|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Russ, you are either incredibly stupid or a Trolling Bigot
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Yeah, they are yet another bit of marketing which makes women more insecure about themselves, just like the beauty industry.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yeah, they are yet another bit of marketing which makes women more insecure about themselves, just like the beauty industry.
The companies that push these things are real douches.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Well, the reason the question came to mind is that it is my understanding that douches intended for female body shaming have been in vougue for young men as a replacement for the traditional pre date Fleet. And I was curious if anyone found this to be reminiscent of their own experience when it occurred to me THAT'S NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS, KELLY.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Douches, literal or figurative, do more harm than good.
Wait, what? What do you know about the literal ones that I don't?
An article among many.
Right. I shall avoid vaginal douching in future.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Wise.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Getting back from the tangent, I'd say that Russ is both incredibly stupid and a trolling bigot. He shows no signs of having read any of Eliab's detailed posts for example, but instead tries to get away with a Mousethief-like one liner when he can't properly answer a post. Then there's the continual retreat to a question that has been answered so many times it's not funny.
[ 27. December 2016, 02:17: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Douches, literal or figurative, do more harm than good.
Wait, what? What do you know about the literal ones that I don't?
An article among many.
Right. I shall avoid vaginal douching in future.
A quick Google search indicates it might not be a good thing rectally either.
ETA: The Ship has made my search history a good deal more varied in areas I would have never thought it would go. No wonder the automatic generated ads never target me well.
[ 27. December 2016, 02:20: 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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Getting back from the tangent, I'd say that Russ is both incredibly stupid and a trolling bigot. He shows no signs of having read any of Eliab's detailed posts for example, but instead tries to get away with a Mousethief-like one liner when he can't properly answer a post. Then there's the continual retreat to a question that has been answered so many times it's not funny.
As I remember from his participation in a Hell thread, he plays the old duffer, but is much more deliberate than it would appear. He is avoiding addressing the more difficult counters and instead attempts to disorient other posters.
Not that he is any sort of genius, just less stupid than he appears. Not that this is a very high bar.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Douches, literal or figurative, do more harm than good.
Wait, what? What do you know about the literal ones that I don't?
An article among many.
Right. I shall avoid vaginal douching in future.
A quick Google search indicates it might not be a good thing rectally either.
ETA: The Ship has made my search history a good deal more varied in areas I would have never thought it would go. No wonder the automatic generated ads never target me well.
See, if you lived in San Francisco, you could avoid those Google searches by simply turning off the audio to your headphones and eavesdropping on the two guys in front of you on Muni bitching about the increasing cost of Summer's Eve products.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
I bet Russ is so horrified by this discussion that he's had to read it OVER AND OVER AGAIN, MANY TIMES.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I bet Russ is so horrified by this discussion that he's had to read it OVER AND OVER AGAIN, MANY TIMES.
He and Langton are likely taxing the Ship's server.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
About usage of the word 'gay'....
I agree with Nick that from an original meaning of light-hearted etc., the word certainly acquired a secondary implication of ideas like reckless, 'devil-may-care', extremely irresponsible and so general loose-living. That someone 'went gaily on his way' tends to carry an implication of 'indifferent to the harm he had caused and the havoc he left behind him'.
Like the members of tiny sects that are trying to "Hijack" the word Christian to apply only to their own practice and not the common and historical usage. They want it to mean their practices which are "indifferent to the harm they cause to others and the havoc they wreak."
That would be you Steve.
A considerable tangent to the main thread but...
1) "...tiny sects..."
As per the example of Elijah in his opposition to the priests of Baal in I Kings 18, the tiniest sect possible, one man, IF that man is in line with God, is effectively an INFINITE majority against, if it comes to it, the billions of the whole of the rest of the human race.
2) As a subsidiary point to that, I Ki 19; 18 shows that even that one man, Elijah, had underestimated how big a sect he was - he had it seems thousands of Israelites on his side but perhaps intimidated by the worldly majority to not be as public as they should ideally have been....
3) At the other end, the large size of a sect doesn't prove it right. The big 'sect' of Christianity, derived from the then still undivided Orthodox/Catholic church of the 4thC CE, is rather clearly wrong in having allowed itself to be hijacked by the state in a way which, among other bad consequences, led to criminalisation and state persecution of non-Christians, of 'heretical' Christians, and of course of homosexuals, in a thoroughly unChristian manner and in defiance of the original teaching on state and church....
If by the 'common and historical usage' you're referring to the Orthodox/RCC/ and other state churches or would-be state churches like Anglicans, you're basically talking about a big heresy against the original usage by Jesus and his apostles/ambassadors, 'common' only in the sense of being a widespread nominal belief artificially upheld by state power....
4) As I've repeatedly made clear in other threads, my beliefs are very largely those of what CS Lewis called 'mere Christianity', the massive common ground on which most people who call themselves Christian are united. I recall a thread where Shipmates compared how many of the Anglicans' official 39 Articles of faith they believed - I believed more of them than many Anglicans....
And furthermore the various bigger 'sects' that used to oppose us 'Anabaptists' are increasingly as far as I can see giving up the 'state church' idea as an error and converging on the kind of beliefs Anabaptists hold.
And while Anabaptists tend to avoid large 'top-down' institutions, the fact is that the total number of Christians who essentially hold similar beliefs in various smaller local denominations and in independent but not isolated/exclusive churches is decidedly NOT a 'tiny' number.
And directly on the thread topic, the original belief of Christianity was clearly that 'gay sex' is sinful conduct....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
God didn't wrote the Bible, people did. God did not set up any church or religion, people did.
I don't have a problem with people believing it was inspired by God, but only a fool believes human agency is absent.
How you interpret the verse says more about you than your God.
In other words: Don't hide your prejudice behind your God's skirts, you tool.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
God: YES! YES! Finally someone said it!
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If by the 'common and historical usage' you're referring to the Orthodox/RCC/ and other state churches or would-be state churches like Anglicans, you're basically talking about a big heresy against the original usage by Jesus and his apostles/ambassadors, 'common' only in the sense of being a widespread nominal belief artificially upheld by state power....
You have asserted and reasserted this many times over the years. But you've never adduced real or adequate evidence to justify it. SImply saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. And, it seems to me, that's what you are doing.
quote:
I recall a thread where Shipmates compared how many of the Anglicans' official 39 Articles of faith they believed - I believed more of them than many Anglicans....
This is, you may remember, an international board. In most anglican churches around the world the 39 articles are a historical document with only historical relevence to theology or doctrine. I don't see how mentioning that many anglicans don't accept one or more of the articles -- which everyone knows and has gotten over for decades -- adds anything to any argument, much less the one you're trying to make.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
[Q
1) "...tiny sects..."
As per the example of Elijah in his opposition to the priests of Baal in I Kings 18, the tiniest sect possible, one man, IF that man is in line with God, is effectively an INFINITE majority against, if it comes to it, the billions of the whole of the rest of the human race [/QB]
That conflicts with your theory that words are hijacked. If the people using gay are a small minority, they can be an INFINITE majority in their use of the word. As shown by the acceptance into the common usage. You can't claim property rights on the words of a language by common usage and then say different usage by a minority is hijacking. At least if you have any sense of consistency and decency.
As for your earlier claim that gay was adapted to mean a deliberate decision to adapt practices which hurt other people, what bullshit you spew.
Gay was adapted as a usage to mean cheerfully and bravely continuing forward despite the vicious attacks from fuck wads who claim some god wants them to kill, mutilate, jail, denigrate and denounce homosexuals as not following some magical rules that can't even be clearly stated. Your obsessive readings and tortured interpretations of Biblical statements and history are not clear statements. Just overly long and repetitive assertions and attempts to hurt Gay people because you care.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I recall a thread where Shipmates compared how many of the Anglicans' official 39 Articles of faith they believed - I believed more of them than many Anglicans....
This makes you as much use as a 17th century Anglican. Meanwhile, the rest of the Anglican Communion have had an extra three centuries of theology and thought and guidance from the Holy Spirit.
So well done. Your brand of Christianity has achieved almost precisely nothing and learnt almost precisely nothing in nearly 400 years.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Is there not something ironic about being part of a self-defined religious minority (albeit one that claims to have "the truth" and everyone else being in error) and simultaneously complaining that wider society has changed the rules over time (both in terms of language and acceptance of difference) particularly when your religious minority has benefited from it?
On one level that's hardly surprising is it? Society is screwed up and doesn't match the religious minority's norms. That's really part of the deal with being an anti-establishment religious minority isn't it?
On another level, everyone else can simply shrug and say who cares. Presumably Orthodox Jews have private views about various aspects of society including pork farming. Someone from that sect who ranted here about pigs might be fun for a while, but are likely not working from the same premise as British society so are probably talking past everyone else.
On another level, society can and should be saying that it will protect Steve and his crazy looking views, as long as they don't adversely affect anyone else. He is free to use the term gay in any way he likes, he's not free to use his language rights to prevent the freedom of homosexual people to lead full lives in our society, even if he disagrees with the ideom usage.
So in short: wrong, who cares what you think anyway, go away and stop bothering those who couldn't care less about your stupid ignorant views.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If by the 'common and historical usage' you're referring to the Orthodox/RCC/ and other state churches or would-be state churches like Anglicans, you're basically talking about a big heresy against the original usage by Jesus and his apostles/ambassadors, 'common' only in the sense of being a widespread nominal belief artificially upheld by state power....
You have asserted and reasserted this many times over the years. But you've never adduced real or adequate evidence to justify it. SImply saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. And, it seems to me, that's what you are doing.
1) I've adduced considerable evidence - how did you miss it?
2) It's worth saying that on the key 'state church' issue Christians increasingly accept that they were never meant to have the improper dominance of the medieval church. Of course to make themselves feel good they prefer to represent this as a wonderful advance they've made in recent years rather than admit that it was in the NT all along and their wonderful institutions went astray and betrayed the original teaching....
quote:
quote:
I recall a thread where Shipmates compared how many of the Anglicans' official 39 Articles of faith they believed - I believed more of them than many Anglicans....
This is, you may remember, an international board. In most anglican churches around the world the 39 articles are a historical document with only historical relevence to theology or doctrine. I don't see how mentioning that many anglicans don't accept one or more of the articles -- which everyone knows and has gotten over for decades -- adds anything to any argument, much less the one you're trying to make.
John
One way of looking at this would be that in the Tudor era the Anglicans tried to find out what, according to God's word, they were supposed to believe - nowadays far too many of them only give lip service to God while in reality changing the original teaching to gain worldly approval - on their own authority rather than the authority of the person who is supposed to be their Lord.
The point of what I said was in response to Palimpsest to make the point that I'm mostly in line with the common and historical usages of Christianity - really in the mainstream on most issues rather than being a 'tiny sect'.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
..really in the mainstream on most issues rather than being a 'tiny sect'.
No. Delusional.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
No, Steve, you berk. We didn't re-examine traditional teaching on sexuality to gain worldy approval. We did it because it became increasingly clear that an image of God as someone who's 'got it in for the queers' for apparently entirely arbitrary 'oranges are the only fruit' reasons was patently absurd. TL;DR version - we couldn't see God as the ultimate queer-basher.
[ 28. December 2016, 13:52: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
I think one reason why people like Langton and Russ desperately want a one-time-forever-and all-time-valid-everywhere-and-always universal set of rules to follow is simply that they're incapable of learning from their mistakes. Incapable of admitting they don't know everything. Incapable of acknowledging they've been wrong. They have to get it all set up perfectly at the start because they can't change course even when it's patently obvious they're lost.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I think one reason why people like Langton and Russ desperately want a one-time-forever-and all-time-valid-everywhere-and-always universal set of rules to follow is simply that they're incapable of learning from their mistakes. Incapable of admitting they don't know everything. Incapable of acknowledging they've been wrong. They have to get it all set up perfectly at the start because they can't change course even when it's patently obvious they're lost.
I think it's because by chasing this impossible Bandersnatch of the perfect, universal law, we aren't required to work within the imperfect yet minority-protecting laws we have now. Because protecting minorities, if they aren't Christian microsects, is wrong. At least if the minority is queers, faggots, and dykes.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by John Holding;
quote:
You have asserted and reasserted this many times over the years. But you've never adduced real or adequate evidence to justify it.
'This' being the point that original Christianity did not teach the ideas of a "Christian country" or a "State Church". I'm getting a distinct impression that actually NO evidence could ever be 'real' or 'adequate' for you.
However, there is a slightly bigger question here; Where, pray, is the absolute mountain of clear evidence that Jesus DID intend the setting up of "Christian countries" and "State Churches"? The fact that I couldn't find such evidence even in the keenest advocates of such ideas is a major reason why I ended up rejecting such teaching and preferring to follow things in the NT that actually Jesus and His disciples clearly DID teach about the relationship there should be between His people and the surrounding world.
So where's your evidence, John???
What is even more bewildering about this is that as far as I can tell, you, like the vast majority on the Ship, do NOT accept the ideas of religious states and state churches-or-equivalent of any religion. So
1) What on earth are you actually arguing for here?? Do you even have a coherent position?? and
2) Why is it such a problem to you to accept that Christian rejection of "Christian countries" and "State Churches" actually goes back to Jesus himself and should therefore ideally have been what his followers practiced from NT times??
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
1) What on earth are you actually arguing for here?? Do you even have a coherent position??
holds up mirror, aims carefully despite knowing full-well he cannot see it
He cannot see mirrors, he sucks the intelligence from a conversation; what does that make Steve Langton? Some kind of mentalfundie vampire?
--------------------
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
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
2) Why is it such a problem to you to accept that Christian rejection of "Christian countries" and "State Churches" actually goes back to Jesus himself and should therefore ideally have been what his followers practiced from NT times??
The concept of a Christian country is an absurd anachronism if you're talking about the first century, and its nonsense to suggest that the early church either di ot (should therefore ideally" have taken a position on it.
As for a "state church" -- that was the norm at the time, in every country or nation, there was an approved religious system with a god or gods at the to p to which everyone in the state was expected to give obedience. Just as, for example, Jews were expected to give reverence to YHWH, and romans were expected to give formal reverence to Jupiter and his friends and relations, and the inhabitants of TYre and Sidon to whichever of the local baals was on top at the time. But no where does Jesus express any criticism of this system. To conclude from this silence that he disapproved of this reality (or didn't, for that matter) is perverse. I could argue that if he had wanted to criticize it, he would have done. I prefer to think he thought it irrelevant to what he was about.
As it happens, I'm nearly as anti-Constantinian as you are...not as a matter of theology, but as a matter of practical politics and evangelism. And I don't see what happened back then as a massively perverse conspiracy (by whom, for what end?) as you do. It's an historical fact, with consequences -- some good, many not -- but not a theological fact, given the silence of scriptures (except, of course, for the acceptance -- indeed, the specific approval of -- theocracy as God's will for Israel).
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
And while I'm about it, let me apologize to the Hell Hosts for engaging with STeve on a topic which, I believe, he is forbidden to discuss.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Hostly furry hat on
Well well well well well.
Minus several internets to John Holding for mentioning the C-word. Steve Langton, step away from the State Church argument now. We were discussing your entirely antediluvian and utterly boneheaded attitude to teh gayz, so let us return there forthwith and leave this particular tangent burning at the side of the road.
Hostly furry hat off
DT
HH
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
2) Why is it such a problem to you to accept that Christian rejection of "Christian countries" and "State Churches" actually goes back to Jesus himself and should therefore ideally have been what his followers practiced from NT times??
The concept of a Christian country is an absurd anachronism if you're talking about the first century, and it's nonsense to suggest that the early church either di {guessing this bit has something missing? ('...did or "should...??) Please advise... SL} ot (should therefore ideally" have taken a position on it.
Well as you say, the 'state church' was the "norm at the time". Why would it be "an absurd anachronism" that Jesus should teach about it and the parallel concept of the "Christian country"? Especially as in fact the change in arrangements from OT Israel to NT church rather required the issue to be addressed - as the obvious example, was Jesus trying to set up a worldly theocracy such as most "Messiahs" envisaged, or was he proposing something significantly different? Like, say, an international "God's holy people" based on chosen faith rather than human ethnic birth, living among unbelievers as humble and peaceable 'resident aliens'...?
Why shouldn't Jesus - the Son of God - and his disciples have thought way beyond the 1st Century??
quote:
by John Holding;
As for a "state church" -- that was the norm at the time, in every country or nation, there was an approved religious system with a god or gods at the top to which everyone in the state was expected to give obedience. Just as, for example, Jews were expected to give reverence to YHWH, and Romans were expected to give formal reverence to Jupiter and his friends and relations, and the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon to whichever of the local Baals was on top at the time. But no where does Jesus express any criticism of this system. To conclude from this silence that he disapproved of this reality (or didn't, for that matter) is perverse. I could argue that if he had wanted to criticize it, he would have done. I prefer to think he thought it irrelevant to what he was about.
In a way Jesus wouldn't criticise the religious unity situation - indeed such a uniform global religion would presumably have come into being but for 'the Fall', and will exist in the new heavens and the new earth. BUT - for exactly the practical reasons you clearly recognise, that is an unsuitable mode in the current situation of calling a people of God to faith out of a sinful world.
Jesus theoretically COULD have done what Muhammad did later - set up a worldly Messianic state imposing his faith by military and police force. He would certainly have had the power - IF that had been appropriate. The fact that he didn't do the regular Messiah thing but sent his disciples out as vulnerable peaceable preachers of a kingdom 'not of this world' emphatically criticises the religious-state/state-church idea as an appropriate model for forming that 'kingdom not of this world' in the age between his Ascension and his second Advent
quote:
As it happens, I'm nearly as anti-Constantinian as you are...not as a matter of theology, but as a matter of practical politics and evangelism. And I don't see what happened back then as a massively perverse conspiracy (by whom, for what end?) as you do. It's an historical fact, with consequences -- some good, many not -- but not a theological fact, given the silence of scriptures (except, of course, for the acceptance -- indeed, the specific approval of -- theocracy as God's will for Israel).
John
I do see it as a matter of theology precisely because the NT does in fact teach on the subject and is not remotely silent.
I do not see it as a "massively perverse conspiracy" - perverse, yes, but ordinary human perversity - essentially it was something that kind of slipped into existence over some 70-80 years between 311 and c391CE. Constantine tolerated but also gave positive support which ultimately tipped the balance to make possible Theodosius' decision to make Christianity compulsory. Constantine's "end" appears to have been an attempt to unite Rome around a religion by then somewhat more alive than paganism; Theodosius' "end" would just be that he wanted conformity in his empire.
I also see it as something God allowed, rather as he allowed Israel to have kings even though that was in itself a bad idea - I see it as a bit of a case of humanity needing to see the problems in order to realise the way the Christian country/state church was wrong. As of now, mind, he must be getting a bit impatient that so many people still refuse to return fully to the NT model and give up the realistically now-discredited 'Christian country'idea.
And also I can't see God being all that happy that people - both Christian and nominal Christian - won't recognise that the rejection of the state church is something he told us in the NT rather than something we modern humans 'cleverly' worked out in recent times....
And I mentioned it in this thread because of course one of the many bad consequences of the state church was the criminalisation of homosexuality, and I wanted to register clearly that my own approach and attitude to 'gay' issues is not that of Constantinians - but yes ideally we should now take this part of the discussion elsewhere ... I understand I am allowed to discuss this in such a dedicated thread whatever....
I've probably missed something but it's been a busy day....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Sorry - obviously missed the hostly intervention while preparing a long and complex reply to John...
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
John, as a logical consequence of tripping Steve's wire, Team Hell will have to ask you to provide for us a YouTube video of yourself reciting Steve's very thorough response.
In Hindi.
Is two days a good enough window for you? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[wisass mode off, interim Hellhost mode on]
Steve, now that you have seen Doc's host post, I trust you will adhere to it.
Everybody carry on.
Kelly Alves
Interim Hell Host
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
.... And directly on the thread topic, the original belief of Christianity was clearly that 'gay sex' is sinful conduct....
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... one of the many bad consequences of the state church was the criminalisation of homosexuality ...
You know, you did a hell of a lot of typing to say just that. So fucking what? Apparently you think same-sex relationships are sinful but not a crime. So?
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Soror Magna;
quote:
You know, you did a hell of a lot of typing to say just that. So fucking what? Apparently you think same-sex relationships are sinful but not a crime. So?
At any rate for my kind of Christian many things are seen as wrong in God's eyes and therefore 'sinful'; yet the state may quite reasonably not regard those things as 'criminal' requiring the state law to intervene.
Basically if you commit a crime, the state may penalise you with fines, restraining orders, imprisonment, possibly death, affecting your position adversely throughout the nation.
If you commit a sin, then while obviously telling you that you are wrong - which you may not like - the church is supposed to treat you with loving pastoral concern in an attempt to persuade you to repentance.
If you are particularly obdurate and stroppy about it, the church may feel it necessary to 'excommunicate' you - ie withdraw certain privileges of membership - and in a really bad case they may ask you to leave until you have changed your mind about your sinful conduct. This is similar to what a sporting association may do if you're determined not to keep their rules. Like a person expelled from a sport, you will suffer no penalty within the state unless your conduct has also constituted a secular crime such as theft.
This is a considerable difference in treatment - you should not be scornful about it....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
You know, I do not hate Christians; but I am rather tired of the ones who either believe in an incompetent, inconsistent and Bastard of a God.
Because either that is who you worship or you are using God to hide your bigotry.
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You know, I do not hate Christians; but I am rather tired of the ones who either believe in an incompetent, inconsistent and Bastard of a God.
Because either that is who you worship or you are using God to hide your bigotry.
I do wonder if they connect with such a God, so as to fit their own persecutory nature. After all, condemning others is a fine pleasure, and possibly makes one feel better for it. Well, we all do it, probably, but religious bigots also get a divine endorsement! This seems like double cream on top of chocolate cake.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You know, I do not hate Christians; but I am rather tired of the ones who either believe in an incompetent, inconsistent and Bastard of a God.
Because either that is who you worship or you are using God to hide your bigotry.
It's the latter. All through the Bible it's clear that man is driven more by sin than by good and bigotry is a manifestation of sin. Then man, or at any rate some of them, try to invoke the Bible as an excuse for sin. God's apparent inconsistency is due to a) free will and b) His admittedly challenging view than death isn't the worst thing that can happen to you. That's why salvation is so vital.
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You know, I do not hate Christians; but I am rather tired of the ones who either believe in an incompetent, inconsistent and Bastard of a God.
Because either that is who you worship or you are using God to hide your bigotry.
I do wonder if they connect with such a God, so as to fit their own persecutory nature. After all, condemning others is a fine pleasure, and possibly makes one feel better for it. Well, we all do it, probably, but religious bigots also get a divine endorsement! This seems like double cream on top of chocolate cake.
"Oh, I don't wish to hate and persecute you, but God will hate me if I don't"
[ 29. December 2016, 16:18: 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
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
...
Basically if you commit a crime, the state may penalise you with fines, restraining orders, imprisonment, possibly death, affecting your position adversely throughout the nation.
If you commit a sin, then while obviously telling you that you are wrong - which you may not like - the church is supposed to treat you with loving pastoral concern in an attempt to persuade you to repentance....
I really, really do not want to be treated with loving pastoral concern by the people who sell me books and cakes. I want them to sell me the stuff I want and keep their fucking judgments of my sinfulness to themselves, just as they do with all their other customers.
--------------------
"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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You know, I do not hate Christians; but I am rather tired of the ones who either believe in an incompetent, inconsistent and Bastard of a God.
Because either that is who you worship or you are using God to hide your bigotry.
I do wonder if they connect with such a God, so as to fit their own persecutory nature. After all, condemning others is a fine pleasure, and possibly makes one feel better for it. Well, we all do it, probably, but religious bigots also get a divine endorsement! This seems like double cream on top of chocolate cake.
"Oh, I don't wish to hate and persecute you, but God will hate me if I don't"
The other big flaw in all this is the unconscious. If I criticize someone else, I may well be projecting some shit of my own, but I don't know that, and it's incredibly difficult to access such stuff. Anyway, I guess that religion can give you a good alibi, even if the term 'whited sepulchre' hoves into view.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I really, really do not want to be treated with loving pastoral concern by the people who sell me books and cakes. I want them to sell me the stuff I want and keep their fucking judgments of my sinfulness to themselves, just as they do with all their other customers.
This. So very, very this.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I still cannot decide between the possibilities presented by the title of this thread.
But I'm done trying to find out. Trying to distinguish the difference between deliberately ignoring points made by other posters and just being too fucking stupid to understand points made by other posters is beyond my skill level.
--------------------
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I still cannot decide between the possibilities presented by the title of this thread.
But I'm done trying to find out. Trying to distinguish the difference between deliberately ignoring points made by other posters and just being too fucking stupid to understand points made by other posters is beyond my skill level.
Yep, Grey's Law: sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I still cannot decide between the possibilities presented by the title of this thread.
But I'm done trying to find out. Trying to distinguish the difference between deliberately ignoring points made by other posters and just being too fucking stupid to understand points made by other posters is beyond my skill level.
.
Before you joined this thread, I asked why he could not be both. I still think that's a real possibility
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Soror Magna;
quote:
You know, you did a hell of a lot of typing to say just that. So fucking what? Apparently you think same-sex relationships are sinful but not a crime. So?
At any rate for my kind of Christian many things are seen as wrong in God's eyes and therefore 'sinful'; yet the state may quite reasonably not regard those things as 'criminal' requiring the state law to intervene.
Basically if you commit a crime, the state may penalise you with fines, restraining orders, imprisonment, possibly death, affecting your position adversely throughout the nation.
If you commit a sin, then while obviously telling you that you are wrong - which you may not like - the church is supposed to treat you with loving pastoral concern in an attempt to persuade you to repentance.
If you are particularly obdurate and stroppy about it, the church may feel it necessary to 'excommunicate' you - ie withdraw certain privileges of membership - and in a really bad case they may ask you to leave until you have changed your mind about your sinful conduct. This is similar to what a sporting association may do if you're determined not to keep their rules. Like a person expelled from a sport, you will suffer no penalty within the state unless your conduct has also constituted a secular crime such as theft.
This is a considerable difference in treatment - you should not be scornful about it....
Very few, if any, people on here are members of your church or your kind of Christian. Since you do not believe in state sanctions, why are you butting all the time with your shitty opinion that homosexuals are sinners and your church may sanction or withdraw membership to people who are not involved in your church. You did this on the thread that was focused on clergy in COE and you do it everywhere else. Why should any non-member of your church be bothered with your opinions as you keep doing in your long deranged posts.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I still cannot decide between the possibilities presented by the title of this thread.
But I'm done trying to find out. Trying to distinguish the difference between deliberately ignoring points made by other posters and just being too fucking stupid to understand points made by other posters is beyond my skill level.
.
Before you joined this thread, I asked why he could not be both. I still think that's a real possibility
You may be onto something there. It's the best explanation for continuing, for example, to equate choosing which books to stock with choosing which words to write on a cake made from the same ingredients and the same icing.
--------------------
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
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You may be onto something there. It's the best explanation for continuing, for example, to equate choosing which books to stock with choosing which words to write on a cake made from the same ingredients and the same icing.
I believe this is what's known as wanting to have one's (chocolate fudge) cake and eat it.
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Mostly, it's an absurd implicit belief that "gay" cakes have different ingredients to "straight" ones.
Kind of like transubstantiation, only with a focus on sex.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Mostly, it's an absurd implicit belief that "gay" cakes have different ingredients to "straight" ones.
Kind of like transubstantiation, only with a focus on sex.
Of course 'Mein Kampf' has the same 'ingredients'
as any other physical book - its ideas and principles, on the other hand.....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
