|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Am I an extremist now?
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Just to be clear, are you saying that we now know that homosexuality is inbuilt ? That science has proven that it's genetic ?
Orfeo is objecting to the idea that homosexuals are heterosexuals who have gone wrong.
Believing that homosexuality and heterosexuality have genetic determinants is not necessary for that belief. All that is required is that whatever developmental concerns lead to someone being homosexual or heterosexual happen at a developmental stage that is sufficiently basic that alleged therapies can't undo and then redo it.
I mean: the argument here does not turn on scientific studies into the development of sexuality. It turns on the undoubted total failure of attempts to 'cure' homosexuality.
(Even if the determinants of homosexuality and heterosexuality were shown definitely to be genetic, it would be open to someone who thought homosexuality wrong to liken homosexuality to genetically hereditable diseases. And we do our best to treat sickle cell anaemia and haemophilia. The crucial differences here are a) that homosexuals can live their lives quite happily, unless you question beg, and b) people who've done their best to 'treat' homosexuality have had no meaningful success.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Orfeo is objecting to the idea that homosexuals are heterosexuals who have gone wrong.
Yes.
quote:
Believing that homosexuality and heterosexuality have genetic determinants is not necessary for that belief...
...liken homosexuality to genetically hereditable diseases. And we do our best to treat sickle cell anaemia and haemophilia.
your example here shows that for homosexuality to be genetic is not sufficient to support that belief.
You're right that if homosexuality could be shown to be the result of a flawed copy of a particular gene, then scientists would try to cure it (although it would be for individual sufferers of the condition and their families to decide whether the pain of the cure was preferable to living with the condition).
In order for Orfeo's belief to follow from the evidence it would have to be demonstrated that the genetic cause of his homosexuality was so bound up with all the other genetic information that makes him who he is that the very concept of a "cured" heterosexual Orfeo - the person he would be if this hadn't happened to him - is meaningless.
Similarly, to the extent that homosexuality is caused by early-years experiences, it is meaningful to try to restore the person to who they would have been had those particular experiences not happened. It hasn't been done with any degree of success, it may not be practically possible, but that isn't of itself an argument that it shouldn't be an aim of future medical science.
If I've understood correctly the point he's making...
It's the difference between dealing compassionately with those who suffer from this particular flaw, in a world of human beings who according to Christianity are all flawed (in various ways), and a doctrine that denies that this is a flaw at all.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Sexual deviance causes harm.
What's the harm in a bit of necrophilia ?...
No consent.
There's no consent in pedophilia or bestiality either. Comparing them is insulting and just plain wrong. It's saying that a queer person's partner is equivalent to a corpse or a dog, and that the love they share is equivalent to raping a child. Cut it out.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
You know, given the problems inherent in heterosexual relationships, sure seems that they are suffering. Should we work on a cure for them?
Your language is ignorant and insulting.
Why can't Christians simply admit that this particular belief has no basis in reality? Religion isn't science. And morality is subjective.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... if homosexuality could be shown to be the result of a flawed copy of a particular gene, then scientists would try to cure it (although it would be for individual sufferers of the condition and their families to decide whether the pain of the cure was preferable to living with the condition).
Why would they? There is nothing flawed or wrong about homsexuality - LGBT people cause no more harm than any other person.
It's the fact that homosexual sex is not a problem or a flaw which has caused the law of the land to be that SSM is legal and fine.
Also - no proof is needed, all we need is for LGBT people themelsves to tell us it wasn't a choice.
Plus - Hell Call
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
What's the harm in a bit of necrophilia ?...
No consent.
Consent isn't the issue. A corpse isn't a person, and they are immune from harm. Raping someone's dead body does no harm to them whatsoever.
It does, however, tend to cause enormous outrage in the friends and relatives of the deceased. The issues are to do with proper and dignified treatment of a corpse, not with sexual consent.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Homsexuality is about as much of a genetic flaw as having green eyes or a tendency to freckles. Sex betweeen two men or two women, in itself, is a good deal less socially harmful (i.e. not at all) than adultery, which has almost always been treated more leniently in western societies.
I have never understood why people get cross about all this. Move along, now, please, there's nothing to see...
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
In order for Orfeo's belief to follow from the evidence it would have to be demonstrated that the genetic cause of his homosexuality was so bound up with all the other genetic information that makes him who he is that the very concept of a "cured" heterosexual Orfeo - the person he would be if this hadn't happened to him - is meaningless.
What else would you like to "cure"? My left-handedness? My musicality? My strong analytical streak? My thinning hair? My INFJ personality? The size of my ears?
You are falling into a fundamental error the minute that you equate a difference with a flaw. There is natural genetic variation within the human race (as indeed there is in almost all species). Presupposing that the variations need to be ironed out puts you down the road towards eugenics.
I am not a perfect specimen of a human being. But then again, neither are you. I have strengths, I have weaknesses, often these derive from the same root cause. If you try to even out and 'normalise' me, then there's a damn good chance you'll get rid of the things that make an interesting, valuable and unique human being.
I suggest you go and watch Gattaca.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You do realise that most anal sex going on in the world is man-on-woman?
Not including when people use toys of course.
I'm intrigued. Are there stats available on this?
Google says yes.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Neither is it true that moral positions ought to be impervious to new scientific understanding.
Science can tell us nothing about morality or ethics, and to pretend that it can is scientism, not science.
It can provide information which is relevant to moral decision-making, eg telling us that animals feel pain, which in the past was sometimes denied, by philosophers if not scientists.
The scientific fact that same sex attraction is innate tells us nothing one way or the other about whether homosexual sex is right or wrong.
Likewise a scientific demonstration that evolution has hardwired males to be polygamous would tell us nothing about whether or not adultery is wrong.
All this tells me is that you are wrong.
If you can't see how it's possible for science to undercut a premise that is involved in arriving at a moral/ethical conclusion, then this conversation is utterly hopeless.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Neither is it true that moral positions ought to be impervious to new scientific understanding.
Science can tell us nothing about morality or ethics, and to pretend that it can is scientism, not science.
It can provide information which is relevant to moral decision-making, eg telling us that animals feel pain, which in the past was sometimes denied, by philosophers if not scientists.
The scientific fact that same sex attraction is innate tells us nothing one way or the other about whether homosexual sex is right or wrong.
Likewise a scientific demonstration that evolution has hardwired males to be polygamous would tell us nothing about whether or not adultery is wrong.
All this tells me is that you are wrong.
If you can't see how it's possible for science to undercut a premise that is involved in arriving at a moral/ethical conclusion, then this conversation is utterly hopeless.
Sorry, I need to follow this up further.
How the hell can you go from, in the 2nd paragraph, saying science "can provide information which is relevant to moral decision-making" - which is pretty much the point I'm trying to make - to then reverting back to saying that science "tells us nothing"?
It's a total contradiction. Either science is capable of providing relevant information or it isn't. I'm not debating with you the relevance of a piece of information, the original point was to say it was possible for scientific information to be relevant and to make it necessary to reexamine conclusions. You've conceded this and then immediately backtracked from it.
I honestly don't understand your debating methods, because I feel things like this happen quite regularly.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Similarly, to the extent that homosexuality is caused by early-years experiences, it is meaningful to try to restore the person to who they would have been had those particular experiences not happened.
One last thing that I can't leave alone (because it's so goddamn stupid as a line of argument) and then I'm off to bed.
To the extent that your love of the beach is caused by early-years experience, is it meaningful to try to restore you to who you would have been if Mum and Dad had never taken you on a summer holiday?
To the extent that your dislike of ice skating is caused by not enjoying your first visit to a rink, is it meaningful to try to restore you to who you would have been if you hadn't fallen over?
The propositions you are making are really quite appalling if followed through. Again, they are premised on the notion that homosexuality is an error rather than a natural variation, but that's not the only problem. Another is that you are now talking about a need to erase people's life story.
I don't know exactly what early-years experiences you're talking about, either. You're reminding me very much of what happens/used to happen in ex-gay groups, where someone suggests to the gay person "did you have issues with your father" and they gasp "OMG yes, how did you know?" and everyone nods knowingly.
The reason they "knew" is because everyone has some kind of issues with their father. It's about as discriminating a question as "were you born on a day ending with 'Y'". Every child on the planet has at least some moment that, sitting in a psychiatrist's office decades later, they could nominate as when they didn't have exactly the relationship with a parent that they wanted/needed.
There's nothing shockingly abnormal in my childhood. I had imperfect parents. Like everyone else. But I was never subjected to any kind of "trauma" beyond the usual ones of being a growing human being.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Believing that homosexuality and heterosexuality have genetic determinants is not necessary for that belief...
...liken homosexuality to genetically hereditable diseases. And we do our best to treat sickle cell anaemia and haemophilia.
your example here shows that for homosexuality to be genetic is not sufficient to support that belief.
Indeed. That was why I put the second sentence you quoted within parentheses, to show that it was parenthetical to my main argument (which you have cut).
I think the claim that homosexuality is genetic is neither sufficient nor necessary to show that it is not a condition that needs treatment, and that the question of whether homosexuality is genetic is therefore something of a rubescent clupeid.
quote:
You're right that if homosexuality could be shown to be the result of a flawed copy of a particular gene, then scientists would try to cure it (although it would be for individual sufferers of the condition and their families to decide whether the pain of the cure was preferable to living with the condition).
I did not say that. I merely said it was open to homophobes to argue that a genetic explanation was of no moral relevance.
I don't see how anyone could show that homosexuality was the result of a flawed copy of a gene; whether the gene is flawed or not is entirely a subjective judgement based on one's pre-existing judgement on whether homosexuality is right or wrong. The process of alteration within genes is intrinsically value neutral; any evaluation is derived entirely from one's judgements about the results in the phenotype. Homophobes can't read out of genes the position that heterosexuality is the normal condition and homosexuality a flaw. They have to put that in there themselves.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Either science is capable of providing relevant information or it isn't.
I think your confusion arises from your failure to grasp the distinction between science’s ability to shed light on the implications and conclusions which flow from any given ethical premise, and science’s inability to provide any ethical premises in the first place.
It is the old problem of the impossibility of deriving an “ought” from an “is”.
Take my example of science’s discovery that animals feel pain.
If you believe that it is wrong to make animals suffer IF they have a capacity to feel pain, then the discovery that they in fact DO feel pain informs your decisions about how to treat them.
However, science does not, and cannot, say anything one way or the other about the initial ethical premise that it wrong for human beings to deliberately cause suffering to other sentient creatures.
After all, it is not a self-evident universal principle, because throughout history it has been common to treat the possible sufferings of animals with complete indifference, and it remains common in many parts of the world today.
So where do the initial ethical premises come from?
For Christians they come, as far as possible, from the Bible, which all traditions believe to be prescriptive in some way, or at some level - it is not the only source of revelation, but it is far and away the most basic and the most detailed.
For example, the Bible teaches that it is wrong to worship idols, or any other gods except for the one revealed in the Bible.
I worked in India for years, and I have known countless observant Hindus who worshipped one or more of the gods in the Hindu pantheon, most of whom were fine people, leading harmless, useful and fulfilling lives, and many of whom were much nicer people than many Christians I know.
I want Hindus in Australia, and elsewhere outside India, to enjoy the same freedom of belief and practice as Christians, and members of all other religions.
It is inconsistent, however, in the light of a belief in the Bible as Christian revelation, to take the next step and say that it is all the same to God whether or not they worship other gods, and that therefore the difference between Christianity and Hinduism is meaningless.
(And it would remain equally inconsistent in the - admittedly extremely unlikely! - event of science's discovering a gene which inclined Indian people to worship Hindu gods).
It is not the job of Christians to take an attitude of moralistic superiority to Hindus, because we are all guilty of sins as bad or worse than worshipping false deities, but likewise they cannot pretend that such worship is not wrong, and not in need of God’s forgiving grace.
I don’t think I need to spell out the analogy.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... It is not the job of Christians to take an attitude of moralistic superiority to Hindus, because we are all guilty of sins as bad or worse than worshipping false deities, but likewise they cannot pretend that such worship is not wrong, and not in need of God’s forgiving grace.
I don’t think I need to spell out the analogy.
They're. Not. Pretending. They really are Hindus. It's not like every Hindu is thinking, "I know the Christian God is the real one, but I'm going to be a Hindu anyway and just pretend Ganesha is a real god and it'll all be fine."
And, do please spell out the analogy. Otherwise it looks like you are suggesting homosexuals are straight people "pretending" it's ok to do something or other they know they shouldn't.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
So where do the initial ethical premises come from?
For Christians they come, as far as possible, from the Bible, which all traditions believe to be prescriptive in some way, or at some level - it is not the only source of revelation, but it is far and away the most basic and the most detailed.
For example, the Bible teaches that it is wrong to worship idols, or any other gods except for the one revealed in the Bible.
I worked in India for years, and I have known countless observant Hindus who worshipped one or more of the gods in the Hindu pantheon, most of whom were fine people, leading harmless, useful and fulfilling lives, and many of whom were much nicer people than many Christians I know.
I want Hindus in Australia, and elsewhere outside India, to enjoy the same freedom of belief and practice as Christians, and members of all other religions.
You know freedom of worship is also condemned by the Bible as unethical, right? It's in there right next to the bit about not worshiping idols, so I know you can't have missed it.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... It is not the job of Christians to take an attitude of moralistic superiority to Hindus, because we are all guilty of sins as bad or worse than worshipping false deities, but likewise they cannot pretend that such worship is not wrong, and not in need of God’s forgiving grace.
I don’t think I need to spell out the analogy.
They're. Not. Pretending. They really are Hindus. It's not like every Hindu is thinking, "I know the Christian God is the real one, but I'm going to be a Hindu anyway and just pretend Ganesha is a real god and it'll all be fine."
I think KC is suffering from pronoun failure, intending "they" to refer back to "Christians" but actually referring to Hindus. Though there are some in the American Evangelical subculture who act as if all non-Christians really know the Truth About Jesus and are just stubbornly being difficult about it. Fred Clark deals with this in the early bits of his exceedingly lengthy critique of the Left Behind books.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think KC is suffering from pronoun failure, intending "they" to refer back to "Christians"
Correct.
Apologies if it was not clear.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You know freedom of worship is also condemned by the Bible as unethical, right?
Wrong.
True under the OT theocratic covenant, but superseded by the NT, which does not contain one single verse enjoining Christians to use political, legal or any other coercive means to propagate or defend their faith.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Either science is capable of providing relevant information or it isn't.
I think your confusion arises from your failure to grasp the distinction between science’s ability to shed light on the implications and conclusions which flow from any given ethical premise, and science’s inability to provide any ethical premises in the first place.
No, because I never suggested that science provided any ethical premises. What I suggested was that science could throw the basis for an ethical premise into doubt.
I repeat: people use the notion that homosexuals chose to be homosexual as a premise in building their ethics on homosexuality.
You can talk about the Bible's authority as much as you like, but here's the thing: anyone who says they are not interpreting the Bible is kidding themselves. Anyone who suggests that the Bible was uniformly interpreted until the last couple of generations is also kidding themselves. As leo has started pointing out, half the time when people say Christians have "always" believed something, they actually mean the last century or so because they can't remember anything earlier.
It is abundantly clear, for example, that the notion that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality, and hence the development of the world "sodomy", is not present in much of the Bible itself. It is not the view of Sodom in the Book of Ezekiel. It is not the view of Sodom in the gospels. I understand it is not the view of Sodom in early Jewish commentary, either.
So when people appeal to the authority of the Bible, all that does is shift the question to "and which understanding of the Bible are you using?". I can appeal to the authority of the Bible to show how inhospitality was considered a great sin (indeed, it still is a great sin in Middle Eastern culture), and people will manage to tell me that I'm in fact somehow ignoring the Bible. What they mean is I'm ignoring their preferred reading of the Bible.
[ 11. August 2015, 02:08: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You know freedom of worship is also condemned by the Bible as unethical, right?
Wrong.
True under the OT theocratic covenant, but superseded by the NT, which does not contain one single verse enjoining Christians to use political, legal or any other coercive means to propagate or defend their faith.
So God is incompetent?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... Have you EVER seen Christian in the UK doing acts of extreme violence against anyone in order to protest against same sex marriage? Specifically?
I'm afraid the most positive answer I have for that question is "not yet".
What are they waiting for? SSM is already legal here. What would be gained by unleashing pent-up Christian violence several years from now when everyone's bored by the issue?
They're waiting for hard times so they can blame the gays and it will be a lot easier to spot them if they're married with kids. The mild tolerance for homosexuals in the twenties and thirties was replaced with persecution in the fifties.
I think part of the fear that people like Mudfrog have is that others will treat a Christian minority the way historic Christians treated homosexuals, Jews and other Christian denominations. I can see it's a scary thought.
Is the alternative to being an extremist is to be mediocre? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 11. August 2015, 03:44: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You know freedom of worship is also condemned by the Bible as unethical, right?
Wrong.
True under the OT theocratic covenant, but superseded by the NT, which does not contain one single verse enjoining Christians to use political, legal or any other coercive means to propagate or defend their faith.
Seems inconsistent to claim that the part about idols is still valid but the part about not worshiping other gods is optional. It's certainly an interpretation that somehow escaped the first sixteen or so centuries of Christians. Is there a verse (or series of verses) that forbids the use of "political, legal or any other coercive means to propagate or defend" Christianity?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You know freedom of worship is also condemned by the Bible as unethical, right?
Wrong.
True under the OT theocratic covenant, but superseded by the NT, which does not contain one single verse enjoining Christians to use political, legal or any other coercive means to propagate or defend their faith.
So God is incompetent?
I don't understand the connection you're making here.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
It is the bullshit premise that parts OT can be ignored as some sort of trial run. "Oh, yeah, God changed his mind". It is a way, for some, of ignoring difficult things and still being able to push aside interpretation as a very real issue.
One is faced with the choice that God is incapable of communicating well, changes his mind or there is a fair amount of human error in the bible.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
God stopped changing his mind around 70 AD, having reached a state of perfection in his relationship with humanity that had hitherto eluded him...
There is in fact an argument that the New Testament represents a final covenant with us. However, it does raise some significant questions about all the covenants in the OT, what they were for and what their status is. That great remark of Jesus that he came to fulfil the Law does leave unanswered all sorts of questions about exactly which things have survived into the new era.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Seems inconsistent to claim that the part about idols is still valid but the part about not worshiping other gods is optional.
The worshipping of idols and other gods has always been wrong, and still is, but since the advent of Christianity there have been no scriptural grounds for forcing this principle on non-Christians against their will.
There is no justification in the NT for some sort of church/state theocracy.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There is in fact an argument that the New Testament represents a final covenant with us. However, it does raise some significant questions about all the covenants in the OT, what they were for and what their status is.
Well that is obvious. It is so people can mould God into their image.
[ 11. August 2015, 06:49: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What I suggested was that science could throw the basis for an ethical premise into doubt.
Your argument is that the Bible’s ethical premise is not that homosexual sex is wrong per se, but that it is wrong for a man to act like a disordered heterosexual, and that since innate homosexuality is different from disordered heterosexuality, homosexual sex is OK.
The problem is that in the opinion of most Christians, past and present, on the face of it the Bible condemns the activity itself (you’re right, not in the Sodom story, but elsewhere) without making the condemnation dependent on any particular theory of the aetiology of same sex attraction.
Putting aside for a minute any theory of whether or not the Bible was inspired by an omniscient God who knows a little about such things, the idea that the writers of the Bible would not have condemned homosexual sex if they had known about innate same sex attraction rather defies credulity.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Putting aside for a minute any theory of whether or not the Bible was inspired by an omniscient God who knows a little about such things, the idea that the writers of the Bible would not have condemned homosexual sex if they had known about innate same sex attraction rather defies credulity.
Why? Because they were all homophobes? Because they were all impervious to facts and data?
I find it fascinating when people run this kind of argument, because when it comes to issues like slavery the response is very different. When Kevin Rudd suggested that the Bible was okay with slavery, conservative Christians all over Australia positively fell over themselves in their efforts to deny that this was what the Bible actually said, and to excuse the attitudes of the writers of the Bible a couple of thousand years earlier.
How they managed to do this when, for example, one of Paul's letters is all about getting a slave to return to his master is a truly enlightening exercise in double standards.
[ 11. August 2015, 07:48: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
On a practical level, if we accept that whilst a homosexual orientation isn't the 'fault' of anyone with that orientation, how do we then insist that the onus is on them not to express that orientation physically?
It's all very well and good saying, 'Well, the Bible insists on faithfulness and monogamy within heterosexual marriage - therefore the partners in such a marriage should restrain any polyamorous urges they may experience ...'
Fine. But we're not comparing like-with-like ... what we are asking married couples to do isn't to refrain from sex at all, but to restrain from sex with anyone they aren't married to ...
What we seem to be asking people with a homosexual orientation - which we seem to agree they have through no 'fault' of their own - is to refrain from any sexual activity whatsoever.
Are we prepared to apply that same rule to ourselves? Those of us who aren't monks or nuns but married?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Sure, 'some have made themselves as eunuchs for the kingdom of God ...' but we have to remember too that this is 'a hard saying' ... who can accept it? Can any of us do so without great dollops of grace to enable us to do so?
It's hard to make out, if one takes a conservative view of scripture that the Bible takes a neutral or positive view of homosexual activity -- we can't 'make' it say otherwise - but we have to try and work out what to do and how to live in the light of that.
How many of us who are heterosexual would willingly embrace celibacy? A monk or a nun has a choice in the matter. Are we saying to someone with a same-sex orientation that they have no choice in the matter? There is no possible way for them to express their sexuality in any way, shape or form. Celibacy is the only option. Even though they didn't 'choose' their orientation?
Are we prepared to be as harsh with ourselves?
How does this fit with 'judge not lest ye also be judged?'
I'm still pretty conservative theologically but this whole area really bothers me.
What some of us seem to be saying is that there's one rule for us as heterosexuals and quite another for those who have a same-sex orientation - even if that orientation is innate and as much part and parcel of who they are as our heterosexual orientation is of who we are ...
I'm finding it very difficult to see how we can adopt such a stance without:
- Becoming judgemental and appearing 'holier than thou'.
- Causing upset, distress and even pyschological damage to those who, for whatever reason, are unable to accept this 'hard saying'.
I really can't see any way around this ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Seems inconsistent to claim that the part about idols is still valid but the part about not worshiping other gods is optional.
The worshipping of idols and other gods has always been wrong, and still is, but since the advent of Christianity there have been no scriptural grounds for forcing this principle on non-Christians against their will.
There is no justification in the NT for some sort of church/state theocracy.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The problem is that in the opinion of most Christians, past and present, on the face of it the Bible condemns the activity itself
You seem to be pursuing two mutually contradictory lines of argument here. First there's your "the First Testament doesn't count, except when it does", which seems rather dubious given the decision to retain it in the canon. Second, if "the opinion of most Christians, past and present" is dispositive in these sorts of questions then Christianity does, in fact, permit using the apparatus of the state to force non-Christians to adhere to Christian moral teachings.
I'll note you haven't answered my previous question: Is there any verse in either Testament that expressly forbids the establishment of a theocracy?
To bring this back to our Dead Horse question, you assert correctly that "the opinion of most Christians, past and present" is that homosexual sex is a sin against God and furthermore that it is legitimate to use criminal sanctions to enforce this belief. I'm not sure how you argue that a long-standing tradition of condemning homosexual sex demonstrates orthodoxy but a long-standing tradition demanding criminal penalties for homosexual sex can be ignored as somehow heretical.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Fun fact: the Second Testament has no references to the wheel and only one reference to any kind of wheeled transport; the chariot owned by the (at the time) non-Christian Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8.
What are we to make of this interesting omission? Are we to conclude that since there are "no scriptural grounds" for Christians being permitted to use wheeled transport that such conveyances are forbidden? This would seem follow from KC's argument that anything not explicitly permitted by a passage in the New Testament is therefore forbidden. Or are we to take the fact that Philip didn't point out to our nameless Ethiopian after his conversion that Christians don't use chariots to be an implicit approval of the use of wheeled transport? And does this only apply to two-wheeled transport? Are bicycles and motorcycles okay but cars and buses forbidden? How far are we to take the Second Testament's silence on a subject as meaning that subject is forbidden to Christians?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thing is, whatever our view is on whether we need 'chapter and verse' to support or repudiate a practice, the bottom-line is that sooner or later we are all going to come across people who are gay -- the issue then is, what do we say to them about the issue of whether it's possible/licit for them to have sex or not?
Because it's dead easy to take a party-line - or whatever line - what we see as a 'biblical line' of some kind - in the abstract - but when it comes to the concrete - to actual flesh and blood individuals ... it becomes harder to legislate in such clear cut terms.
That's how things work. Life is like that.
I began to develop a far more tolerant and understanding attitude towards people who are transgender or felt the need for 'gender realignment' even though I didn't - and don't - fully understand it - when a friend of mine - from my former full-on evangelical church - went through all of that.
I didn't 'get' it but he was still my friend - she is now still my friend.
I have no idea whether she expresses this sexually in any way - nor is it any of my business.
FWIW they are no longer a practising Christian but quite strongly and avowedly atheist - and I can understand why to a certain extent given the way some Christians dealt with the issue.
The point I'm making is that it's all very well and good waving texts around and telling people who have a particular orientation that they shouldn't have sex ...
What does that achieve?
How does that help them?
Are they better off not expressing themselves sexually or are they better off expressing that within a loving and hopefully faithful, monogamous relationship with a same-sex partner - if they are fortunate enough to find one?
What's the best thing in those circumstances? Remain celibate and live like a monk or nun even though they might not feel 'called' to a celibate life?
Or live with a partner?
Does 'it is better to marry than to burn' only apply to heterosexuals?
Might not the same principle apply to gay people?
The same thing happens with divorce and remarriage and with a whole load of other issues - we all make accommodations - however conservative we are in our theology.
Real life is messier than our theology.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I have no idea whether she expresses this sexually in any way - nor is it any of my business...
...Are they better off not expressing themselves sexually or are they better off expressing that within a loving and hopefully faithful, monogamous relationship with a same-sex partner - if they are fortunate enough to find one?
If you answer the questions (from near the bottom of your honest and thoughtful post) in either direction, aren't you departing a little from the "not my business" stance you took earlier ?
I don't want to condemn anyone for the personal choices they make in circumstances I don't have to deal with. Condemning spurious arguments is much more in my line...
Letting people choose for themselves in private how they respond to the non-ideal hand life has dealt them, and it's not my business what they choose, is one thing. Publicly asserting you-must-accept-this-as-the-same-thing-as-your-sacrament is something else.
And no, I'm not an extremist. I'm extremely moderate. Er, hang on a minute...
Best wishes,
Russ
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
Your sacrament isn't considered a sacrament by a large part of Christianity, so, there's that too.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... Publicly asserting you-must-accept-this-as-the-same-thing-as-your-sacrament is something else.
...
And nobody is asking for that. No Christian institution is obliged to recognize a civil marriage, or a couple married by a rabbi, or a couple married by an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas. This isn't the Act of Succession, where people will be executed if they don't take a public oath.
Individual Christians have always had the right to tell people, "You know you're not really married, right?" We know this because Christians regularly picket non-Christian wedding locations such as courthouses, synagogues, all-inclusive resorts, etc. and tell all those couples they're not properly sacramentally married and refuse to bake cakes and arrange flowers for them.
What Christians cannot do is ignore the fact that these couples - gay and straight - are all legally married. Christians are always free to express their religious opinions, but not deny others the protection and benefit of the laws of the country they live in.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Bingo.
I never understand why points like that are so hard to grasp, because we have a ready-made model and refer to it all the time: the Catholic Church doesn't accept divorce and remarriage. To which the secular state says "okay, fine, do what you like, we're doing something different".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Even if a gay person feels celibacy is the right option for gay Christians, it doesn't guarantee a supportive atmosphere in their churches - churches who put marriage on a pedestal don't provide anywhere near enough support to single people generally, let alone celibate gay people. It's not even necessarily intentional - but why, for example, do churches not provide celibacy preparation courses as well as marriage preparation courses? Celibate people are expected to just get on with it by themselves, and often there are no single people in leadership positions to be a support.
I think churches have to get their head around celibacy (real, healthy, chosen celibacy) before trying to impose it on any group of people.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Individual Christians have always had the right to tell people, "You know you're not really married, right?" We know this because Christians regularly picket non-Christian wedding locations such as courthouses, synagogues, all-inclusive resorts, etc. and tell all those couples they're not properly sacramentally married and refuse to bake cakes and arrange flowers for them.
They may have that right in your state; they don't have it here. Or, I gather, in every state in the US.
Picketing other people's wedding or civil partnership ceremony is wrong. It's trespassing in other people's lives.
But someone who bakes wedding cakes for a living should be allowed to decline to bake a gay marriage cake. They shouldn't be sued for deciding not to move into this new market. That's wrong, a breach of their freedom, an intrusion on their life.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But someone who bakes wedding cakes for a living should be allowed to decline to bake a gay marriage cake.
There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. A. Gay. Wedding. Cake.
What you mean is that "people who are having gay weddings shouldn't be allowed to buy exactly the same cake as straight people".
That's what I really hate about the "gay wedding cake" phrase. It's a means of minimising the fact that it's about refusing to serve people. There's no difference in the baking process. It's got nothing to do with a bakery refusing to engage in some new-fangled cookery skill they don't already make money out of. No, it's "I'm refusing to do my regular daily baking process for the likes of you"
[ 12. August 2015, 00:21: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Of course, what's really fascinating is why bakers suddenly become keenly interested in what their cakes are being used for, in that one situation.
I honestly can't remember having ever been asked, when buying a cake, what event I'm taking it to. I think I might have occasionally volunteered this information in small talk, but I don't think any baker has performed this kind of check before selling me a cake.
For all they know that Black Forest Cake could be about to be eaten by a bunch of neo-Nazis. The cheesecake might be for a swingers party. The apple tart might have been purchased by a pedophile to encourage a child to his house.
But no baker checks these things, and no person ever suggests that they should check these things.
And then, all of a sudden, when it comes to gay weddings, bakers become their cakes' Moral Guardians??
[ 12. August 2015, 00:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Real life is messier than our theology.
This is certainly true Gamaliel but given your public evolution away from believing anything substantial at all where does that leave your theology if you still have any?
ISTM that if it is informed by prevailing politics or even by personal experience that as these are shifting sand, then so is your (or my, faith).
It is not popular to say so and I have avoided any entry thus far in to the discussion not because I am personally confused but because I have 3 gay couples in the family and despite my convictions they are still and always mine and I don't break ties like that in exchange for ideas.
Nevertheless, it is pusillanimous to not be prepared to say what one really does think. Russ has done this, and this I salute.
I do not think there is any Biblical justification for any form of sin and certainly, though sexual sin is not worse than other sin it is sin nevertheless. However, I do resist the notion that sex and sexuality is somehow seen as fundamentally defining of a person in today's media driven world.
The older I get the more I think that not sex or sexuality but faith is fundamentally defining and it grows stronger as sex drives decline. However, faith costs. There is the necessity of repentance if it is to be obtained.
A soul will not stand before the Lord in the end as a gender defined soul, only as a human soul but it will stand before him and answer for its time in the body.
This is a big red herring but then this whole thread has become one has it not, apologies to Mudfrog.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't want to condemn anyone for the personal choices they make in circumstances I don't have to deal with. Condemning spurious arguments is much more in my line...
Me too.
I think that homosexual sex is sinful and, to revisit my analogy from upthread, so is Hindu worship, but I don't go around thinking of men bonking or Hindus venerating idols, and how to stop them, first because I have better things to do, secondly because I am not convinced that they are the most serious problems in the world, thirdly because I am all too aware of my own shortcomings, which include more serious issues than homosexual sex or presenting offerings to Shiva; and finally because I value a pluralist culture in which everyone is as free as possible to do their own thing and to openly disagree with other people's choices.
However, I do get very pissed off with dodgy logic and dodgy theology, particularly when they carry the possibility of human rights abuses, which is why I do participate in discussions such as these.
To continue the analogy, I am content to follow a policy of live and let live with Hindus, with respectful dialogue and evangelism where possible, but if they formed a militant organisation to insist that Hinduism is compatible with Christianity; to harass and intimidate and label as Hinduphobic anyone who disagreed with them: and to push for "hate crime" legislation to back their agenda, then I would take them on too.
[ 12. August 2015, 02:19: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'll note you haven't answered my previous question
That's because it was a silly question.
No, there isn't a verse in the NT which says "Thou shalt not commit theocracy", but there doesn't need to be, because it is a perfectly reasonable inference that the absence of any direction for Christians to practice any coercion in their relations to others (ponderously laboured comparisons with wheels notwithstanding), along with directions which are incompatible with theocratic coercion, are sufficient to establish the priniciple.
quote:
To bring this back to our Dead Horse question, you assert correctly that "the opinion of most Christians, past and present" is that homosexual sex is a sin against God and furthermore that it is legitimate to use criminal sanctions to enforce this belief. I'm not sure how you argue that a long-standing tradition of condemning homosexual sex demonstrates orthodoxy but a long-standing tradition demanding criminal penalties for homosexual sex can be ignored as somehow heretical.
Goodness me, you are making heavy weather of it.
The long standing condemnation of homosexual sex is in line with the Bible.
The long standing Christian support for criminalisation of homosexual sex was not.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Real life is messier than our theology.
This is certainly true Gamaliel but given your public evolution away from believing anything substantial at all where does that leave your theology if you still have any?
Pssst. The two often go together: finding out just how messy real life is often reshapes or cancels out theology.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Because they were all impervious to facts and data?
Because a knowledge of innate same sex attraction is not logically incompatible with disapproving of homosexual sex.
As I have said before, in the same way a knowledge of a near universal inbuilt polygamous, or at least polyamorous, inclination in heterosexual men is not incompatible with believing in monogamy and condemning adultery.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't want to condemn anyone for the personal choices they make in circumstances I don't have to deal with. Condemning spurious arguments is much more in my line...
Me too.
I think that homosexual sex is sinful and, to revisit my analogy from upthread, so is Hindu worship, but I don't go around thinking of men bonking or Hindus venerating idols, and how to stop them, first because I have better things to do, secondly because I am not convinced that they are the most serious problems in the world, thirdly because I am all too aware of my own shortcomings, which include more serious issues than homosexual sex or presenting offerings to Shiva; and finally because I value a pluralist culture in which everyone is as free as possible to do their own thing and to openly disagree with other people's choices.
However, I do get very pissed off with dodgy logic and dodgy theology, particularly when they carry the possibility of human rights abuses, which is why I do participate in discussions such as these.
To continue the analogy, I am content to follow a policy of live and let live with Hindus, with respectful dialogue and evangelism where possible, but if they formed a militant organisation to insist that Hinduism is compatible with Christianity; to harass and intimidate and label as Hinduphobic anyone who disagreed with them: and to push for "hate crime" legislation to back their agenda, then I would take them on too.
If such an organisation developed out of Christians actively persecuting and even killing Hindus, then it would be understandable even if you disagreed with their methods.
This is the problem - you are treating the situation as if both 'sides' are on a level playing field. Given the active persecution of LGBT people by Christians, including Christians persecuting LGBT people who are fellow Christians on a worldwide scale, it is not at all equal. I don't think refusing to bake a cake is a hate crime, but plenty of hate crimes against LGBT people by Christians happen and are happening right now. Don't pretend that they don't.
Also, sexual intercourse doesn't have a sexual orientation, people do. There's no such thing as 'homosexual sex' but sex between two people of the same gender - by your logic, same-gender sex between straight people (eg in prison) is perfectly fine.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
As I have said before, in the same way a knowledge of a near universal inbuilt polygamous, or at least polyamorous, inclination in heterosexual men is not incompatible with believing in monogamy and condemning adultery.
It sure as hell is when you have an omniscient, omni-powerful being setting up the game.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
