|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dear Steve Langton,
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Here in Hell I'm not debating homosexuality because you had made it clear that the debate was pointless, hence outside the scope of what Eutychus was talking about.
Also I think my curse was thoroughly Biblical.
Sorry, I must have dodged that curse. never mind there are plenty of others. Just for the record, I do not personally judge you. I do grasp something of your battle from observations of my own family. There seems to me no actual room for discussion in your stance or in that in anyone else here. The attitude is 'disagree with me and you're a homophobe.' 'I am who I am, God made me like this so I'm OK.' Is that really giving the opposition any chance at all?
You really do not seem to have read what I've actually said, or quite possibly are conflating it with things other people have said.
The second part, that God made me this way, is an accurate reflection of my views. The first part is not an accurate description of my views.
I am perfectly happy for other people to interpret the Bible differently. What I am not happy with is when they tell me that, because my interpretation is different from theirs, I am not a Christian, I am sinning against God etc etc.
Contrast that to someone like Tony Campolo who, at one time at least, was speaking publically alongside his wife and acknowledging that they had different views on this. He considered loving homosexual relationships incompatible with the Bible. His wife did not. His response to this was NOT to condemn her as a heretic.
I mean, where the Hell did this view develop that this theological question defined your Christianity? There are a myriad of theological questions that Christians differ on. Why did being homosexual get slipped into some people's version of Romans 10:9?
That's what makes someone a homophobe to me: someone who refuses to accept that maybe my own study of the Bible and consideration of the issues has led me to conclude honestly and sincerely that the Bible's condemnation of abusive and idolatrous homosexual practices is not a general condemnation of homosexual relationships. Or my study has made me realise what nonsense it is to think Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality, to the point where it contradicts the Bible's own statements. Heck, even Tony Campolo agrees with me there.
So where is the room for discussion? Any questioning of the view outlined here is perceived as threatening and triggers the red light, 'attention,incoming! homophobe alert!' If I tell you I think Tony is wrong in his interpretation does that automatically put you on the defensive? As far as going to hell rhetoric is concerned, BTW, I don't know who has a ticket but I do believe anyone who ends up there does not have to. I do believe all are on the bus and while we are alive the journey has not ended.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If we dress up crass thoughts in polite language they're still crass.
You want to dress the discussion in Westboro hate speech? That is bottom feeder stuff.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Dodges again. Form over substance. Form over substance.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Delayed addendum to my last post:
The other thing that shits me is the way people treat the Bible completely in the abstract, divorced from checking whether that interpretation gels with the real world.
Because it's no different from arguing the Bible says the world is flat, or that the sun revolves around the Earth, and refusing to take into account any external information that might be inconsistent with that interpretation and hence suggest an alternative interpretation.
So people just refuse to consider any information about how sexuality develops, or about intersex people. They won't use that information to inform their reading of the Bible.
--------------------
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
Jamat, I don't think I can be any clearer. For me the trigger is not "I don't agree with your interpretation". The trigger is "A Christian can't have that interpretation, so you're not a Christian".
And the really interesting thing is that STRAIGHT people who share my beliefs never seem to get told they're not Christian. No, it's only the homosexuals who get told this, for daring to apply the interpretation to their own lives.
Presumably, men who don't think women have to wear hats in church are fine. God will only come after the women who believed headwear wasn't required.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And the really interesting thing is that STRAIGHT people who share my beliefs never seem to get told they're not Christian. No, it's only the homosexuals who get told this, for daring to apply the interpretation to their own lives.
I have been told this. Someone who'd been a close friend for many years told me this because I was joyfully attending a wedding of two men.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Jamat, I don't think I can be any clearer. For me the trigger is not "I don't agree with your interpretation". The trigger is "A Christian can't have that interpretation, so you're not a Christian".
That's definitely why I got involved on this thread.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And the really interesting thing is that STRAIGHT people who share my beliefs never seem to get told they're not Christian. No, it's only the homosexuals who get told this, for daring to apply the interpretation to their own lives.
I have been told this. Someone who'd been a close friend for many years told me this because I was joyfully attending a wedding of two men.
I stand corrected. Welcome to the company of the allegedly unsaved.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If we dress up crass thoughts in polite language they're still crass.
You want to dress the discussion in Westboro hate speech? That is bottom feeder stuff.
If it can be dressed in "Westboro hate speech" then it probably is "Westboro hate speech", albeit in politer language. A whitened sepulchre.
How about giving up on the hate speech altogether? Except of course you can't, because in your theology, however nasty the Phelps clan (what's left of them that is who haven't defected) are to the queers, God's going to be a whole lot nastier, isn't he?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Delayed addendum to my last post:
The other thing that shits me is the way people treat the Bible completely in the abstract, divorced from checking whether that interpretation gels with the real world.
Because it's no different from arguing the Bible says the world is flat, or that the sun revolves around the Earth, and refusing to take into account any external information that might be inconsistent with that interpretation and hence suggest an alternative interpretation.
So people just refuse to consider any information about how sexuality develops, or about intersex people. They won't use that information to inform their reading of the Bible.
This. And it goes for so many other things as well. Anywhere you can't actually prove, definitively, in a "look, grass isn't fucking blue, it's green for fuck's sake!" manner, and it's straight to the most literal interpretation, and hang the consequences.
There's sometimes confusion between the fallacy of Appeal to Consequences, and the valid Reductio ad absurdum.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And clearly only one outcome is possible for you: "God hates fags, and if you keep on being a fag, you're going to Hell."
Downright crass. I refuse to treat this seriously
It might pain you to realise, but there's not a cigarette paper between your views and those of Westboro Baptist.
That's it. That's where you are. Admit it, own it, rejoice in it. That's what's missing from your journey.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Delayed addendum to my last post:
The other thing that shits me is the way people treat the Bible completely in the abstract, divorced from checking whether that interpretation gels with the real world.
This. And it goes for so many other things as well.
This. In buckets. I mean, it should do our heads in to have to reconcile the fact that Jesus, who was completely a 1st century Jewish man must have believed the Genesis story, to be true with the fact that Jesus - wholly divine, eternal, the Knowing of God, perfect Wisdom - must know that we evolved.
Faith can get me past this, but all the while makes it clear that any idea of God that I can "understand" must fall well short of the reality.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by orfeo
quote:
Or my study has made me realise what nonsense it is to think Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality,
Close analysis shows that
1) Sodom was destroyed for a whole raft of reasons of which that last night was just the culmination.
2) Strictly speaking what happened on that last night was not 'homosexuality' as you understand it, but a situation where 'straight' men proposed to humiliate other 'straight' men by treating them as women and slave women at that. Similar cases are found in historical accounts and have also been reported in recent times where male people evidently proud to be 'straight' have raped gays or paedophiles and have not considered it to compromise their 'straightness' because in their eyes the victims "weren't really men".
Sodom is not per se an 'anti-gay' account; but it's not exactly 'pro-gay' either.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I noticed that Jamat said 'when I sin I am aware of it', which intrigued me. Is this a standard idea in Christianity? It strikes me as naive, as awareness is limited in most people, and especially with regard to our own shortcomings. We are more likely to be aware of others' as a way of masking our own. Or, projection, if you like. Hang on, Jesus talks about this!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Quetzalcoatl;
Not a topic for this thread, methinks - and if you've been around the 'Rapture' thread you'll know I don't always agree with Jamat.
You might also be interested in a post I've just put on the "Moral Influence Atonement Theory" thread.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by orfeo
quote:
Or my study has made me realise what nonsense it is to think Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality,
Close analysis shows that
1) Sodom was destroyed for a whole raft of reasons of which that last night was just the culmination.
2) Strictly speaking what happened on that last night was not 'homosexuality' as you understand it, but a situation where 'straight' men proposed to humiliate other 'straight' men by treating them as women and slave women at that. Similar cases are found in historical accounts and have also been reported in recent times where male people evidently proud to be 'straight' have raped gays or paedophiles and have not considered it to compromise their 'straightness' because in their eyes the victims "weren't really men".
Sodom is not per se an 'anti-gay' account; but it's not exactly 'pro-gay' either.
I never claimed it was 'pro-gay'. But it's regularly used by some people as 'anti-gay', and the 'anti-gay' is total nonsense, for exactly the reasons you've just outlined. And further amplified by Ezekiel 16:49 together with Luke 10:8-12 and parallel passages.
If I could erase one word from the English language, it would be "sodomy".
[ 15. February 2017, 11:07: 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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Quetzalcoatl;
Not a topic for this thread, methinks - and if you've been around the 'Rapture' thread you'll know I don't always agree with Jamat.
You might also be interested in a post I've just put on the "Moral Influence Atonement Theory" thread.
I generally feel quite kindly towards you, God knows why, but please fuck off with telling me what status my posts have, and where they belong.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by orfeo (in the OP of the thread);
quote:
I hope you contract leprosy
And later;
quote:
Also I think my curse was thoroughly Biblical.
And you wonder why I don't take your biblical interpretation seriously??
And I feel that it's actually you by such statements, rather than me, who is casting doubt on your Christian status.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by orfeo (in the OP of the thread);
quote:
I hope you contract leprosy
And later;
quote:
Also I think my curse was thoroughly Biblical.
And you wonder why I don't take your biblical interpretation seriously??
Do you really want me to leaf through the Bible outlining the curses? Or can I just mention Ananias and Sapphira and be done with it?
Honestly, it's quite bemusing to watch you suggesting that Christians have to be goody two-shoes, when the whole reason this thread exists is because of your readiness to pronounce eternal damnation on people. You declare an opinion about the fate of my soul, I in return merely refer to a bacterial infection and I'm the nasty person?
[ 15. February 2017, 11:19: 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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
2 Kings 5:27 springs to mind as a biblical precedent.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
2 Kings 5:27 springs to mind as a biblical precedent.
In fact it's exactly the precedent that sprung to my mind. But hey, we all know my knowledge of the Bible is inherently defective. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
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
Would you like to come to our Bible study tonight? It's on Romans 1 (seriously) ![[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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Would you like to come to our Bible study tonight? It's on Romans 1 (seriously)
It's a big commute... just remind them that chapter numbering did not exist in the original text and they may well miss a huge part of Paul's point if they don't read Romans 2.
There is pretty good evidence that Paul is repeating standard, stereotypical Jewish views about Gentiles, designed to make Jews think of themselves as superior, right before he turns around and says "you Jews aren't so hot either".
Somewhere buried in Dead Horses is a post (not mine) that sets out the evidence Paul is actually quoting an earlier Jewish text - not necessarily because he agrees with it, but because he knows his audience will recognise it and agree with it right up to the point he turns on them.
[ 15. February 2017, 11:33: 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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I don't understand why so few people seem to be concerned that (i) the inhabitants of Sodom wanted to sexually abuse Lot's guests and (ii) Lot tried to give them his daughters to abuse instead.
Nothing to do with sodomy, everything to do with the fact that there weren't 10 good men in the whole blasted town. Including Lot, the creep.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Would you like to come to our Bible study tonight? It's on Romans 1 (seriously)
It's a big commute... just remind them that chapter numbering did not exist in the original text and they may well miss a huge part of Paul's point if they don't read Romans 2.
There is pretty good evidence that Paul is repeating standard, stereotypical Jewish views about Gentiles, designed to make Jews think of themselves as superior, right before he turns around and says "you Jews aren't so hot either".
Don't worry, I've got that far in my thinking ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm not leading this bible study though, and a recently-arrived gay believer fleeing a homophobic church is likely to be there. Fun times ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't understand why so few people seem to be concerned that (i) the inhabitants of Sodom wanted to sexually abuse Lot's guests and (ii) Lot tried to give them his daughters to abuse instead.
Also (iii) how is it possible that all the men of the town would be gay, and (iv) how is it possible the town would SURVIVE more than one generation if all of the men were gay.
But, you know, when you're expressing the view that gay sex is such a bad sin it overrides the Nicene Creed in importance, you don't want little things like logic and the text of the Bible to get in your way.
--------------------
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 Eutychus:
a recently-arrived gay believer fleeing a homophobic church is likely to be there.
Say hi from me. We all know each other, there's a contact list that we get when we sign the Gay Agenda.
--------------------
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
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) I will, I will. I do make sure to greet him with a brotherly kiss.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Quetzalcoatl;
Not a topic for this thread, methinks - and if you've been around the 'Rapture' thread you'll know I don't always agree with Jamat.
You might also be interested in a post I've just put on the "Moral Influence Atonement Theory" thread.
Just thinking this over, and I think my point about 'when I sin I am aware of it' (Jamat), is germane to this thread. Both you and Jamat are being criticized for pointing out other people's flaws, aren't you? But it's often the case that people doing this, are hiding their own. Specks/planks? So you could say that when I sin, I am often not aware of it, contra Jamat.
Well, of course, this puts us all in an uncomfortable position, since how do we know that our perceptions of others are accurate, and not just conformable to confirmation bias?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I noticed that Jamat said 'when I sin I am aware of it', which intrigued me. Is this a standard idea in Christianity? It strikes me as naive, as awareness is limited in most people, and especially with regard to our own shortcomings. We are more likely to be aware of others' as a way of masking our own. Or, projection, if you like. Hang on, Jesus talks about this!
Orthodoxen pray for forgiveness of theirs sins, both known and unknown, both intentional and unintentional.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I noticed that Jamat said 'when I sin I am aware of it', which intrigued me. Is this a standard idea in Christianity? It strikes me as naive, as awareness is limited in most people, and especially with regard to our own shortcomings. We are more likely to be aware of others' as a way of masking our own. Or, projection, if you like. Hang on, Jesus talks about this!
Orthodoxen pray for forgiveness of theirs sins, both known and unknown, both intentional and unintentional.
That's more like it. I was thinking of the idea that lack of awareness is a major source of sin. It obviously includes failure of empathy and sympathy, which might be laid at the door of homophobes.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
2) Strictly speaking what happened on that last night was not 'homosexuality' as you understand it, but a situation where 'straight' men proposed to humiliate other 'straight' men by treating them as women and slave women at that.
So the misogyny was worse than the rape? Misogyny isn't so hot, but rape is worse, no matter the gender combination.[i]adds misogyny to the list of reasons to be less than fond of Steve Langton. Or is it already on? hard to keep track)
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Quetzalcoatl;
Not a topic for this thread, methinks - and if you've been around the 'Rapture' thread you'll know I don't always agree with Jamat.
You might also be interested in a post I've just put on the "Moral Influence Atonement Theory" thread.
I generally feel quite kindly towards you,
Really? All the vile rubbish he's posted and his junior hosting sets you off? Not that I am telling you what you may or may not be offended by, but dude...
[ 15. February 2017, 15:18: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
But you're gonna tell me anyway!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But you're gonna tell me anyway!
Nope, just indicating surprise. I haven't even told Steve, "gays are the worst" Langton what he should believe, just how fucked up his views are.
Truth is, if he weren't so hateful in his expression, I might feel less disdain. But he is, so I do not.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Also I think in the end I'll need to start a thread to attempt a rational discussion of 'gay' issues. But again, not sure when I'll have time to do it properly....
Such a thread already exists. So you can just read through it and add your comments, no need to start a new one.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Also I think in the end I'll need to start a thread to attempt a rational discussion of 'gay' issues. But again, not sure when I'll have time to do it properly....
Such a thread already exists. So you can just read through it and add your comments, no need to start a new one.
I was kind of thinking of a thread where people would be able to read my views and not be confusing them with other people's views. Like a bit of a fresh start on the subject.
I looked into that modern interpretation of Romans 1 on the other thread. In a PM exchange with an advocate of it I pointed out that as far as I could see, all the necessary 'connectives' ('therefores' and so on) were exactly where they should be for the traditional interpretation whereby Paul is expressing his own view. He was apparently not able to answer that as such - but instead was insistent that the text would of course be carried by a messenger who would be 'primed' to read it in such a way as to bring out this other meaning....
If I were to use such a suggestion to support an unpopular view, I suspect the Ship would be near sinking from all the posts of and similar; and your laughter would be heard in the next galaxy. But in favour of the gay case, such nonsense is not so much acceptable as apparently compulsory.
The priority seems to be not to interpret the actual words, but just that the pro-gay case must win regardless.
Also that view essentially completely disrupts and disorganises what is a basically coherent argument.
I was and remain unimpressed....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I was and remain unimpressed....
You were and remain a hateful bigot that Jesus would bring to task for your POV.
--------------------
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 Steve Langton:
I looked into that modern interpretation of Romans 1 on the other thread. In a PM exchange with an advocate of it I pointed out that as far as I could see, all the necessary 'connectives' ('therefores' and so on) were exactly where they should be for the traditional interpretation whereby Paul is expressing his own view.
The 'therefores' do not make the point you seem to think they make. They are all steps in an argument Paul is using to get his hearers on his side (as they think). Once he has them all agreeing (as they think) with him about how evil all these people are, in 2.1 he turns the tables and points out they are no better.
Saying the argument is one Paul himself owns because of the therefores is like saying that Mark Antony really believed Brutus was an honourable man.
We had a fun time with Romans 1 in bible study this evening but decided the last part needed closer attention in two weeks' time.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I was kind of thinking of a thread where people would be able to read my views and not be confusing them with other people's views. Like a bit of a fresh start on the subject.
I can't speak for my colleague hosts in DH, but I beseech you in the bowels of God that you are mistaken on this specific matter.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Okay, so I was having a think (inexplicably, the thought came to me in the middle of a concert, but hey).
Part of the thing that Steve Langton and Jamat need to realise is this: I - and many others of our age cohort - arrived at our view of homosexuality not as a product of 'group think' or being infected with a 'liberal worldview', but quietly, almost secretly, and individually.
I was convinced that homosexuality and Christianity were incompatible. I took an entirely orthodox-at-the-time view, well into my twenties, and only started to have doubts as I approached thirty, because I found I actually knew some gay men who were subsequently treated abominably by my church.
It's been a long, difficult giving up of my earlier position. Decades to break me down and repent. And I suspect that a very great number of regular, orthodox Christians of my age are exactly in the same boat - or rather, their own boats - who have slowly changed course on this particular subject over their lifetimes. Decisions that have been made pretty much independent of church doctrine and leadership, in ones and twos and tiny groups.
The idea that it's some sort of group think is not just preposterous. It's not true. That we now find ourselves agreeing with each other is not a matter of infection by the spirit of the age, but conviction by the Holy Spirit.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
Thanks, Doc Tor. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
Thanks, Doc Tor.
Ditto. Well done, Doc Tor.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I was kind of thinking of a thread where people would be able to read my views and not be confusing them with other people's views. Like a bit of a fresh start on the subject.
Sounds like a good topic for a post on your own blog.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I was kind of thinking of a thread where people would be able to read my views and not be confusing them with other people's views. Like a bit of a fresh start on the subject.
A thread which only Steve Langton posts to, and only Steve Langton reads, does sounds like an improvement. It could have even longer posts.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Doc Tor's right; I am another now pro-gay liberal who was brought up with a traditional view of homosexuality. I suspect my parents are still of that view - they led much drawing away of skirts from the two gay couples who moved to the village where we lived.
That traditional view was reinforced by much of the publicity around the AIDs crisis - those stupid tombstone adverts. What helped was a very camp gay co-worker who was HIV positive. In amongst the flouncing and posturing, he let slip that someone else I'd worked with previously was gay, and HIV positive. Which meant the stories of gay men who could not visit their partners' bedsides in hospital, couldn't stay in their homes when their partner died, couldn't attend their funerals became more personal.
That period when so many gay men died of AIDs changed many minds because we saw such injustice.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
And another checking in, as if you didn't know.
This is what I'm talking about with the whole Reductio ad absurum/Argument from adverse consequences confusion above.
Steve, Jamat et al. think the thought process is this:
"Bible apparently says gay is bad. But I don't want to believe that because that's not cool any more, so I'll find another way to interpret things so I don't have to believe gay is bad." - Argument from adverse outcome.
However, the thought process (in my case) is actually something like this:
"Bible apparently says gay is bad. But if gay is bad and God is, as it were, the Supreme Homophobe, then the following conclusions follow:
1. God is cool with the emotional suffering gay people experience, either because they've also adopted the "gay is bad" theology and are afflicted with self-loathing and hopelessness, or because the "gay is bad" Church is gunning for them;
2. Whatever the Church, society and even the queer-bashing bigots might do, it's nothing compared to what God is going to do to them - whether ultimately we see perdition as conscious torment, "separation from God" (whatever that mean, or non-existence. God also, therefore, becomes the supreme Queer basher.
3. God makes arbitrary rules, where Oranges are the Only Fruit, where he puts up one model (heterosexual marriage) and expects us to fit to it even if the way we are made makes it completely inappropriate and unsuitable for us. At best, Celibacy becomes no-longer an option but a mandated path, and one without hope of change.
These three consequences (I'm sure others also spring to mind) conflict with other ideas about God - his love, his concern, his desire for us to experience life in all its abundance (Gospel of John, yes?). It means that God can only have a life of sorrow and disappointment for anyone who's not straight, without there being any obvious reason why this should be so. To me, that is absurd. And so, having seen the negative and even absurd conclusions of the Langton-Jamat reading of the Bible, I'm forced to find an alternative reading.
Or I could just ignore it, which I might as well do, seeing as that's what they'll accuse me of anyway.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Doc Tor's right; I am another now pro-gay liberal who was brought up with a traditional view of homosexuality. I suspect my parents are still of that view - they led much drawing away of skirts from the two gay couples who moved to the village where we lived.
Me too, and I really don't think it had very much, if anything, to do with either the cultural milieu I moved in, or with wanting to fit in with the prevailing worldview, or some notion of general convenience. I had several years of severe cognitive dissonance over the whole thing, the culmination of which was not wholly unlike C S Lewis's description of his conversion experience, though perhaps more gradual. Also, just to put it out there, I'm really sorry for how I used to be, if it's worth anything, to anyone.
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
And you can essentially add me to the list.
The fact that this was about myself, rather than about a sibling or a cousin or a friend or a co-worker, really doesn't alter the thought process much. All it really did was drive home how badly the conservative viewpoint mismatched reality.
Because the conservative viewpoint would have you believe that I sinned so badly, without realising it, before the age of about 13 or 14 that God decided to hand me over to unnatural lusts. Me, a good Christian boy who tried hard to do the right thing, worked hard in school, went to church and Sunday School diligently, who had never hung around gay people... supposedly I was Romans 1 material.
That worried me no end. But the simpler explanation is that that belief is total bullshit. It's generated by people looking at full grown adults and pronouncing judgement and Deciding that because homosexuality is connected with sex it's all about adults having sex.
I'm not who I am because of some great irredeemable sin I committed as a pre-teen, and a Biblical interpretation that claims I am needs serious reexamination. It took me close to 20 years to finally reexamine it.
[ 16. February 2017, 08:49: 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
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
