|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dear Steve Langton,
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Other factors may come into play, but naturally speaking, a man and a women producing a baby is an unavoidable part of that process (which, inter alia, would go a long way to explaining the existence of this archetype).
Holy Fuck. what a load of utter bullshit. Who the fuck is saying that is an avoidable part of the process? Not me, not any one on this fucking website. I've been avoiding derision because it is often used as an excuse to stop listening. But you appear to be wilfully ignoring what I write anyway.
quote:
I don't see how your hand-waving gets around that, and your reluctance to acknowledge it is perplexing.
Look in the mirror. Seriously dude, you are beginning to write like Langton.
I am not hand-waving anything here. Heterosexual sex is the basic method. But evolution can be more complex than this. A species survival depends on more than just fucking to reproduce.
more than is an [b]inclusive[b] phrase, not an exclusive one. In other words, your hetero sex is part of my statement, just not the sum total.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You appeared to be denying - and still don't seem to have acknowledged - the biological reality to which I was originally referring: that, uniquely, "male-plus-female pairings... perpetuate the species".
No. Male sperm needs to fertilise female ova, I don't think anyone is denying this.
But there is no sense that this, uniquely, "perpetuates the species", because parenting often takes a community - including people who are not biological parents, might be more distantly related or not genetically related at all.
quote:
Other factors may come into play, but naturally speaking, a man and a women producing a baby is an unavoidable part of that process (which, inter alia, would go a long way to explaining the existence of this archetype).
Yes, but those "other factors" are often extremely important.
Your position is the equivalent of saying that a relevant specialist doctor is needed for an IVF birth baby, and therefore the doctor is the only important person in the process. Of course the doctor is needed. Like.. durr. But obviously the child needs parents, and other adults to look after it, teach it, love it. The kind of life it has is not entirely determined by the presence/absence of the doctor.
Similarly, whilst it is necessary to have male and female gametes to produce zygotes, this is not the totality of what is needed to perpetuate the species.
quote:
I don't see how your hand-waving gets around that, and your reluctance to acknowledge it is perplexing.
Well the perplexing part is how you seem to think that gay people are looking for everyone to be gay and therefore threaten the future of the species - if everyone was gay, we'd have no reproduction.
I know you've not said that, but why even bring it up?
Isn't it obvious that gay people don't expect everyone to be gay - just like old people who are not having sex do not expect to be relied upon to reproduce for the sake of the continuation of the species.
This seems to me to be an utterly pointless discussion.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
One of the purposes of sex is to make babies, but the majority of sexual activity is about people exchanging love and pleasure. As it ever was.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Holy Fuck. what a load of utter bullshit. Who the fuck is saying that is an avoidable part of the process? Not me, not any one on this fucking website.
Perhaps not, but it's taken a lot of prodding to get you to admit - just about - that it's unavoidable. I really don't understand why that should be such a big deal. quote:
Heterosexual sex is the basic method. But evolution can be more complex than this. A species survival depends on more than just fucking to reproduce.
You've shifted the terminology again. It's not a "basic method". Short of major technological intervention, there is no other method, "advanced" or otherwise. It's a core component. It's how each human life begins (which I suspect, all moral implications aside, is why we have male and female in Genesis).
Of course there's more to life and growth than that (I don't have any disagreement with the rest of your paragraph there). I have no doubt other members of society play their part, but without that initial act, there's no life. It's hard for me not to conclude that you'd love that not to be true for some reason. I could be wrong.
[ 30. May 2017, 20:35: 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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Perhaps not, but it's taken a lot of prodding to get you to admit - just about - that it's unavoidable. I really don't understand why that should be such a big deal.
Simply, so that you may understand:
I have never said that a man's sperm fertilising a woman's egg was not necessary to make baby humans.
quote:
It's how each human life begins (which I suspect, all moral implications aside, is why we have male and female in Genesis).
The bible doesn't contain much from a science POV, so it would be incredibly helpful if people didn't use it like one.
quote:
Of course there's more to life and growth than that (I don't have any disagreement with the rest of your paragraph there). I have no doubt other members of society play their part, but without that initial act, there's no life.
Again, for emphasis, nothing I've said debates this.
quote:
It's hard for me not to conclude that you'd love that not to be true for some reason. I could be wrong.
This is too stupid to respond to beyond a sneer. You are fortunate that channelling someone isn't considered sock puppetry, because I am fairly certain the spirits of Steve Langton, Russ and Jamat are flowing through your cranium.
[ 30. May 2017, 21:36: 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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
np--
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Most sex is non-reproductive. It is about enhancing pair-bonds, ergo love, between people. It makes no difference the gender of the lovers, so long as there's mutuality of pleasure and love. -- which summarizes my full understanding. The only warning about sex is not to manipulate, deceive nor exploit.
For bonobo apes, sex = etiquette.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I dunno if I agree with him. I'm not a big fan of 'Fall' theology, but I can see what he's saying. And I don't think that his view lessens homosexual relationships.
It does, though. No matter how you slice it homosexuality, in his view, is still a less than.
The equation you describe is homo<hetero<Heaven.
That he also describes broken hetero=homo doesn't change the basic equation.
Hmm. Okay, I can see that. But, in terms of running with the afterlife comparison...
One could believe that marriages continue after we die, and they will continue to be married to their wonderful spouse for all eternity.
Or one might believe that the afterlife has a different economic, and marriage is irrelevant in the afterlife.
Or one might believe that there is no afterlife and all marriages end when one spouse dies.
To me, saying that Eutychus's view diminishes homosexual relationships is the equivalent of saying that the latter two of the above views diminishes all marriage now, whereas the former glorifies it. I can see the logic, but it just doesn't seem that big a deal, when, as Eutychus has said, there are much more important factors that go into a relationship than the sexuality of the people involved (or to go on, what happens when we die).
Marriages might last 'forever', or they might come to an end - or move over for a new kind of relationship system in the next life. Who knows? The afterlife is a great unknown; as is Eden (which, I see as a metaphor for life now; rather than a creation-archetype as Eutychus does).
But marriages - and all relationships of varying sexualities - are valid, valuable and important now - in this life. I think we hold that in common, with Eutychus too. Different views about unknowns life the afterlife or Eden don't (IMHO) change that fundamental.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Eutychus said -
quote:
Short of major technological intervention, there is no other method, "advanced" or otherwise. It's a core component.
Turkey basters are major technology?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
It still takes a man (at some point) and a woman. And it's a lot less fun.
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Eutychus said -
quote:
Short of major technological intervention, there is no other method, "advanced" or otherwise. It's a core component.
Turkey basters are major technology?
There was a news story, maybe 25 years ago, about that. A husband and wife wanted kids, but she couldn't carry a fetus to term. Her sister offered to be a surrogate, and turkey baster was employed. IIRC, it worked.
I think I've heard of another case, since then.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I still find it hard to escape the conclusion that, on a basic level, Eutychus sees homosexual relationships as not "meant to be" in contrast to heterosexual relationships as "meant to be".
I may be an awful relativist, but I'm not persuaded that the answer as to what is "meant to be" is automatically the same for all human beings just by virtue of being human. Why did God create more than 1 of us, if he wasn't interested in variety?
There probably are some truly basic, irreducible things that are the way things are meant to be for all human beings. But as a homosexual person, who never actually wanted to be a homosexual person but who eventually was forced to face the fact that I am homosexual, I have a hard time with any notion that I was "meant to be" heterosexual. If wishing had made it so I would've been.
I look at that particular idea of what is "normal" and just end up concluding that no, I am not "normal" and I can't find any sign that I was meant to be. If God didn't see to it that we are all match Adam and Eve in height, weight, skin tone, shoe size, personality, why would we think that sexuality is a deal-breaker?
And the whole go forth and multiply bit doesn't answer it, because it's perfectly possible to see that as a command given to HUMANITY without it being seen as a command given to ALL HUMANS.
First of all, there's decent scientific evidence about the benefits of homosexual members of a group to the group as a whole. Secondly, we all know perfectly well that societies don't function if everyone tried to do exactly the same thing, any more than a body functions if all the parts of the body are doing the same thing. And yes, that second point includes an intentional Bible reference.
Saying that everyone was supposed to be entering into the type of relationship that is potentially procreative seems to me to be taking a highly individualistic view of the world where it's all about propagating one's own genes, and to be honest I question the theological basis for such an approach. Part of me would in fact rather like to do some propagating of genes, but I don't think it's going to happen. Meanwhile, there are probably ways that I contribute to society that are possible because I'm not breeding, and it's also perfectly plausible that the wiring in my brain that makes me homosexual also contributes to other things about my personality/behaviour that make a difference.
End ramble. This is what you get when I've spent nearly an hour answering questions about my life and health for other purposes.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
TL;DR: If I am meant to be just like you, why do both of us exist?
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Thanks orfeo, that's helpful both in clarifying how you feel and in reflecting what you perceive me to be saying. I take exception to your perception in a couple of places, very briefly to say that I draw a distinction between what God might have "meant to be" for humanity as depicted in Eden and what he might "mean to be" for you or I or any other individual (I have a lot more qualms about "God's personal plan for your life"™ anyway) in the here and now.
I'll try and formulate that in more detail as soon as I can.
--------------------
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
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
I apologize for the apparent baiting. However, I genuinely do see this nuanced issue being too-easily mangled by what is essentially a fairy tale.
Bear with me for a moment. Imagine, please, that either there is no god or that the god is purely observational to existence. This completely removes all philosophical a priori assumptions about "supposed to be" or "intention" or "design". We just are.
Continuing from there, we are left to face that not only are we imperfect, but that there is no perfection to compare ourselves and others to. All we can do is try to be better. As generally social animals with a conceptualization of existence outside our own skulls, it is fundamentally better for everyone and everything if we are as kind and loving to each other as we can. Even to those whose imperfections are different from our own. Hell, especially to them.
Years of hanging out with all you freaks has helped me see the potential value in religious belief. But in this particular case, it is hard to avoid seeing it as doing anything other than being used as a handy arbitrary bludgeon to level at each other.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And it's a lot less fun.
You just don't know how to use one.
[ 31. May 2017, 15:49: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
there is no perfection to compare ourselves and others to. All we can do is try to be better.
How can you try to be better if there is no standard to measure against?
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And it's a lot less fun.
You just don't know how to use one.
I admit to my response being largely influenced by some TV series I saw more or less by accident, involving artificial insemination by this method and in which a Winnie-The-Pooh child's cereal bowl featured largely.
Besides, I must admit to more CS Lewis in my personal canon, here his prescient description from the 1940s of sex and reproduction among the mythical inhabitants of Sulva: quote:
“On this side, the womb is barren and the marriages are cold. There dwell an accursed people, full of pride and lust. There when a young man takes a maiden in marriage, they do not lie together, but each lies with a cunningly fashioned image of the other, made to move and to be warm by devilish arts, for real flesh will not please them, they are so dainty (delicati) in their dreams of lust. Their real children they fabricate by vile arts in a secret place.”
Maybe Lewis was as wrong about the vileness of extreme artificial sex (more or less as depicted in AI) as he was misogynistic. Maybe we do need to develop new sexual ethics for sex with robots, and maybe they can be wholesome. Maybe we can transition to artificial wombs for everyone's convenience. Maybe it's just a variation on the ick factor for me.
And yes, sometimes we have little choice but to resort to means other than flesh and blood for sex and procreation.
But I can't shake the feeling that the "basic method", as you call it, is not to be despised or cast aside thoughtlessly.
Orfeo, I'm still thinking my way through your latest post.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
How can you try to be better if there is no standard to measure against?
I am going to need to revise my opinion of your mental prowess. The measure in the bible is not the obvious story-telling bits. The bible is inconsistent, contradictory and, in parts, directly contradictory to contemporary Christian teachings. And yet you do not have a problem eating shellfish, banning polygamous marriages and not stoning your disobedient children. But you get hung up on homosexuality.
For Christians, the standard is Jesus' teachings.
For the rest of the world, I suppose there is no standard of behaviour. Hey Everybody! Machete sex party at my house!
Bring your own inflatable sheep, Ariston, I only go so far down the depravity scale.
quote:
But I can't shake the feeling that the "basic method", as you call it, is not to be despised or cast aside thoughtlessly.
Hey, some of my best friends are straight couples, means I cannot be prejudiced against straights, right?
Actually not a massive fan of artificial insemination or human cloning. So the only choice left is that I want humanity to die out, I suppose. Preferably during a homosexual orgy, I'd imagine.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
How can you try to be better if there is no standard to measure against?
I am going to need to revise my opinion of your mental prowess.
Perhaps I'll return the compliment. I was answering RooK on the issue of belief in general, not about sex, and about how one aspires to be better without a yardstick to measure oneself by. Which is a tangent to this thread. quote:
The bible is inconsistent, contradictory and, in parts, directly contradictory to contemporary Christian teachings. And yet you do not have a problem eating shellfish, banning polygamous marriages and not stoning your disobedient children. But you get hung up on homosexuality.
This is not a "defend Christianity against all-comers" thread however much you and RooK try to make it one.
As far as I'm concerned Christianity is not about a set of rules, contradictory or otherwise. It's first and foremost about grace and what you have posted so far in this thread reveals little or no comprehension of how that is commonly understood by Christians.
And mock me if you will, but my contribution to this thread is one of my ways of working my way through (in your words) my hang-ups on homosexuality. It's not the be-all and end-all issue in my day-to-day life and it's not an issue in my church. There's a lot more to life than that. But it's one that's important to many people and worth more thought than many people devote to it.
I haven't come across many Christians stoning their children but Christians' treatment of gays is sometimes tantamount to that and that's worth some thought.
Especially if one is to provide thought leadership in changing the way people think about it, which in all modesty I think I am in a position to for certain constituencies.
What I can say is that my willingness to take other contributors in the discussion seriously is in inverse proportion to the extent they proceed by snark.
quote:
quote:
But I can't shake the feeling that the "basic method", as you call it, is not to be despised or cast aside thoughtlessly.
Hey, some of my best friends are straight couples, means I cannot be prejudiced against straights, right?
Does my sarcasm meter need recalibrating?
quote:
Actually not a massive fan of artificial insemination or human cloning. So the only choice left is that I want humanity to die out, I suppose.
No, there are other choices. For instance, one which has imposed itself on me thanks in part to this discussion, is to work through why you're not a massive fan of it, whether your reasons are consistent with your worldview, and make some adjustments accordingly. quote:
Preferably during a homosexual orgy, I'd imagine
Disappointingly, most humanity-dying-out scenarios seem to have a dampening effect on the libido; writers seem to think we go out with a whimper, not a bang.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I was answering RooK on the issue of belief in general, not about sex, and about how one aspires to be better without a yardstick to measure oneself by. Which is a tangent to this thread.
I did address that, though admittedly sarcastically.
The bible is a mix of myth, self-history and guidance. You are obsessing on the myth.
ETA: The yardstick the bible provides is best viewed through Jesus' words.
And there are plenty of non-Christian yardsticks that function very well for behaviour. Or at least as well as Christianity,
quote:
As far as I'm concerned Christianity is not about a set of rules, contradictory or otherwise. It's first and foremost about grace and what you have posted so far in this thread reveals little or no comprehension of how that is commonly understood by Christians.
This is not an accurate statement. Especially since many use the rules to determine what grace is.
quote:
Especially if one is to provide thought leadership in changing the way people think about it, which in all modesty I think I am in a position to for certain constituencies.
And this magnifies the problem with your homosexuality is less than theology.
quote:
What I can say is that my willingness to take other contributors in the discussion seriously is in inverse proportion to the extent they proceed by snark.
Yeah, figured. And knowing this about yourself, you are allowing it to be a cop-out if you so proceed.
And I will point out that I did not begin the derision until you began accusing me of a position which I patently did not make.
Which, if I were going to armchair analyse, I might conclude it intentional as an excuse to exclude further engagement.
I am not saying my temper is a good thing, but if you allow it to not hear what is being said, it is solely on you.
[ 31. May 2017, 18:23: 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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Thanks orfeo, that's helpful both in clarifying how you feel and in reflecting what you perceive me to be saying. I take exception to your perception in a couple of places, very briefly to say that I draw a distinction between what God might have "meant to be" for humanity as depicted in Eden and what he might "mean to be" for you or I or any other individual (I have a lot more qualms about "God's personal plan for your life"™ anyway) in the here and now.
I'll try and formulate that in more detail as soon as I can.
Okay. While you're doing so, you might focus on explaining why discussing what was "meant to be" for humanity is even relevant. Why bring it up, if not to say that it was better?
And not merely to say that it was better, but better in specific ways? I mean sure, one can talk in very general terms about how humanity was in a better relationship with God, but when the good old days of Eden are brought up in a discussion about homosexuality, it seems rather hard to escape the feeling that it's demonstrating an idea that homosexuals have fallen just a little bit further than heterosexuals in that particular way. That while all have fallen short of the glory of God, but homosexuals are one step behind by virtue of being homosexual before we start totting up all the other sins that individual human beings are capable of, sexual or otherwise.
[ 31. May 2017, 22:47: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ETA: The yardstick the bible provides is best viewed through Jesus' words.
And there are plenty of non-Christian yardsticks that function very well for behaviour. Or at least as well as Christianity.
Like this: "Shared belief in the "Golden Rule" (a/k.a. Ethics of Reciprocity)" (Religious Tolerance).
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
And of course C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man went through a great deal of trouble to show the ethical injunctions that the world's great religions hold in common. Quite a few, of course.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I was answering RooK on the issue of belief in general, not about sex, and about how one aspires to be better without a yardstick to measure oneself by. Which is a tangent to this thread.
That you see this as purely tangential to this thread exposes the very horrific limitations of your paradigm. For the sake of explicit and unquestionable relevance, let's keep this all about sex.
I assume that you have had sex more than once. Have you gotten better at it? If so, what is your absolute yardstick that you use for such a measure?
Face it: the things that you are using as the basis for your contemplations are all based on some very crude and limited understanding of human sexuality. By all means - be generous with your faith and assume that we collectively were meant to figure out on our own all the myriad of things that are so hilariously glossed over In The Beginning. But that is no reason to apply those oversimplifications written in a time when reproduction was the end-all-be-all of a primitive society to a modern era of realizing the nuance of human possibility.
To be blunt, your line of reasoning is the root of not just homophobia, but was also the classic justification for racism and sexism. If there is anything that I hate most, it is assumptions that can cause intelligent people like you to think stupid and hurtful things.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
That you see this as purely tangential to this thread exposes the very horrific limitations of your paradigm.
Are you sure you're not confusing a deficient paradigm with an ability to adapt to context?
It's a tall order to expect an argument about homosexuality being carried on between Christians disagreeing over the interpretation of Bible verses to address questions about whether God or any absolutes exist at all. Almost all the participants to date self-identify as some sort of Christian, so it's hardly surprising that we were working on the basis of some shared assumptions before you showed up.
quote:
For the sake of explicit and unquestionable relevance, let's keep this all about sex.
Fine. Rather than discuss the finer points of my sex life (nice try...) why not take a look at the passage quoted above about the inhabitants of Sulva (in a book which, incidentally mousethief, is as I understand it the fiction version of The abolition of man) and give me your god-free take on that prospect (stripped of the adjectives Lewis uses). Is the sex better or worse? For the individuals involved? For society? And on what basis do you decide?
Are such developments to be embraced unquestioningly as simply "realizing the nuance of human possibility"? or is there a danger of technology outstripping ethics and medicine? If they are "bad" in any way, why are they bad? (clue: saying "it's not natural" does not seem to go down well as an answer).
quote:
that is no reason to apply those oversimplifications written in a time when reproduction was the end-all-be-all of a primitive society to a modern era of realizing the nuance of human possibility.
I might not use those terms, but I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment - in fact I think this is more or less where I came into this thread: to argue against Steve Langton applying things "as they were in the beginning" to today. I have consistently done so since.
The sticking point at present is, from a Christian perspective, the extent (if any) to which what is depicted in Eden should be taken as an exhaustive account of everything that is morally and prelapsarianly superior and the extent to which it should be seen exclusively as a narrative about origins with no moral component at all, much as you suggest (those being the two extremes in the discussion).
Orfeo is arguing that bringing Genesis into the discussion at all is to import the assumption that heterosexuality is or was morally better, albeit infinitesimally, than anything else.
Before y'all's most recent posts, I was thinking along the lines of "what happens if we try and distinguish the bits of Genesis which are simply a story of our origins from the bits which are about how it all went wrong".
I think it's the difficulty of distinguishing these two overlapping themes in Genesis that is at the origin of many of the other isms RooK refers to.
Which is a slightly more nuanced view than thinking that quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
GENESIS is such a huge load of crap
Consider yourself intelligent? quote:
If there is anything that I hate most, it is assumptions that can cause intelligent people like you to think stupid and hurtful things.
Bear in mind the same can apply to pronouncements by yourself (see above).
Where I have got to so far:
Here I said quote:
I don't think God originally intended for people of the same sex to be attracted to one another (...) I just don't see it in Genesis.
I still don't see it in Genesis, but I'm less sure about the "originally intended". My (internal) questioning now is about why it's not there (sorry orfeo, this is pushing back my answer, I'm going to be late for a meeting at this rate...
[ 01. June 2017, 06:04: 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
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Where I have got to so far:
Here I said quote:
I don't think God originally intended for people of the same sex to be attracted to one another (...) I just don't see it in Genesis.
I still don't see it in Genesis, but I'm less sure about the "originally intended". My (internal) questioning now is about why it's not there (sorry orfeo, this is pushing back my answer, I'm going to be late for a meeting at this rate...
I thought in this story God created Adam and only later created Eve. So the original intent was for Adam to be asexual, like many species on earth. Presumably they're not more fallen for not keeping up with the changes in God's intentions. This attempt to derive from Genesis leads to so many contradictions and fantasies that it's only a pile of excuses. If these are the only archetypes permitted, where did Adam's grandchildren come from? Homosexuality between Cain and Abel,incest, bestiality or divine creation. It's all inconsistent nonsense when you add these magic rules of interpretation.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
My reading of Genesis is that the creation of Eve being subsequent to that of Adam is a narrative device, not a chronological absolute. This is borne out by the text itself since the narrative in chapter 2 is quite clearly not the same as in chapter 1 where male and female are part of the same stage of creation, not two consecutive ones.
The thorny question (for Christians) is about what the narrative is trying to say and what that might or might not mean for us today.
Of course this is simply and easily dispensed with by taking the view that Genesis is nothing more than a huge load of crap, but some of us think it's worth a bit more thought than that.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My reading of Genesis is that the creation of Eve being subsequent to that of Adam is a narrative device, not a chronological absolute. This is borne out by the text itself since the narrative in chapter 2 is quite clearly not the same as in chapter 1 where male and female are part of the same stage of creation, not two consecutive ones.
Ye gods - you are prepared to re-examine what Genesis 1 is saying in the light of Genesis 2 (surely the simplest explanation is that they're different myths?) but not in the light of the understanding we have in Christ.
quote:
The thorny question (for Christians) is about what the narrative is trying to say and what that might or might not mean for us today.
It is only thorny if you insist that an ancient myth has important things to say to us today on the level that you seem to want it.
It seems to me to be a far easier position to take that homosexuality is a feature not a bug of humanity. Then you don't have to get into a silly theological contortion to explain how something that wasn't "intended by God" is still somehow "absolutely fine and dandy" for people today.
quote:
Of course this is simply and easily dispensed with by taking the view that Genesis is nothing more than a huge load of crap, but some of us think it's worth a bit more thought than that.
One doesn't have to think it is crap, one just has to think it is myth.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My reading of Genesis is that the creation of Eve being subsequent to that of Adam is a narrative device, not a chronological absolute. This is borne out by the text itself since the narrative in chapter 2 is quite clearly not the same as in chapter 1 where male and female are part of the same stage of creation, not two consecutive ones.
Ye gods - you are prepared to re-examine what Genesis 1 is saying in the light of Genesis 2 (surely the simplest explanation is that they're different myths?) but not in the light of the understanding we have in Christ.
Show me where I've said that.
--------------------
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
What other than where you said that "this is borne out by the text itself since the narrative in chapter 2 is quite clearly not the same as in chapter 1"
which fairly clearly suggests you think this is a chain of consciousness rather than two completely different and unconnected myths.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
but not in the light of the understanding we have in Christ.
Show me where I've said that.
--------------------
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
Show you the part where you think something about the fall in Genesis is relevant to homosexuality rather than the words and actions of the Christ?
If you don't mean that, just say so.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
You insinuated that overall, I have been considering variations in Genesis and not anything Jesus said. That is demonstrably not true. But this part of the conversation is about Genesis. That is all.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Y'all seem terribly keen to reduce Eutychus to the function of resident homophobic chew toy, and I can't help feeling that's purely because the regular chew toys have been lost behind the couch.
To me there's a pretty obvious difference between Eutychus' efforts at engaging with questions, and the whole dismissive "well if you don't believe the same thing as me you ain't Christian" attitude that got this thread started back in the day.
Having read some stuff I said about Tony Campolo, I would put Eutychus in the same category, and I simply can't motivate myself to be venomous towards such people.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
(back to composing better response in my head)
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
but not in the light of the understanding we have in Christ.
Show me where I've said that.
This is confusing.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Y'all seem terribly keen to reduce Eutychus to the function of resident homophobic chew toy, and I can't help feeling that's purely because the regular chew toys have been lost behind the couch.
My frustration with Euty is when he began misinterpreting what I said. Not because of the misinterpretation, but because it implies he stopped truly engaging and began a passive aggressive attack. I can take attacks, Hell, I kinda enjoy trading them; but Euty is a preacher and that makes this more important.
Yeah, I know, sneering isn't the best method of converting. Right now, I'm not sure he is worth the effort, though.
--------------------
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
If someone reads the Bible as literal, I cannot argue with the. A belief requires no proof and simply is. Believe what you will, but I will be honest and admit I think they are idiots for so believing.
If someone accepts that the Bible is not literal, then we can possibly discuss things.
The real conflict comes in when someone admits the bible isn't literal, but still wants to treat select parts of as if they were.
Genesis doesn't describe evolution or biology or any real science. It is a simple allegory in simple terms by and for a people of limited understanding.
You want to believe it is inspired by God, fine. But it is problematic when it is applied to things outside of its form and function. This is where people slip their own prejudices and preconceptions.
This is where Euty is. IMO.
ETA: It has not slipped past me that Troll Russ, Bigot Steve Langton and I-cannot-be-bothered-to-add-a-prefix-to Jamat are probably loving that we are arguing with someone they would see as one of us instead of them.
[ 01. June 2017, 15:56: 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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Just imagine how lovely it is to be in that position. If you have any empathy left for me.
[ 01. June 2017, 16:05: 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
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Are you sure you're not confusing a deficient paradigm with an ability to adapt to context?
...it's hardly surprising that we were working on the basis of some shared assumptions before you showed up.
01) I've been here the whole time, stewing on your "shared assumptions" and relevant paradigm in context.
10) Hello, I'm RooK, and I have a hobby-horse. And you can't take it away from me.
Smushing those two together to make 3, I do apologize for seeming to butt into what might be an interesting processing of Genesis for you. My primary interest is regarding my natural laziness - finding a way to be accepting and kind to human sexuality seems easily justified from my perspective, while it appears to be fraught when working from Genesis.
quote:
And on what basis do you decide?
I like how this attempts to deflect my point from being about experiential perspective to moral relativism. Nice try.
Nevertheless, I suspect that we understand each other's meta-messages. It is trivially easy to summon a basis to evaluate the merit of something; it tends to be quite difficult to do so very well.
quote:
quote:
If there is anything that I hate most, it is assumptions that can cause intelligent people like you to think stupid and hurtful things.
Bear in mind the same can apply to pronouncements by yourself
Yes, I'm a fucking asshole. But I'm trying to be better, relatively.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Thanks.
Although I read that as "trying to be bitter" ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Just imagine how lovely it is to be in that position. If you have any empathy left for me.
I did. It is wearing thin. Resume arguing like an adult and I might find a little more.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
TL;DR: If I am meant to be just like you, why do both of us exist?
Let me try this on for size.
What follows takes into account developments in my thinking on the strength of discussions here.
Thanks to all of you who've helped me on this journey so far, on this thread and elsewhere - including the ones who set out to hinder and who helped despite their intentions.
I reserve the right to change my mind and not to answer comments.
The Genesis account of Adam and Eve and their descendants addresses our origins, first and foremost in terms of procreation – probably due at least in part to that being the primary focus of the culture in which it was written. We have come a long way since then.
While the opening chapters of Genesis do make reference to reproduction – “be fruitful and multiply” – this is already tempered within the very same verse by the implications inherent in being responsible stewards of the planet, so it cannot be intended as a universal, unqualified commandment, binding on all for all time.
Inasmuch as the early chapters of Genesis are not intended to address issues of sexuality, they're not the best place to go looking for answers to those issues.
Yes, Jesus does reference them with regard to marriage, and that needs to be borne in mind, but the reason he does needs to be carefully examined (more on this in a minute).
In this scenario, the key players in Genesis are a male and a female, presumably because that allows them to go on to beget children and thus the rest of the story, but the takeaway is not the sex, sexual practice, or sexual orientation of those involved but the untroubled relationship with each other and with God.
The “Fall” is depicted first and foremost as disrupting relationships - so its essence has nothing, inherently, to do with sex or sexuality.
The effects of the “Fall” on relationships express themselves in many ways, in all kinds of relationships, sexual and otherwise. Heterosexual monogamy is no more of a protection against these effects than any other status.
In fact one of the ways the “Fall” has played out over history, aided and abetted by a certain selective reading of Genesis in which the Church has all too often colluded for its own earthly ends, is to pervert heterosexual monogamy to become an instrument of power abuse.
This abuse is explicitly stated in Genesis 3:16 as regards the domination of women, and is evident in the wrongful exploitation of the benefits of heterosexual marriage to demonise all other conditions, from singlehood through to homosexuality.
(I would add that the Fall has played out in homosexual relations in much the same way, but manifesting itself differently).
When Jesus refers to the original male and female (aka Adam and Eve) in Mark 10, the issue in context is not what kind of sexuality was involved but the quality of the relationship.
When Jesus says “at the beginning it was not so” in the parallel passage in Mt 19:8, it is not an allusion to pre-Fall heterosexual pairing but to pre-Fall faithfulness in a relationship: this is the central issue under debate in the relevant NT passages.
So the takeaway should be focused, not on the gender of the persons involved in a sexual relationship, but on the quality of that relationship.
(The ensuing discussion in the Gospels about it being better not to marry bears this out and also clearly recognises – for some – singlehood as a valid condition. As does Jesus’ own life. As an aside, his conception also shows that at least sometimes, alternatives to the “basic method” (sic) are to be honoured even above that one).
Finally, Jesus’ acknowledgement of Moses’ granting permission for divorce is not a licence to treat relationships of any kind lightly and expediently (indeed, that is what the Fall is all about), but a recognition that accommodations need to be made for circumstances in which a committed relationship, despite the partners’ best intentions, breaks down.
The attitude to be adopted in such circumstances is one of grace.
While this requires a recognition of something having gone wrong in order to be empowering, it leaves no room for condemnation. The episode of the woman taken in adultery springs to mind in this respect.
So, my dear and long-suffering brother orfeo, in answer to your question, we both exist because we are both, in equal measure, here in God's image, fearfully and wonderfully made, amazing creatures, reflecting as parts of his Church different aspects of his infinitely-variegated wisdom.
And in equal measure, we are both fallen creatures too, living with all the hangups and contradictions of being at once justified and sinners.
But that's ok, because we can also rejoice in the grace of God in which we both stand, and look forward to the day when we go to be with him and are glorified - and the new creation we inherit and the joy it embodies are so infinitely and orthogonally beyond our comprehension that about our sexuality we will no longer give a flying fuck.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Surely where this most-boring-thread-on-the-Ship belongs, too?
I'll get me coat...
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you're going to be civil, take it to Dead Horses.
Where it belongs...
Not so fast.
Hold my Beer
Euty was civil, but all he did was very prettily attempt to placate orfeo without retracting, or appear to reconsider at all, his homosexuality as a less than.
--------------------
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
I think it's you that needs to do some reconsidering - of what I actually 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
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think it's you that needs to do some reconsidering - of what I actually wrote.
So I read it again, for the third time. And the closest you get to reversing the less than position is this bit:
quote:
When Jesus says “at the beginning it was not so” in the parallel passage in Mt 19:8, it is not an allusion to pre-Fall heterosexual pairing but to pre-Fall faithfulness in a relationship: this is the central issue under debate in the relevant NT passages.
Which is ambiguous as to the status of homosexuality pre "Fall".
You do not have to retract your original statements, of course.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you're going to be civil, take it to Dead Horses.
Where it belongs...
Category error. Which I can't be arsed correcting.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If someone reads the Bible as literal, I cannot argue with the. A belief requires no proof and simply is. Believe what you will, but I will be honest and admit I think they are idiots for so believing.
If someone accepts that the Bible is not literal, then we can possibly discuss things.
The real conflict comes in when someone admits the bible isn't literal, but still wants to treat select parts of as if they were.
Genesis doesn't describe evolution or biology or any real science. It is a simple allegory in simple terms by and for a people of limited understanding.
You want to believe it is inspired by God, fine. But it is problematic when it is applied to things outside of its form and function. This is where people slip their own prejudices and preconceptions.
This is where Euty is. IMO.
ETA: It has not slipped past me that Troll Russ, Bigot Steve Langton and I-cannot-be-bothered-to-add-a-prefix-to Jamat are probably loving that we are arguing with someone they would see as one of us instead of them.
Sorry but this reads as if you think the only alternative to the "the whole Bible is literal" ought to be "the whole Bible is not literal".
Which, given the evidence from archaeology and other cultures, is clearly not tenable. There are parts of the Bible that indisputably talk about real people and real events.
So there's a whole undistributed middle where sensible people have to pick through what the Bible says and why it says it.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
