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


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Hell   » Dear Steve Langton, (Page 13)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  10  11  12  13  14 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Dear Steve Langton,
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

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

quote:
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".it.
[/qb]

I've said on this thread that history is part of the Bible.

quote:

So there's a whole undistributed middle where sensible people have to pick through what the Bible says and why it says it.

I've said this more than once and even on this thread. The problem, as I've said to Euty, is that many choose the bits which reinforce their predjudices. If Jesus is the point of Christianity, that is where they should start.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16945 | 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   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Which is ambiguous as to the status of homosexuality pre "Fall".

That's because I've decided that Genesis is ambiguous.

Maybe a fourth reading of what I wrote would have served you well?
quote:
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.
You can't make Eden a textbook for homosexual relations any more than for heterosexual relations. At least that's where I now stand.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If Jesus is the point of Christianity, that is where they should start.

This just demonstrates your theological ignorance (or lack of attention).

The overriding reason we have been talking about Genesis is precisely because as Steve Langton rightly pointed out, Jesus himself alludes to the pairing of Adam and Eve and to the "Fall" in the gospel passages we've been referring to.

Christians do "start with Jesus": they refer to this passage in Genesis because Christ did.

That's why we're talking about it and not, say, wearing two different types of cloth, or going outside the camp to do a poo, or other arcane bits of the OT Law.

The statements by Jesus about "male and female" are taken by many as a justification, by Christ, of male-female pairing in preference to same-sex pairing, and thus seen as binding because they are made precisely by him; his appeal in this respect, as they see it, to a "creational principle" ie the pre-"Fall" condition in Genesis merely serves to reinforce the authority of his statement.

I can see only too well why some people think that (having thought much along those lines myself), but after some prolonged thought in the light of discussions here I've decided for my part that to do so is to wrest his statements out of context.

As I wrote:
quote:
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.


[ 02. June 2017, 05:24: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

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

Posts: 17181 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
RooK

1 of 6
# 1852

 - Posted      Profile for RooK   Author's homepage   Email RooK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This has turned into that most annoying of discussions - where all the current participants agree with each other fundamentally on the core topic, but insist on arguing semantics (probably for imaginary points). And I hate all of you for it.
Posts: 15145 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Which is ambiguous as to the status of homosexuality pre "Fall".

That's because I've decided that Genesis is ambiguous.
Ambiguous is a generous term, but a step forward.
quote:

You can't make Eden a textbook for homosexual relations any more than for heterosexual relations. At least that's where I now stand.

It is not a textbook at all.

quote:
Jesus himself alludes to the pairing of Adam and Eve and to the "Fall" in the gospel passages we've been referring to.

Bullshit. Jesus was talking about divorce, some Christians choose to interpret between the lines, but it is no means a definitive statement about sexuality.
Posts: 16945 | 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   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
This has turned into that most annoying of discussions - where all the current participants agree with each other fundamentally on the core topic, but insist on arguing semantics

Not until this last post of Euty's, actually. Even that is kinda soft.
quote:

(probably for imaginary points).

Not for points, imaginary or otherwise. The characterising people as less than is harmful psychologically and sometimes leads to worse.


quote:
And I hate all of you for it.

You say the sweetest things! Charmer

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16945 | 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   Reply with quote 
As far as I can see you've just conceded the three points I just made, so RooK will be even more irritated than before.

What irritates me is that you've managed to dress up conceding all three points as attacks on my position.

1. ambiguous is your term. You now thow it back at me as insufficient.

2. you quote my use of the word "textbook" as though I've said Genesis was one, when I've just said it was not.

3. you describe as "bullshit" my reference to Jesus' allusions in the Gospels (which can be verified with ease) and insinuate that I've said he is making a definitive statement about sexuality when I've just said that that is not what he's saying at all.

You are either being terminally stupid or deliberately provocative. This appears to be a zero-sum game for you in which the aim is not reconciliation or consensus but domination, and domination by unremitting misrepresentation. I am not interested in interacting with that.

[ 02. June 2017, 05:54: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

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

Posts: 17181 | 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   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
This has turned into that most annoying of discussions - where all the current participants agree with each other fundamentally on the core topic, but insist on arguing semantics (probably for imaginary points). And I hate all of you for it.

To take just one example from what I vaguely imagine to be your world, I take it that you think the difference between, say, a Disaster Recovery Plan and a Business Continuity Plan is more than mere semantics?

Or that agreeing to "assign" as opposed to "transfer" some rights you own is not a mere question of semantics?

The biggest margins to be made in my day job, indeed practically the only margins to be made these days, are for being able to accurately distinguish semantics. If you can make money out of semantics, I think it's a fair bet they can be important.

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

Posts: 17181 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 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   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
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.

Thank you.

I think relationship, rather than procreation, is what is put first and foremost even at the very start. But apart from that minor quibble I'm pretty comfortable with everything you've said here and I thank you for the effort of writing it.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18049 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
This has turned into that most annoying of discussions - where all the current participants agree with each other fundamentally on the core topic, but insist on arguing semantics (probably for imaginary points). And I hate all of you for it.

For my benefit, exude from your tear ducts a quantity of liquid sufficient to fill a watercourse.

[ 02. June 2017, 07:32: 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: 18049 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
RooK

1 of 6
# 1852

 - Posted      Profile for RooK   Author's homepage   Email RooK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If you can make money out of semantics, I think it's a fair bet they can be important.

As a committed asshole, INTJ, and bureaucracy-swimming engineer, I am fully cognizant of the potential focal power of semantics. That keen insight into semantics is exactly what also lets me recognize what it is not useful for - objectivity.

While we could Zeno-paradox the fuck out of Genesis between any of our stances on human sexuality (and I think we have been), the apparent objective case is that all of us currently contributing to this conversation think that compassion and tolerance and inclusion is in order. Unlike, say, Steve dickchoking Langton, who clearly does not think so.

Posts: 15145 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
all of us currently contributing to this conversation think that compassion and tolerance and inclusion is in order. Unlike, say, Steve dickchoking Langton, who clearly does not think so.

This seems to me to be a little unfair, because I genuinely think deeply-held religious views are a special case. Normally we'd say that the fact that someone is gay, or short, or fair-haired, or female etc is a ridiculous way to determine whether someone is fit for a job. Quite rightly.

And I don't think Steve is saying that those kinds of discriminationary policies should exist in the world of secular employment or other sphere of life (or if he has said that I don't remember).

As far as I can understand him, I think he is saying something solely about the church and Christians.

Yes, he's extrapolating and apparently believes that what he thinks are the lines between acceptable/unacceptable are the general rules that should apply to all churches everywhere that call themselves Christian.

I don't agree with much of what he says, but I think it is hard to argue with someone who takes a specific theological view with regard to the organisation of his own religious establishment but doesn't seek to impose this on anyone else. But I don't think it is as simple as saying he's being intolerant or incompassionate.

It's more like that he's painted himself into a corner which is only likely to get smaller and smaller until it is one in which only he lives. Which is pretty dumb, but his look-out.

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

Posts: 10203 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As far as I can see you've just conceded the three points I just made, so RooK will be even more irritated than before.

What irritates me is that you've managed to dress up conceding all three points as attacks on my position.

Perhaps I've chosen poorly in my attempts to communicate, but I didn't think I'd conceded anything.
quote:

1. ambiguous is your term. You now thow it back at me as insufficient.

Fuck me for trying to be nice. Genesis is allegorical. Pulling specific messages from it is imbecilic. My saying ambiguous was an attempt to not be completely rude and your saying it appears to be saying "We don't know so let's not fuss". Which is better than before, but different to homosexuality is not less than.
quote:

2. you quote my use of the word "textbook" as though I've said Genesis was one, when I've just said it was not.

My bad, I should have put the emphasis on at all. You put the condition 'relations', I am saying it is not a textbook on anything. Tangential, but the root of the problem, IMO.
quote:

3. you describe as "bullshit" my reference to Jesus' allusions in the Gospels (which can be verified with ease) and insinuate that I've said he is making a definitive statement about sexuality when I've just said that that is not what he's saying at all.

Fair cop. It does appear we are on the same page here.

quote:

This appears to be a zero-sum game for you in which the aim is not reconciliation or consensus but domination,

I don't know about domination, but it is a zero-sum issue. Being hit with a pebble is better than being hit with a brick which is better than an entire wall falling on you. But the goal is to not be hit at all.
LGBT+ are not less than to any degree.
The compromise is you are allowed to believe differently. My point, though, is this is not without harm.
quote:

and domination by unremitting misrepresentation.

Excuse me? From the person accusing me of wishing to remove heteros from the reproduction pool?
Your position has been homosexuality is a product of the fall, but let's be nice about it. It now appears to be we do not know, so let's all be friends. Am I wrong? Sarcastic, yes, but wrong?

Look, I am genuinely happy that you are continually examining your faith. Everyone should, very few do.
I am happy that your view is evolving. In my awareness of it here, it has been massively better than many. But I do not think close is good enough. And I do not see any good in allowing concessions on this.

Well, I can concede this: You are not an irredeemable %#^$@!¹ like the tosser that was the initial subject of this thread.


¹Not avoiding explicative, there are just too many that apply.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16945 | 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   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

And I don't think Steve is saying that those kinds of discriminationary policies should exist in the world of secular employment or other sphere of life (or if he has said that I don't remember).

But religion affects secular life, so it is not this simple. Ye, people should have the freedom to believe what they wish, but it is naive to think this has no effect on others. America is an example of this writ large, but even in more secular Britain, the church has an effect beyond their purview.
But really, it is SL's language and "ick factor" attitude that earned him a slot in Hell.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16945 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But religion affects secular life, so it is not this simple.

No it isn't simple, I agree. I'm just not sure what one can do about a religion that says "blond people are the leaders" or "only people chosen by lot are the leaders" or "only people who look good in a suit are the leaders". Not a lot, I suspect.

quote:
Ye, people should have the freedom to believe what they wish, but it is naive to think this has no effect on others. America is an example of this writ large, but even in more secular Britain, the church has an effect beyond their purview.
I don't believe it does have no effect on others. Again, I'm just not sure what to do about religions which have qualms that I don't share. At the end of the day, I might think they're completely wrong, but I have little ground to stand on if they're not actively discriminating against people outside of their religious sphere - and I don't think we have any evidence that Steve is talking about anything other than Christian behaviour.

quote:
But really, it is SL's language and "ick factor" attitude that earned him a slot in Hell.
Oh, I totally agree his point is utterly ridiculous. I was just disagreeing specifically with Rook's characterisation of it.

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

Posts: 10203 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It now appears to be we do not know, so let's all be friends. Am I wrong? Sarcastic, yes, but wrong?

You won't be satisfied unless I sign off on something that corresponds exactly, in every word, point and nuance, 100% to your precise (and in your thinly-disguised opinion infinitely superior) mindset.

You take things that have taken me hours, days, years even of intellectual wrestling and soul-searching to arrive at, screw them up, throw a lurid caricature of them in my face, and expect me to cower and agree in the face of your patronising. If instead I try to clarify, you just unleash another layer of distortion.

You can't be bothered to actually seek clarification or a better understanding of the views you come up against; much quicker to distort them and pour scorn on the result until the other side gives up - not because you have won them over but because you are so unrelentingly obnoxious.

Fool.

I've learned plenty about how others with vastly different views to mine think here; but I can fairly confidently assert that in the present context, I've learned absolutely nothing from you.

Anyone who did anything remotely like that to someone whose position you're sympathetic to, you'd be all over them (and frequently are).

In case you don't realise, your contributions don't come across as supporting diversity or as being a good ambassador for your cause. They come across as shrill, inflexible, intolerant, wannabe demagoguery that is just as bad as the abuses you place at the feet of Christians. You admit yourself that your approach is "without concessions". That is the language of extremism.

You have absolutely no idea what it has cost me in various ways to reach where I am now. Your response makes me want to reverse all my positions, run a mile, and engage battle being as discriminatory as I can manage. I hope you're proud.

It's not much wonder you find keeping the discussion going for those listening who might be persuaded... tough. You might like to reflect on the suggestion that this might not be all their fault, but I doubt you will.

I'm done with this.

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

Posts: 17181 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You said I misrepresented you, so I put is simply to see if I understood you. Other than the sarcasm, why is that wrong?

I said I will not concede that LGBT+ are less than, you don't know the why if that?
You want to spin that into lilBuddha hates Christians, go for it. It is wrong, but whatever.

BTW, I didn't start abusing you after you began an insulting misrepresentation of my words. I admit to my weakness in allowing that to make me angry.

You've gone through a lot to get where you are. I've said it is good that you have made the journey.
However if you expect me to laud praise because you have finally reached a level of common decency , it isn't going to happen.
If your anger with me causes you to revert, then you didn't learn from the journey.
I know, I should be a better person and be happy that you have made the effort.
But I'm fucking tired of being nice to people for just reaching the point of treating me as a full human. You very likely have no fucking clue as to what that is like.
I am not going to lie and say that I now think you are actually like Russ. You are mostly a decent person. But you can be a bit sanctimonious at times and, evidently, a little prideful.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16945 | 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   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I said I will not concede that LGBT+ are less than

Good on you.

What has entirely escaped your attention in your relentless pursuit of that laudable aim is that I have never asserted any such thing and am certainly not asserting it now.

My journey has been about reconciling how I understand Scripture with a growing and deep-seated conviction that nobody is "less than" and nobody deserves to be treated as such.

But you're so hidebound in your convictions - notably your convictions about what everyone else actually believes - you can't do anything but piss all over that without even stopping to look where you're aiming. Great way to earn respect, make friends and influence people.

Most recently I said to orfeo, in response to his question about why he (gay) and I (straight) were both here, emphasis mine:
quote:
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.
If you managed to step out of your anti-Christian anti-God sophistication and your own personal dogma for just long enough to think about what that might actually imply for me in my worldview, rather than sit waiting for me to parrot the words you keep wanting to put in my mouth, you might actually realise what "equal" (as opposed to "less than" or "more than") means.

But I'm not holding my breath. Whatever you do, don't let all your "less than" people get in the way of your continued criticism without concessions.

[ 02. June 2017, 22:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

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

Posts: 17181 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I said I will not concede that LGBT+ are less than

Good on you.

What has entirely escaped your attention in your relentless pursuit of that laudable aim is that I have never asserted any such thing and am certainly not asserting it now.

Well, there are these posts:
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.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

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 - redemption is a fact of the Gospel. God uses all sorts of "less than ideal" circumstances to manifest his grace and his glory - including relationships other than those conforming to that archetype.

Bold mine.
Can't see this as anything other than homosexuality being less than.

quote:

My journey has been about reconciling how I understand Scripture with a growing and deep-seated conviction that nobody is "less than" and nobody deserves to be treated as such.

I do not doubt this. and again I think that is good, but your POV that homosexuality is part of the "Fall" does put it in a lesser category than heterosexuality.
And, honestly, your later posts didn't seem to clearly change this. If this is incorrect, then I apologise.
quote:

But you're so hidebound in your convictions - notably your convictions about what everyone else actually believes

I can be, but it is certainly not my overall record on SOF.
quote:

- you can't do anything but piss all over that without even stopping to look where you're aiming.

Oh, no, I piss exactly where I aim. Whether I should is a separate question.

quote:

Most recently I said to orfeo, in response to his question about why he (gay) and I (straight) were both here, emphasis mine:
quote:
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.

That is lovely. Truly, no sarcasm.
quote:

If you managed to step out of your anti-Christian anti-God sophistication and your own personal dogma

I am nowhere near anti-Christian. I try to be careful to argue Christianity within the constraints of Christianity. Well, and where it conflicts with the natural world. There are POV within that framework that I argue strenuously against. But not the frame itself.

quote:

for just long enough to think about what that might actually imply for me in my worldview,

I really don't know what you want here, so why don't you just tell me.

quote:

rather than sit waiting for me to parrot the words you keep wanting to put in my mouth, you might actually realise what "equal" (as opposed to "less than" or "more than") means.

When you start with this simple and clear statement,
quote:
I don't think God originally intended for people of the same sex to be attracted to one another.
I do not think it unreasonable to as for just as clear a statement of change.

quote:

Great way to earn respect, make friends and influence people.

This is the hardest part to address. Right now, I don't give a flying fuck about the first two. I still haven't managed to stop caring about other people and the effects of issues on my life, so the third one matters. This is why I do not relent on certain topics.
As far as my interaction with you, I'll say it again; this dance has not been solo. I'll own my bit, I can overreact. I don't think completely without reason, but not to the benefit of the conversation.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16945 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
lilBuddha, you're being unreasonable. Eutychus is doing what he has several times before, arguing through something and trying to work out what in the Bible, specifically Genesis here, applies with our current understandings. Through this debate he has been changing his mind on what Genesis means for our generation and what the underlying message is from what I rudely call Bronze Age Just So Stories, tales of how the world is with underlying moral messages.

When he has been arguing through and changing his mind, you are being unfair going back to earlier arguments which he has discarded and continuing to hold him to account on them.

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

Posts: 13547 | 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   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
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.


This is the key place where I have changed my mind in this discussion.

I've decided that looking in Genesis to discern God's original intent for sexual attraction of any kind, let alone its respective importance, is a huge red herring. Looking in Genesis to justify heterosexual attraction is tempting, but actually futile*.

I can see how trying to do so might have made it look to you as though I thought homosexuality was "less than" heterosexuality, but the fact is you're wrong, and that accusation hurts.

What has changed is that I've not that I've suddenly had an epiphany that homosexuality is not "less than" heterosexuality but that I've come to the conclusion that "the early chapters of Genesis are not intended to address issues of sexuality". Can you see the difference?

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
your POV that homosexuality is part of the "Fall" does put it in a lesser category than heterosexuality.
And, honestly, your later posts didn't seem to clearly change this. If this is incorrect, then I apologise.


Following on from my previous point, in that same post I also wrote that the essence of the “Fall” "has nothing, inherently, to do with sex or sexuality". Is that worth an apology?

quote:
quote:

The good news is that while fallenness is a fact of life - we are all less than ideal - redemption is a fact of the Gospel. God uses all sorts of "less than ideal" circumstances to manifest his grace and his glory - including relationships other than those conforming to that archetype.

Bold mine.
Can't see this as anything other than homosexuality being less than.

You missed the part you didn't bold when I used your exact phrase, "less than", to say "we are all less than ideal". None of us conform to the archetype. Heterosexuality doesn't conform to it any more than homosexuality does.

I might have moved on in my thinking about the relationship between homosexuality and the "Fall" since that post, but again, I can assure you that I wasn't thinking in terms of "less than" prior to that, as I keep trying to explain.

quote:
quote:
for just long enough to think about what that might actually imply for me in my worldview,

I really don't know what you want here, so why don't you just tell me.
I can't do better than use the above example. You appear to be fixated on the idea that your opponents rank humanity by means of a moral litmus test in which people are either gay ("less than") or straight ("more than"): this is not true.

It certainly shouldn't be true for Christians who believe the traditional doctrine of the "Fall", because whatever they might think about sexuality in Eden, the "Fall" places us all on an "equal" footing, and Jesus had plenty to say about people who, for whatever reason, think themselves "more than" their peers.

It would be much more convenient for you if all Christians opposed to homosexuality really did believe that homosexuals were "less than" heterosexuals, because that fits with your value system - in much the same way as it would be much more convenient for Steve Langton if all homosexuals consistently indulged in violent anal sex.

However, I can tell you from experience that by no means all Christians with theological reservations about homosexuality have any such "less than" belief. It's just that their theology hasn't caught up with their day-to-day attitudes.

Many of them demonstrate enormous grace in welcoming people they instinctively find repulsive and whose sexuality they can't get a handle on, and do so over and above any theological dissonance they might experience. It's just that such people don't make the headlines or contribute to this kind of debate.

They are not going to be won over by your "less than" mantra. Repeating it endlessly has roughly the same effect as if Langton were to continue repeating his. It becomes nothing more than a shouting match, and a hurtful one at that.

==

*But for the avoidance of doubt, and for RooK, not because it is "a load of crap"


[x-post with CK. These things take ages to write!]

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

Posts: 17181 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Eutychus said:-

quote:
However, I can tell you from experience that by no means all Christians with theological reservations about homosexuality have any such "less than" belief. It's just that their theology hasn't caught up with their day-to-day attitudes.
This is a fascinating idea. I thought our theology always reflected our deepest beliefs and attitudes.

I may start a thread to explore this further.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 12668 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Eutychus said:-

quote:
However, I can tell you from experience that by no means all Christians with theological reservations about homosexuality have any such "less than" belief. It's just that their theology hasn't caught up with their day-to-day attitudes.
This is a fascinating idea. I thought our theology always reflected our deepest beliefs and attitudes.

I may start a thread to explore this further.

Especially in our current culture, identity is the all-powerful factor that maddeningly frequently decides everything. "I am ..... therefore I do/think/say .......". Independent thought has become treason. Among other things, it's why this place is as unrestful as a bathtub with no bather in it.

--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

Foolish, potentially deranged witterings

Posts: 2134 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Eutychus said:-

quote:
However, I can tell you from experience that by no means all Christians with theological reservations about homosexuality have any such "less than" belief. It's just that their theology hasn't caught up with their day-to-day attitudes.
This is a fascinating idea. I thought our theology always reflected our deepest beliefs and attitudes.

I may start a thread to explore this further.

Especially in our current culture, identity is the all-powerful factor that maddeningly frequently decides everything. "I am ..... therefore I do/think/say .......". Independent thought has become treason. Among other things, it's why this place is as unrestful as a bathtub with no bather in it.
I'm less certain that identity defines anything, but I am sure it is often used as a pretext for a lousy argument.

Next time one hears, "As a Christian ..." or "I'm not a racist but ..." just wait for the conclusion, because it will probably not follow from the stated and oft-flawed identity.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24004 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

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

Many of them demonstrate enormous grace in welcoming people they instinctively find repulsive and whose sexuality they can't get a handle on, and do so over and above any theological dissonance they might experience.

This is so fucked up.

First, theology isn't instinctive. So you're going to have to find some other explanation for your good Christians finding gay people repulsive. Good luck trying to come up with something that doesn't make them look like jackasses.

Second, replace gay people in this scenario with women or people of color or people with disabilities, and then try to defend it.

Third, imagine yourself on the receiving end of such "grace" at church. Then imagine yourself going back for this week after week after week. Have you ever done this voluntarily in any other aspect of your life? Do you really expect others to do so.

Your "argument" is both stupid and lacking in humanity. It is no wonder Christianit is dying on the vine.

Posts: 24413 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
First, theology isn't instinctive. So you're going to have to find some other explanation for your good Christians finding gay people repulsive. Good luck trying to come up with something that doesn't make them look like jackasses.

Firstly, I don't think Christians, as individuals, have the monopoly on an "ick factor" when interacting with people whose sexual orientation differs from theirs, or due to other instinctive prejudices (maybe I'm more prejudiced than you, or maybe I'm just more lucid about my prejudices).

Secondly, Christians often find themselves immersed in an institutional church culture that can be anti-gay and anti- all kinds of things, with some bad institutional theology to back that up. But more often than not they have bought uncritically into that theology. In that sense it is instinctive: they have never really thought it through for themselves. Unexamined, it gets mixed up with all sorts of prejudices.

But here's the thing - I think they can still be sincere, if misguided, followers of Christ. And as such they should exhibit, albeit imperfectly, some fruit of the Spirit.

If you don't believe that, you are doing little better than those accusing gays of not being able to be proper Christians.

Of course there are communities that can and do deliberately reject or demean gays, blacks, the disabled, women, people who smell bad.... But there are many others in which the rank and file are simply good folks with some unexamined prejudices. This is a very inconvenient truth for militants, but that doesn't stop it being true.

As I said on the parallel thread this one has spawned in Purgatory, to me the New Testament and by extension the church is one long story of having our collective prejudices challenged as the Spirit works in us (and trying to bear with one another as we do).

It's far too easy to categorise all the people in churches with institutional theology opposed to one's minority as haters. It's not true and you know it.

There are plenty of constituencies with far more focused hate out there; not only that, there are plenty more people who pay lip service to tolerance but who in actual, concrete, day-to-day fact display less love and acceptance than believers whose theoretical theology tells them homosexuality is a sin - but who when push comes to shove will actually attempt to love their neighbour.

Of course there are cringeworthy and ham-fisted attempts to exercise "grace" that are nothing more than patronising tokenism - but that's not the whole story by a long way.

And of course that's no excuse for leaving bad theology as it is.

quote:
Third, imagine yourself on the receiving end of such "grace" at church. Then imagine yourself going back for this week after week after week. Have you ever done this voluntarily in any other aspect of your life?
If your question is "have I willingly spent extended time in an environment where I was the minority in terms of belief, sexuality, and orientation" (and not on a crusade) the answer is "yes" and I would start again tomorrow given the opportunity.

I could also tell a lot of stories about the reciprocal grace I see Christian inmates exercising in prison on a weekly basis, often despite their worst primitive theological instincts.

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

Posts: 17181 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
but your POV that homosexuality is part of the "Fall" does put it in a lesser category than heterosexuality.
And, honestly, your later posts didn't seem to clearly change this. If this is incorrect, then I apologise.

lB, I think you got so fixated with the 'less than' thing, that you allowed it to overshadow everything else that Eutychus said.

I made the comparison with marriage in the afterlife earlier - I'll say it again to see if you get the equivalence. To me the conversation you've had with Eutychus is the equivalent of:

A: "I think marriages last forever, on into the afterlife after we die."

B: "Oh, I think that there is no afterlife."

A: "Your view denigrates marriage and makes it a 'less than'! You think marriages are second rate because they don't last forever!"

B: "Uh, no. I think marriage is really important, and faithfulness and love and all those other wonderful beautiful happy things etc."

A: "No you don't! You think marriage is a less than!"

Obviously it's not totally the same, but that's how it's come across to me. I think you've focused on certain things Eutychus has said, interpreted them in a way he didn't intend, and then ignored a lot of the other stuff. Or, at least, so it seems to me.

Mainly I think... Man, there are so many genuine homophobes out there. Try not to pick on someone who really isn't one. If you're running out of real life homophobes, I can introduce you to plenty.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2074 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am not ignoring the replies to my last post, but I am not in a state to properly evaluate and respond. But I will respond.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16945 | 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   Reply with quote 
I've tried to think about this and sit down and write several times, but I would simply get angry again.
However, I needed to do this while I still had any fucks left, so fuck meᶠ I reread the thread from page 6 or 7 to the end. I wanted to work through what was said and where things might have been misinterpreted. I had accumulated nearly 20 linksᴿ and decided to change the structure.
I also tried to go past the anger and frustration, but I cannot just yet. So bear this in mind.
I was going to respond directly to the posts of a few of people and add some quotes, but it began to drain my will to live, so I decided to keep it relatively short.

No one is going to be satisfied with what I post, so if you are looking for that, stop now.

Eutychus.
The main bone of contention we have on this isue, IMO, is your idea of an archetype for humanity. That automatically puts other models as inherently broken.¹ You don't think this creates a hierarchy, I do not think it can fail to do so.

Your evolved view that Genesis does not address sexuality doesn't change this. Not even this post. So I am not sure what to apologise for.
No, I do not want you to "parrot" anything. I am looking for clarity.
I can understand why you might feel hurt. You see your journey as something that took effort and reflection and taking a, perhaps painful, look at your theology and POV. And you do not think I respect that. Honestly, I DO respect the effort. And I wish more of your brethren would go at least that far.
But I would be dishonest if I said I thought that was enough. Yep, hung up on the archetype thing. I think that concept damages.
My aim never was to hurt you for your theology or dismiss your journey. I think it fantastic that love and respect come first and most people never examine their beliefs. This puts you in a minority and says a lot of positive things about your character.

This is as clear and simple as I can put it right now. I do not think I have mis-characterised your POV, though I accept that we see the ramifications differently.

This post is inadequate, but my last fuck is draining away.


¹We are all equally broken now imparts functional brokenness on the failed archetype, but inherent brokenness on the others.
ᶠuck! hope that wasn't the last one.
ᴿook, your welcome.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16945 | 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   Reply with quote 
Squeezing a bit more of that last fuck.

Life began as single-celled, self replicating organisms. Through time and mutation and many steps in between, humans arose. So I am exceedingly unsure where an archetype would fit in anyway.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16945 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
lilBuddha--

Your "I've tried to think about this" post is very well and carefully written, IMHO. It shows how much care you took with it, and that's hard on an emotional topic--especially when there's an ongoing disagreement. Brava.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17978 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
lilBuddha

Thanks for this. You'll appreciate that I can appreciate the effort that kind of post takes.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am not sure what to apologise for.

I'm not demanding an apology here, but just to clarify what I meant there:

You alleged that my later posts did not clearly state that homosexuality was not part of the "Fall", and offered an apology if they had.

I later clarified "the essence of the “Fall” "has nothing, inherently, to do with sex or sexuality", so I asked you whether that statement was deserving of the offered apology.

quote:
The main bone of contention we have on this isue, IMO, is your idea of an archetype for humanity. That automatically puts other models as inherently broken.

My current position is, again, that "the early chapters of Genesis are not intended to address issues of sexuality".

If Adam and Eve are intended to represent the first humans and not the first heterosexual pair, heterosexual pairs are no less inherently broken than any other configuration.

From the perspective of the doctrine of the "Fall", what is "inherently broken" is not any relationship that's not male-female, but the relationship of humankind to God and all relationships with each other.

Seen thus, the moral component of the story has nothing to do with sexual practice or orientation.

The fact remains, though, that Genesis depicts a man and a woman. I think it's a fair statement to say they are an archetype in the Jungian sense of "a primitive mental image inherited from the earliest human ancestors, and supposed to be present in the collective unconscious".

Depicting a man and a woman is more representative of all humanity than two men or two women would be, and it acknowledges an obvious, physical difference of sex.

My thinking on archetypes is not yet settled, but I think that this is enough for Adam and Eve to be one, without that entailing a moral judgement about their sexuality - which is not the point of the story.

[ 06. June 2017, 06:17: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

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

Posts: 17181 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Seen thus, the moral component of the story has nothing to do with sexual practice or orientation.

To explore this a little further, based on the passage, I presume that your view of whatever this 'archetype' or origins or whatever word best describes it would also involve a naked Adam and Eve, and no pain in childbirth. In the same way that you infer no moral component from their sexuality, you also wouldn't infer any moral judgements with regards to nudism, or how much pain a woman has in childbirth, right?

From where I stand, you're essentially saying this is an origins story with no morality in the detail, but a moral description of the status of broken relationships; with God; with humanity and with creation? If that's what you're saying I can totally get with that. Would you say that there is any other morality to the story, or is it literally just that?

To me that says a few things. I think it's an interesting, but quite nuanced reading of Genesis, which I'd tend to approach more loosely. But given that it's a theology that you hold, I think it's up to you to explain the moral conclusions of it. Unless you're going to start promoting enforced nudism, I think I'm more willing to take you at face value than lilBuddha does that by calling Adam and Eve 'archetypes' you genuinely are making no moral statement on sexuality or any other incidental that is tangential to the story. I'd go back to my description of Eden as 'other' in the same way that 'Heaven' is other. That's part of what makes it not a sexual morality statement for me. If you see Genesis as Same as this Universe, but earlier, then more of the mud sticks. But from what you've said, you see Eden as Other, different from this Universe. So, we can't extract the same morals.

I appreciate that for both of you posting on this issue has been a difficult process, and I respect you both for continuing to share and not giving up. I hope that my musings don't cause any frustration or further difficulty.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2074 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
fluff
Shipmate
# 12871

 - Posted      Profile for fluff   Email fluff   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Eutychus's horrible equation of any gay relationship with a dysfunctional straight relationship is wholly discriminatory.

But he wants to present this in a very Christian, 'smily' way - without actual verbal abuse (unlike Langton). But is is still a form of prejudice and abuse, justified by his preposterous Biblical exegesis. I can't imagine why you guys keep apologising to him! You are right to be angry.

Ship of Fools is a totally homophobic website (accurately reflecting Christianity as a whole) where these people are simply indulged.

Why do you do it?

Posts: 109 | From: South England | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
From where I stand, you're essentially saying this is an origins story with no morality in the detail, but a moral description of the status of broken relationships; with God; with humanity and with creation? If that's what you're saying I can totally get with that.

Yes, I think that's what I'm saying [Big Grin] at least that's where I've got to for now. This is still very much thought in progress for me (as time allows...)
quote:
In the same way that you infer no moral component from their sexuality, you also wouldn't infer any moral judgements with regards to nudism
Nothing could have been further from my mind! To me Adam and Eve's nudity† has long been nothing more or less than a metaphor for complete, ideal or indeed idealised transparency in relationships.*

In this sense, yes, Eden was for all intents and purposes, if not "another universe" at least "another world"; paradise lost (or has someone already said that...?)
quote:
or how much pain a woman has in childbirth
Intriguingly, the "curse" says, literally, that the woman's pain in childbirth will be "increased" (that leads to all sorts of interesting thoughts about pain, and childbirth, before the "Fall"...).

Whatever, I think I'd tend towards seeing the various aspects of the "curse" more as an artifice of the narrative describing the "broken relationships" you refer to and their consequences than as God literally dishing out customised gender-specific punishments (or making snakes crawl as opposed to walk), if that's what you're getting at here.

Hope that helps.

==

†I think physical nudity is quite clearly a hugely cultural thing. We (and by we I include most Christians) are far more relaxed about it here in France than in the UK let alone across the pond, and Scandinavian countries make us look positively puritanical. Another big subtopic (those L-shaped sheets in US sex scenes to hide the woman's breasts...)

*In our current "fallen" state I'm not sure such a thing is even desirable. Non-transparent relationships (eg mediated by social convention) are, in our current human condition, just as much a protection as they are a hindrance. Another example of how the Christian emphasis is in any case on "now" not "as it was in the beginning". God deals with us as we are now: after all, it was he who clothed Adam and Eve once they had been thrown out of Eden. And the prospect of once again seeing "face to face" is an eschatological hope, not a present one when we "see through a glass darkly". But now I'm rambling and I need to get back to work [Help]

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

Posts: 17181 | 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   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fluff:
Eutychus's horrible equation of any gay relationship with a dysfunctional straight relationship is wholly discriminatory.

[Roll Eyes] Where was that again?

quote:
his preposterous Biblical exegesis.
I look forward to reading your non-preposterous Biblical exegesis.

quote:
Ship of Fools is a totally homophobic website
[Killing me] I look forward to your demonstration of that, too.

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

Posts: 17181 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
fluff
Shipmate
# 12871

 - Posted      Profile for fluff   Email fluff   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I would add that Eutychus is obviously the kind of Christian who expects a fucking medal for having attitudes towards LGBT people that are considered absolutely normal & totally taken for granted in vast sections of mainstream society.

He expects congratulations for allowing others the equal rights that theirs to claim.

To go through all that theological agonising - as he describes - to arrive at the 'we are all broken' justification for not actually stoning us to death (reminiscent of Tim Farron, not mention the unspeakable Welby) demonstrates the depth of bigotry in his heart.

Again, why does Ship of Fools allow all this? Why is Ship of Fools a mouthpiece for this vile homophobia?

Christianity = bigotry with a smile

[Smile]

Posts: 109 | From: South England | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fluff:
having attitudes towards LGBT people that are considered absolutely normal & totally taken for granted in vast sections of mainstream society.

And yet not absolutely normal & totally taken for granted for in many countries and societies in our world. And still not absolutely normal and totally taken for granted in many sections of our own British society.

So, what's your goal? To engage, understand and enable mutual growth, or to merely condemn & reject - provoking further polarisation?

Many evangelicals have inherited homophobic baggage from their traditions that they have managed to throw off. Like Eutychus, I am one. I understand there are quite a few of us on the Ship. I don't expect any medals, and I haven't seen Eutychus asking for any either. I do see him engaging, and trying to help people like the subject of this thread see the error of their ways. I also see him 'repenting' - rethinking, learning & developing his beliefs. No medals needed, but sadly, that's a sparse trait.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2074 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hello, newish person.

You seem to be discussing Ship's practice and rules. This is completely and utterly allowed, but not in Hell (and for sake of clarity, not anywhere else either, but only in Styx.)

There is, in fact, an open thread on this very subject, where we - hosts, admin and shipmates - are discussing where to redraw some lines. If you'd like to make a contribution to that debate, then you're more than welcome. You can find it here..

Until we decide otherwise, however, discussing various aspects of homosexuality, including its theological dimensions, is absolutely within the remit of SoF. Such discussions are confined to Dead Horses, except where they spill over into Hell.

Where I do my very best to get rid of them quickly...

Thank you for your co-operation.

DT
Hell Host


(x-post. Obviously directed at fluff. And now goperryrevs.)

[ 06. June 2017, 10:44: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 8844 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fluff:
I would add that Eutychus is obviously the kind of Christian who expects a fucking medal for having attitudes towards LGBT people that are considered absolutely normal & totally taken for granted in vast sections of mainstream society.

Obviously [Roll Eyes]

Or at least, that "kind of Christian" is the windmill that you absolutely need to be true regardless of evidence, to justify your tilting at it.

quote:
He expects congratulations for allowing others the equal rights that theirs to claim.
Rather, I was expecting you to point out just where I've been getting all these apologies you berate others for offering me on this thread. Not that you've given any indication at all of having read it for content (yet).

quote:
To go through all that theological agonising - as he describes - to arrive at the 'we are all broken' justification for not actually stoning us to death (reminiscent of Tim Farron, not mention the unspeakable Welby) demonstrates the depth of bigotry in his heart.
And I love you too, darling.

quote:
Christianity = bigotry with a smile
You have yet to post anything on this thread that makes me think you represent anything other than bigotry - without a smile.

[Smile]

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

Posts: 17181 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fluff:
I would add that Eutychus is obviously the kind of Christian who expects a fucking medal for having attitudes towards LGBT people that are considered absolutely normal & totally taken for granted in vast sections of mainstream society.

He expects congratulations for allowing others the equal rights that theirs to claim.

To go through all that theological agonising - as he describes - to arrive at the 'we are all broken' justification for not actually stoning us to death (reminiscent of Tim Farron, not mention the unspeakable Welby) demonstrates the depth of bigotry in his heart.

Again, why does Ship of Fools allow all this? Why is Ship of Fools a mouthpiece for this vile homophobia?

Christianity = bigotry with a smile

[Smile]

You would rather he STAY in his homophobia and NOT work through it? You have pretty high requirements. Everybody must be born and raised unbiased or you will pronounce your judgment from on high. With a hypocritical emoticon.

fluff = asshole with a smiley.

--------------------
“Religion doesn't fuck up people, people fuck up religion.”—lilBuddha

Posts: 63112 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
The main bone of contention we have on this isue, IMO, is your idea of an archetype for humanity. That automatically puts other models as inherently broken.


Genesis depicts a man and a woman. I think it's a fair statement to say they are an archetype in the Jungian sense of "a primitive mental image inherited from the earliest human ancestors, and supposed to be present in the collective unconscious".

Depicting a man and a woman is more representative of all humanity than two men or two women would be

I read lilBuddha as meaning something slightly different by "archetype".

I think she's saying that any notion of God's Plan for how human beings should live their lives necessarily involves a measure of "looking down on" those who follow an inclination to live differently.

And "looking down on" is anathema to those who subscribe to the dogma of "no less than".

God, in lilBuddha's universe, is morally obliged not to want anything from us that would conflict with those inclinations that people adopt as their identity.

Because that wouldn't be fair...

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3030 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
those inclinations that people adopt as their identity.

Please explain what the difference is, in your view, between people's inclinations and their identity and how you decide when they are adopting one in place of the other.

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

Posts: 17181 | 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   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:


God, in lilBuddha's universe, is morally obliged not to want anything from us that would conflict with those inclinations that people adopt as their identity.

Because that wouldn't be fair...

No. Bullshit.

The problem is that you can't fucking stand the idea of other people regard homosexuals as full human beings and that they exhibit natural and wholesome behaviours.

I believe that but don't therefore have to believe that God tolerates child abusers.

Fruitcake. And you wonder why nobody wants to discuss anything with you.

[ 11. June 2017, 13:43: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

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

Posts: 10203 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
those inclinations that people adopt as their identity.

Please explain what the difference is, in your view, between people's inclinations and their identity and how you decide when they are adopting one in place of the other.
Short answer - wish I knew.

Longer answer -

Sorry, Eutychus, that sentence wasn't clear. I'll try it a little more slowly.

LilBuddha raised what seemed to me a good question. Is it the case that holding up anything - any mode of life, any characteristic - as good implicitly insults or disrespects or looks down on those people who through no choice of their own lack the ability or the desire to follow that mode of life or acquire that characteristic ?

Do we wrong the one-legged man by asserting that two legs are better ?

Is it unfair to advocate vegetarianism when some of us have more taste for meat than others ? Does it fail the "no less than" test ?

The question is general (and the examples for illustration only). But more pointed in the case where the characteristic is considered as forming the person's identity or a significant part thereof.

People clearly do identify as this or that.

Maybe they shouldn't? I don't know.

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3030 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have resolved this to my satisfaction with LilBuddha. I can't speak for her and neither can you, and for my part I'm not interested in starting this conversation all over again right now, with you.

Besides, you already have your own Hell thread to play with.

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

Posts: 17181 | 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   Reply with quote 
No, fuck off.

A one-eyed man is likely going to say that two-eyes are preferable. A one-legged man likely is impaired compared to a two-legged man. A short-sighted person is impaired compared to someone with perfect sight.

It might be that there are ways that these people can have absolutely full lives.

This is not the same as questioning whether a white skinned person is somehow impaired compared to a brown skinned person.

Or whether a gay person is somehow lesser than a straight person.

Only a dick could even phrase the question in such a dumb-arsed way.

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

Posts: 10203 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
A one-eyed man is likely going to say that two-eyes are preferable.
A one-legged man likely is impaired compared to a two-legged man. A short-sighted person is impaired compared to someone with perfect sight.

One would naturally think so.

Does impaired mean "less than" ?

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3030 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

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

Does impaired mean "less than" ?

It certainly implies inferiority.

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

Posts: 10203 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
RooK

1 of 6
# 1852

 - Posted      Profile for RooK   Author's homepage   Email RooK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Russ, you loathsome shitweasel, you have your very own fully-functional call to Hell to continue to spout your bent-minded justifications for vile bigotry. Stop smearing your posts on this one just because some smarter kids took a few turns on this one's dogma-go-round.
Posts: 15145 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

Does impaired mean "less than" ?

It certainly implies inferiority.
im·paired
imˈperd/
adjective
adjective: impaired

1.
weakened or damaged.
"an impaired banking system"
North American
affected by alcohol or drugs to the extent of losing control over one's faculties or behavior.
"impaired driving charges"
2.
having a disability of a specified kind.
"hearing-impaired children"
synonyms: disabled, handicapped, incapacitated; More

--------------------
“Religion doesn't fuck up people, people fuck up religion.”—lilBuddha

Posts: 63112 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  10  11  12  13  14 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close 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

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools