homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools
Thread closed  Thread closed


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Hell   » Dear Steve Langton, (Page 10)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Dear Steve Langton,
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Milton writes that Adam and Eve had an active sex life before Eve succumbed to temptation, and then pressured Adam into also eating to fruit (Milton's account of it, not necessarily mine). It was these 2 latter acts which constituted the fall, not their having sex.

Well, Milton isn't cannon and Adam and Eve did not exist, so...
I agree with both of those statements, but I do think Gee D's example makes a valid point, to wit: believing there was sex before the fall is a possible, and respected, position for a Christian to take.

What positions Adam and Eve used is another question entirely -- there were no other people to evangelize so was there a missionary position?

[ 28. May 2017, 13:25: Message edited by: mousethief ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, Milton isn't cannon

On the contrary:
A triple mounted row of pillars laid
On wheels (for like to pillars most they seemed
Or hollow'd bodies made of oak or fir
With branches lopped, in wood or mountain felled)
Brass, iron, stony mould, had not their mouths
With hideous orifice gaped on us wide,
Portending hollow truce; at each behind
A seraph stood, and in his hand a reed
Stood waving tipped with fire; while we suspense,
Collected stood within our thoughts amused,
Not long, for sudden all at once their reeds
Put forth, and to a narrow vent applied
With nicest touch. Immediate in a flame,
But soon obscured with smoke, all Heaven appeared,
From those deep throated engines belched, whose roar
Embowelled with outrageous noise the Air,
And all her entrails tore, disgorging foul
Their devilish glut, chained thunderbolts and hail
Of iron globes, which on the victor host
Levelled, with such impetuous fury smote,
That whom they hit, none on their feet might stand,
Though standing else as rocks, but down they fell
By thousands, angel on arch-angel rolled;

--------------------
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
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
who then fell?

Like Karl said, we make our own choices. Human nature is such that we will do things that harm others, and/or ourselves, and these things could be called "sin".
"The Fall" is, quite frankly, a primitive attempt to reconcile the discrepancies between the label and the contents of the tin.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I agree with both of those statements, but I do think Gee D's example makes a valid point, to wit: believing there was sex before the fall is a possible, and respected, position for a Christian to take.

Yeah, respected is quite the variable here. I don't think it is respected by as many as you might. And there are loads of idea that were respected in the past and are now generally disregarded.
quote:

What positions Adam and Eve used is another question entirely -- there were no other people to evangelize so was there a missionary position?

"That was mousethief, folks, he'll be here all week. Try the veal".

--------------------
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      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I agree with both of those statements, but I do think Gee D's example makes a valid point, to wit: believing there was sex before the fall is a possible, and respected, position for a Christian to take.

Yeah, respected is quite the variable here. I don't think it is respected by as many as you might. And there are loads of idea that were respected in the past and are now generally disregarded.
Do you have statistics, then, showing that more Christians think there was no sex before the fall than think there was? Pew? Gallup? Baylor?

quote:
quote:
What positions Adam and Eve used is another question entirely -- there were no other people to evangelize so was there a missionary position?
"That was mousethief, folks, he'll be here all week. Try the veal".
[Big Grin]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Do you have statistics, then, showing that more Christians think there was no sex before the fall than think there was? Pew? Gallup? Baylor?

No, I don't think the question is asked too much. I think it would be less than you might suppose and, honestly, I don't think the majority of people truly examine their faith and how it all fits together.
American Christians are often laughed at because of the high percentage in polls who still claim to be creationists. This study seems to indicate it is not quite as simple as most polls would indicate.
The chart is still depressing, but not quite as grim as often pictured.

--------------------
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      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Then I don't understand why you were giving Gee D a bad time for believing there was sex before the fall?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
It is all about referencing the fall. Not only is "the Fall" bad theology,* but it is functionally harmful.**
You cannot have sex before something that doesn't exist. Or after it, for that matter.
*Informed opinion
**Empirically demonstrable

[ 28. May 2017, 17:37: 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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
You're really mixing up two different things. People's attitudes towards sex, and your attitude toward the concept of the "Fall".

If we're talking about whether or not people think sex is inherently sinful, or if not sinful "second best," then whether thought it existed before the Fall is a useful thing to know. Whether or not the fall is a helpful or harmful thing. Whether or not you or I like it. It's a matter of meeting people where they are, and using part of that (their belief in the fall) to gauge their beliefs about something else (whether or not sex is a good thing, a bad thing, or a second-best thing).

I think you're getting the two things confused.

--------------------
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      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is all about referencing the fall. Not only is "the Fall" bad theology,* but it is functionally harmful.**
You cannot have sex before something that doesn't exist. Or after it, for that matter.
*Informed opinion
**Empirically demonstrable

If it is possible in Hell, might I respectfully suggest that you lighten up a bit?

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
And remember that this thread is addressed to Steve Langton - who probably does believe in the Fall and may also believe in Adam and Eve. I'm sure that Jamat does.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, Milton isn't cannon

On the contrary:
A triple mounted row of pillars laid
On wheels (for like to pillars most they seemed
Or hollow'd bodies made of oak or fir
With branches lopped, in wood or mountain felled)
Brass, iron, stony mould, had not their mouths
With hideous orifice gaped on us wide,
Portending hollow truce; at each behind
A seraph stood, and in his hand a reed
Stood waving tipped with fire; while we suspense,
Collected stood within our thoughts amused,
Not long, for sudden all at once their reeds
Put forth, and to a narrow vent applied
With nicest touch. Immediate in a flame,
But soon obscured with smoke, all Heaven appeared,
From those deep throated engines belched, whose roar
Embowelled with outrageous noise the Air,
And all her entrails tore, disgorging foul
Their devilish glut, chained thunderbolts and hail
Of iron globes, which on the victor host
Levelled, with such impetuous fury smote,
That whom they hit, none on their feet might stand,
Though standing else as rocks, but down they fell
By thousands, angel on arch-angel rolled;

Well done. Wish I'd thought of that.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, Milton isn't cannon

On the contrary:
A triple mounted row of pillars laid
On wheels (for like to pillars most they seemed
Or hollow'd bodies made of oak or fir
With branches lopped, in wood or mountain felled)
Brass, iron, stony mould, had not their mouths
With hideous orifice gaped on us wide,
Portending hollow truce; at each behind
A seraph stood, and in his hand a reed
Stood waving tipped with fire; while we suspense,
Collected stood within our thoughts amused,
Not long, for sudden all at once their reeds
Put forth, and to a narrow vent applied
With nicest touch. Immediate in a flame,
But soon obscured with smoke, all Heaven appeared,
From those deep throated engines belched, whose roar
Embowelled with outrageous noise the Air,
And all her entrails tore, disgorging foul
Their devilish glut, chained thunderbolts and hail
Of iron globes, which on the victor host
Levelled, with such impetuous fury smote,
That whom they hit, none on their feet might stand,
Though standing else as rocks, but down they fell
By thousands, angel on arch-angel rolled;

Well done. Wish I'd thought of that.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You're really mixing up two different things. People's attitudes towards sex, and your attitude toward the concept of the "Fall".

SOme Christians have a belief about sex and sexual practices that are merely based on what someone told them or how they read certain passages. Some, like Eutychus, believe the Fall has something to do with sexuality. That is why I am speaking about them together.
quote:

It's a matter of meeting people where they are, and using part of that (their belief in the fall) to gauge their beliefs about something else (whether or not sex is a good thing, a bad thing, or a second-best thing).

I am meeting Eutychus where he is. What I am not doing is giving it a pass. I am trying to bring him further along, or at least trying to have him think about it.

--------------------
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
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Some, like Eutychus, believe the Fall has something to do with sexuality.

I have said no such thing.

The disconnect between how things were "in the beginning" in Genesis and how things are now, commonly referred to by Christian theologians as "the Fall", is depicted as affecting our entire human condition - not exclusively or indeed predominantly our sexuality (although that obviously comes into it).

There is (or was) a view that (heterosexual) sex was the original sin, but this is a fringe view and not supported by the text. Your critique of what you imagine "the Fall" to be about is a huge misunderstanding of what reputable theologians say, and a gross misrepresentation of what I've said.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:


The disconnect between how things were "in the beginning" in Genesis and how things are now, commonly referred to by Christian theologians as "the Fall", is depicted as affecting our entire human condition - not exclusively or indeed predominantly our sexuality (although that obviously comes into it).


OK but are you not contrasting homosexuality - a result of the fall - with heterosexuality?

If not, I don't really understand what it is that you are arguing. Sex is a result of the fall. Meh.

[ 29. May 2017, 08:14: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Apologies for the length of the following.

The way I see it, according to the Bible, "in the beginning" God created male and female and enjoined male and female to be fruitful and multiply.

So far, nobody has improved on that method to perpetuate the human race; heterosexual reproductive sex appears to be an essential component of humanity as originally designed.

The way Jesus uses the Genesis passages in Mark 10 also suggests he saw lifelong heterosexual monogamy as the original framework for sexual relations.

I don't think God originally intended for people of the same sex to be attracted to one another. Despite a lot of very courteous and patient disagreement expressed by others in DH, and a lot of soul-searching on my part, I just don't see it in Genesis.

Since then, however, all considerations of a "Fall" aside, society has changed hugely. We are less concerned with immediate survival, more self-aware, have more time to think about leisure and pleasure, we have contraception, and so on - all of which affects our views on male and female, and sexuality, hugely.

Clearly, things are no longer as they were "in the beginning", socially.

At the same time, the Bible sees not only a social but also a moral difference from how things were in the Garden of Eden.

In Mark, 10 Jesus cites the "original blueprint" - but immediately goes on to cite the OT provisions for exceptions to that original framework (specifically, divorce), "because your hearts are hard".

I don't think Jesus was singling out divorcees as having especially hard hearts; rather, he was highlighting the inherent moral imperfection of the present-day human condition as a whole.

This to me reflects the NT teaching that "all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God". We are all made in the image of God, but we are all imperfect. I've been using the term "the Fall" and "fallen" as a theological shorthand way of referring to that fact.

This moral imperfection is reflected in us and thus, I believe, negatively affects our sexuality - whether we're male, female, intersex, gay, straight, bi, monogamous, polyamourous, married, divorced, or celibate - because our sexuality is part of our humanity.

Whether it's socially or morally, we can't get back to "the beginning". So where do we go from here?

To me, in Mark 10 Jesus acknowledges this reality that it may not always be possible or desirable to conform to the original framework.

As Jesus also makes plain in that passage, this is not to be taken as a licence to do what we like, but I believe it is a precedent for making practical provision for circumstances that do not conform to the original blueprint.

That is not so much grounds for judgement as it is an expression of grace - for us all.

As far as I'm concerned, following Christ in the here and now involves an acknowledgement on our part that we are imperfect and in need of his forgiveness and grace. If we accept that, the way forward is to live as best we can in the light of our imperfections to his glory.

How each of us does this will depend on our circumstances and our consciences (the tricky bit is that different people's consciences sometimes lead them to differing conclusions, whether it's food sacrificed to idols or gay marriage).

The practical fact today is that some people experience same-sex attraction as a core part of their identity (NB: some others don't). Inasmuch as that's what they experience as "natural", who am I to judge them for that? What right would I have to force them into behaviour that, for them, would be "against nature"? And why should I seek to uphold some "in the beginning" standard when Jesus himself acknowledges the need for provisions for our current human condition - however its different imperfections manifest themselves?

What counts for me is that going forward in our lives, those who seek to follow Christ do their best to reflect the fruit of the Spirit.

I am pretty much convinced that today, a gay couple may do that just as well as a straight couple and that they are not to be blamed for being who or what they are as they do so.

I do however think that in either case, doing so involves recognising that to do that at all, whatever our circumstances, we all need the grace of God, because whatever our circumstances, we have our imperfections.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I just don't understand how this understanding helps anything. According to that, loads of things are a result of the fall; from diabetes through to genocide.

If you're not using them to determine moral categories (and to separate things which are "part of God's plan from the beginning" from those who are "aberrations as a result of the fall") I don't see what this is telling you, practically speaking.

You seem to be saying "look, all things are screwed up, but no matter - God isn't interested in you following the original plan, he still upholds you even though you're clearly way, way off his original intention.."

It seems superfluous and pointless.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't think God originally intended for people of the same sex to be attracted to one another. Despite a lot of very courteous and patient disagreement expressed by others in DH, and a lot of soul-searching on my part, I just don't see it in Genesis.

The list of things you don't see in Genesis is vast and wide. You don't see internet message boards in Genesis for one thing. Do you think God "originally" intended us to communicate across such long distances?

Or fly? Were planes part of God's "original" intentions?

I appreciate your attempts to suggest we are in a modern world where the changes mean we can't get back to "the beginning". But you are still talking in ways that suggest "the beginning" was a perfect state**, and the issues that the modern world presents for your line of thinking are a heck of a lot wider than sexuality.


**Which, as I previously mentioned, I now find an extremely problematic idea after that podcast I listened to. After having my mind blown, I'm now in favour of the view that creation was intended to progress towards a state of completion. The Fall doesn't represent a loss of perfection, but a temporary deviation from the ideal path.

--------------------
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
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

**Which, as I previously mentioned, I now find an extremely problematic idea after that podcast I listened to. After having my mind blown, I'm now in favour of the view that creation was intended to progress towards a state of completion. The Fall doesn't represent a loss of perfection, but a temporary deviation from the ideal path.

Do you have a link? I can't find it based on the description you've given above.. sounds like it might be worth a listen

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Slight tangent/

orfeo, can you tell me which episode of the Bible Project podcast you're referring to? I'd like to listen to it.

Thanks.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
You say:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Some, like Eutychus, believe the Fall has something to do with sexuality.

I have said no such thing.
Then you go on to say exactly such thing:

quote:
The disconnect between how things were "in the beginning" in Genesis and how things are now, commonly referred to by Christian theologians as "the Fall", is depicted as affecting our entire human condition - not exclusively or indeed predominantly our sexuality (although that obviously comes into it).
The "exclusively or indeed predominantly" is irrelevant as it wasn't part of what I said. A straw man if you're implying I did. What I said was pretty darned noncommittal: "Having something to do with" is about as mild a connection as one could hope for. Your "affecting" is stronger.

quote:
There is (or was) a view that (heterosexual) sex was the original sin, but this is a fringe view and not supported by the text. Your critique of what you imagine "the Fall" to be about is a huge misunderstanding of what reputable theologians say, and a gross misrepresentation of what I've said.
I'm not critiquing the Fall. I'm just saying that some people believe there was no sex before the Fall. I never said a mumbling word about sex causing the Fall. I've never even heard that theory; it's farther into ga-ga land than any theory I've ever heard about the Fall. I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote. I think you're reading into me something you saw somewhere else.

quote:
I don't think God originally intended for people of the same sex to be attracted to one another. Despite a lot of very courteous and patient disagreement expressed by others in DH, and a lot of soul-searching on my part, I just don't see it in Genesis.
There is very little in Genesis that reflects a scientific appreciation of in utero development, or the (amazingly) complex path by which our sex and sexuality are determined. So this isn't surprising. The writer of Genesis (or at least of this part) is as ignorant of all these things as the vast majority of people living now are. They're recent findings (relatively speaking) and run counter to thousands of years of prejudice and self-righteous hate.

But was this developmental pathway the same "in the beginning"? Did the events that determine chromosomal sex, genital sexual expression, gender identity, and sexuality come at a different time in gestational development, as they do now? Were there XXY females? Intersex people? People whose self understanding of their sexual identity didn't match their genitals? People whose genitals didn't match their chromosomes? Are these possibilities genetic mutations from an unfallen state in which everything "worked perfectly" to produce only XX and XY cishet genitally-unambiguous women and men?

The Bible doesn't say, does it?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
mr cheesy--

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I just don't understand how this understanding helps anything. According to that, loads of things are a result of the fall; from diabetes through to genocide.

Errr...IME, that's a traditional and common understanding of the Fall. *Everything* got messed up, even Nature. My current, personal view is that things aren't as they should be-- whether that's due to a literal Fall, evolutionary growing pains, or something else. (That's partly because I think God, if She exists, created everything, but I'm not sure *how*. Haven't seen Her blueprints--yet!)


quote:
You seem to be saying "look, all things are screwed up, but no matter - God isn't interested in you following the original plan, he still upholds you even though you're clearly way, way off his original intention.."

It seems superfluous and pointless.

The general idea (not specifically about homosexuality) is that God loves us, isn't giving up on us or the world, is working mightily to make things new, and well, and whole. And that Jesus, however you understand him, is a crucial part of that--even the catalyst.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I never said a mumbling word about sex causing the Fall. I've never even heard that theory; it's farther into ga-ga land than any theory I've ever heard about the Fall. I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote. I think you're reading into me something you saw somewhere else.

Well, given that what you quoted and responded to was in a response to lilBuddha ....

I have heard the idea that the serpent's temptation of Eve and Eve's temptation of Adam was somehow sexual in nature many times, usually from really uptight fundamentalists (of both Protestant and Catholic stripes). It's out there, both literally and figuratively.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
RooK

1 of 6
# 1852

 - Posted      Profile for RooK   Author's homepage   Email RooK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Holy crap it is exhausting watching religious people wrangle over interpretations of obviously-made-up bullshit. Although it is amusing to recognize that a part of Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure seems to have superior functional moral utility over a supposedly sacred text.

Seriously folks, GENESIS is such a huge load of crap. Stop choking yourselves trying to swallow it whole.

Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I don't agree that Genesis is a huge load of crap, though I would agree that there is real danger in trying to swallow it whole. Genesis is myth, in the proper sense of the word. There is truth and meaning there, I think, but it's rarely going to be found by taking the text literally.

Meanwhile, thanks for making me realize how long it's been since I've seen Bill & Ted. I need to watch it again.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I never said a mumbling word about sex causing the Fall. I've never even heard that theory; it's farther into ga-ga land than any theory I've ever heard about the Fall. I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote. I think you're reading into me something you saw somewhere else.

Well, given that what you quoted and responded to was in a response to lilBuddha ....
Indeed. Something I have appealed to higher authority to clarify before answering further.

Orfeo, add my name to the list of people wanting a link to the podcast.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I never said a mumbling word about sex causing the Fall. I've never even heard that theory; it's farther into ga-ga land than any theory I've ever heard about the Fall. I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote. I think you're reading into me something you saw somewhere else.

Well, given that what you quoted and responded to was in a response to lilBuddha ....
Yes that's how discussion here works. It's a round robin, not a dialogue.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
This does not explain your "I" in

quote:
The "exclusively or indeed predominantly" is irrelevant as it wasn't part of what I said.
when what was quoted was posted by lilbuddha.

Nor does it explain why you say
quote:
What I said was pretty darned noncommittal: "Having something to do with"
when those words were posted by lilbuddha.

Nor again does it explain why you say
quote:
I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote
when I was quite clearly responding to what lilbuddha wrote.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

There is (or was) a view that (heterosexual) sex was the original sin, but this is a fringe view and not supported by the text. Your critique of what you imagine "the Fall" to be about is a huge misunderstanding of what reputable theologians say, and a gross misrepresentation of what I've said.

I think the idea that God's perfect plan was messed up by humans is farcical. There is no "original intent". That is my theology regarding "The Fall".

quote:
As I also said, I think God's archetype for sexual relations is heterosexual monogamy, and I missed the edit window at the time to add "for life".

However, human fallenness means that many of us do not match that archetype - and not just in the way you might think. Many who tick the "heterosexual-monogamous-for-life relationship" box may do so in such a way as to make that relationship an abomination (spousal abuse springs to mind).

The good news is that while fallenness is a fact of life - we are all less than ideal

"Hey, I don't return library books and you fuck other women. Nobody's perfect".
No matter how nicely you couch it, you are putting homosexuality¹ in the bin labelled "Fucked up".
You do not apply an malice towards it, and that is very good. It still is a negative POV.

¹And all the other "non-standard" sexualities

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I don't agree that Genesis is a huge load of crap, though I would agree that there is real danger in trying to swallow it whole. Genesis is myth, in the proper sense of the word. There is truth and meaning there, I think, but it's rarely going to be found by taking the text literally.

Origin myths are are broad vehicles that have tangential contact with the Road to Reality.²
They are not blueprints, instruction manual or history books.

²Originally a Bob Hope and Bing Crosby film script. Never got passed the development stage.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes that's how discussion here works. It's a round robin, not a dialogue.

It is a round robin game of Chinese whispers/telephone.

--------------------
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      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This does not explain your "I" in

quote:
The "exclusively or indeed predominantly" is irrelevant as it wasn't part of what I said.
when what was quoted was posted by lilbuddha.
In response to what I said. Did you miss that?

quote:
Nor does it explain why you say
quote:
What I said was pretty darned noncommittal: "Having something to do with"
when those words were posted by lilbuddha.
My mistake.

quote:
Nor again does it explain why you say
quote:
I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote
when I was quite clearly responding to what lilbuddha wrote.
Who was responding to what I wrote.

A round robin, not a dialogue. As I said.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is a round robin game of Chinese whispers/telephone.

Can't argue with that.

[ 29. May 2017, 16:42: Message edited by: mousethief ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Well I find it odd, to say the least, that you identify so wholeheartedly with words posted by lilbuddha to have owned them not once but three times, to the extent of taking the trouble of defending the exact words she posted as though they were what you posted, but determining exactly what mistake was made is above my pay grade.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Seriously folks, GENESIS is such a huge load of crap. Stop choking yourselves trying to swallow it whole.

OK, fine, let's start an alternative universe without the book of Genesis and see what sort of underpinning of society you come up with. Albania under Hoxha, perhaps?

Besides, Genesis is my favourite band.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well I find it odd, to say the least, that you identify so wholeheartedly with words posted by lilbuddha to have owned them not once but three times, to the extent of taking the trouble of defending the exact words she posted as though they were what you posted, but determining exactly what mistake was made is above my pay grade.

What?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I have heard the idea that the serpent's temptation of Eve and Eve's temptation of Adam was somehow sexual in nature many times, usually from really uptight fundamentalists (of both Protestant and Catholic stripes). It's out there, both literally and figuratively.

Cf. the Serpent Seed doctrine, as espoused notably by William Branham.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Cf. the Serpent Seed doctrine, as espoused notably by William Branham.

Holy cow that's messed up.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I don't agree that Genesis is a huge load of crap, though I would agree that there is real danger in trying to swallow it whole. Genesis is myth, in the proper sense of the word. There is truth and meaning there, I think, but it's rarely going to be found by taking the text literally.

Origin myths are are broad vehicles that have tangential contact with the Road to Reality.²
They are not blueprints, instruction manual or history books.

²Originally a Bob Hope and Bing Crosby film script. Never got passed the development stage.

To a point, I agree. But leaving aside that there's a lot more to the myth told in Genesis than origin myth, and that there's such wide variety in origin myths that their contact with reality* also varies, there's a lot of possibility between "load of crap" and "not blueprints, instruction manual or history book."

* I never could stand Bob Hope and Bing Crosby. I found their movies to be a special form of Hell.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Do we really have to interpret Genesis as a blueprint for everything? It's obviously an attempt to explain how the world got be the way it is: a sort of Bronze Age Just So Stories - with about the same level of accuracy. Does that mean that it is really a blueprint?

Genesis contains so many other stories other than the creation stories, Adam and Eve and the Fall: Cain and Abel, Noah's Ark, Abram/Abraham and all the stories around him, Lot's wife, Sodom and Gomorrah, Isaac, Esau and Jacob, Jacob's sons including Joseph. Do we really regard these stories all as blueprints? Some read to me as Awful Warnings™. And with stories of that era, the stories will be about the human truths told, not necessarily the accurate historical truth.

As the Bible was written through human agency, so the human truths that were told will be based on that particular Bronze Age society's view of perfection, from their world view. Does that really mean we have to continue with a morality based on a Bronze Age world view?

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think the idea that God's perfect plan was messed up by humans is farcical.

I think God's perfect plan was messed up by evil.
quote:
"Hey, I don't return library books and you fuck other women. Nobody's perfect".
That would apply only if I thought of myself as being morally superior by virtue of being straight. Which I don't (or at least try not to).

quote:
No matter how nicely you couch it, you are putting homosexuality in the bin labelled "Fucked up".
No, this is what you really don't get. I'm putting humanity, including you and me both (and all human sexuality for that matter, along with everything else) in the bin labelled "Fucked up"¹.

I don't think heterosexuals have a better chance of achieving "unfucked-upness" than gays; it's just that not all their imperfections or shortcomings are the same.

The fact is though that many christians seem to fail to notice straight people's fucked-upness quite as much as they do gay peoples', a fact of which I am ashamed on behalf of my faith².

¹Romans 3:23. Fortunately followed by 3:24. What you're really missing in your perspective is the concept of God's response to fucked-upness, aka grace. It makes all the difference [Smile]

²Footnotes are cool.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think the idea that God's perfect plan was messed up by humans is farcical.

I think God's perfect plan was messed up by evil.
No substantive difference.
You missed the significance of the emphasis of perfect. If anything messed it up, it was not perfect.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm putting humanity, including you and me both (and all human sexuality for that matter, along with everything else) in the bin labelled "Fucked up"

This does not change that your theology states that monogamous hetero is the "ideal". This still puts all others as less than. Whilst you put no onus on failing to be perfect, it is still connected to the less inclusive and more hateful manifestations. A tree is nourished even by its smallest roots.

[ 29. May 2017, 18:02: 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      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Seriously folks, GENESIS is such a huge load of crap. Stop choking yourselves trying to swallow it whole.

OK, fine, let's start an alternative universe without the book of Genesis and see what sort of underpinning of society you come up with. Albania under Hoxha, perhaps?

Wait, I thought democracy was a product of the multi-god, pederast Greeks.

--------------------
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
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Cf. the Serpent Seed doctrine, as espoused notably by William Branham.

Holy cow that's messed up.
Tangentially, here's a bunch of people crying out for an MW visit. (You have to admire a group of strict predestinarians setting up a church called Little Hope Baptist Church).

And now, back to your scheduled argument.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No substantive difference.

Well, if you're going to lay into the Christian doctrine of the Fall, better to get your facts straight [Razz]

quote:
You missed the significance of the emphasis of perfect. If anything messed it up, it was not perfect.
Hoist by my using your terms. I would probably not have talked in terms of "perfect", which to my mind conjours up the rather creepy images one sees on the front cover of Jehovah's Witness magazines and will if we're not careful get us back to speculating about vegetarian lions.

The biblical word is "good". I might spring for "morally innocent" or some such. Whatever; it's gone, man.
quote:
your theology states that monogamous hetero is the "ideal"
Again, that would not be my word of choice; I prefer the term "archetype". Wikipedia tells me that this literally means "original pattern from which copies are made", which strikes me as being an excellent description of Adam and Eve.

The Garden of Eden and its unfucked-upness are long gone, but Adam and Eve remain as an archetype in the literal sense that it is from this union of male and female that copies (i.e. babies) are still made. For human life (which is what Genesis is all about), that union is the biological blueprint.

As such I don't think it's surprising that male-plus-female pairings have become an archetype in the Jungian sense. They are "how it was in the beginning". I suppose one might call that "biologically ideal" in the sense that it perpetuates the species ("biological privilege?").

And the fact is that this biological archetype isn't going anywhere soon. Even if alternatives are just around the corner, they will always be more complex than what orfeo daintily and memorably referred to on another thread as "a bit of heavy breathing round the back of the bike shed".

However, this biological reality does not confer moral superiority. You can hardly condemn Genesis for stating the obvious facts of life (or imagine you can improve morals by glossing over them).

As to monogamy, I'd say that faithfulness to a partner is a virtue regardless of orientation. YMMV.

[ 29. May 2017, 19:10: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
The Chinese had a pretty amazing and vibrant culture not based on Genesis for hundreds of years, before an import from the based-on-Genesis western world, Marxism, came and screwed it up.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Of course there are examples of thriving cultures that have done without Genesis. It was a cheap shot in retort to a cheap shot. Unless of course you are moving to redefine the Christian canon to exclude it?

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The Garden of Eden and its unfucked-upness are long gone, but Adam and Eve remain as an archetype in the literal sense that it is from this union of male and female that copies (i.e. babies) are still made. For human life (which is what Genesis is all about), that union is the biological blueprint.

As such I don't think it's surprising that male-plus-female pairings have become an archetype in the Jungian sense. They are "how it was in the beginning". I suppose one might call that "biologically ideal" in the sense that it perpetuates the species ("biological privilege?").

1. Given that there are now 7 trillion of us and counting, and we're having a hard time managing food and a decent life for the people we already have, is it "biologically ideal" anymore? One might say that non-productive pairings are in fact to be preferred at this stage in the human story.

2. This carries a strong undercurrent that reproducing is what we're about. A weird straw-grasp to incorporate Dawkins' "selfish gene" into the Christian story to make us little more than species perpetuators. I know there are some who believe the only righteous purpose of sex is babies², and use both Genesis and Jesus' divorce discourse to back that view. But if that view is rejected, then Adam and Eve not being Adam and Steve really has no sociological significance.

ETA:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Of course there are examples of thriving cultures that have done without Genesis. It was a cheap shot in retort to a cheap shot. Unless of course you are moving to redefine the Christian canon to exclude it?

Huh? What does that have to do with anything said thus far in this thread?

____
²I know you're not in that camp²²
²²I don't know how to make the 1.

[ 29. May 2017, 19:19: Message edited by: mousethief ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Coding¹ is easy

code:
¹



--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Thanks, Curiosity killed...

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Given that there are now 7 trillion of us and counting

I suggest you step back from your computer and do a recount...
quote:
and we're having a hard time managing food and a decent life for the people we already have
AIUI, that is (so far) a problem of distribution rather than of insufficient resources. But that's another thread.
quote:
is it "biologically ideal" anymore?
I said "biologically", not ethically. The fact is that there ain't no better way of perpetuating the species. Whether that needs to be done without limitation is another question.

quote:
This carries a strong undercurrent that reproducing is what we're about.
If the human race ceases to reproduce altogether, we will not be here at all. Again, you can argue that if you're so inclined, but it sounds about as weird to me as the Serpent Seed doctrine.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Of course there are examples of thriving cultures that have done without Genesis. It was a cheap shot in retort to a cheap shot. Unless of course you are moving to redefine the Christian canon to exclude it?

Huh? What does that have to do with anything said thus far in this thread?
My jibe was in response to one by RooK. You seem to have thought it was an invitation to find reasons to diss the value of Genesis. If you think its main contribution is to fuel Marxism and thus upset the Chinese, I'm intrigued as to why you aren't moving to have it removed from the canon.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Given that there are now 7 trillion of us and counting

I suggest you step back from your computer and do a recount...
Sorry, 7.5.

quote:
If the human race ceases to reproduce altogether,
Straw man.

quote:
My jibe was in response to one by RooK. You seem to have thought it was an invitation to find reasons to diss the value of Genesis.
Uh, no, that's not what I was doing. I was showing that there are vibrant cultures that are not based on Genesis other than Albania under Hoxha. You seem to take the "value of Genesis" very personally.

quote:
If you think its main contribution is to fuel Marxism and thus upset the Chinese,
Straw man.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I still don't understand how you're arguing that Sarah and James aren't somehow closer to the Eden ideal and/or God's plan for humanity than Sarah and Jane. All other things being equal, aren't heterosexuals in at least one way fulfilling the plan whereas homosexuals clearly cannot whatever they do?

To me this feels like you're saying to a gay person "look, I'm sorry about your sexuality - something got messed up by the fall, and fortunately I've somehow missed getting what you've got. I'm no better than you are, but the fact still remains that you're living proof of the fall in a way that I'm not".

Why even say that? Why not stick to the internal spiritual stuff; we're all messed up inside, it isn't just you or you or you - it is part of the human condition. Nothing to do with external stuff, nothing about your skin colour, your clothing choices, your hairstyle, foot size, sexuality or disability. Those are all things you can do nothing about, but God doesn't look at those things, he's interested in the heart.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools