in the text said to contain a "definition" of marriage as straight.
Most Christians do not condone stoning their children to death for misbehaving.
The dietary restrictions Boogie mentions were hand-waived away (by Peter?) in order to to recruit.
Why are those unimportant whilst homosexuality is such a difficult thing?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
But the point Eliab is making, which doesn't seem to me particularly difficult to understand, is that Christians can present some kind of Reason for why we don't have to obey the plain meaning of Scripture in those cases. You may think these Reasons are post hoc rationalisations, and you may be right, but we still feel obliged to provide them.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
To put it another way: "What about the shellfish???" is an effective Take That against the kind of pompous fundamentalists who think they are just following the plain meaning of the Word of God, and that everyone else's interpretation is just a liberal euphemism for making God a liar.
It's not a sensible reposte to someone who already acknowledges that they are making compromises with the text, and is concerned that those compromises may lack integrity.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It's not a sensible reposte to someone who already acknowledges that they are making compromises with the text, and is concerned that those compromises may lack integrity.
Of course one should be concerned about how they interpret that which they consider their life's guidelines.
I am saying that Christians pick and chose which interpretations they will be fashed about and anti-homosexuality is one that makes least sense.
Jesus fairly explicitly said no divorce save for one condition. Pretty much every Christian church found ways around this. And some ignore it completely.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
And that is not an effective answer to a Christian who is attempting NOT to behave in such a way. Seriously, there's no need to bash Eliab for giving voice to a very real quandary for many loving and faithful Christians who have difficulties with these passages. They don't trouble you, fine. They do trouble others. And those others need not be flaming hypocrites or unloving assholes.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I am not bashing Eliab. Seriously, read my comments regarding the person who inspired this thread (and who I am bashing) and contrast those with how I address Eliab. I'll save the sarcasm and state there is a significant and obvious difference.
Once again, I understand, and expect people to thoughtfully process their guidelines.
My point is that Christians deviate from the bible as a matter of course.
So I am not asking something strange or unreasonable.
Steve Langston is easy to revile, his position is smug and contains no actual thought or compassion.
Eliab, like you, is a person of compassion and reason. This makes a struggle regarding LGBT+ more difficult to process.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
I think the issue here is, why is that particular issue harder to deal with than others with seemingly equal or greater degrees of importance? I don't get it myself.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
The question is why one honors the motivations of those whose actions harm other people who have other beliefs? Do you admire the devout Muslim who decides the Koran tells him he must go on Jihad and kill non-believers? If not, is it only the specific holy book they follow is the wrong on, and not the damage their actions cause that you abhor?
To have the likes of Steve come into a thread where various people talk about their pain in trying to reconcile their gay identity and the Anglican Church when Steve believes neither is good and everyone has to be an Anabaptist is rude, inconsiderate and hurtful.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Eliab, 20 or more years ago, maybe even 10, we would have agreed with you. It's the old "hate the sin, love the sinner" in slightly different terms. Since then, there's been much more research into Paul's words suggesting very strongly to us that they are not a blanket condemnation of sex between men and we have moved with that interpretation. Leviticus is much more difficult to deal with beyond (i) Christ's own words that he is replacing the old laws, (ii) the symbolic end of the old laws in the rending of the temple veil, and (iii) the Transfiguration itself, with the Father's words:"This is my Son, listen to Him" not to the old prophecies of Elijah or the old laws of Moses.
SL still has to answer my comment on the Purgatory thread that he has conflated sexuality and sexual practices. He can't.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
tangent/
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
My point is that Christians deviate from the bible as a matter of course.
And at the risk of turning this DH and Purgatorial in a single post, for information where I have got to right now is that, somewhat counter-intuitively, "deviating from the bible" actually has good biblical precedent.
And in fact the story of how Christians came to eat shellfish (Acts 10, 15) is pretty much a prime example of them doing precisely that.
In other words, I think the "inspiration of interpretation" is a thing. Perhaps especially in matters of conduct, the Bible itself sets out the principle of not applying the "plain meaning of the text" immutably for all time.
(if anyone wants to pick up on this, both the DH and the Purgatory threads linked to above are still there...)
[I see mdijon has just done precisely that while I've been posting this...]
/tangent
[ 23. February 2016, 05:29: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Most Christians are not conflicted about divorce, the actual prohibition in the text said to contain a "definition" of marriage as straight.
Most Christians do not condone stoning their children to death for misbehaving.
The dietary restrictions Boogie mentions were hand-waived away (by Peter?) in order to to recruit.
Why are those unimportant whilst homosexuality is such a difficult thing?
What Ricardus said. Also...
Most Christians are conflicted about divorce. The Bible at times seems to permit, mandate, and forbid it. We can see why it's allowed - relationships can become damaging and abusive to the point where compassion requires us to permit an escape - we can see why it's forbidden - betraying and abandoning a person who may be dependent on you is a bad thing. The OT law, quite reasonably, does not allow a man to repudiate his marriage and at the same time insist that his ex-wife cannot re-marry, but Jesus seem to say that marriage after divorce is adultery. There are various ways that we try to reconcile all those principles. Whichever way we choose, the passages that we've given second place to are still there, are still scriptural, and bother us.
There might be fundamentalists who insist that the Bible speaks with one voice on all issues, and that their interpretation correctly harmonises the whole of the Bible's teachings. I'm not one of them (Steve Langton, I think, is, or is trying to be), and I'm not convinced that that works. There may be extreme liberals who don't care what the Bible says at all. I'm not one of those either. Outside those extremes I can't see how a Christian can avoid being conflicted.
Stoning children to death for misbehaviour? I'm not sure that that's an entirely accurate interpretation of the passage in question, but the general point, that the OT mandates the death penalty for offences that I consider trivial is a good one, and is a problem. How could it not be? I think the OT is divinely inspired, and so when it mandates what seems to be gross injustice, I have to question what I think of God, what I regard as justice, or what I understand by inspiration. Of course, along with almost all mainstream Christianity, I don't think the OT law is, or ever was, binding in a judicial sense outside ancient Israel, and I think the NT (and most especially the incarnation) has materially changed the cosmos so that there will be things, like the death penalty, that we have to re-evaluate. So in practical terms it's a less pressing problem, but one that I think Christians ought to think about.
Dietary laws? See above. I'm not especially bothered that the religion from which my faith derives had a purity code - that does seem to be a very common way in which human beings approach whatever they regard as holy. I'm glad that Christianity seems to have concluded, at a very early stage, that we didn't really need one, and should emphasise moral purity instead. I am bothered by the fact that the old purity code was at times brutally enforced, but again, that's a serious issue, but not a 'live' one.
I'd be quite happy to regard all OT condemnations of homosexuality as being purity laws (of the 'no mixtures or deviations' sort), and thus no longer directly binding, except that St Paul, who clearly disapplied the purity code to (gentile) Christians, is also the NT writer who provides us with the problem verses about homosexuality. And if St Paul meant what he is traditionally taken to have meant, he is (to the best of my moral judgment) plainly wrong. That's the problem. Unlike the others, it is a 'live' issue because it makes an immediate difference to how Christians should live, and how they should treat others.
At times, the anti-gay interpretation seems almost to define the public face of my faith, and I don't want to be anti-gay. At all. I wish the text didn't say what it appears to. Where I am now, I do think that the anti-gay verses should be ignored (I don't think we can have the confidence that the apparent meaning is right, given what we now know about gay people), but I don't think that it is trivially easy to ignore them. That's my point.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
It's the old "hate the sin, love the sinner" in slightly different terms.
You have misunderstood me if you think I'm saying that.
I don't "hate the sin" of homosexuality. I can't. I don't know how anyone can rightly hate the idea of two people loving one another. That seems to me to be contrary to all moral intuition.
The fact that I can't hate same-sex love, any more than I can hate opposite-sex love, or see any moral difference between the two, makes me doubt very much that there is a sin to hate at all.
If I could hate homosexuality, I wouldn't be conflicted by the passages that seem to condemn it.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Boogie: quote:
Do you eat shrimp?
If so, how do you ignore or interpret away the shrimp clobber passages? Shrimp is called an abomination four times more than homosexuality is.
I do not eat shrimp, but if I did, I could quite easily justify it by referring to Peter's dream in Acts 10. That's a direct instruction from God not to call things unclean when he has redeemed them. Faced with this evidence, the Council of Jerusalem agrees to relax the dietary laws (amongst other things) for non-Jewish converts. That's in the Bible too. New Testament trumps Old Testament.
Similarly, I justify my support of SSM by referring to the Two Great Commandments (Love God; love your neighbour as yourself) and by his rebukes to the Pharisees (there are several, but let's go with Matthew 15 for now) on obeying the letter of the law and not the spirit. I think the last-ditch argument 'Traditional Marriage is between one man and one woman' is an example of that, and speaking as a woman I am quite glad we have moved on from 'Traditional Marriage'. I don't want to be my husband's property (or anyone else's, for that matter).
Justifying SSM by reference to the Bible is harder than justifying eating shrimp, because there are a few condemnations of homosexuality in the New Testament. However, I think 'love your neighbour as yourself' still trumps them. And as several people have already pointed out, many churches do allow divorce despite the clear condemnation of it in the New Testament.
If we're going to hold gays (and lesbians, though these discussions always seem to focus on gay men) to Biblical standards of sexual morality, then everyone else should follow them too. That means no sex until marriage, no divorce and no adultery. For anyone.
[ 23. February 2016, 09:12: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Seems to me we're talking about (at least) two different things.
First, what people should be allowed to do in society. It strikes me that there is absolutely no excuse or need or reason for any Church or Christian group to be campaigning about state-recognised SSM.
People exist in society that are different. Every Christian recognises this - and vanishingly small (if any) campaign against Hindu marriage, the state recognition of divorce, or non-married sexual relationships. But somehow groups of Christians think that they're entitled to tell everyone else what quote unquote "real" marriage is.
That's a bit different, I think, to a religious group setting rules for behaviour of their own people (clergy or laity). I know this thread is to bash SL, but in this sense I think he is right - the position of the Established religion in England merges the issues of acceptable behaviours in the CofE and in wider society.
A religious community could, I think, set rules about inclusion/exclusion based on gender, skin colour, shoe size, hair length, lack of foreskin... and so on. Of course many of these things would be inappropriate or offensive to the rest of society, but I don't think this means that they should not be allowed to set those rules.
But I don't think this is what is under discussion here - which is rather that a significant group of people within the CofE believe that the rules that the hierarchy sets about behaviour are wrong. Instead of having the courage of their (wrong, IMO) convictions and actually excluding the people they seem to think should be excluded, the institution seems to be playing with people and saying that they are acceptable whilst at the same time saying they're not acceptable.
This same kind of issue is being played out in many different religious bodies of course. But the hurt I'm hearing from those in the CofE seems to me to be mostly about the double-standards rather than the conviction itself. I can't help feeling that everyone would be better off if there was an actual line in the sand set by the CofE and those who did not agree were told/encouraged to leave. Trying to live with a silly fudge helps nobody in the long term.
I know other views are available.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Jane R: I do not eat shrimp, but if I did, I could quite easily justify it by referring to Peter's dream in Acts 10. That's a direct instruction from God not to call things unclean when he has redeemed them
This is not how Peter interpreted the dream he got from God. In Acts 10:15 (NIV), God tells him "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." However, in verse 28, Peter goes beyond that and says "But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean."
It was very clear to Peter that the dream wasn't about dietary laws. Any interpretation of Acts 10 that this is what his dream was about is unbiblical.
[ 23. February 2016, 09:33: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
another tangent/
Jesus was understood to have declared all foods clean back in the Gospels - although these are of course usually held to have been written after Acts; more ex-post reinterpretation within Scripture itself? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
/another tangent
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I'm beginning to wonder if some of what is going on isn't related to a creationists' argument. That is, the one about Jesus mentioning Genesis 1, so if Genesis 1 is shown to be wrong, then Jesus must have been wrong and therefore one can put absolutely no trust into anything at all in the Bible, and therefore all its moral teachings founder and everyone is bound for hell in a handcart because nothing will hold them back from sin.
Forgive the long sentence, but that has been roughly how it has been presented to me, as something that will permit of no gaps in the argument at all. It is as if the faith were a gigantic game of Jenga, and that the removal of even one block from the tower would cause it to collapse like Babel.
I can see this dependence on Leviticus and Paul may be something of the same sort of thing. If it is allowed that homosexuality is not an abomination to be forbidden, what else will follow? Since nothing is said about shrimp, or polyester/cotton mixes in the NT, the tower does not fall over them, but homosexuality is obviously, to those who hold those views, a different kettle of scaleless fish, and they need to hang on to it.
Alternatively, it is like the hole in the park fence, round behind a bush. The one hole may have been intended only for small boys to go and get their balls back, but it completely destroys the nature of the fence, so that who knows what unspeakable things may be happening when no-one is looking.
There have been slippery slope arguments in the run up to the passing of laws allowing SSM, citing the possibilities of incestuous or bestial marriages, as if law was the only defence preventing that sort of thing. I think that sort of argument is transparent rubbish, but there are clearly people who do not, and could be finding the acceptance of homosexuals as that missing block, or hole in the fence, allowing an avalanche of awfulness to engulf society.
I don't know why I am trying to find arguments rendering the people who make life appalling for the gays they deal with more rational.
[ 23. February 2016, 13:29: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Most Christians are conflicted about divorce.
Evidence?
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
This is not how Peter interpreted the dream he got from God. In Acts 10:15 (NIV), God tells him "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." However, in verse 28, Peter goes beyond that and says "But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean."
It was very clear to Peter that the dream wasn't about dietary laws. Any interpretation of Acts 10 that this is what his dream was about is unbiblical.
A metaphor that compares X to Y to show that X has a certain property doesn't work at all unless it is already understood that Y has that property. Your interpretation is impossible. The passage doesn't prove shrimp are okay. It presupposes it.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mousethief: A metaphor that compares X to Y to show that X has a certain property doesn't work at all unless it is already understood that Y has that property. Your interpretation is impossible. The passage doesn't prove shrimp are okay. It presupposes it.
Could you write this again in words no longer than one syllable?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
mousethief: A metaphor that compares X to Y to show that X has a certain property doesn't work at all unless it is already understood that Y has that property. Your interpretation is impossible. The passage doesn't prove shrimp are okay. It presupposes it.
Could you write this again in words no longer than one syllable?
"You. Are. Wrong."
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
To be honest, I think mousethief misunderstood me. I don't have the impression that we're very wide apart in our interpretations of Acts 10, judging by him putting it in his sig. But his talk of metaphors is confusing me. No-one is talking metaphors here.
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The passage doesn't prove shrimp are okay. It presupposes it.
This is actually what I understood Le Roc to be saying, FWIW.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I still don't understand very well what mousethief was saying. Let me try to make my argument more clear.
Homophobe: There is a prohibition against gay sex in the OT. Therefore it's a sin.
Intelligent Person: There is a prohibition against eating clams in the OT too, but we don't consider that a sin.
H: In Acts 10, Peter had a dream where God lifted the OT ban on eating clams. But only that ban. You can't interpret this dream as God lifting other OT bans.
IP: I the same chapter, Peter interpreted this dream as God lifting other OT bans. Your way of reading Acts 10 is unbiblical.
I don't know if this is helpful?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Could you write this again in words no longer than one syllable?
Why, were you think of using it in nursery school?
quote:
To be honest, I think mousethief misunderstood me. I don't have the impression that we're very wide apart in our interpretations of Acts 10, judging by him putting it in his sig. But his talk of metaphors is confusing me. No-one is talking metaphors here.
What do you think is the relationship between the food and the gentiles? It's a METAPHOR, isn't it? The food is a metaphor for the gentiles. Unless you think the food has nothing whatsoever to do with the gentiles, and there is no comparison between the two. And that may be your take. It seems pretty clear to me that an analogy is being set up:
food:edible::gentiles:baptiseable
And it only works if it is taken as read that the foods that Peter has seen are edible (to a Christian in good standing). If God hasn't called those foods clean, it makes no sense whatsoever to use them in a vision explaining that gentiles are clean. The two are completely unrelated and God is a moron at arguing his point.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I still don't understand very well what mousethief was saying. Let me try to make my argument more clear.
Homophobe: There is a prohibition against gay sex in the OT. Therefore it's a sin.
Intelligent Person: There is a prohibition against eating clams in the OT too, but we don't consider that a sin.
H: In Acts 10, Peter had a dream where God lifted the OT ban on eating clams. But only that ban. You can't interpret this dream as God lifting other OT bans.
IP: I the same chapter, Peter interpreted this dream as God lifting other OT bans. Your way of reading Acts 10 is unbiblical.
I don't know if this is helpful?
No, not in the least. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
It is so obvious to me that you two are agreeing with each other that I am biting back Momisms about knocking heads together. It's like that fucking 1970's Reese's Peanut Butter Cup commercial.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
(pouts) You got peanut butter on my chocolate!
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Thank you.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
At this time of year, I quite often wear a cotton shirt with a linen jacket - not a mixed fabric, but still....
Reverting to that offensive post by SL, can anyone pojnt me to any biblical condemnation of either sort of sexual behaviour between a married couple please/
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Kelly Alves: It is so obvious to me that you two are agreeing with each other
I think so too. It is interesting how we can agree with each other and not understand each other (I still don't). I have no idea what would be needed to break through.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Self-righteous obsessive rambler indeed.
He's got a real thing about anal and oral sex hasn't he?
Indeed. I don't think I have enough time and inclination to imagine in pornagraphically forensic detail what consenting adults do with their genitals and other body parts, to be the kind of Christian SL seems to be.
And when it turns out that those adults are free to be with each other, monogamous and exhibit good and godly virtues in how they otherwise live their lives, I'm not at all inclined to spend my own free time rehearsing to myself in vivid colour what it is they do with their magic bits and why I should find that offensive.
If anal and oral sex is so wrong in these contexts, I would have to join the campaign to ensure that no married couples participate in such things, never mind 'the gays'. Is there such a campaign? Or is it only worth getting hysterical over these behaviours when they're carried out by 'them'?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
H: In Acts 10, Peter had a dream where God lifted the OT ban on eating clams. But only that ban. You can't interpret this dream as God lifting other OT bans.
IP: I the same chapter, Peter interpreted this dream as God lifting other OT bans. Your way of reading Acts 10 is unbiblical.
I'm not convinced by these two steps.
I think it is fairly uncontroversial that Judaism distinguishes between the Laws of Moses that were given to the Jews as part of God's covenant with the Chosen People, and moral laws that were given to humanity as a whole. Nor is it in doubt that after much argument the earliest Christians decided that the Mosaic Laws do not bind Christians, and Peter's vision stands alongside Paul's epistles to the Romans and the Galatians in asserting this.
The question is then whether the prohibition on gay sex falls inside the Mosaic Laws or the general laws, and Paul prima facie seems to have believed the latter. One might want to argue that he was wrong or that he actually meant something else, but one cannot simply package gay sex up with prawns as though it was obvious they form part of the same category.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
In the interests of full disclosure, Ricardus I've quoted you here.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I personally feel that the whole thing making differences between Mosaic and ritual and ceremonial … laws is making stuff up in order to be able to pick and choose from OT rules.
In any case, it doesn't weaken my argument. In arguing that we can eat shrimp now but gay sex is still a sin, Jane R referred to Acts 10 and only Acts 10. You can't use Acts 10 to say that God only revoked the dietary rules, which is what Jane R tried to do. You need to bring in this extra-biblical bullshit.
[ 24. February 2016, 12:12: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You need to bring in this extra-biblical bullshit.
It's not necessarily "extra-biblical" if you think the principle of reinterpretation of/accommodations to Scripture is enshrined therein right back to the Pentateuch.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I personally feel that the whole thing making differences between Mosaic and ritual and ceremonial … laws is making stuff up in order to be able to pick and choose from OT rules.
Well, your personal feelings are wrong. The distinction between Mosaic and Noahide Laws exists within Judaism too. It's not something Christians made up. If it's extra-Biblical bullshit, then it's Jewish extra-Biblical bullshit.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Eutychus: It's not necessarily "extra-biblical" if you think the principle of reinterpretation of/accommodations to Scripture is enshrined therein right back to the Pentateuch.
Jane R wrote "I do not eat shrimp, but if I did, I could quite easily justify it by referring to Peter's dream in Acts 10." No she can't.
You can't read Acts 10 and conclude that God only lifted dietary bans through this dream. The chapter literally says that God did more than that. Period.
Without wanting to enter a wider debate on Mosaic ceremonial vs moral laws here, the only thing I'm saying is: there's nothing about distinction between these different kinds of laws in Acts 10 (nor would I argue, anywhere else in the Bible).
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I personally feel that the whole thing making differences between Mosaic and ritual and ceremonial … laws is making stuff up in order to be able to pick and choose from OT rules.
Well, your personal feelings are wrong. The distinction between Mosaic and Noahide Laws exists within Judaism too. It's not something Christians made up. If it's extra-Biblical bullshit, then it's Jewish extra-Biblical bullshit.
It seems here LeRoc is conflating the division between Noahide and Mosaic laws with the division between Mosaic ritual and Mosaic moral laws. It's two quite different divisions.
Noahide laws were those given to Noah when the ark landed (eat meat but not blood, ya-da). I was taught that they were reified by the apostles in the Council in Acts 15. They are at any rate separate from the Law of Moses in Leviticus et al.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mousethief: It seems here LeRoc is conflating the division between Noahide and Mosaic laws with the division between Mosaic ritual and Mosaic moral laws.
Oh yes, and probably a couple more.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I personally feel that the whole thing making differences between Mosaic and ritual and ceremonial … laws is making stuff up in order to be able to pick and choose from OT rules.
Well, your personal feelings are wrong. The distinction between Mosaic and Noahide Laws exists within Judaism too. It's not something Christians made up. If it's extra-Biblical bullshit, then it's Jewish extra-Biblical bullshit.
It seems here LeRoc is conflating the division between Noahide and Mosaic laws with the division between Mosaic ritual and Mosaic moral laws. It's two quite different divisions.
Noahide laws were those given to Noah when the ark landed (eat meat but not blood, ya-da).
But we ignore those as well don't we? Black pudding anyone?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Mmm, yes please! And I like my steak rare.
So that's me fucked under the OT then.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Is this a good place to point out that oysters are hermaphrodites?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mmm, yes please! And I like my steak rare.
So that's me fucked under the OT then.
Can't help you with the black pudding, but the red oozing from your steak is myoglobin, not blood.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
I'm not sure if the analogous case is quite so much dietary laws as Pauline rules about women covering their heads (and men not) and not speaking in church. Now, granted, the notion of a man doffing his hat in church has become a bit moot, given how few men wear hats these days (yes, I know somebody reading this is going to pipe up and say "but I wear hats all the time," can it, so do I), but it's rare to see women, especially younger ones, wearing hats or scarves in church, outside of certain conservative Protestant (the Church of Christ springs to mind) or African-American circles. Similarly, excepting groups like the Church of Christ, the idea of women reading Scripture, teaching Sunday school, or leading public prayers doesn't seem to be that controversial, even if the idea of ordaining women is still a DH.
So why the difference? Why prefer one part of 1 Corinthians to another?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Why prefer one part of 1 Corinthians to another?
That was certainly a clincher for me in rejecting complementarianism. Paul's logic based on the "Creation order" argument in 1 Tim 2 for women not teaching is almost exactly the same as it is for head coverings in 1 Cor. Enforcing one and not the other makes no sense.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mmm, yes please! And I like my steak rare.
So that's me fucked under the OT then.
Can't help you with the black pudding, but the red oozing from your steak is myoglobin, not blood.
Yes. If it were blood, then cooking your steak would give you steak with cooked blood, not steak without blood.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But we ignore those as well don't we? Black pudding anyone?
"We" yourself. I don't eat black pudding.
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
it's rare to see women, especially younger ones, wearing hats or scarves in church, outside of certain conservative Protestant (the Church of Christ springs to mind) or African-American circles.
Once again, the Orthodox are chopped liver.
[ 25. February 2016, 04:04: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Jane R wrote "I do not eat shrimp, but if I did, I could quite easily justify it by referring to Peter's dream in Acts 10." No she can't.
You can't read Acts 10 and conclude that God only lifted dietary bans through this dream. The chapter literally says that God did more than that. Period.
I don't understand what is being argued about. It seems to me that it isn't possible to take at least some of the New Testament teaching on face value. For example, does anyone think it appropriate/proportionate to lop off your own limbs to avoid sin?
I don't see that one is forced to accept from Acts 10 that all foods are acceptable to eat to make the allegory work.
In reality, I think that the best argument the against the application of food requirements for the Christian is that they only ever applied to the Jewish covenant people - and as most/all of us are Gentiles these things never applied to us in the first place anyway.
Incidentally I think this is basically applies to all of the OT laws including the Ten Commandments, given that these were only given to Moses and the people rather than to the whole world in the first place. Our status of being excluded from the provisions of the first covenant is nothing to do with our failure to live up to the law and everything to do with the fact that we're not Jewish. It seems fairly clear that even if we did follow the Law to the latter, it'd make absolutely no difference if we have the wrong parents.
The nature of the NT and the Kingdom is to sweep away all that stuff. But then the struggle is understanding how to understand and contextualise the OT for the Christian.
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mmm, yes please! And I like my steak rare.
So that's me fucked under the OT then.
Can't help you with the black pudding, but the red oozing from your steak is myoglobin, not blood.
Yes. If it were blood, then cooking your steak would give you steak with cooked blood, not steak without blood.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But we ignore those as well don't we? Black pudding anyone?
"We" yourself. I don't eat black pudding.
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
it's rare to see women, especially younger ones, wearing hats or scarves in church, outside of certain conservative Protestant (the Church of Christ springs to mind) or African-American circles.
Once again, the Orthodox are chopped liver.
Ugh, I've even been denounced as a backslider by a would-be orthodox woman who sported short hair, 'to her shame' and the great scandal of angels in heaven.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mmm, yes please! And I like my steak rare.
So that's me fucked under the OT then.
Can't help you with the black pudding, but the red oozing from your steak is myoglobin, not blood.
Well, that's a relief than. Still not giving up my BP mind...
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
How much longer until we get to the number of angels pleasuring themselves on a pinhead argument?
Surely the point is that the generally-perceived great good that can be distilled from the bible does, in fact, require some degree of distillation. The descriptive power of allegory is a power that can be used against the fundamental purpose of the bible. Is it not meant as a guide to set human hearts free, leading us through the shadows of our fumbling Old Times and into the light of the god of love's hope for us? Isn't it our duty to open our hearts to that message to see how it can imperfectly be so for us and those we affect?
No, wait, a quick internet search shows that I'm wrong. It's mostly about the begetting, the badness of some arbitrary things, and Judgement™. Fuck.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I've had a judgement fuck.* Strange as hell it was.
*Well, if you are going to get all pedantic about word usage and original meaning being PIV, it was judgmental sex, but it was weird as fuck.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
How much longer until we get to the number of angels pleasuring themselves on a pinhead argument?
Surely the point is that the generally-perceived great good that can be distilled from the bible does, in fact, require some degree of distillation. The descriptive power of allegory is a power that can be used against the fundamental purpose of the bible. Is it not meant as a guide to set human hearts free, leading us through the shadows of our fumbling Old Times and into the light of the god of love's hope for us? Isn't it our duty to open our hearts to that message to see how it can imperfectly be so for us and those we affect?
No, wait, a quick internet search shows that I'm wrong. It's mostly about the begetting, the badness of some arbitrary things, and Judgement™. Fuck.
Preach."Jesus wept" was definitely not an allegory.
[ 25. February 2016, 17:56: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I've had a judgement fuck.
It is not surprising to hear that your judgement is fucked.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Yeah, we can all only hope to be the beacon of insight and discernment you are, RooK. Give us mere mortals a chance.
On the other hand, the phrase "judgemental fuck" calls to mind pictures of the Soviet judges at gymnastics competitions holding up signs.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I've had a judgement fuck.
It is not surprising to hear that your judgement is fucked.
It is not the insult which is hurtful, but the lack of effort in crafting it.
You damn me with faint damns.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
The crafting of abuse I outsource to Hellhosts - it's why I hire them for the fantastic salaries they demand.
Besides, I couldn't do much composition with all the chuckling you induced. It was a funny, and I could merely Hell-bow to you for it.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I'm interested in hearing about this judgement fuck.
I'm a terrible, terrible person.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Ugh, I've even been denounced as a backslider by a would-be orthodox woman who sported short hair, 'to her shame' and the great scandal of angels in heaven.
What the fuck does this have to do with anything on this thread?
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Ugh, I've even been denounced as a backslider by a would-be orthodox woman who sported short hair, 'to her shame' and the great scandal of angels in heaven.
What the fuck does this have to do with anything on this thread?
Same as women not wearing scarves or hat in church, Mr Mouse, as per 1Cor11, or men having long hair.
Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on
:
What I really want to know is why no one seems to advocate nailing slaves' ears to doorposts? Both Ex 21.6 & Deut 15.17 require it. How much more biblical precedent does one need?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Is this meant to be taken literally or does it refer equally to servants and employees? If so, I might give it a try at the office today...
Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Is this meant to be taken literally or does it refer equally to servants and employees? If so, I might give it a try at the office today...
Ah, now you are getting into interpretation. What was a slave in the ancient near east? How does it equate with the slavery of office work today (I am slumped over sage accounting)?
Tricky thing the Bible.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Ugh, I've even been denounced as a backslider by a would-be orthodox woman who sported short hair, 'to her shame' and the great scandal of angels in heaven.
What the fuck does this have to do with anything on this thread?
Same as women not wearing scarves or hat in church, Mr Mouse, as per 1Cor11, or men having long hair.
If those have already been mentioned on this thread, I apologize, for I missed it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Tricky thing the Bible.
Not tricky at all. It is a magic mirror that reflects your heart's desire.
So yes it is strictly literal,
Yes, it requires discerning interpretation,
And yes, you are a pretty, pretty princess.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
What I really want to know is why no one seems to advocate nailing slaves' ears to doorposts? Both Ex 21.6 & Deut 15.17 require it. How much more biblical precedent does one need?
Because I'm in a mood to be literal--
They don't require it, they offer the option (to the slave, people, NOT the master). I wish we had the option of nailing this thread to the door.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
What I really want to know is why no one seems to advocate nailing slaves' ears to doorposts? Both Ex 21.6 & Deut 15.17 require it. How much more biblical precedent does one need?
Because I'm in a mood to be literal--
They don't require it, they offer the option (to the slave, people, NOT the master). I wish we had the option of nailing this thread to the door.
Do any of us live in Wittenburg?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
What I really want to know is why no one seems to advocate nailing slaves' ears to doorposts?
Just can't get the right sort of doorpost these days ...
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
What I really want to know is why no one seems to advocate nailing slaves' ears to doorposts? Both Ex 21.6 & Deut 15.17 require it. How much more biblical precedent does one need?
Because I'm in a mood to be literal--
They don't require it, they offer the option (to the slave, people, NOT the master). I wish we had the option of nailing this thread to the door.
Ok, just read them both. Can you explain how the contextual version is any less fucked up?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Do you really want to know, or is it just another chance to fuck around?
Want to know and I'll meet you in Kerygmania.
Fuck around, and I'll see you in Hell.
Er. Um.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Wild guess, but was that just the preferred method of making pierced ears in those days? They didn't have Piercing Pagoda, after all...
[ 27. February 2016, 20:08: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Do you really want to know, or is it just another chance to fuck around?
Want to know and I'll meet you in Kerygmania.
Fuck around, and I'll see you in Hell.
Er. Um.
Here is fine Not that I want to get rude, but Kerg is likely going to be too civilised. And I really do want to know how a passage condoning slavery can be considered at all justified.
[ 27. February 2016, 20:25: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I'm not going into all the whys and wherefores here, as I said--Keryg is the spot. But I will note that this passage does not justify slavery. What it does is allow those who wish to remain enslaved, to do so--and prescribes a procedure.
(and if that doesn't spark your curiosity enough to look it up, nothing will)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Yeah, I figured it was that verse, lil b, every seven years slave owners were required to release their slaves. On rare occasions, a slave would decide he was comfortable where he was, and would go through the ear piercing ceremony to identify himself as a voluntary servant.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm not going into all the whys and wherefores here, as I said--Keryg is the spot. But I will note that this passage does not justify slavery. What it does is allow those who wish to remain enslaved, to do so--and prescribes a procedure.
(and if that doesn't spark your curiosity enough to look it up, nothing will)
Already told you I looked them up. Checked a few other references as well. Still fucked up in my eyes. But, I added post in Kerg , though I am not wagering against you calling me back here before too long.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
You should have wagered, you'd have made money. I see no reason to call you to Hell, though I'm frankly bemused by the deep, dark motives you seem to imagine I have for moving the discussion to Kerygmania. I'm not up to being shifty today, I'm one sick puppy (bronchitis) and it's all I can do to be a lazy bum and type on the computer.
So see Keryg for your answer, and then mock on.
[ 28. February 2016, 01:43: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I presume your deep dark motives reduce to not wanting the Hell hosts to gnaw on your ass, LC, and I would further add I can't think of anyone on the Ship who would be less interested in gaming folk. LilB, LC just happens to know her shit in this department. Including where to have discussions of Biblical text.
(Sorry for junior hosting, ye demonic ones, if it comes out that way.)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I have plenty of doorframes y'all can nail bits of yourself to. Levitically, or otherwise.
Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on
:
Sorry I brought up the whole nailing slaves to the doorpost thing. I guess I was just trying to point out that there is a lot of stuff in the Bible which requires contextualization if it is to make any sense. We are not living in the Ancient Near East. Some people really do seem to have trouble grasping that.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Exactly, which is why "the plain teaching of Scripture" can often be anything but that!
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I'd need a *lot* of contextualisation for nailing slaves to the doorpost to make any sense.
Posted by Villz (# 15365) on
:
I have to say that I'm shocked at the vitriol and bad language poured out in various threads at Steve Langton. Whilst I don't agree with his views, there are plenty in the church who do and I would defend their right to say what they believe.
It seems to me that anyone who posts on SoF who disagrees with SSM etc is attacked with real hate. That's hardly Christian.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Can I be the first? Please? Please?
ITTWACW!
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
At the risk of being accused of Junior Hosting, let me say:
- the criticisms of Steve do not come from disagreements with his views per se, but with the facts that (a) he seems to be unaware of points of view other than his own and (b) brings every conversation back to 'Constantianism' or the 'Establishment' of the CofE.
- while I think it's true that the majority of folk posting on the Ship are in favour of SSM (and inter alia can be dismissive of those who hold more traditionalist views), I think it's a bit strong to say that they use the language of 'hate'. I would hope that a better term would be 'robust disagreement but I realise that we can all go too far at times!
[ 28. February 2016, 14:17: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Villz:
I have to say that I'm shocked at the vitriol and bad language poured out in various threads at Steve Langton. Whilst I don't agree with his views, there are plenty in the church who do and I would defend their right to say what they believe.
It seems to me that anyone who posts on SoF who disagrees with SSM etc is attacked with real hate. That's hardly Christian.
It is hardly that he was attacked, but rather that the loathing of his posts built up over time. There are others with the same view who are not treated with the same disdain.
[ 28. February 2016, 14:57: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Villz:
I have to say that I'm shocked at the vitriol and bad language poured out in various threads at Steve Langton. Whilst I don't agree with his views, there are plenty in the church who do and I would defend their right to say what they believe.
It seems to me that anyone who posts on SoF who disagrees with SSM etc is attacked with real hate. That's hardly Christian.
You are a n00b, and therefore deserve leeway.
This is Hell. This is where we corral vitriol and bad language so that the other boards are free of them. We have, over many years, decided that this is the least worst mechanism to allow Shippies (and welcome aboard) to vent when, inevitably, things sometimes get heated. A brief perusal of the past Hell threads directed at particular shipmates include such joys as imperialism, islamophobia and a tendency to gnomic utterances.
Whether it is Christian or not is moot. Not everyone here is a Christian. Not everyone here thinks that everyone here who says they're a Christian is a Christian. Some of the Christians even doubt they're Christians if they're having a bad day. This is not a Christian Website (as LeRoc alludes to).
DT
HH
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
All true Doc Tor, but Villz did say that s/he was "shocked at the vitriol and bad language poured out in various threads" - i.e. not just in Hell, where gloves are always off.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Thing is, though, SL doesn't seem to be around to receive or respond to the 'vitriolic' comments, either here in Hell or elsewhere aboard Ship.
Perhaps we should be grateful for that?
If he were, then I think I could anticipate what his response would be ...
Something with a C, an N (well, several actually) and a T in it ... (well, several of those two ...)
I spy with my little eye, an Emperor beginning with ...
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Wooh hangman!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
In fairness to Steve - and yes, I too am extending fairness to him, even in Hell - I agree with the comment a while back that SL doesn't seem to have anything personal against gay people - but believes his hard-line stance is where the scriptures lead him ...
Equally, his offensive thread about willies and where they might be placed struck me as a pretty cack-handed attempt to call a spade a shovel and be as blunt as some other posters can be ...
And without the self-awareness or fellow-feeling (ooh, matron ...) that might strike warning bells that this wasn't a particularly appropriate way to frame the issue on a thread where people were discussing complex and nuanced positions and moral/ecclesial dilemmas and so on ...
That doesn't let Steve off the hook, of course - but it's an attempt to understand where he was coming from ... but then, that's not difficult as he's got 'fundamentalist', 'binary' and 'single-issue' stamped all over his posts.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Can I be the first? Please? Please?
ITTWACW!
Villz, welcome. So you know:
ITTWACW stands for "I thought that this was a Christian website." It is an inside joke that a certain number of people who come here find things they don't approve of, and make the complaint that they thought it was a Christian website. It is in some senses a Christian website, to be sure. The Ship of Fools is, after all, the "Magazine of Christian Unrest." But also there are things that go on here that can seem less than entirely Christian to people unfamiliar with the culture.
But the website has settled into this particular pattern, and it's unlikely to change anytime soon to something less offensive to those not accustomed to this level of rough-and-tumble.
Not all websites are for everybody, and if the MO here isn't to your liking, that's perfectly understandable and no blame to you. But it won't change for complaining. I'm afraid your only options are putting up with it, or leaving.
There's so much good here that many of us feel it's worth putting up with the bits that we don't particularly like. And it grows on you.
So anyway, welcome to the SOF. Be sure to go over to the All Saints board, where there is a welcome thread for noobs and you can wave hello and receive warm greetings in return.
We now return to our usual vitriol.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Villz:
I have to say that I'm shocked at the vitriol and bad language poured out in various threads at Steve Langton. Whilst I don't agree with his views, there are plenty in the church who do and I would defend their right to say what they believe.
It seems to me that anyone who posts on SoF who disagrees with SSM etc is attacked with real hate. That's hardly Christian.
Viliz, I see that you have been a shipmate for over 6 years, although only 2 posts to your credit so far. SL has a very idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture and of the proper organisation of the church; like many others who have such an individual approach, he does not seem capable of understanding that there just may be some other perspectives. All the ills of the world and the church in particular flow from the establishment of the C of E, ignoring that the vast majority of the world's Christians do not belong to an established church.
Baptist Trainfan - Viliz's profile gives a occupation of housewife, so I assume that "she" is appropriate.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Not just the vast number of the world's Christians, but also the vast majority of the world's Anglicans ...
Steve doesn't just have it in for the CofE either, but for any group that isn't as Anabaptist as he thinks they should be ... so whilst Baptists are closer to the New Testament, in his view, they still don't go quite far enough because not all Baptists are pacifists and not all of them are quite as 'separate from the world' as he'd like them to be - without actually defining or setting out what that means in practice - other than not joining the army or the police or engaging in politics in any way ...
And whenever anyone asks him what 'being separate from the world' in practice actually means in a modern, globalised economy and mutually interdependent society he can't or won't answer or engage but instead lobs out a few proof-texts as if that settles the matter ... all the while apologising that he can't reply right now because it's late or he has to go to a model railway club meeting or there's an 'r' in the month ...
Whilst the real reason is that he doesn't have a fucking clue but hides behind proof-text mantras, a woodenly literal approach to scriptural interpretation and indeed a virtual denial that he is engaging in interpretation in the first place but only presenting us with the 'plain meaning of scripture' which Anglicans, Orthodox, Catholics and others disregard because they aren't as obedient to the NT as he is ...
It's giving me a headache just thinking about it.
I need an aspirin.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Oh, I don't know ... a nice glass of something-or-other would be better
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It's Lent ...
No doubt an evil Constantinian practice ... something extra-biblical and not derived from the plain-meaning of scripture ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
But it's not the Orthodox Lent yet ... which is another nail in the coffin for nefarious Big T Tradition ... you see the Big T Tradition people can't even agree among themselves on the precise date of Easter.
How then can we trust them on anything else?
Far better to rely on the plain-meaning of scripture as understood by Steve Langton ...
No Christmas, no Easter, no fiddle-faddle or fol-de-rol ... just plain and simple NT Christianity which is so easy to observe, implement and practice if only we were to give ourselves to the plain-meaning of the text and keep ourselves separate from all worldly systems save that of the local model railway club because that is chaste, innocent and above board whilst everything else is compromised, Constantinian and yea verily beareth the marks of Iniquity ...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's Lent ...
Ah, I forgot ... you're Anglican now.
As a Separatist Nonconformist, I am of course obliged to eat chocolate and have little tipples during Lent ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No Christmas, no Easter, no fiddle-faddle or fol-de-rol ... just plain and simple NT Christianity which is so easy to observe, implement and practice if only we were to give ourselves to the plain-meaning of the text and keep ourselves separate from all worldly systems ...
And, of course (following the example of Edward Gosse's "Father and Son"), we must throw the Christmas pudding in the bin and sack the cook who dared to make such an unholy thing and esteem one day above another ...
[ 29. February 2016, 12:31: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's Lent ...
Ah, I forgot ... you're Anglican now.
As a Separatist Nonconformist, I am of course obliged to eat chocolate and have little tipples during Lent
Gordon? Gorden Cheng? Is that you? When did you become a Baptist?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Sorry ... you must be thinking of someone else! (Or am I channelling him? )
Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But it's not the Orthodox Lent yet ... which is another nail in the coffin for nefarious Big T Tradition ... you see the Big T Tradition people can't even agree among themselves on the precise date of Easter.
How then can we trust them on anything else?
Far better to rely on the plain-meaning of scripture as understood by Steve Langton ...
No Christmas, no Easter, no fiddle-faddle or fol-de-rol ... just plain and simple NT Christianity which is so easy to observe, implement and practice if only we were to give ourselves to the plain-meaning of the text and keep ourselves separate from all worldly systems save that of the local model railway club because that is chaste, innocent and above board whilst everything else is compromised, Constantinian and yea verily beareth the marks of Iniquity ...
Absolutely right. You cannot beat simple old time Gospel religion. Preferably with a bishop, deacons, subdeacons, plenty of incense, seven candles on the altar and gin by the gallon to follow. (but not in Lent, if you can work out when it may be).
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
No crucifers or acolytes? Standards must be slipping.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Can't get the staff these days.
Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on
:
I just took that as read. What else would you have in a simple little Gospel service?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Standards are slipping. They don't use the Lectionary at our parish church, the vicar only wears a dog-collar at the 9am service, there are no robes, no candles on the altar but hideous 10-inch high plastic 3D lettering that spells 'Jesus' ... and no choir, no procession and the brass cross that was on the altar has been replaced by a coloured glass one that is so transparent you don't even notice it until you're stood close up ...
I'm the only one who bothers to mention the liturgical calendar in any way, shape or form ... and generally when I do the intercessions ... about every 5 or 6 weeks or so ...
Then, horror of horrors, when editing the church magazine this weekend I find out that due to participator feedback they're going to 'rebrand' the All-Age Family Services as 'Fun Sunday' ...
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Will this be enough to tip me across the Bosphorus or the Tiber ... ?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
FWIW ... I started out Anglican (CiW) but dropped out when I was expected to start confirmation classes ... I then bobbed back briefly when I was about 16 to a 'Higher' parish t'other side of my home-town but didn't stick around long ...
Then, when I was at university I had a full-blown evangelical conversion and after exposure to the Brethren and dabbling with Methodism for a short-while (I also used to attend a Baptist church in South Wales during university holidays), headed out via charismatic Anglicanism to the wild and woolly restorationist scene that seemed to be carrying all before it at that time ...
I then spent six years quite happily as a Baptist, but always knew I was somewhat 'higher' than they were when it came to the Eucharist and so on ... but my more liturgical predilections were tolerated and respected far more than than I've found them to be within evangelical Anglicanism ...
Funny that ... or perhaps not.
In my experience, Baptists feel a lot less threatened by these things than some evangelical Anglicans are ...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Will this be enough to tip me across the Bosphorus or the Tiber ... ?
No, the Tweed: "Welcome to the Church of Scotland".
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Will we see him making the trek across the Midlands to Corby every Sunday, do you think? Choice of two there. Or is the Liverpool CofS still going?
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
Gamaliel, so what you're saying is that you've just never really stuck at anything, you flighty thing?
quote:
Then, horror of horrors, when editing the church magazine this weekend I find out that due to participator feedback they're going to 'rebrand' the All-Age Family Services as 'Fun Sunday'
That is so easy to quash.
"What? So the rest of them are 'No Fun Sunday' are they?"
Just say it loudly about the place a few times in front of the right people.
(Reminds me of the time at our place when we ran Contemporary Services in the evening. They were really good - popular, good message, accessible, packed the place, created a desire to be there etc. But they got slowly killed, starting with "You can't call it a contemporary service, it implies everything else we do isn't contemporary.", "Yes, it does, doesn't it?", "Well, I find that offensive", "So do I, but probably for very different reasons ...")
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Absolutely right. You cannot beat simple old time Gospel religion. Preferably with a bishop, deacons, subdeacons, plenty of incense, seven candles on the altar and gin by the gallon to follow. (but not in Lent, if you can work out when it may be).
ROTFL!!! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
No, I don't think that I've been flighty - 18 years in a charismatic evangelical outfit, six years in a Baptist church and the last nine years in my local parish church even though a lot of what goes on there gets on my wick.
I did look around a few churches during the first 18 months after my conversion but I stuck things out for a heck of a long time thereafter ..
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
The Baptist church was in the city where we lived before moving here ... for work reasons.
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Will we see him making the trek across the Midlands to Corby every Sunday, do you think? Choice of two there. Or is the Liverpool CofS still going?
Presbytery of England:
Corby St Andrew's
Corby St Ninian's
Guernsey
Jersey
Liverpool
London Crown Court
London St Columba's
Newcastle
There is also Carlisle and Longtown, and one in Berwick-upon-Tweed and Lowick. Got to be one near you somewhere, Gamaliel. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Did I tell you that I was a recovering Calvinist as well as a recovering charismatic?
In which case the CofS wouldn't make a lot of sense.
I've only been to one CofS service - in Scotland - just across The Tweed as it happens.
I like their epiclesis.
Other than that, I couldn't see a lot to recommend it - a bit dour, a bit dreich ... monochrome ...
There are elements I admire in Reformed theology, of course but overall ... nah ... Knox can take a running jump ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Snags - I'd have no intention of subverting 'Fun Sunday. My iwn fun that Sunday would consist of staying at home or going somewhere else and congratulating myself that you wouldn't catch me going to a 'fun' service and doing the little actiojs and all or whatever is supposed to be fun about it ... ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Fun in Pharisaism.
Don't knock it till you've tried it ...
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
Ah. You have been to one service in one church, but now know all about us. So if I attend your church, and manage to land on Fun Sunday, I will never go near a Church of England again? Is that how it works?
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
You could always cross the Tweed/Solway Gamaliel and come to the Scottish Episcopal Church... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
You can come to the Dutch Church in London.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
This is Hell, Cottontail, I'm allowed to be dismissive ...
If I were being more Purgatorial or Heavenly, or if I'd been a Mystery Worshipper, I'd have been a lot more complimentary ...
I liked the minister and had a good chat with him after the service and the people were welcoming and friendly.
There, does that make you feel better?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Besides, I have no intention of ever going to one of the 'Fun Sunday' services at our parish church.
I would rather stick pins in my eyes.
I'd rather walk 5,000 miles and then I'd walk 5,000 more to be the one who rocks up at your Kirk, Cottontail to avoid having to attend a fucking 'Fun Sunday' service which would be about as much fun as having my balls clamped in a vice and rubbed with Emery Cloth ... or having an umbrella inserted in my rectum and then opened ...
Or having my ears planed down to my skull or my scalp dipped in pigeon droppings as I dangle upside over a pit of venomous toads ...
Other than that, I'm sure it'd be fine ...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
'Fun Sunday' service which would be about as much fun as having my balls clamped in a vice and rubbed with Emery Cloth
You have the wickedest fantasies.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
But it's not the Orthodox Lent yet ... which is another nail in the coffin for nefarious Big T Tradition ... you see the Big T Tradition people can't even agree among themselves on the precise date of Easter.
How then can we trust them on anything else?
Far better to rely on the plain-meaning of scripture as understood by Steve Langton ...
No Christmas, no Easter, no fiddle-faddle or fol-de-rol ... just plain and simple NT Christianity which is so easy to observe, implement and practice if only we were to give ourselves to the plain-meaning of the text
Um... Colossians 2;16 anybody...
quote:
Let no one, then, judge you in eating or in drinking, or in respect of a feast, or of a new moon, or of sabbaths,
Col 2:16 (YLT)
Who, on that basis, needs to be fussy about the date of Easter...?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by GeeD;
(according to Steve L ...)
quote:
All the ills of the world and the church in particular flow from the establishment of the C of E, ignoring that the vast majority of the world's Christians do not belong to an established church.
“All the ills of the world” flow from the human rebellion against God known as 'sin'. One of those ills, not exclusive to Christianity, is the practice of having 'established' religions which coerce people, fight wars, and persecute dissent - Islam is another example, and currently of considerable concern, making the issue rather important and making it very necessary for Christians to get that one right. (And yes, I am aware that ancient Israel in the OT had effectively an 'established church'; I'll eventually post about that on a thread on the topic....). And BTW, the CofE is NOT the only 'established-or-similar' Christian church....
Many – not 'all' – the 'ills of … the church in particular' flow from the situation set up in the 4th century CE whereby Christianity became the 'established' religion of the Roman Empire in defiance of the NT teaching on the relationship of state to church (or alternatively expressed, of God's people to the world in which they live).
It is true that “the vast majority of the world's Christians do not belong to an established church”. It is also nevertheless true that an awful lot of them, probably still a majority even today, believe in the related broader concept of a 'Christian country' in which their religion is privileged and they expect Christian ideals to be favoured by the laws of the state (as in the current disputes over SSM). This appears to be one of the problems of some of the African branches of Anglicanism, and clearly is a problem of the so-called Religious Right/Moral Majority in the USA....
The hangover of establishment attitudes remains a considerable problem; and for Christians and everybody else in the UK the continued factual legal establishment of the Anglicans remains a very real problem and source of confusion that we could do without..
by Gamaliel;
quote:
And whenever anyone asks him what 'being separate from the world' in practice actually means in a modern, globalised economy and mutually interdependent society he can't or won't answer or engage but instead lobs out a few proof-texts as if that settles the matter ...
As I have in fact said clearly quite a few times now, it first and foremost means getting it right about the formal 'state/church' relationship. Really really get it into our collective Christian heads that we are not meant to be running the state, specially favoured in the state, etc. Accept the humbler position that the NT indicates for us as 'resident aliens'. I don't begin to claim to be an expert on everywhere that should then lead. It shouldn't lead to the kind of extreme separation seen in the Amish or 'Exclusive' Brethren, or even among Mennonites until quite recently (one should bear in mind that Mennonite practice was somewhat skewed by a need to be separate not only from 'the world' simply, but also a point that really shouldn't have been needed, that is, to be distinct from an improperly established nominally 'Christian' set-up which tended to actively persecute them). Modern Mennonites and those of many different denominations in the UK Anabaptist Network are contributing considerably to discussion of the way to go once the basic shift has been made. I'm not here to lay down the law about that but to encourage people to join in that discussion.
also Gamaliel;
quote:
Whilst the real reason is that he doesn't have a fucking clue but hides behind proof-text mantras, a woodenly literal approach to scriptural interpretation and indeed a virtual denial that he is engaging in interpretation in the first place but only presenting us with the 'plain meaning of scripture' which Anglicans, Orthodox, Catholics and others disregard because they aren't as obedient to the NT as he is …
At least my 'mantras' are biblical and carry some weight, at least for Christians, beyond my own personal opinion. And I would point out that I've repeatedly stressed 'context', both in terms of the immediate surroundings of a text and the place of the text in the Bible as a whole – unlike many examples you'll find attempting to justify 'Constantinianism', I try very hard not to use isolated out-of-context texts that distort rather than truly interpret.
Of course I'm 'interpreting' – the idea that I think I'm not is one of many things Gamaliel keeps spouting about me no matter how often I write things that demonstrate he's getting it wrong. He seems determined to stick me into a narrow stereotypical box of 'his' idea of an Anabaptist – and I don't recognise it as me at all. Far from being 'woodenly literal' I've repeatedly pointed out the inadequacy of such excessive literalism; and I'd point out that as an 'Aspie' I'm acutely aware of such issues and of the need to give very full weight to figures of speech, literary conventions, etc. Just I also understand that legitimate interpretation means I am subject to the text rather than making it mean whatever I feel like or whatever suits a worldly church's hierarchy....
As for 'plain meaning', look at some of Eliab's self-inflicted contortions and convolutions in the 'Interpretation of anti-gay texts' thread in DH. It's all too clear that he recognises the 'plain meaning'; just he doesn't like it and is determined to somehow – anyhow! - get round it to have instead the 'interpretation' he wants. This is typical of the reality for 'liberal' theology – they may abstractly talk about the idea of 'making the Bible mean whatever you like', but when they have to do concrete specific interpretation they find that the plain meaning is all too clear even after making all normal allowances for figures of speech etc.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Idiot. You just gone and confirmed your myopic reputation.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
At least my 'mantras' are biblical
The Three B's: Biblical But Bollocks.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Hmmm ... I'm not sure about 'fantasies' Mousethief, but the idea of a 'Fun Sunday' service appeals just as much as having my goolies sanded down in a vice ... or, even worse, having Steve Langton reiterate what he's already reiterated on a million and one other threads here on Ship ...
Talk about Chinese Water Torture ...
Now he's come down to the Nether Regions to defend himself he's making it abundantly clear why he was called to Hell in the first place ...
Just as a leopard cannot change its spots, so Steve Langton can't turn the record over and play the B-side nor can he get the stylus to move once the record's stuck ...
'Constantinian ... [clunk] ... Constantinian ... [clunk] ... Constantinian ... [clunk] ...'
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Gamaliel: 'Constantinian ... [clunk] ... Constantinian ... [clunk] ... Constantinian ... [clunk] ...'
I wonder if I can put a techno beat under that.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
If he could then perhaps they could play it at 'Fun Sunday' services, thereby making them even more infernal than they are likely to be already ...
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
We could then add some scritch-scratch noises from the sound of the sandpaper going back and forth across my scrotum ...
'Constantinian [clunk] Constantinian [clunk] scritch-scratch ... scritchity-scratch ... Constantinian [clunk] Constantinian [scritch] Constantinian [scratch ... Clunk ... scritchity-scratch ...] ...'
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Do you not think that you just might be getting a little bit carried away?
[ 01. March 2016, 15:59: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Wow. I think I might have hit Peak Hell.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
We could then add some scritch-scratch noises from the sound of the sandpaper going back and forth across my scrotum ...
Lose the fun Sundays someone looks like having far too much fun on a Tuesday already.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Carried away? Loosen up Baptist Trainfan. We don't all get our rocks off over model railway engines ...
Haven't any of you ever heard of hyperbole?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
BT takes the huffs and throws his toy trains out of the pram ...
Actually, I haven't got a model railway!
PS Is "hyperbole" like "Superbowl", but with more lanes, a better cafe and a bigger car-park?
[ 01. March 2016, 17:04: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
Blimey, Gamaliel, have you been on the Sherry?!
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Hyperbolic schmyperbolic hyperbollock if you ask me. Sherry doesn't get you near that sort of stuff.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Now he's come down to the Nether Regions to defend himself he's making it abundantly clear why he was called to Hell in the first place ...
Just as a leopard cannot change its spots, so Steve Langton can't turn the record over and play the B-side nor can he get the stylus to move once the record's stuck ...
Well if you - and GeeD - will keep over and over repeating inaccurate and exaggerated versions of me which I need to point out are wrong.... (rather than actually answering my points so we can move on....)
I've been considering. Part of my reputation as a 'single issue' person is simply that currently I get limited net access and limited free time generally. Combine that with the simple fact that basically Aspies don't do 'small talk' and obviously I'll spend quite a bit of my time Shipboard on my main concern.
The other side, however, is just this - that the 'Constantinian' issue really is that pervasive through huge areas of Christian life and even more, Christian interaction with the world and the world's opinions of Christians. It's not "I've only got a hammer so everything looks like a nail" - more like "Oh no, nails again, where's my hammer? When will the idiots get rid of the nails so I can do something else??"
And just to really annoy you - on the 'Big T' Tradition thing above. The thing that is the real 'nail in the coffin' of the Big T tradition business is the very fact that 'Big T' Tradition seems capable of spending endless time on trivial matters like the date of Easter -
-despite Paul's rather cool approach to the whole business of special days and seasons and festivals -
- while quite cheerfully also spending centuries ignoring the Constantinian business and its lethal consequences ... inter alia, the criminalisation of gay sex rather than it being a pastoral issue. (Inter 'alia' including, remember, religious wars and the Inquisitions in the name of Jesus....)
Actually the main need for a fixed Easter date would appear to be the dating of what are now secular holidays in the countries of former 'Christendom' - without that, we wouldn't need to bother so much about it in the church either....
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Steve Langton: I've been considering. Part of my reputation as a 'single issue' person is simply that currently I get limited net access and limited free time generally. Combine that with the simple fact that basically Aspies don't do 'small talk' and obviously I'll spend quite a bit of my time Shipboard on my main concern.
And, have you managed to convince a lot of people already?
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
It's been absolutely ages, thank God, that I met someone who thought they could close off a conversation and win the argument by stating one bible verse with no context or reference to other bible verses.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Now he's come down to the Nether Regions to defend himself he's making it abundantly clear why he was called to Hell in the first place ...
Just as a leopard cannot change its spots, so Steve Langton can't turn the record over and play the B-side nor can he get the stylus to move once the record's stuck ...
Well if you - and GeeD - will keep over and over repeating inaccurate and exaggerated versions of me which I need to point out are wrong.... (rather than actually answering my points so we can move on....)
I've been considering. Part of my reputation as a 'single issue' person is simply that currently I get limited net access and limited free time generally. Combine that with the simple fact that basically Aspies don't do 'small talk' and obviously I'll spend quite a bit of my time Shipboard on my main concern.
The other side, however, is just this - that the 'Constantinian' issue really is that pervasive through huge areas of Christian life and even more, Christian interaction with the world and the world's opinions of Christians. It's not "I've only got a hammer so everything looks like a nail" - more like "Oh no, nails again, where's my hammer? When will the idiots get rid of the nails so I can do something else??"
And just to really annoy you - on the 'Big T' Tradition thing above. The thing that is the real 'nail in the coffin' of the Big T tradition business is the very fact that 'Big T' Tradition seems capable of spending endless time on trivial matters like the date of Easter -
-despite Paul's rather cool approach to the whole business of special days and seasons and festivals -
- while quite cheerfully also spending centuries ignoring the Constantinian business and its lethal consequences ... inter alia, the criminalisation of gay sex rather than it being a pastoral issue. (Inter 'alia' including, remember, religious wars and the Inquisitions in the name of Jesus....)
Actually the main need for a fixed Easter date would appear to be the dating of what are now secular holidays in the countries of former 'Christendom' - without that, we wouldn't need to bother so much about it in the church either....
I was about to ask a ridiculous question: have you any idea how completely absurd you sound? Of course you haven't - or you revel in it.
Same old bollocks. At the same length.
I don't care what Paul thought about tradition. He was convinced that the second coming would be during his lifetime. The rest of us acknowledge the 2000 years the church has spent getting over the fact that it didn't. You haven't. I would say 'ho hum' about that too, except that you won't shut the fuck up and just get on with your own solipsistic perfection. So go on: fuck off and build it.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Steve--
Your posts would be easier to read if you kept most of them to 2-3 paragraphs.
Too much text in one post, and too many details in one post, are very hard on the reader. It's like you've dropped an encyclopedia on our heads. Ouch!
And when you do that all the time, you drive people away.
Your posting style is much more of a problem than anything you have to say.
[ 01. March 2016, 21:30: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Your posting style is much more of a problem than anything you have to say.
Oh, I don't know...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Trouble is, Steve you bash away at nails that are paper-clips, panel pins and needles ... the only tool you have is a hammer.
So, when it comes to African bishops and same-sex relationships the issue for you is their Constantinianism ... which is fair enough ... but there's more to it than that. Their fundamentalism for instance.
I don't see you wielding your hammer at that ...
On the Easter thing - I love Easter and I'm quite keen on the idea of observing a liturgical calendar to a certain extent ... and I was keen on that even when I was a member of a Baptist church ... so it ain't only a Big T thing.
That doesn't mean I don't think it's daft that people make a kerfuffle over the date of Easter ...
But if I'm going to point the finger at Big T Tradition people over an issue like that, I've also got to be prepared to take some flak for daft things I might do on a small t tradition level.
That's the beef I have. Selective and out of context proof texts, a lack of nuance and banging on and on and on about the same issue over and over again - even on threads where it is of no relevance whatsoever to the subject in hand.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Trouble is, Steve you bash away at nails that are paper-clips, panel pins and needles ... the only tool you have is a hammer.
Panel pins are nails... Yeah, Constantinian 'nails' come in varying sizes - and I do use other tools than hammers anyway. But like I said, pervasive problem....
quote:
So, when it comes to African bishops and same-sex relationships the issue for you is their Constantinianism ... which is fair enough ... but there's more to it than that. Their fundamentalism for instance.
I don't see you wielding your hammer at that ...
There are actually a few more problems with the African bishops than that, and they are broadly 'Constantinian' problems - particularly in terms of their relationships to Muslims in their territories. (and that 'fair enough' seems to recognise that in this case you see that problem at least to some extent yourself)
And put simply, the same-sex relationships thing becomes quite a bit different when you really really get the assorted 'Christian country' ideas out of the way.
As you know I consider the really 'dumb wooden literal' fundamentalism a problem myself. However, considered simply as 'taking the Bible seriously' and as 'going back to basics' (especially pre-Constantine basics), Fundamentalism is just following the most reliable source we have for what Christianity is supposed to be. And if occasionally it conflicts with popular worldly ideas - we are meant to be an alternative, you know....
quote:
On the Easter thing - I love Easter and I'm quite keen on the idea of observing a liturgical calendar to a certain extent ... and I was keen on that even when I was a member of a Baptist church ... so it ain't only a Big T thing.
That doesn't mean I don't think it's daft that people make a kerfuffle over the date of Easter ...
I'm not all that unhappy about Easter - but don't get me started on the shambles that 'Christmas' has become in recent years ... and as for 'Father Christmas' ....
But I think Paul was right that anything of that kind can all too easily turn into a form of slavery in which the church ends up serving the sabbath and other feasts rather than the feasts being truly for the church.
quote:
But if I'm going to point the finger at Big T Tradition people over an issue like that, I've also got to be prepared to take some flak for daft things I might do on a small t tradition level.
You've slightly missed the point. Yeah, I am prepared to 'take flak' at the 'small-t tradition level' - indeed a willingness to take that flak and amend things by Scripture should be the big difference between the two versions of 'tradition'.
But the finger I'm pointing is about the basic uselessness of a 'Tradition' that strains at the 'gnat' of a date for Easter and similar matters while swallowing the 'camel' of Constantinianism and all its problems. (And that point applies whether or not you consider Constantinianism part of the 'Tradition' - a 'Tradition' that was of any use would have protected the Church against Constantine/Theodosius and their errors.)
quote:
That's the beef I have. Selective and out of context proof texts, a lack of nuance and banging on and on and on about the same issue over and over again - even on threads where it is of no relevance whatsoever to the subject in hand.
Look, with people already going on at me for the length of my posts, I'm not often going to go into all the depth I know of on the context of proof texts and such matters. Can you show that my quote of Colossians 2 is so very far 'out of context'?? (in that case the immediate context goes right back to at least Col 2;8 with a specific reference to 'the traditions of men'... and then on to the end of the chapter.... And to me the context would also include Jesus' teaching on the sabbath, including the bit I semi-quoted earlier....).
'Lack of nuance' - like Eliab recognising the 'plain meaning' but going every which way to avoid it? And from where I'm standing it's actually that approach which looks to be too 'black and white' and lacking 'nuance'. And you might at least consider the possibility that you're confusing between real 'nuance' and just swirling but insubstantial fog....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Le Roc;
quote:
And, have you managed to convince a lot of people already?
In the rarefied and often confusing world of the Ship, apparently not. But out in the real world where the old state church stuff is still for many people a real problem with Christianity, and the Muslim equivalent of 'Constantinianism' a quite present worry, my ideas do seem to create interest and both help non-Christians to see the faith in a new and helpful way, and also help Christians to feel confident about their faith because they can answer such concerns...
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
It's been absolutely ages, thank God, that I met someone who thought they could close off a conversation and win the argument by stating one bible verse with no context or reference to other bible verses.
That wasn't quite what I was doing with my quote from Colossians - nor what I generally aim at with other quotes I use. I at least should have had a reasonable expectation on the Ship that Shipmates like Gamaliel would be aware of the wider context themselves - I was pointing in summary form to the whole of Paul's argument in Colossians 2, in quick response to a bit of a tangent in Gamaliel's post.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Your posting style is much more of a problem than anything you have to say.
Two peas.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Selective and out of context proof texts, a lack of nuance and banging on and on and on about the same issue over and over again - even on threads where it is of no relevance whatsoever to the subject in hand.
There's the point.
Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Selective and out of context proof texts, a lack of nuance and banging on and on and on about the same issue over and over again - even on threads where it is of no relevance whatsoever to the subject in hand.
There's the point. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I think that is the point.
I am new to the Ship. I thought people were being supportive and generally saying helpful things to someone who was clearly troubled to think that his 20 years of ministery had been wasted. Not only wasted, but a form of collaboration. Then in came Mr Langton banging on about Fuck Knows What, without the slightest regard for anyone's feelings, let alone opinions.
I can only assume that in RL he is one of those sad souls whop stand on street corners berating passers by, telling them they are all going to hell, and making, as a result, slightly less than zero converts.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Thanks oh so much, Steve, for your latest effort in Dead Horses where you managed to indicate that all Christians think as you do, where as non-Christians are free to think otherwise and you can't force them.
Wow. Who knew that Steve Langton was the arbiter of Christian thought? I might have gone for Jesus or the Pope, but no, it turns out that the determiner of true orthodox belief is living right now and gracing the ship with His Presence.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Thanks oh so much, Steve, for your latest effort in Dead Horses where you managed to indicate that all Christians think as you do, where as non-Christians are free to think otherwise and you can't force them.
Wow. Who knew that Steve Langton was the arbiter of Christian thought? I might have gone for Jesus or the Pope, but no, it turns out that the determiner of true orthodox belief is living right now and gracing the ship with His Presence.
I certainly didn't know I was the arbiter of Christian thought. If you read my post in DH you should realise I was saying emphatically that Jesus is that arbiter; and pointing out something you appeared to have missed, that combining OT texts in a particular way - a combination which you were rather sneering at - was something HE had done. Which at least tends to give that combination some authority for Christians. NOT "All Christians agree with me" - just "As a Christian this is how I see it". In this case, that I think Jesus has the authority to combine OT texts as he did and I'm happy to accept that.
If you want to discuss the point Jesus made, and whether I've interpreted it correctly, I'm quite happy to do so - back in DH. My point about non-Christians is simply my general point that Christianity is voluntary and that I don't expect non-Christians to necessarily agree with Jesus, and unlike many Christians even today I don't believe I have authority from God to coerce them or have the state pass laws against them. Surely you're not disagreeing with me about that....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Bibaculus;
quote:
I can only assume that in RL he is one of those sad souls who stand on street corners berating passers by, telling them they are all going to hell, and making, as a result, slightly less than zero converts.
Definitely NOT.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
So Steve Langton, have you said everything you needed to see on this subject, or is there more you need to say?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
So Steve Langton, have you said everything you needed to see on this subject, or is there more you need to say?
Depends, I guess, on whether others really want to go on giving me stuff to respond to. If they keep misrepresenting me I may have to keep on pointing out where they've got it wrong....
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
My point about non-Christians is simply my general point that Christianity is voluntary and that I don't expect non-Christians to necessarily agree with Jesus, and unlike many Christians even today I don't believe I have authority from God to coerce them or have the state pass laws against them. Surely you're not disagreeing with me about that....
And why did you choose to bring that up? Exactly which non-Christian was passing by such that it was necessary to discuss non-Christians?
"General" point? You were responding to me. Not one word of what I had said had anything to do with non-Christians. I certainly wasn't the only one who read your remarks as casting aspersions on the Christianity of anyone who didn't read things the way you read them.
You basically slapped down a statement about what Jesus said, converted it into a statement about what Jesus meant and then said "of course, if you're a non-Christian you don't have to agree with it".
Which is pretty damn close to declaring that you know all there is to know about how to read the Bible like a proper Christian, on a thread full of Christians who don't actually agree with you or are at the very least wrestling with the question.
I'm prepared to assume that sometimes this is just because you are utterly clueless rather than malicious, but it doesn't make it any less enraging.
[ 02. March 2016, 10:12: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Perhaps we should club together and buy Steve this mug.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Depends, I guess, on whether others really want to go on giving me stuff to respond to.
Go impale your colon on steeple. The fundamental point of this thread is that people don't want to interact with you. You are a tedious shit that we can't wipe off, so there is venting about it here. Do no mistake these ventings as any interest in what you might respond. Because there is essentially zero chance you will say anything we can't already guess, you bleating tuneless kazoo of a person.
quote:
If they keep misrepresenting me I may have to keep on pointing out where they've got it wrong....
Ah, which is more true - our perception of ourselves, or other's perceptions of us. I suspect that people are less wrong about you than you are capable of understanding.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
So Steve Langton, have you said everything you needed to see on this subject, or is there more you need to say?
If they keep misrepresenting me I may have to keep on pointing out where they've got it wrong....
It is a fantastic coincidence that we all get it wrong the exact, same way.
You are an amazingly effective mis-communicator.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
So Steve Langton, have you said everything you needed to see on this subject, or is there more you need to say?
Depends, I guess, on whether others really want to go on giving me stuff to respond to. If they keep misrepresenting me I may have to keep on pointing out where they've got it wrong....
Zero interest. Fuck off. Find somewhere else to fill up with your tedious shit.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Steve Langton: Depends, I guess, on whether others really want to go on giving me stuff to respond to. If they keep misrepresenting me I may have to keep on pointing out where they've got it wrong....
So you're going to stay here, repeating the same thing, until everyone agrees with you? Is that the plan?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It's what he's done since he boarded the Ship so at least there's consistency.
What was it Einstein said about repeating the same mistaken process over and over again and expecting the result to be different each time?
I wonder if there is a group somewhere called Anabaptists Anonymous?
'My name is Steve Langton and I am an Anabaptist ... You know how it is, you go online and give it your best shot ... the pain-meaning of scripture, the evils of Constantinianism ... and all you get is 'context, context, context ...' when what I want to get across is 'Constantine ... Constantine ... Constantine ...'
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
pain-meaning ...
I like it!
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
My point about non-Christians is simply my general point that Christianity is voluntary and that I don't expect non-Christians to necessarily agree with Jesus, and unlike many Christians even today I don't believe I have authority from God to coerce them or have the state pass laws against them. Surely you're not disagreeing with me about that....
And why did you choose to bring that up? Exactly which non-Christian was passing by such that it was necessary to discuss non-Christians?
Do I need to 'know', on a site like this, exactly which non-Christian is 'passing by' to take the trouble to register the point that that I'm discussing something on which the Christian and nonChristian views may differ? NonChristians read this site; I allowed for it in my response.
quote:
"General" point? You were responding to me.
It's not all about you, you know.
quote:
Not one word of what I had said had anything to do with non-Christians.
Except for the quite real possibility that a nonChristian might be reading the thread and I wanted to clarify things for any such person....
quote:
I certainly wasn't the only one who read your remarks as casting aspersions on the Christianity of anyone who didn't read things the way you read them.
So sad we live in an environment where people prefer to imagine they've been offended rather than actually discuss issues....
quote:
You basically slapped down a statement about what Jesus said, converted it into a statement about what Jesus meant and then said "of course, if you're a non-Christian you don't have to agree with it".
As I recall, you were querying the validity of an interpretation of Genesis which combined a passage from one chapter with another from the next chapter - and indeed you seemed a bit sneery about what principle of interpretation might be being used. All I actually did was to point out that combining those two passages was not some recent oddity but went back to Jesus himself who made a point by combining those passages in that way.
I also pointed out that for most Christians (though it transpires maybe not for the typical Shipmate), as we consider Jesus to be rather more than just another guy on a level with us, and indeed regard him as having considerable authority in matters of the Word of God, most Christians would reasonably accept that Jesus knew what he was doing in making that connection, and for Christian teaching related to those texts we could regard the connection as authoritative. (and being aware that non-Christians read SoF material, I clarified that non-Christians didn't need to agree with us about that; and that unlike some Christians, I regarded their acceptance or not as voluntary....)
Yes, I've also expressed an opinion on what Jesus meant by making that connection, and tried to state my reasons for it. That is NOT any kind of expression of infallibility on my part. It is simply me putting my view forward for discussion. What is wrong with you that you interpret it otherwise?? And what is wrong with the Ship if you can seriously claim that you aren't the only one...??
quote:
Which is pretty damn close to declaring that you know all there is to know about how to read the Bible like a proper Christian, on a thread full of Christians who don't actually agree with you or are at the very least wrestling with the question.
Which is nothing of the kind, except in your mind for reasons I can't profess to understand....
quote:
I'm prepared to assume that sometimes this is just because you are utterly clueless rather than malicious, but it doesn't make it any less enraging.
I'm probably not the best person to help you with your needless self-inflicted rage.... But I hope you do sort it out. And I wish I could think of a way of saying that which you won't misinterpret....
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Do I need to 'know', on a site like this, exactly which non-Christian is 'passing by' to take the trouble to register the point that that I'm discussing something on which the Christian and nonChristian views may differ?
You're doing it again. You're still putting forward the idea that there is "the Christian view". The entire bloody point of the Dead Horses thread is that there is not one Christian view, and that Christian views may differ.
[ 02. March 2016, 23:48: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Orfeo, he's just not doing that. It's because by his definition neither you nor I is a Christian. It's the true Scotsman fallacy in its starkest form. You are only a Christian if you accept his very idiosyncratic viewpoint, based entirely on his interpretation of one short sentence.
[ 03. March 2016, 01:08: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I suspect that people are less wrong about you than you are capable of understanding.
Well said. I imagine this applies to most of us.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Or, indeed, all of us.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
I certainly wasn't the only one who read your remarks as casting aspersions on the Christianity of anyone who didn't read things the way you read them.
So sad we live in an environment where people prefer to imagine they've been offended rather than actually discuss issues....
Given that Orfeo drafts legislation, and I'm a professional editor, I think I can safely say that we're pretty good at the nuance of language.
If both of us are picking up on something you've said, we're probably not "imagining" it.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
You know, I believe that SL has a self-image of being St George bravely battling the dragon on this website for the sake of some unknown fair maiden (presumably some unknown non-Christian) who will accidentally come across his words and be convicted of the truth of them.
I for one have been that person in the past. I have been you, Steve. I know you're not listening, but the quicker you realise that this is stupid, the sooner you can begin to apologise to all the people your blundering about has hurt and the sooner you can engage yourself in actions that are actually beneficial.
Of course, I also appreciate the stupidity of trying to talk to someone who isn't actually interested in listening.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
I certainly wasn't the only one who read your remarks as casting aspersions on the Christianity of anyone who didn't read things the way you read them.
So sad we live in an environment where people prefer to imagine they've been offended rather than actually discuss issues....
Given that Orfeo drafts legislation, and I'm a professional editor, I think I can safely say that we're pretty good at the nuance of language.
If both of us are picking up on something you've said, we're probably not "imagining" it.
Literary translator here, by training at least. Picking up nuance is my stock in trade. There is no nuance in SL's utterances; only blundering stupidity.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Steve Langton: So sad we live in an environment where people prefer to imagine they've been offended rather than actually discuss issues....
By your own admission, your reason for being here is to keep repeating the same thing until everyone agrees with you. How is that a discussion?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Who won't listen or who is incapable of listening?
SL likes to self-identify as an 'absent-minded professor.' I don't know how 'absent-minded' he is but he's certainly no 'professor' ...
As far as his ability to 'think outside the box' goes, he has never demonstrated the ability to think in any way other than along particular tramlines laid down for him by a particular interpretative framework and a particular form of conservative evangelical exegesis which he fondly imagines to be the 'plain-meaning of scripture' ... or as I slipped Freudianly on the keyboard recently, to Baptist Trainfan's amusement - the 'pain-meaning of scripture.'
Whilst SL is certainly capable of distinguishing between allegory and other literary forms within this framework, he seems incapable of recognising that there are other approaches to scriptural interpretation and issues around tradition/Tradition and so on than those he espouses himself ... or, rather, whilst he does recognise that other approaches exist he's unwilling to engage with them other than to point out that he thinks they are wrong.
Over and over and over again.
It's like a fixation.
I don't agree with the RCs, for instance, on Papal Infallibility, but I wouldn't try to vire that into every single discussion or engagement with an RC Shipmeet or with any RCs I meet in real life ...
Gamaliel: What's the RCC line on the possibility of life on other planets, for instance?
RC poster: Well, there are various views, the Vatican ...
Gamaliel: Ah - there we have it! The Vatican ... the Vatican ... you are listening to a single man - the Pope, the Bishop of Rome ... you are not going by the plain-meaning of scripture ...!'
Later ...
Gamaliel: Tell me, what's the RCC position on the Second Coming?
RC Shipmate: Well, there are a range of different views, some believe that ...
Gamaliel: Some believe that ... ? Some believe ... what is this 'some believe'? Have they not read the plain-meaning of scripture?
And so on and on and on and on and on it goes.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
I've met many a Christian who is just as convinced as Steve that their take on Christianity is the Only Right and True Path to Salvation.
This is usually a doctrinal basis sold to them way back when they were impressionable and unformed (in Christian terms that is): it played a vast part in making them what they are and there is now absolutely now shifting it. It has, AFAICT, bugger all to do with being an Aspie or an inability to make small talk.
If you ever need a clue to spotting one, it is that they cite the Epistles over the Gospels. Remember, it isn't Paulianity.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
'Lack of nuance' - like Eliab recognising the 'plain meaning' but going every which way to avoid it? And from where I'm standing it's actually that approach which looks to be too 'black and white' and lacking 'nuance'.
Really? I would never (contra Rook) have guessed that that would be your objection to my position.
You simply haven't understood my arguments if you think they are 'black and white'. I'm distinguishing, for example, the "probable" or "apparent" meaning of the text from what you are calling the "plain" meaning, I'm distinguishing the likely meaning of the text considered as a historical human document from its meaning considered as scripture, I'm distinguishing the specific human intention behind the words from their divinely inspired meaning, and distinguishing the general world-view and opinions of the human author from his specific intentions. All those are relevant to (what I am claiming is) the right way to read the text, and they are all nuances.
You're welcome to challenge me about whether these are useful or necessary distinctions, whether I'm applying them correctly, and even (since this Hell) whether I'm applying them in good faith. As (I hope) should be clear, I'm not sure of my interpretive ground and I would very much like to be challenged on it, but I really do not feel I have much of a case to answer in regard to putting forward an un-nuanced argument. That's just a misreading. I'm quite obviously arguing for a nuanced approach to scripture. 'Nuanced' does not mean 'reasonable', or 'right', of course.
I'd rather take this up on the DH thread, as I see no reason not to keep our very deep disagreement more-or-less civil, but I'm happy to discuss it here if the hosts permit (particularly if you want to argue that I'm making the argument as an excuse for disobedience or otherwise in bad faith - I deny that, but it's a more plausible objection than lack of nuance).
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I've met many a Christian who is just as convinced as Steve that their take on Christianity is the Only Right and True Path to Salvation.
This is usually a doctrinal basis sold to them way back when they were impressionable and unformed (in Christian terms that is): it played a vast part in making them what they are and there is now absolutely now shifting it. It has, AFAICT, bugger all to do with being an Aspie or an inability to make small talk.
If you ever need a clue to spotting one, it is that they cite the Epistles over the Gospels. Remember, it isn't Paulianity.
I think that applies in Protestant terms and in Protestant circles ... we see a similar thing in the more Catholic and sacramental traditions but in a different kind of way and without the almost exclusively Pauline basis ...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'd rather take this up on the DH thread, as I see no reason not to keep our very deep disagreement more-or-less civil, but I'm happy to discuss it here if the hosts permit (particularly if you want to argue that I'm making the argument as an excuse for disobedience or otherwise in bad faith - I deny that, but it's a more plausible objection than lack of nuance).
I think that Steve thinks we're trying to be clever-clever with Scripture in order to find ways of wriggling out of doing what it clearly says, especially on DH issues.
I also think that he thinks the "State Church" idea has almost irrevocably corrupted the way that most Christians - at least in historic Western nations - approach Scripture.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
No, I think he goes further than that, he believes that it's also corrupted the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches and Rome as well ... although he'd see Roman corruption as a 'given' and par for the course ...
But you're right in terms of how this 'paranoid universe' take on things colours his thinking ... because Baptists and other non-conformists are tarred with the same Constantinian brush as far as he's concerned because they are not as 'separated from the world' as he thinks they should be - even though he has yet to articulate in any meaningful way what this actually means in practice in a messy, inter-related, inter-dependent and complex society ... one where we are all complicit, if that's the right word, in the commercial, social and cultural relationships that make up our communities and societies.
The point of course, is that SL's worldview is a neat, manageable and highly reductionist one because it boils everything down to a neat set of propositions, irons out all complexity and nuance and sets everything up in a dualistic kind of way where there's 'the world' and there's 'the church' - defined in a fairly tight and close-knit fashion - there's you and there's me, there's right and there's wrong, there's black and there's white ... and there are few shades of grey.
Welcome to the myopic parallel universe of Steve ...
It's an attractive philosophy because it divides the world very neatly into goodies and baddies and there are very clear villains - such as Constantine, such as the State Churches ... such as those nasty people over there who aren't like us ...
It also saves us from having to think too hard.
Outside of the box? Inside the padded cell more like.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Many years ago - I won't go into details - I attended a Bible study group with some American Evangelicals.
The theme of their study was "total separation from the world". Having agreed that they didn't drink or smoke or go to naughty movies, they concluded that they were indeed "separated" and went their ways.
I was left thinking, "Is that it?" - for there was no engagement with anything which might have appeared philosophical, no critique of political positions, no discussion of how the church should be incarnated in the world, no questioning of the way the economy worked. I suspect that, Stateside, these good folk would have been more "separated" as they would have sent their children to "Christian" schools and universities, used "Christian" tradespeople and, indeed, lived much of their lives in an Evangelical bubble.
I'm not saying that SL thinks like that, indeed it's not an attitude I've often encountered in Britain. But I do wonder what his vision of "purity" and "separation" entails.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But I do wonder what his vision of "purity" and "separation" entails.
We'll never find out, as he consistently dodges those questions.
I can only assume that's because they're too compromising to answer, but it might be because such practicalities have never concerned his ridiculously supine mind.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But I do wonder what his vision of "purity" and "separation" entails.
We'll never find out, as he consistently dodges those questions.
I can only assume that's because they're too compromising to answer, but it might be because such practicalities have never concerned his ridiculously supine mind.
If nobody has ever told him, how can he tell us?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Baptist Trainfan: But I do wonder what his vision of "purity" and "separation" entails.
It entails that he's better than us. That's the whole point.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But I do wonder what his vision of "purity" and "separation" entails.
We'll never find out, as he consistently dodges those questions.
I can only assume that's because they're too compromising to answer, but it might be because such practicalities have never concerned his ridiculously supine mind.
If nobody has ever told him, how can he tell us?
If only we had clear and unambiguous instructions from scripture...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
In fairness, I would expect a lot more and a lot better from the Anabaptist Network - and to be blunt, I'm not sure that SL is at all representative of the Network - which as he's told us, is quite diverse.
I've certainly found that Baptist churches in general do discuss and consider these sort of issues - rather than simply throwing proof-texts at them.
Same with Anglican evangelicals and others.
How SL comes across to me is a typical 1960s/70s style Banner of Truth-ish Reformed evangelical with a layer of Anabaptism scooped on top for good measure ... which is fair enough - there's room for that - but once he's said that, there's not a lot to say.
On one level, I'm all on favour of a principled, stalwart evangelicalism - but its shadow side can often be a binary, judgementalism and an overly dualistic approach to life.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I think that Steve thinks we're trying to be clever-clever with Scripture in order to find ways of wriggling out of doing what it clearly says, especially on DH issues.
Yes, and if he'd put it that way, I would willingly acknowledge that he has an arguable case. I think that my position can be defended (obviously, or I wouldn't hold it), but there most definitely is a tension in my thinking between my intellectual conviction about what St Paul (probably) meant, and my moral conviction that what he appears to have meant is plainly wrong. As long as I continue to hold both of those views, the way in which I try to reconcile them is going to be open to challenge.
But what SL actually said was that my view was 'black-and-white' and 'lacking in nuance'. He's just wrong about that.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Are Christians not supposed to say that Paul was wrong?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Are Christians not supposed to say that Paul was wrong?
Paul is basically the number 2 man in the bible, for all practical guidance. Questioning him is fraught with difficulty for Christians.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
So they just ignore him.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So they just ignore him.
I think it is more that they interpret what was written differently.
But very few seem willing to go as far as wrong.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Are Christians not supposed to say that Paul was wrong?
Depends on the Christian, I suppose. But it's Paul's words as recorded in the Bible, not Paul the man, that on a specifically Protestant view presents the difficulty.
I think the point on which most (though certainly not all) Christians would at least ostensibly agree is that the Bible is some sort of authority, and is useful for telling us things about God, faith and morality that we might not otherwise have been able to get.
The approach that Steve L appears to endorse is that if it is tolerably clear that the Bible says X, and my culture, upbringing, desires, prejudices, feeble human understanding or whatever causes me to think 'not-X' than I should take that as a correction of my mistake, because God, speaking through the Bible, knows better than I do, and obedience and humility should lead me to re-think.
I can't just dismiss that. There's clearly some force to it, once you grant the pre-supposition that Steve and I share, that the Bible is an authority for faith and life. If that's right then there will be times that I will find my views challenged by scripture because I'm wrong. If I say that the Bible is wrong, whenever it says something I can't accept, then I'm cutting myself off from a (supernaturally inspired) source of truth that could correct my errors. Being human, it's a given that however wise and good I might aspire to be, I'm wrong about something important.
Hence the problem with the anti-gay stuff in the Bible. The Bible does look to me like it contains anti-gay sentiment - I'd love to believe the revisionist case, but I'm not convinced. On the other hand, I'm at a loss to see any moral basis for being anti-gay whatsoever. I can't see how that could possibly be right. So I either try to force myself to believe something that seems wrong, damaging, and evil, OR I reject the Bible as nonsense, OR I try to read the Bible in some other way than what Steve L is calling 'the plain meaning'.
I'm arguing that the third approach is correct - that coming to the Bible as Scripture means coming to it with the best ethical understanding I can bring. I don't think it is desirable (or even possible) to come to scripture as an ethical empty vessel, and obediently and uncritically accept the 'plain meaning'. I don't think that's how the Bible is designed to teach us.
Saying simply that Paul's (inspired) words are just wrong, and therefore we needn't bother further, would be an easy way to resolve the dilemma, but it's not a step that many Christians are willing to take. This is because (in my case at least) we've taken so much of value from Paul - how we are supposed to live now that we've received God's forgiveness, what it is that Jesus has done for us and the cosmic implications of that, why we ought to be part of, and love, the church of Christ even though that church is so often unworthy of him. There is so much there that really is inspired - that gives us truth we couldn't have found on our own, for me to be untroubled when the apostle seems to go wrong.
Hence I disagree with Steve's approach to the text - and disagree very strongly because the anti-gay conclusion he draws from it is one that appals me - I think he holds it because of an honest commitment to presuppositions which I share. I also recognise that, as I'm avowedly compromising with the text, there are arguments with real merit that could be made from Steve L's position against mine.
The criticism he actually made was not one of those arguments - that doesn't mean that there aren't any.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I can't just dismiss that. There's clearly some force to it, once you grant the pre-supposition that Steve and I share, that the Bible is an authority for faith and life. If that's right then there will be times that I will find my views challenged by scripture because I'm wrong. If I say that the Bible is wrong, whenever it says something I can't accept, then I'm cutting myself off from a (supernaturally inspired) source of truth that could correct my errors.
The Bible clearly is an authority, and as a GLA I'd say that it is the ultimate authority, that it has the sort of primacy Article 6 gives us. But there is also the authority tradition, and the ability to use our reason in the interpretation of scripture. That's as I understand the rest of your post.
Upthread, someone asked where SL was coming from. He gave us the answer in one of his earliest posts on these boards - he would come home from work and study his Bible. Nothing there about the guidance from others who have in turn taken guidance from others, and so forth. Just SL sitting down at a desk, on his own, studying and reaching his own conclusions. It really is very sad, and it is a method all but guaranteed to lead to error and idiosyncrasy. I am reminded of a man referred to by Hugh Trevor-Roper in one of his works on the English Civil Wars. This man believed that the reference in Revelations to the pouring out of the vials was indeed a reference to the forthcoming publication of a book he had written - from memory, it was the 4th vial. SL is in this same line, the same tradition.
He's not alone in that. A regular poster on these boards, one who is ordained clergy in a mainline US tradition, who several times a year will come out with a biblical interpretation that is so far out that it is not even in left field, but well over the stand and into the street beyond. It's why Madame and I have never studied Revelations on our own save to enjoy the glorious writing.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
Eliab, I guess some of us get around the problem you outline by believing that the HOly Spirit is still active in the church and is guiding it, bit by bit, into fuller understanding of what is true and God's Will. Jesus said that the SPirit would lead us into truth...and I see no reason to believe that that stopped when the canon of the New Testament was last settled. Certainly the pre-reformation church (eastern and western) and its RC/Anglican/Lutheran offspring have acted on the basis that the Spirit is active and can guide individuals and the church as a whole into new understanding.
I have no trouble, as a Christian, in saying that in some cases we do know better than Paul (or any of the epistle writers) -- at least as affects living in our world today, rather than his world 2000 years ago. I don't have to explain away what Paul says because he was talking about something other than I am. And I fully and easily admit that my position is new, it's not his, or what the church believed historically. But sometimes what the church believed historically was wrong -- certainly wrong today, and sometimes wrong even when the belief was fresh and new.
Are there problems with this approach -- of course. One has to pray, and test what is new and unprecedented. It can't be just one person's belief that justifies doctrinal change.
But doctrinal change (or development, if you will) has gone on in the past, and been accepted by Christians based on the assumption that it was prompted and then verified through the Holy SPirit. I don't see that that process has ended, or will end, short of the Parousia.
John
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0