Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Distressed by homophobia
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It seems simple to me, God likes babies, and doesn't like bottoms, except for faecal whathaveyous.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Not one for dressing up 'haven't you been naughty?' games either then?
-------------------- Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: Think is, though, Hawk, there's a reason for Jesus' suffering. What is the reason for those who are attracted to their own sex having to suffer celibacy, for those for whom it is suffering? What good does it do? Why does God demand it?
That's a much wider issue of the whole 'why suffering' question, though, isn't it.
-------------------- "Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Well, seeing as we seem to be on glib starters for ten, there's also the thing about identifying with Jesus in His suffering and thus being transformed into His image (sanctification/ theosis/ whatever you want to call it). But this issue is of course not confined to this specific DH topic.
-------------------- "Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: Not one for dressing up 'haven't you been naughty?' games either then?
Ah, spanking bottoms! Now why didn't you say, that falls under a different category, acts allowed to man and wife, as preparatory to the procreative and unitive act, which serve to spice it up, or as hors d'oeuvre, or amuse bouches, but should not stand alone as courses in themselves. So, remember the drill, spank and penetrate (wife), and you won't go far wrong. She is also allowed to spank you, as long as you penetrate (wife).
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Matt Black: quote: Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: Think is, though, Hawk, there's a reason for Jesus' suffering. What is the reason for those who are attracted to their own sex having to suffer celibacy, for those for whom it is suffering? What good does it do? Why does God demand it?
That's a much wider issue of the whole 'why suffering' question, though, isn't it.
Yes, but this one's a bit different. The whole suffering is artificially created, apparently by God, by means of an otherwise groundless prohibition on certain types of relationship. Remove the prohibition and the problem's gone. So why have the prohibition?
-------------------- Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Why have the prohibition on me and Mrs B entering into a ménage a trois with a third individual? Or sex before marriage? Arguably these are seemingly 'meaningless prohibitions' which can cause suffering if the activities concerned float the boats of the consenting adults concerned yet God prohibits them nevertheless.
-------------------- "Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: quote: Originally posted by Hawk: None is a justifiable reason to ignore God's Will. The major example of course is Jesus' submission to God's will in his own ultimate suffering.
Isn't the standard Christian position that Jesus is God? This seems kind of like a scam. "You should submit to my will, but don't worry, I'll also be submitting to my will, so it's fair!"
I fear you may have misunderstood the Christian position. Jesus was fully man, so provides a good example for us of the proper response to suffering for the glory of God.
If the Christological niceties mystify you there are many examples of Christian martyrs you can turn to instead. I only picked Jesus as he is the most well-known.
quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: quote: Originally posted by Hawk: But I would dispute that celibacy is a 'kind of hell' as you describe it though. Paul of course described it as the ideal. I maybe wouldn't go that far myself, but it is certainly a condition that can bring much blessing. It is not intrinsically a condition of suffering.
I wonder what ever happened to "it is not good for the man to be alone"? You seem to be saying that it is good for certain men (and women) to be alone and forgo the joys of having a family.
Interesting you turn to the creation myth of Genesis to try to trump the writings of Paul. Do you believe that Genesis is more important than Paul? IMO proof texts at dawn isn't the best way of interpreting the Bible.
quote: Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: Think is, though, Hawk, there's a reason for Jesus' suffering. What is the reason for those who are attracted to their own sex having to suffer celibacy, for those for whom it is suffering?...If he's going to issue a prohibition surely he has a reason?
Of course there's a reason, and we can be assured its a good one. But does God owe us an explanation? Do we have the right to demand a full understanding of the reasons and consequences of His Will before we deign to submit ourselves to Him?
-------------------- “We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: The whole suffering is artificially created, apparently by God, by means of an otherwise groundless prohibition on certain types of relationship. Remove the prohibition and the problem's gone. So why have the prohibition?
This is a good question. Yet there are very few churches that are inclined to see gay sex as utterly harmless and thus groundlessly prohibited. Actually, it's rare to find a church that will openly declare any sort of sex as utterly harmless; the whole subject seems to be weighted with significance, real or symbolic. Despite complaints about churches being obsessed with sex, there seems to be little internal pressure to demote the subject from its position.
I think there are sociological (as well as supposedly biblical) reasons why most churches might be reluctant to declare their internal prohibitions concerning homosexual relationships to be groundless. Nevertheless, there might be some churches that could go successfully down that road. I can't understand why the historical congregational-type denominations don't plant openly gay-affirming churches or fresh expressions of church. They could be leading the way on this, since they're not bound by hierarchical structures, nor by centrally-determined theological positions on sexual morality, nor by the dodgy foreign look of the 'new churches'. [ 17. July 2013, 17:55: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Hawk: quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: quote: Originally posted by Hawk: None is a justifiable reason to ignore God's Will. The major example of course is Jesus' submission to God's will in his own ultimate suffering.
Isn't the standard Christian position that Jesus is God? This seems kind of like a scam. "You should submit to my will, but don't worry, I'll also be submitting to my will, so it's fair!"
I fear you may have misunderstood the Christian position. Jesus was fully man, so provides a good example for us of the proper response to suffering for the glory of God.
But Jesus was also fully God, I thought. So God suffering for His own glory? Sounds a little vain.
If the Christological niceties mystify you there are many examples of Christian martyrs you can turn to instead. I only picked Jesus as he is the most well-known.
quote: Originally posted by Hawk: Interesting you turn to the creation myth of Genesis to try to trump the writings of Paul. Do you believe that Genesis is more important than Paul?
Not at all. I consider them both to be equally important, I assure you!
Still, full marks for completely ignoring the question. Why is it a good thing to be forced to choose between the person you love and the God you love? Or at least forced to make that choice if the person you love is the wrong kind. The whole blind appeal to authority thing ("Do we have the right to demand a full understanding of the reasons and consequences of His Will before we deign to submit ourselves to Him?") is just a little too Nuremberg-y for my taste. In short, is God just a handy justification for "because I said so"?
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: The whole blind appeal to authority thing ("Do we have the right to demand a full understanding of the reasons and consequences of His Will before we deign to submit ourselves to Him?") is just a little too Nuremberg-y for my taste. In short, is God just a handy justification for "because I said so"?
If someone disapproves of appeals to God's authority then Christianity is probably the wrong religion for them. Anyone can be wrong about God, and most of us probably are, but from a Christian perspective this possibility doesn't negate the search to know and to do His will, whatever the outcome.
In the post-Christian and post-secular future there might be an inclination to configure God as a non-authoritarian deity. I'm not sure how that will pan out theologically. Most of our church liturgies and hymns still formally agree that God is Lord and Master of all. Whether we still see God that way is another matter.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by SvitlanaV2: If someone disapproves of appeals to God's authority then Christianity is probably the wrong religion for them.
I'll agree with you there.
quote: Originally posted by SvitlanaV2: Anyone can be wrong about God, and most of us probably are, but from a Christian perspective this possibility doesn't negate the search to know and to do His will, whatever the outcome.
But it does negate the need to understand God's will, according to Hawk. If you adopt the position that you should do God's will even if you don't understand it, how would you ever come to the conclusion that you're "wrong about God"?
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote: SvitlanaV2: If someone disapproves of appeals to God's authority then Christianity is probably the wrong religion for them.
* Timidly raises hand *
I am a Christian and I mostly dissaprove of appeals to God's authority.
-------------------- I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by LeRoc: quote: SvitlanaV2: If someone disapproves of appeals to God's authority then Christianity is probably the wrong religion for them.
* Timidly raises hand *
I am a Christian and I mostly dissaprove of appeals to God's authority.
Perhaps you're in the vanguard, leading us into the brave new world I mentioned earlier, towards God as a non-authoritarian deity. There has to be an intermediate stage, after all....
To be fair, I don't go around 'appealing to God's authority'! ISTM that Christians often envision their lives of prayer, service and worship, etc. as enabling them better to follow God's will as a matter of course, since this should be the natural consequence of trying to live one's life in relationship with God. It's not something that we normally need to draw attention to. However, we fail because we're human and because our prayer/service/worship/etc. are consequently inadequate. Is this a totally mistaken understanding of things?
quote: Originally posted by Croesos:
If you adopt the position that you should do God's will even if you don't understand it, how would you ever come to the conclusion that you're "wrong about God"?
Well, the alternative is stagnation, isn't it? At some point we have to go forward, in faith, something that Christianity generally approves of. Ideally we should be humble, prayerful, seeking the counsel of others whom we respect and studying scriptural examples. But according to the Bible, God will never desert us, whatever happens. Our mistakes don't represent the end of our walk with him. [ 17. July 2013, 20:06: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: quote: Originally posted by Hawk: Interesting you turn to the creation myth of Genesis to try to trump the writings of Paul. Do you believe that Genesis is more important than Paul?
Not at all. I consider them both to be equally important, I assure you!
Still, full marks for completely ignoring the question. Why is it a good thing to be forced to choose between the person you love and the God you love? Or at least forced to make that choice if the person you love is the wrong kind.
Being made to choose between the World and God is a prevelant theme throughout the Bible I think. Not just with sexuality, both hetero and homo, but with all aspects of the human experience. God asks us to sacrifice ourselves. It is a hard command and not everyone can do it. Eye of the needle and all that.
It is partly a test I think. Jesus said once that if we don't love him more than our own mother and father we have no place in the Kingdom of God. It is a question of priorities. And it can be shocking when put in such black and white language. But it is that important to put God first. If God isn't first, before even our human relationships, then we have no relationship with Him at all.
quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: The whole blind appeal to authority thing ("Do we have the right to demand a full understanding of the reasons and consequences of His Will before we deign to submit ourselves to Him?") is just a little too Nuremberg-y for my taste.
Nice application of Godwin's law. Is 'Nuremberg'y' just shorthand for 'I don't like it' though?
quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: In short, is God just a handy justification for "because I said so"?
No. At least it shouldn't be. No one should follow what I say about God without believing it themselves from God's revealed Word. I'm just saying what I believe.
-------------------- “We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Hawk: It is partly a test I think. Jesus said once that if we don't love him more than our own mother and father we have no place in the Kingdom of God. It is a question of priorities. And it can be shocking when put in such black and white language. But it is that important to put God first. If God isn't first, before even our human relationships, then we have no relationship with Him at all.
As concerns the immediate issue, that would seem to assume that we can 'know' God's will on homosexuality for certain without bringing our own consciences into consideration. I doubt that. I count myself a Bible-believing Christian, but I am a hundred times more certain that I ought not to be an arsehole to my gay fellow humans than I am that some ambiguous passage in Leviticus is God's final word on the subject.
That is, if I was absolutely sure that being who created the universe and is its ultimate moral authority is against absolutely all expressions of same-sex attraction, then I accept that he's right, even if I don't see why. But because it seems such an absurd and arbitrary prohibition, the fact that I cannot see why is a legitimate reason to doubt that God certainly prohibits all gay relationships whatever. God's authority is based on the fact that he is good and right. A command, purporting to be God's, that seems evil and wrong is, for that very reason, a dubious one. Obeying it without question betrays a lack of faith in God's goodness - rather than being a mark of Christian integrity.
As a Bible-believing Christian, I think the apparent prohibition of gay relationships probably is strong enough that, if I were tempted to have one myself, I think I would be uncertain enough to abstain (on the assumption, which must be doubtful for never having been put to the test, that my willpower was sufficient to maintain that resolve). But the Biblical case is certainly not strong enough to justify being an arsehole to other people, by, for example, denying them legal equality. That is homophobia, and the Bible does not even begin to justify that.
-------------------- "Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Eliab: But the Biblical case is certainly not strong enough to justify being an arsehole to other people, by, for example, denying them legal equality. That is homophobia, and the Bible does not even begin to justify that.
Well I disagree with you that the Biblical prohibition is just one 'ambiguous passage in Leviticus', and I also don't agree that human understanding and judgement is sufficient to test the morality of God's prohibitions. But I do agree that being an arsehole to other people is not justified by the Bible. I'm not sure anyone ever argued that it was though.
-------------------- “We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Hawk: quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: Still, full marks for completely ignoring the question. Why is it a good thing to be forced to choose between the person you love and the God you love? Or at least forced to make that choice if the person you love is the wrong kind.
Being made to choose between the World and God is a prevelant theme throughout the Bible I think. Not just with sexuality, both hetero and homo, but with all aspects of the human experience. God asks us to sacrifice ourselves. It is a hard command and not everyone can do it. Eye of the needle and all that.
It is partly a test I think. Jesus said once that if we don't love him more than our own mother and father we have no place in the Kingdom of God. It is a question of priorities. And it can be shocking when put in such black and white language. But it is that important to put God first. If God isn't first, before even our human relationships, then we have no relationship with Him at all.
Which would be comparable if Christians were typically expected to sever all ties and contact with their parents, but that's usually not the case. Most Christians will usually get all "honor thy father and mother" in such cases. In other words, you're not asking gays to love God more than a human partner, you're demanding they love God instead of a human partner. That seems a critical difference.
quote: Originally posted by Hawk: quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: The whole blind appeal to authority thing ("Do we have the right to demand a full understanding of the reasons and consequences of His Will before we deign to submit ourselves to Him?") is just a little too Nuremberg-y for my taste.
Nice application of Godwin's law. Is 'Nuremberg'y' just shorthand for 'I don't like it' though?
No, just shorthand for the idea that you're not morally responsible for your own actions if you can claim "I was only following orders".
To take a non-Godwin example popular in the nineteenth century, it was widely believed that Africans were created by God as a kind of Aristotelian "natural slave", that their enslavement was ordained by God. If we accept your premise that God requires obedience without understanding, would there be any way for someone raised in such a belief to conclude that slavery is wrong? For that matter, does the fact that people believed it was God's will make it right?
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Hawk: Well I disagree with you that the Biblical prohibition is just one 'ambiguous passage in Leviticus', and I also don't agree that human understanding and judgement is sufficient to test the morality of God's prohibitions. But I do agree that being an arsehole to other people is not justified by the Bible. I'm not sure anyone ever argued that it was though.
Does stoning people to death count as "being an arsehole"? And if you think no one ever argued that, you're woefully ignorant of history.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Hawk: I also don't agree that human understanding and judgement is sufficient to test the morality of God's prohibitions
Of course it isn't. It's just that, without begging the question, human understanding is the only sort that I possess.
I'm sure that there are moral questions for which the right answer is known to God, but where I lack the understanding to get there. However to persuade me that in this particular case the answer you have is from God, at some level you have to appeal to my understanding. It's not enough to say that in general the possibility exists of a right answer that I would consider insane. That's not enough to make me accept any specific appeal to moral insanity. My best judgement is just that - my best judgement. It isn't perfect, but it is the best that I can do, and therefore the least that I owe to God.
Believing something against my best judgement is by definition irresponsible - an instance of moral failure. My best judgement might be (and doubtless, sometimes is) wrong, but if I follow a command that my best moral judgement rejects, I can only be right by accident. I cannot be sure that God really commanded something that I cannot help but see as evil, because I am much more certain that God is good than I am that such-and-such an interpretation of a Biblical command is really his.
You seem to be arguing that I could ever have grounds for believing that the Bible (or a specific interpretation thereof) is absolutely authoritative which are independent of the Bible's actual content. I'm disagreeing with that. I think that a command which I find ethically questionable must for that reason alone be considered of doubtful providence. Not necessarily rejected out of hand (because I might be wrong), but it is certainly a moral obligation to question it. [ 17. July 2013, 21:30: Message edited by: Eliab ]
-------------------- "Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Hawk: Of course there's a reason, and we can be assured its a good one. But does God owe us an explanation? Do we have the right to demand a full understanding of the reasons and consequences of His Will before we deign to submit ourselves to Him?
Legally maybe God doesn't owe us an explanation. However, is God the sort to stand upon what he legally owes us? Or is God rather loving and gracious? After all, it's a lot easier to follow the spirit of a law when you understand the reasoning behind it. If you don't understand the reasoning behind it all you can do is follow the letter, and we're told we oughtn't to just follow the letter.
-------------------- 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
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote: is partly a test I think. Jesus said once that if we don't love him more than our own mother and father we have no place in the Kingdom of God. It is a question of priorities. And it can be shocking when put in such black and white language. But it is that important to put God first. If God isn't first, before even our human relationships, then we have no relationship with Him at all.
I think this couldn't be more wrong in its conclusion. The test was made pretty clear and it was exactly a test of our human relationships, not with our family but with people in need of our support and compassion beyond our families. When you start telling other people what 'they' must sacrifice then you get onto very dodgy ground indeed. The touchstone of the sheep and the goats reads much more to me like "So, what have you been doing recently for my 'least of these'?" than 'So, what have you done recently with your Bible to make other people's lives harder and more miserable, so as to show off how totally great you think I am?'.
As for a God who'd be well pleased with someone who went up to him and said "Look what I did! I witnessed against evil things like this!" [pics of wonderful Indian wedding between two women]
Blimey. I could imagine some joyless minor demon getting a huge kick out of that, but a loving gracious God? Nah. [ 18. July 2013, 01:49: Message edited by: Louise ]
-------------------- Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Good stuff, Louise. That view also seems to assume that God isn't in our relationships. But don't we find God partly in our love for each other?
I hate this setting up of God against our life, and not in our life.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Louise:
As for a God who'd be well pleased with someone who went up to him and said "Look what I did! I witnessed against evil things like this!" [pics of wonderful Indian wedding between two women]
Blimey. I could imagine some joyless minor demon getting a huge kick out of that, but a loving gracious God? Nah.
No loving being could find fault in all the beautiful joy in the ceremony pictured. If, in viewing such, one finds a negative thought, it tells more of the viewer's own failings than any in the viewed.
-------------------- 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
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Louise: quote: I could imagine some joyless minor demon getting a huge kick out of that, but a loving gracious God? Nah.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by lilBuddha: quote: Originally posted by Louise:
As for a God who'd be well pleased with someone who went up to him and said "Look what I did! I witnessed against evil things like this!" [pics of wonderful Indian wedding between two women]
Blimey. I could imagine some joyless minor demon getting a huge kick out of that, but a loving gracious God? Nah.
No loving being could find fault in all the beautiful joy in the ceremony pictured. If, in viewing such, one finds a negative thought, it tells more of the viewer's own failings than any in the viewed.
Yes very pretty pictures. I don't believe God looks just at the surface of things though. And outward beauty means less to God than our relationship with Him and our eternal salvation. If these two women are putting God first in their lives and sincerely following Jesus then I am sure He is delighted. Otherwise He weeps. I don't know their hearts so I cannot judge.
-------------------- “We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dafyd: quote: Originally posted by Hawk: Of course there's a reason, and we can be assured its a good one. But does God owe us an explanation? Do we have the right to demand a full understanding of the reasons and consequences of His Will before we deign to submit ourselves to Him?
Legally maybe God doesn't owe us an explanation. However, is God the sort to stand upon what he legally owes us? Or is God rather loving and gracious? After all, it's a lot easier to follow the spirit of a law when you understand the reasoning behind it. If you don't understand the reasoning behind it all you can do is follow the letter, and we're told we oughtn't to just follow the letter.
Painting this in terms of legality is the wrong perspective IMO. Perhaps it is a question of ability? God is omniscient, we are not. There are things He knows and understands that we cannot, however hard He may try to explain. Perhaps we can never understand, perhaps we may in time, but we are not mature enough yet. We are not God, but we must trust that God knows what He's doing. The alternative is to set us and our human understanding up as mini-gods and follow those as our Lord instead.
quote: Originally posted by Louise: When you start telling other people what 'they' must sacrifice then you get onto very dodgy ground indeed. The touchstone of the sheep and the goats reads much more to me like "So, what have you been doing recently for my 'least of these'?" than 'So, what have you done recently with your Bible to make other people's lives harder and more miserable, so as to show off how totally great you think I am?'.
I agree. As I've said repeatedly, I do not think that morality should be (or even can be) externally imposed. Without a personal belief then sacrifice is meaningless. God may ask us to self-sacrifice, but never to sacrifice others. I may believe that if I struggled with same-sex attraction, I would be wrong to act according to it, but I would not force others to restrain themselves the same way. I may try to convice others of the rightness of my position, but if they do not accept my argument I have no right to try to make them. People have to decide for themselves.
-------------------- “We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote: I don't believe God looks just at the surface of things though. And outward beauty means less to God than our relationship with Him and our eternal salvation. If these two women are putting God first in their lives and sincerely following Jesus then I am sure He is delighted. Otherwise He weeps. I don't know their hearts so I cannot judge.
It's really extraordinary, and I suspect the Greeks had a word for a style of language which does this, but I couldn't help feeling that the meaning of the passage was the complete opposite of the last four words.
There was a radio programme on Wednesday, BBC Radio 4, on the development of the Talmud, and a teacher talked about the faces of God, an angry face for the Bible, a friendly face for the Talmud, and a laughing face for the aggadah (I guess the spelling), the stories and asides within Talmud. If God can have the friendly and the laughing faces, ought we to stick to the angry one when dealing with other people's lives? And for us, without Talmud, but with the Word made flesh, did not Jesus show those two further faces?
To be honest, if God is going to say, "The way you are, and I acknowledge that you did not chose to be this way, you must renounce your love. You must love me instead. I know I do not make the same demand of your fellows, but that's the way it is" I would have extreme doubts about whether he actually deserves any love at all. (And I am not in the class of people under that injunction.) Mere humans who argue like that belong in the Purgatory thread about abuse.
I am catching up on the programme at the moment. I realise that there is a strong thread of a need to argue in my make up, like that of Jewish scholars, even to arguing with God. (And there is Biblical ground for that, is there not? Abraham arguing to save the people of the plains. Jesus teaching about the unjust judge.)
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Hawk: quote: I don't believe God looks just at the surface of things though.
Nor do I.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Penny S: To be honest, if God is going to say, "The way you are, and I acknowledge that you did not chose to be this way, you must renounce your love. You must love me instead. I know I do not make the same demand of your fellows, but that's the way it is" I would have extreme doubts about whether he actually deserves any love at all.
I don't believe such a command is intrinsically bad by itself. I think it is only considered bad when we do not understand the reasons for it.
As an illustration, what about if we swopped the subject of God's command from the renunciation of same-sex love to other loves where the reason for the prohibition is more obvious? What about if the love in question was that for another person's spouse, or for a type of character that would be harmful to you personally (i.e a recovering drug addict falling in love with a drug addict who was still using)? The benefits of choosing to renounce such attractions are clear in these cases. When the benefits of renouncing love make sense to us we are more willing to accept the argument you summarise as: "The way you are, and I acknowledge that you did not chose to be this way, you must renounce your love. You must love me instead. I know I do not make the same demand of your fellows, but that's the way it is".
Such a command therefore isn't the problem, rather it is an expression of great love and care for the person's wellbeing. It is only when we don't see any immediete benefit to ourselves that we reject this command as unfair and abusive.
And again we are back to the real problem people have with the Biblical prohibition. It can be summarised as: "I don't understand". "But why can't I?" Because we don't immedietely understand God's prohibition we feel we are fully justified in rejecting it. Is that the correct response? I argue not necessarily.
-------------------- “We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Hawk:
As an illustration, what about if we swopped the subject of God's command from the renunciation of same-sex love to other loves where the reason for the prohibition is more obvious? What about if the love in question was that for another person's spouse, or for a type of character that would be harmful to you personally (i.e a recovering drug addict falling in love with a drug addict who was still using)? The benefits of choosing to renounce such attractions are clear in these cases. When the benefits of renouncing love make sense to us we are more willing to accept the argument you summarise as: "The way you are, and I acknowledge that you did not chose to be this way, you must renounce your love. You must love me instead. I know I do not make the same demand of your fellows, but that's the way it is".
Seriously? You are comparing relationships which are clearly harmful with same sex-relationships which are not. You are saying God is explicitly being vague about this issue.
-------------------- 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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Hawk: And again we are back to the real problem people have with the Biblical prohibition. It can be summarised as: "I don't understand". "But why can't I?" Because we don't immedietely understand God's prohibition we feel we are fully justified in rejecting it. Is that the correct response? I argue not necessarily.
Is there any other prohibition widely considered to be still in force where there is not a plausible explanation why?
There are plenty of reasons why a prohibition on homosexuality might have made sense in Biblical times. None of those seem to be relevant any more (it's not associated with pagan religious practices; there isn't the same need for children to care for one in old age; there isn't the same set up of forced heterosexual marriage that would make homosexual activity automatically adulterous; there isn't the need to have lots of children to outbreed other nations and keep the army large). Every other prohibition that we still enforce (and, to be frank, plenty of the ones we don't, like that on usury) have a pretty clear benefit to us. It's not that it's impossible that God could see dangers that are hidden from us it's just surprising that it seems only to be in this case that people are prepared to go all in to insist that they must exist.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Hawk: As an illustration, what about if we swopped the subject of God's command from the renunciation of same-sex love to other loves where the reason for the prohibition is more obvious? What about if the love in question was that for another person's spouse, or for a type of character that would be harmful to you personally (i.e a recovering drug addict falling in love with a drug addict who was still using)?
Not to put to fine a point on it, but God didn't issue commands against either of those things. There is no commandment against marrying a drug addict, and the number of Old Testament patriarchs with multiple wives should put to rest the idea that God doesn't allow you to love, or even marry, someone else's husband.
Your argument seems to be "if you accept non-arbitrary rules that serve a good and legitimate purpose, you're also obligated to obey arbitrary rules that are actively harmful". That seems like a huge non-sequitur. [ 18. July 2013, 17:13: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
How about not "not seeing an immediate benefit" but not seeing one ever, not after, for example, 30 years, doing what seems to be what is right?
I think one might have every right to argue the point. Frequently.
For oneself. For one's friends. For anyone.
But I don't think one has a right to argue that other people should accept such a state without question, when not under that compulsion oneself. Or, if under that compulsion, finding it easy.
It is not good for the man to be alone. Or woman (since at the time that was said, man included both).
I suppose it might just be worth the hellish state now if the price of not abstaining was hell later, but in that case, why can't everyone go through it?
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by lilBuddha: You are saying God is explicitly being vague about this issue.
I think God is quite clear about this issue myself. I appreciate others disagree.
quote: Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet: Is there any other prohibition widely considered to be still in force where there is not a plausible explanation why?
What do you mean by 'plausible'? According to which measure? If one is following a strict material rationalism for instance the injunction to follow no other gods but the Lord may not seem particularly plausible. If however you are following the precept that our creator and Lord knows what is best for us, then it is eminently plausible that his commands are good.
quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: Your argument seems to be "if you accept non-arbitrary rules that serve a good and legitimate purpose, you're also obligated to obey arbitrary rules that are actively harmful". That seems like a huge non-sequitur.
That's not my argument. My argument is that we are obliged to follow the Will of our God, whether His Will seems arbitrary to us or not.
quote: Originally posted by Penny S: I think one might have every right to argue the point. Frequently.
Of course. Jacob actively wrestled with God. The Psalmists yelled at Him in their songs. The tradition of healthy, robust questioning of God is perfectly valid. He encourages it I believe.
quote: Originally posted by Penny S: It is not good for the man to be alone. Or woman (since at the time that was said, man included both).
That is not the entirety of scripture's word on the subject of human relationships. Such broad-brush generalisation is massively qualified elsewhere. We cannot take this one verse as carte blanche justification for any relationship we fancy.
-------------------- “We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Worshipping other gods reduces our attention on God and reduces our capacity to discern his will for us. This follows naturally from the principle that there is one God and we seek to be in right relationship with him.
Christ himself said that all the law hangs on the two Great Commandments. Pretty much every commandment that we hold to be still in force about how we relate to one another can be reasonably interpreted as a violation of the second, whether it be coveting the possessions of others, bearing false witness, adultery, stealing etc. and those that can't have demonstrable practical physical and mental harms to us, such as drunkenness. They are meant to keep us safe from harm, out of God's love for us. If we harm ourselves then we reject God's love.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Hawk: quote: Originally posted by Penny S: It is not good for the man to be alone. Or woman (since at the time that was said, man included both).
That is not the entirety of scripture's word on the subject of human relationships. Such broad-brush generalisation is massively qualified elsewhere. We cannot take this one verse as carte blanche justification for any relationship we fancy.
One can take it as an injunction not to demand that others must live alone, solitary, lonely, without companionship..... which I take it is what God is talking about in Genesis. He, from what follows, is certainly not suggesting that the problem can be solved by keeping a cat or a dog, or a hamster.....
And I don't think this argument is about "fancy". It is about love, which is not a matter of a trivial gawping at someone with a fit body. From what I can make out, gays are just as much interested in the marriage of true minds as heterosexuals.
If God wants homesexuals to live celibate, he could have made them to be among nature's natural celibates. Not allowed them to know what might be and then said "NO! And I'm not going to tell you why." I don't believe God is that nasty.
Love, Goodness... they don't go with creating a class of people whose sole purpose is to be second class people who are to be denied the sort of relationship which is supposed to resemble the relationship with god, while having the feelings that belong with that sort of relationship.
Incidentally, it isn't just the Bible which has an opinion about people being alone - there are umpteen scientific papers about the need for people to live in relationships with other people. We are social creatures, and grow very far from being fully human if we grow in solitude.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
At the end of the day those who preach and inveigh against SSM are simply ignorant of lived human experience. My same-sex spouse and I will have been together for 39 years this coming November; we got legally hitched in Canada a decade ago this month when SSM effectively became the law there. How could anyone think that genital sex is what keeps a couple together for an extended period of time, or that our relationship doesn't serve the objective functions and purposes of any other marriage, or share the basic characteristics common to marriages -- all save biological conception of children, something that I think we've established isn't an essential characteristic of marriage, since many heterosexual marriages are not characterised by biological conception of progeny (and this was even truer prior to the modern era of IVF and other medical interventions to restore or promote fertility)?
As to the Bible, some of us don't think it's a book of comprehensive instructions and answers to every specific human problem and condition that may come along. We reject the notion that it should be employed that way, or that it is anything but a very heterogenous and sometimes ambiguous collection of writings, some of which defy reality, justice, humane conduct, and a scientific understanding of the world at many levels. The Bible contains everything from the sublime to hogwash, from high principles to injuctions that are blatantly evil, unfit for purpose and quite past their sell-by date.
I'd suggest the Church would do better to engage with its scriptural canon in a way similar to that of Reform Judaism. [ 19. July 2013, 12:49: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Hawk: quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: Your argument seems to be "if you accept non-arbitrary rules that serve a good and legitimate purpose, you're also obligated to obey arbitrary rules that are actively harmful". That seems like a huge non-sequitur.
That's not my argument. My argument is that we are obliged to follow the Will of our God, whether His Will seems arbitrary to us or not.
If that's the case, then why the non-sequitur about 'what if God's commands made sense'? If making sense or being beneficial are irrelevant, why bring them up?
quote: Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras: How could anyone think that genital sex is what keeps a couple together for an extended period of time, or that our relationship doesn't serve the objective functions and purposes of any other marriage, or share the basic characteristics common to marriages -- all save biological conception of children, something that I think we've established isn't an essential characteristic of marriage, since many heterosexual marriages are not characterised by biological conception of progeny (and this was even truer prior to the modern era of IVF and other medical interventions to restore or promote fertility)?
How? Hawk illustrates exactly how this works. God says your relationship is evil/wrong/immoral/whatever, therefore it must be so. Of course, God doesn't really make personal statements like that these days, so it's more along the lines of "Hawk says that God says . . . "
At any rate, as Hawk has helpfully pointed out, whether you can fulfill "the objective functions and purposes of any other marriage" is irrelevant. God's will is functionally arbitrary and doesn't have to be consistent. Although it does seem to always be consistent with the prejudices of whoever happens to be speaking on God's behalf. Funny that.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Penny S: If God wants homesexuals to live celibate, he could have made them to be among nature's natural celibates. Not allowed them to know what might be and then said "NO! And I'm not going to tell you why." I don't believe God is that nasty.
If God wanted his people to not sin, he should have made us naturally unsinful. Not allowed us to know the temptations of the world then said "NO! and I'm not going to tell you why."
quote: Originally posted by Penny S: Incidentally, it isn't just the Bible which has an opinion about people being alone - there are umpteen scientific papers about the need for people to live in relationships with other people. We are social creatures, and grow very far from being fully human if we grow in solitude.
I read an interesting article today in Christianity Magazine about three men dealing with same-sex attraction who still hold to the belief that the Bible prohibits them from acting on these attractions. Perhaps a quote from one of them would be helpful here:
‘One of society’s mistakes is the belief that intimacy equals sex, and therefore the Bible is asking us to pass up intimate relationships and lead sad, lonely lives instead. It’s not true. The Bible sees friendship as an amazingly intimate relationship. I have a greater capacity for deep relationships with many people than my married friends do.’
-------------------- “We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: God's will is functionally arbitrary and doesn't have to be consistent.
God's will is not functionally arbitrary, and it is always beneficial. However, I do recognise that it may seem arbitrary or unbeneficial to us sometimes because we don't know everything that God knows.
-------------------- “We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Hawk: quote: Originally posted by Penny S: If God wants homesexuals to live celibate, he could have made them to be among nature's natural celibates. Not allowed them to know what might be and then said "NO! And I'm not going to tell you why." I don't believe God is that nasty.
If God wanted his people to not sin, he should have made us naturally unsinful. Not allowed us to know the temptations of the world then said "NO! and I'm not going to tell you why."
quote: Originally posted by Penny S: Incidentally, it isn't just the Bible which has an opinion about people being alone - there are umpteen scientific papers about the need for people to live in relationships with other people. We are social creatures, and grow very far from being fully human if we grow in solitude.
I read an interesting article today in Christianity Magazine about three men dealing with same-sex attraction who still hold to the belief that the Bible prohibits them from acting on these attractions. Perhaps a quote from one of them would be helpful here:
‘One of society’s mistakes is the belief that intimacy equals sex, and therefore the Bible is asking us to pass up intimate relationships and lead sad, lonely lives instead. It’s not true. The Bible sees friendship as an amazingly intimate relationship. I have a greater capacity for deep relationships with many people than my married friends do.’
Hawk, what this pathetic tale of sexually conflicted homosexuals and their self-justifying internalised homophobia fails to take into account is that a good marriage provides not just for genital sexual expression but also for specifically physical intimacy and prolonged physical contact comfort that is integrated with emotional/psychological intimacy. Sharing a bed with your spouse and prolonged physical cuddling in a state of relative undress - absent on most occasions any strong or consciously detectable sexual arousal - is a species of intimacy that is important to many, if not most, people (I would assert) and one that probably can't be achieved via mere friendships (even friendships with a lot of "intimacy"). Or do you think that's it's all ok as long as nothing "nasty" happens?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I've read that article and it doesn't come across to me as though these men are suffering from 'internalised homophobia'. They've chosen a path that makes sense to them. And they don't attempt to rubbish what Steve Chalke and others are doing, even though they disagree with it.
The new website will presumably help gay Christians who want to be honest about their same-sex attraction yet also want to be celibate. I imagine there are other websites that support gay Christians who want to remain in sexual relationships. It's a matter of choice and individual understanding.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
You can find women who've voluntarily taken up radical Islam extolling how 'liberating' it is to wear the niqab and submit themselves to men and live a life severely restricted by sexual apartheid, applied to any man who's not family, child or husband. From time to time The Guardian or similar publications run columns from such people. In some senses - like people who choose BDSM lifetyles - whatever floats their boat and makes them happy, but in terms of the happiness of womankind in general- these people should never be allowed to get anywhere near setting laws or norms for other people or we'd all end up back in the dark ages. Of course people who'd like to see women back in the bedroom and kitchen being properly subservient to men, just love these sort of people and their Christian equivalents...
A historian I was working with recently was talking about Britishness as a nationalism and commented
"the problem with it is that it can be like fundamentalist religion and take otherwise sincere and honest proponents into very dark places'
And in a nutshell that's the problem with the whole 'God's will' must be 'ultimately beneficial' blind trust stuff - it ultimately can become an excuse for anything. Having spent years of my life cataloguing and studying early modern/late medieval religious sources, including many spiritual diaries, I can tell you there's plenty of times people sincerely assure themselves and others that something is 'God's will' and it all ends in tears, massacre, persecution, witch burning, misery, looney tunes prophecy etc. Nobody has ever turned this into an exact science that doesn't make horrifying cock-ups that need to be smashed by compassion.
Perhaps the saddest thing I ever saw was the voluminous thousands-of-pages over many years diary of a superhero of protestant conversion-centred piety. This was someone who would make Billy Graham look like a dangerous laid-back liberal who lies in bed on a Sunday morning. The level of religious devotion and constant prayer and attempts to discern God's will from Bible reading was amazing. Watching this man's downfall as he kidded himself on about what God was telling him was just heart-breaking, and it all ended at the end of a rope. In some of the last entries before he died, he got a modicum of self-awareness about how he persecuted others and sent them to their deaths thinking it was God's will. Awful awful awful tragic terrible stuff,and by the time he got any insight into it, too late for the blood on his hands, too late for him.
And these same people I studied - devout in a way you could hardly find now, had an even more toxic version of 'putting God before human beings' where they'd worry that if they loved a child or a spouse too much they were making them into an 'idol' and setting them up before God - so if the child or spouse died (as they frequently did in Early modern times) they would blame themselves.
And these same amazing godly people accepted without a whimper stripping people naked, shaving their bodies, sexually humiliating them, sleep depriving them, torturing them with long thick pins shoved repeatedly into their bodies, and then having them strangled and burned - alive sometimes when someone refused to confess. And all this for imaginary crimes.
Not one, not a single evangelical godly minister who spent all day trying to live by and submit to God's will raised a whimper about this. It was a side-switching lawyer who betrayed the godly people for promotion who first spoke out about this cruelty and applied common sense and humanity to the Scottish witch-hunt - Mackenzie of Rosehaugh.
Claiming a personal interpretation of 'God's will' must be 'ultimately beneficial' is a cop-out. Tell it to the witches.
Gay people have been speaking out for decades about the effect of religious taboos and discriminatory laws which originate in those taboos. There are huge threads on this board alone, going back in some cases over ten years where you can read the testimonies of gay and lesbian people here about what they've gone through. When people prefer to screen out 99% of testimony and listen only to the tiny minority who've put conservative religious conformity before challenging heterosexual-imposed policing and limiting of their relationships, then they become willing accessories to perpetuating the injustice and suffering that goes with that policing and limiting.
When people choose to screen out the overwhelming testimony of LGBT people to the wrong that conservative religion has done them, preferring instead outliers who support their views and their own theories of what limits gay people ought to accept it's not a mysterious and inscrutable God who's to blame, it's human hearts, refusing to accept that a Biblical interpretation which has harmed so many people is a human invention that needs to go, like all the others which in the end turned out in practice to be senseless and unjust.
-------------------- Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
OK, so one of the blokes is actually bisexual and can get it up for a woman, whilst believing sex with other guys is a no-no. The other two are unequivocally gay and choose to run their lives according to a few select bits of ancient, culturally irrelevant scripture at the expense of being true to their essential telos. I have little doubt that they are poorly individuated from their families of origin and pathologically dependent in terms of having to rely on someone else's particular interpretation and slant on a collection of books that are declared unequivocally authoritative about everything -- you might as well believe that the world was created in seven days, God flooded the entire earth, there were two literal people who started the whole human race after having been directly manufactured by God, etc., etc. Oh please, do buy a clue!
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
A few nit-picks:
*burning was the punishment for heresy and not witchcraft, in England at least
*the niqab is not only worn by women who are part of fundamentalist Islam but many ordinary Muslim women
*those involved in BDSM lifestyles (as opposed to it being bedroom-only) are strongly connected to the LGBTQ community and wouldn't impose it (BDSM as a lifestyle) on anyone - consent is of paramount importance
-------------------- 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
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Apropos of Louise, I read today that George Zimmerman has rationalised his killing of Trayvon Martin as being God's will.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Jade Constable: A few nit-picks:
*burning was the punishment for heresy and not witchcraft, in England at least
*the niqab is not only worn by women who are part of fundamentalist Islam but many ordinary Muslim women
*those involved in BDSM lifestyles (as opposed to it being bedroom-only) are strongly connected to the LGBTQ community and wouldn't impose it (BDSM as a lifestyle) on anyone - consent is of paramount importance
(1) I'm a Scottish specialist writing about Scottish history. It's burning here - usually preceded by being strangled - but in some high profile cases burning alive eg. Euphame Macalzean
(2) 'Ordinary' in the sense of usually still subscribing to what amounts to sexual apartheid, wanting to separate women from men outside the family. By a similar token you get ordinary Free Presbyterian women - the doctrines and beliefs are still anti-woman however nice individual proponents might be. Though I was thinking in particular of 'zeal of the convert' cases.
(3) Yes, that's why I drew the distinction between stuff to which I say 'whatever' and stuff where people would genuinely like to impose their sexual attitudes on others. [ 19. July 2013, 19:27: Message edited by: Louise ]
-------------------- Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras: [...]Oh please, do buy a clue!
I think that was all a bit much, really.
IMO creating and allowing for religious diversity in matters sexual, among others, is a far more urgent task than condemning people whose beliefs cause them to live differently, since there's never going to be a Christian consensus when it comes to sexual behaviour. Yes, Christians disagree on all sorts of things - including the Creation - and this is just one of them.
As for the niqab, every day I see women wearing it and going about their business. It would be tiring to be offended by it all the time, although I'd appreciate hearing more Muslim women talking about what it means to them.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|