|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dear Steve Langton,
|
DaleMaily
Apprentice
# 18725
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:
I come to this from a different perspective. I've been a Christian for all of 6 months (I don't count the 10 years at the local Methodist Sunday School), so as far as I was concerned (along with my predominantly white, middle class friends, none of whom, coincidentally, are gay), I thought I had already resolved this issue at a personal level: essentially pro-equality (so pro-gay marriage and feminist).
I then had to decide whether becoming a Christian required me to revisit these views, which for me were instinctive and arrived at as a matter of conscience, since I had no personal emotional experiences to help me on my way. This actually turned out to be one of the biggest barriers to becoming a Christian: how can a God who supposedly created and loves us infinitely outlaw gay people from loving each other and instruct his followers to be homophobic at the same time? Because if I believed that, then I wouldn't want him to be my God, whether I believed he existed or not. Fortunately I don't, largely because I didn't see Jesus say anything against it, which in hindsight was hardly surprising.
This is really interesting AND really important for mission. How did you resolve that problem, which I assume you have given you've said you are now christian?
Forgive me if you've explained this already - I read a bit further back in the thread but it became some kind of Fred Phelps version of the Lack of Joy of Sex so I gave up.
I would say it mainly came from my approach to the Bible. Now, I freely admit that I my knowledge of the Bible didn't (and still doesn't, really - working on it!) extend much further than Genesis, Moses and Joshua (excluding the genocide/ethnic cleansing) and the Gospels. However, as a translator, I am acutely aware of hermeneutics and fully subscribe to the view that texts and translations are products of a particular culture and time. That is not to say the texts as a whole are irrelevant, rather that our understanding and interpretation of them will evolve, just as Jesus showed on with the sermon on the mount (right?), and just like Jesus, it's not about throwing out the baby with the bathwater ('not doing away with scripture, but fulfilling it'), but it is about getting as deep an understanding as possible, rather than a more superficial one that I believe comes from strict literalism (that's not meant to be an insult).
As a result, after reading the various debates over interpretation of the "gay verses" and taking a look myself with my text analysis hat on, I couldn't come to accept that there was sufficient evidence (for want of a better word) to conclude that God wants us to stop gay people loving each other. The fact that this supported my general "gut feeling" only served to reinforce my beliefs, unless my conscience is a manifestation of the evil one, which just fucks with my head. I won't detail my arguments as this thread probably isn't the right place for it, but essentially I found that an anti-gay interpretation of these verses essentially treats homosexual acts as promiscuity and adultery, which is understandable, given that our "liberal" society has only recently begun to accept that homosexuals can love in the same way as heterosexuals (again, texts are products of time and culture). Why Jesus didn't speak up for gays, I don't know, but he also didn't seem to lead a movement to abolish slavery, so I'll have to accept that I'll find out when I die.
--------------------
The more I get to know the less I find that I understand.
Posts: 48 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
DaleMaily
Apprentice
# 18725
|
Posted
Sorry for double posting, but I should also say that I understand (though sometimes forget!) that depending on one's background, some issues are more easily resolved than others. For me, I was more at ease with sexual and gender equality that perhaps it made it easier for me to reconcile them with Christianity, but I found it SO difficult to get to grips with miracles and the resurrection. I suspect the reverse may be true for people who have spent their whole lives as Christians.
[ 17. February 2017, 10:37: Message edited by: DaleMaily ]
--------------------
The more I get to know the less I find that I understand.
Posts: 48 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:
Sorry for double posting, but I should also say that I understand (though sometimes forget!) that depending on one's background, some issues are more easily resolved than others. For me, I was more at ease with sexual and gender equality that perhaps it made it easier for me to reconcile them with Christianity, but I found it SO difficult to get to grips with miracles and the resurrection. I suspect the reverse may be true for people who have spent their whole lives as Christians.
Heh, I suspect you're 100% right there.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:
However, as a translator, I am acutely aware of hermeneutics and fully subscribe to the view that texts and translations are products of a particular culture and time. That is not to say the texts as a whole are irrelevant, rather that our understanding and interpretation of them will evolve, just as Jesus showed on with the sermon on the mount (right?), and just like Jesus, it's not about throwing out the baby with the bathwater ('not doing away with scripture, but fulfilling it'), but it is about getting as deep an understanding as possible, rather than a more superficial one that I believe comes from strict literalism (that's not meant to be an insult).
As a result, after reading the various debates over interpretation of the "gay verses" and taking a look myself with my text analysis hat on, I couldn't come to accept that there was sufficient evidence (for want of a better word) to conclude that God wants us to stop gay people loving each other.
Brilliant. Thank you. With all sincerity, thank you. It feels like the essence of what I've been trying to get across to people for... about a decade.
--------------------
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 rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And really, any notion that sex is something that men "do" and women just have done to them (as referred to earlier by anoesis) is perilously close to the idea that a wife or girlfriend is in some sense a possession, a living breathing appliance for the purpose of sexual pleasure. And all the horrible things that flow from that.
Horrible things have been flowing from that since the dawn of civilisation.
However, we have entered an age now when, in theory, the heterosexual might have something to learn from the homosexual so as to stem the hetero on hetero horribleness.
Not that all this squabbling about marriage is necessarily going to take us to utopia, the age of Aquarius, or wherever for the simple reason of marriage being an institution based on the very idea of possession.
But I don't think marriage is based on the idea of possession anymore, for a considerable number of people it's based on chosen partnership.
Which is exactly how same-sex marriage began to make sense as a concept. Once you start treating marriage as two equal people coming together, the gender of the two people starts losing its importance.
--------------------
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
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:
Sorry for double posting, but I should also say that I understand (though sometimes forget!) that depending on one's background, some issues are more easily resolved than others. For me, I was more at ease with sexual and gender equality that perhaps it made it easier for me to reconcile them with Christianity, but I found it SO difficult to get to grips with miracles and the resurrection. I suspect the reverse may be true for people who have spent their whole lives as Christians.
I've struggled with both those. When I started becoming a Christian I just believed what people told me because I knew squat and that made me think that probably the whole gay thing was sub optimal because if it wasn't the church wouldn't criticise gay people. I date back to an era that had a similar thought process about women priests - if the church thinks it's not OK it's not, now the church thinks it is OK, it is. I'm so easily led me, or else lacking confidence in my own ability to make judgements.
As I got more confident, I concluded that the church changes its position on a ton of stuff through the years and so will probably catch up with the rest of the world on equality for gay people at some point. I waver on how much it matters that the church is behind the times. Sometimes I think it's good to wait until most people are ready to come with, sometimes I think the church should lead. I hate how my friends J&E and my cousins D&C have been treated by the church (and by society) for being who they are.
On the miracles, I know quite a bit of science and it bothers the heck out of me that miracles don't seem to work in the scientific universe with which I am familiar but I guess I've learned not to think about it too much. The only miracle that REALLY matters is the resurrection and I buy that, so if I can't really believe that the sun stopped moving in the sky for Joshua or Balaam's ass was chatty, I guess I'll cope.
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
(following on from orfeo above). Yes, it seems that we are part of a massive move out of patriarchal and hierarchical attitudes towards things like marriage. It is slow and painful, and with many regressive moves back, by people who want to hang on. I suppose religions have been prime incubators of hierarchical values, and it is particularly painful for them to democratize.
[ 17. February 2017, 11:33: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't think marriage is based on the idea of possession anymore, for a considerable number of people it's based on chosen partnership.
Which is exactly how same-sex marriage began to make sense as a concept. Once you start treating marriage as two equal people coming together, the gender of the two people starts losing its importance.
And because male and female still seem hell bent on gender stereotypes the seeds of destruction are often sown long before they even embark on marriage. A bottomless Pandora's box is that one.
Suppose I was thinking of modern day 'possession' in terms of the whole *to have and to hold* ceremony, various entitlements to the other one's estate and so on rather than man regarding a wife as his property. Although we have to accept that such a view is still alive and well in many spheres and cultures.
[ 17. February 2017, 14:15: Message edited by: rolyn ]
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Jane R;
quote:
this is only to be expected of someone who is still obsessing about where the Church went wrong in the fourth century AD.
First, "Where the Church went wrong in the fourth century AD" was directly responsible for the tragic wrongness of 'gay' people being persecuted by supposedly 'Christian' states in the name of Jesus. I get the distinct impression that when that mistake was made by Constantine, Theodosius, and the Orthodox Church in one of its worst "We know better than the Bible" moments, they thought they were being very 'up to date'. It would have been better if they'd remained 'old-fashioned'....
Second, that may have happened in the 300s AD - but it's not yesterday's news. Very much today's news - didn't you notice the recent events in the 'Constantinian/established' Anglican state church - events which would be significantly different if only they could be persuaded to give up being 'established'.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Constantine was responsible for gay sex, global warming and the illuminati! Aaaahhhhhhhhh!
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Constantine was responsible for gay sex, global warming and the illuminati! Aaaahhhhhhhhh!
![[Confused]](confused.gif) ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Don't remember saying any of that.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
My bad, I don't respect you enough to read your shite thoroughly.
Should have been
Constantine was responsible for repression of gay sex, global warming and the illuminati! Aaaahhhhhhhhh!
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Hey! Constantine is a saint in the Orthodox Church, you know! You just strike "the Illuminati" off that list! But I think you can add "strained beetroot" in there.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Constantine was responsible for gay sex, global warming and the illuminati! Aaaahhhhhhhhh!
Don't remember saying any of that.
No worries. Mind staying clear of Constantine and answering some of the questions about what you actually did say, such as mine here?
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eutychus;
quote:
No worries. Mind staying clear of Constantine and answering some of the questions about what you actually did say, such as mine here?
Given I was responding to someone going on about my supposed obsession with a certain Roman Emperor, and that my reply was very much thread topic relevant - shouldn't be a problem. This is 'Hell' anyway....
Be careful what you wish for - the response to about a quarter of your 'mine here' has reached about 4 pages and is awaiting me being up to transferring it from my word processor to the Ship's weird UBB stuff; and then there'll be the other three quarters to respond to.... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Though I am going to add: this is a Discussion board. If you think you need 4 pages to answer a couple of points, imagine this happening down the pub and how likely your listeners would be to wander off after five minutes to find something more interesting to do.
If you need 4 pages, you're doing it wrong, you haven't understood the questions and you won't be giving any answer that anyone will be able follow. You will literally be wasting your time, and ours.
This is the polite version of saying, "Don't".
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
And when I shorten my answers and don't give the reasons behind them, the likes of orfeo queue up to scream that I'm just making unsupported assertions.
Unfortunately Eutychus has gone into an area where what we're discussing is long even by my standards (it needed to be to obscure how nonsensical it was) - I'm afraid right now my view is "He asked for it!" and then asked again in that recent post....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Let me help you boil it down.
(1)
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Marriage - in God's terms, whatever the secular world may say - is for those who can naturally do sexual intercourse, and not for those who can't
I'd like to see the chapter and verse for that,
A bible reference - not four pages - should suffice
(2)
quote:
and know what you make of marriages in which sex is, for various medical reasons, a physical impossibility.
quote:
I know a gay guy looking for a life partner. I also know that he is physically impotent. How does he fit into your morality?
(these are related questions so we can take them as one)
(3)
quote:
Please show me where the Christian God says oral and/or anal sex (irrespective of the sex of the people involved) is wrong.
Again, a bible reference will do just fine.
--------------------
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
No one has asked for a 4 page screed that only one person - me - will read. To repeat, this is a discussion board: this is not a place to post your academic treatise, and Hell is particularly unsuited for that, because the Hellions don't actually care. If you could genuinely argue your case, you'd do so on the dedicated Dead Horse thread. But you can't, and every time you think you can you just dig yourself deeper and deeper into utterly offensive territory.
You were called here for your antediluvian views on gays. Since then, you've insulted every woman of whatever sexuality and almost every straight man. You've cheapened marriage and disparaged the childless.
Seriously. Shut the fuck up. Before or after an apology, I don't mind which.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And when I shorten my answers and don't give the reasons behind them, the likes of orfeo queue up to scream that I'm just making unsupported assertions.
Unfortunately Eutychus has gone into an area where what we're discussing is long even by my standards (it needed to be to obscure how nonsensical it was) - I'm afraid right now my view is "He asked for it!" and then asked again in that recent post....
If you cannot make your case in considerably less than 4 pages, you are even more an idiot than I had thought. And that is quite a feat.
ETA:From the Styx thread, even the software is beginning to reject your posts.
[ 17. February 2017, 21:19: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ETA:From the Styx thread, even the software is beginning to reject your posts.
Reminds me of the post box ejecting Snoopy's manuscript as soon as he puts it in.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ETA:From the Styx thread, even the software is beginning to reject your posts.
Reminds me of the post box ejecting Snoopy's manuscript as soon as he puts it in.
And Snoopy was only occasionally a jerk.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Dear God, anyone who thinks that 4 pages is required for a quarter of their response has no understanding of how the internet works.
EDIT: Or indeed, how the vast majority of life works.
[ 18. February 2017, 00:38: 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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
God has designed sexual intercourse as a thing for those he has equipped appropriately to do it - that is, males with females. Therefore males with males and females with females should not attempt it.
[...]
The biblical position is that even 'straight' sex is intended for the married
I'm conservative on the "sex is for marriage" issue, but your reasoning from that position is all arse-backwards.
Sex is not the meaning and purpose of marriage. God didn't invent the idea of sex and then think to himself "Great! Now what can I do to make it more difficult and costly to get some ... ah yes! Marriage!". That's just mental.
The more sensible conservative position is that the meaning of marriage is love and commitment and sexual intimacy strengthens, serves and symbolises that relationship. The relationship comes first. The relationship - the commitment, the promise, the shared life together - is what makes the intimacy of sex appropriate on a defensible conservative view. Not just compatible plumbing.
And because you've got the importance of sex and marriage all wrong, your conclusion that "God has designed sexual intercourse as a thing for those he has equipped appropriately to do it - that is, males with females" is stupid. As soon as you introduce the concept of marriage as a relationship it becomes manifestly and obviously the case that a gay man is not "appropriately equipped" for marriage to a woman. He is not so made as to relate to women that way - and that is clearly more important to a sensible conservative ethic of married sexuality than observing that even though he'll never fall in love (in the sexual/romantic sense) with a woman, he must be "appropriately equipped" because he does at least have a cock.
But gay men are "appropriately equipped" for gay relationships - and the fact that despite tremendous social pressure against them, many gay relationships are as loving and strong as the best straight ones proves that. You can have an opinion on what sort of sexual expression (if any) is appropriate within those relationships, (if you consider it any of your business, that is) but unless you acknowledge that we are talking principally about relationships and only peripherally about fucking, your views, whatever they are, will be absurd, unrealistic, and (unfortunately) damaging.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Well put, Eliab.
But all you needed was this bit
quote:
That's just mental.
and this bit
quote:
stupid
and then you've both succinctly addressed his argument and exceed his capacity to comprehend.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Dear God, anyone who thinks that 4 pages is required for a quarter of their response has no understanding of how the internet works.
EDIT: Or indeed, how the vast majority of life works.
Who among the Hosts is looking after this thread?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Perhaps you missed my earlier (non-hostly tagged) posts?
And the last thing this thread needs - next to last thing, because the last thing is a 4 page post - is Junior Hosting.
DT
HH
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Dear God, anyone who thinks that 4 pages is required for a quarter of their response has no understanding of how the internet works.
EDIT: Or indeed, how the vast majority of life works.
He doesn't say what size font he's using. I'm going to guess 36 point and all in shouty capitals.
[ 18. February 2017, 19:05: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Anglican't;
quote:
He doesn't say what size font he's using. I'm going to guess 36 point and all in shouty capitals
Just to get this out of the way, if responding to Ship stuff it generally ends up in the font size that transferred to my WP from/with anything I copied off the Ship - slightly larger than I use for personal docs, and quite a bit larger than it actually appears on the Ship itself; as in, four pages on my WP won't look like four pages worth here - I'm fairly sure I've seen longer posts that nobody's actually objected to....
Four pages strictly speaking included both a response to Eutychus AND a (related topic) response to mr cheesy in one post. I'll probably have to post Eutychus' bit at some point - we'll see....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Are you reading any of my posts, Steve? Are you reading them and parsing them for comprehension?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm fairly sure I've seen longer posts that nobody's actually objected to...
Not in Hell you haven't.
I don't know what clearer direction I can give you.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Eutychus asked above for a response in one text terms;
Well the answer is, I guess, obvious – Mark 10; 1-9
quote:
2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied. 4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." 5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Mark 10:2-9 (NIV)
I've been thinking hard about that one, and it seems to me that it still means what it obviously means. As in, Jesus is asked a question about divorce and he answers by setting divorce in the context of marriage. And to do that he goes 'back to the beginning', to the creation, and his word on marriage starts with, “God made them male and female”.
And this is actually rather emphatic – if the message were only about divorce in general, he could have just used the second text he quotes, from 'for this reason....'. He goes out of his way to combine two texts, and that has to be significant. He thus really emphatically states that marriage – and therefore sex - in his eyes, is for male with female. And ipso facto, NOT for male with male or female with female.
And at least in Christian terms, this is not just any old bloke going out of his way to identify marriage as between male and female – this is God Incarnate, the guy who devised and created marriage for us, going out of his way to make the point. So basically, if you're wanting to call yourself a Christian, believe Jesus/God on this – or be frank that you're not believing, not trusting, choosing darkness and NOT being Christian. Simples!
“The World” - those outside God's holy nation the Church – doesn't have to believe this and can make other arrangements if it wants. And it's not the job of Christians to set up 'kingdoms of this world' to impose this Christian understanding. We trust God/Jesus and make his way work, and preach it as part of the message to others.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Oh for fuck's sake, anyone who uses the word "Simples!" At the same time as wanting to spend 4 pages explaining something hasn't a fucking clue.
It's not "Simples!", my life is not "Simples!" and the whole reason you got called to Hell and cursed is because over and over again you think you can waltz in and close off a complex theological debate, WHICH HAS ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING RELEVANCE TO YOUR OWN FUCKNG LIFE, in a neat tidy package.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I've been thinking hard about that one, and it seems to me that it still means what it obviously means. As in, Jesus is asked a question about divorce and he answers by setting divorce in the context of marriage.
I suppose it could mean that. But "setting divorce in the context of marriage" is so mindbogglingly unnecessary I'm not sure why he, or anyone else, would bother. You don't need to set divorce in the context of marriage. Divorce is all about marriage. Marriage is the context of divorce. It doesn't need setting. It's already set. Any other context it might have (societal, familial, whatever), it is still firmly in the context of marriage. The answer to "Well if you want to talk about divorce you have to realize it's go to do with marriage" can only be "No shit, Sherlock. Tell me something I don't know."
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh for fuck's sake, anyone who uses the word "Simples!" At the same time as wanting to spend 4 pages explaining something hasn't a fucking clue.
It's not "Simples!", my life is not "Simples!" and the whole reason you got called to Hell and cursed is because over and over again you think you can waltz in and close off a complex theological debate, WHICH HAS ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING RELEVANCE TO YOUR OWN FUCKNG LIFE, in a neat tidy package.
Get off. It's all about dicks up ducts. Nothing else.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh for fuck's sake, anyone who uses the word "Simples!" At the same time as wanting to spend 4 pages explaining something hasn't a fucking clue.
No, no, orfeo. I think he was offering descriptive name by which he can be referred to as.
--------------------
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:
Eutychus asked above for a response in one text terms;
Well the answer is, I guess, obvious – Mark 10; 1-9
It must be the time of year.
Back in February 2016 I tried using that passage precisely as you do here, and essentially failed in the attempt. You can read the exchange here. The point at which I realised I was being inconsistent was when Dafyd said "yes, largely", at the end of this post here.
I still think things aren't the same as they were "in the beginning", and I still think that it's important that there are male and female in the world, but I cannot unequivocally make the case from Scripture that Jesus' response to the question on divorce proves that hetero marriage is the only option God had in mind. I thought I could, but I can't.
(And even if it was the only option he had in mind, things are not now as they were then. We have a world full of LBGQT people, not a few of whom are believers and wracked with anguish over issues such as identity, rejection, guilt, and faith. Can the Church really do no better than simply try and degayify them all? This passage demonstrates above all that God has the good sense to make accommodation for when things don't work out as we might have liked, not start looking around for stones to throw).
But that's not what I asked you - you are careful to conceal that in your answer.
I was challenging you on this specific statement of yours:
quote:
Marriage - in God's terms, whatever the secular world may say - is for those who can naturally do sexual intercourse, and not for those who can't
It is simply impossible to make the case against homosexuality on this basis unless you also argue that sex is the defining criteria of biblical marriage such that all marriages that do not include sex are void.
Similarly, you fail utterly to find any support for your suggestion that the "Christian God" condemns either oral or anal sex.
And your apparent obsession with defining sin in terms of various forms of penetration and nothing else means you cannot make any moral distinction between straight couples incapable of sex and married couples incapable of sex.
This insistence on specific sexual acts and the violent and crass vocabulary you use (and I quote: "men do sex by shoving their penises up other men's shitholes or down other men's throats") leads me to suspect that your hermeneutic is more influenced by your natural repulsion for people with differing sexual preferences to yours than it is by what the Bible actually says.
[ 18. February 2017, 21:22: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm fairly sure I've seen longer posts that nobody's actually objected to....
That may be because many people ignore posts that long.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This insistence on specific sexual acts and the violent and crass vocabulary you use (and I quote: "men do sex by shoving their penises up other men's shitholes or down other men's throats") leads me to suspect that your hermeneutic is more influenced by your natural repulsion for people with differing sexual preferences to yours than it is by what the Bible actually says.
Theology by ick factor. The primary hermeneutic of the average homophobe world over.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eutychus;
quote:
SL:
Marriage - in God's terms, whatever the secular world may say - is for those who can naturally do sexual intercourse, and not for those who can't
Eutychus;
It is simply impossible to make the case against homosexuality on this basis unless you also argue that sex is the defining criteria of biblical marriage such that all marriages that do not include sex are void.
Actually I think it's very "simply" possible, and you are making your argument too complex (and too modern?). I'm essentially saying that the original design/concept of marriage is that it's for partners with the different but complementary male and female parts. Not the capacity of any individual couple, but simply that general point of the kind of people it's designed for.
It is true that later societies would develop all kinds of elaborate customs around sex and marriage, reflecting also differing religious views. And in many of these cases there is much stress on dynastic and continuity of the family and so on fertility and on consummation; so a young person with obvious physical defects would be unlikely to get near being married, for example. And while I couldn't give a date, non-consummation was grounds for marriage annulment quite recently in the UK. Infertility less so but Henry VIII notoriously found a way round it when Catherine of Aragon couldn't come up with a son....
At the same time, I doubt if it would be actually forbidden that for example an elderly couple, no longer fertile and possibly no longer capable, could form an attachment for companionship when fertility was no longer a necessary consideration.
And as I would see it, with 'pagans' involved in all kinds of practices, why wouldn't God reinstate in his people Israel the original creation intention - even if not always perfect...?
After the complaints about long posts I'll leave this one for now. Some of my answers about the 'anal/oral sex' business would depend on whether we go for the traditional interpretation of Romans 1 or that (to my mind weird) modern version, which is why I initially left it out at this stage....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Back in February 2016 I tried using that passage precisely as you do here, and essentially failed in the attempt. You can read the exchange here. The point at which I realised I was being inconsistent was when Dafyd said "yes, largely", at the end of this post here.
Damn, but it's nice to be reminded of what a proper intelligent argument looks like.
Though I see that SL managed to intrude into that, in exactly the same "this is what CHRISTIANS believe" tone that got him called to Hell this time.
[ 18. February 2017, 22:28: 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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm fairly sure I've seen longer posts that nobody's actually objected to....
That may be because many people ignore posts that long.
The Shipmate who comes to mind when speaking of long posts is both derided and ignored for saying in a thousand words what could be said in ten. And he is not generally spewing an excuse to hate when doing so.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Actually I think it's very "simply" possible, and you are making your argument too complex (and too modern?). I'm essentially saying that the original design/concept of marriage is that it's for partners with the different but complementary male and female parts. Not the capacity of any individual couple, but simply that general point of the kind of people it's designed for.
I'm having a hard time moving from "X is designed for Y" to "X should always, ever, and only be used by Y."
Bath chairs were designed for aged invalids. Now wheelchairs are used by young people who have lost limbs. A wrong use? Of course you will say, "No no, they were designed for people who can't walk."
To which I can respond, "No, no, marriage is designed for people who wish to live together in harmony and grow in love and holiness through one another's love and care." (something close to the Orthodox understanding of the purpose of marriage fwiw)
You can redefine intended populations. I can redefine intended populations. Stalemate.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm essentially saying that the original design/concept of marriage is that it's for partners with the different but complementary male and female parts. Not the capacity of any individual couple, but simply that general point of the kind of people it's designed for.
And you are essentially wrong. Marriage is a legal contract about property, first and foremost. Women as property is part of that.
Marriage wasn't designed by any god, nor was sex. BTW, the universe is slightly more than 6 thousand years and Adam and Eve are as real as the tooth fairy.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Mousethief;
quote:
I'm having a hard time moving from "X is designed for Y" to "X should always, ever, and only be used by Y."
Given some of the things I do in my hobby by way of recycling things originally intended for other uses, or generally adapting and bodging, I do in fact have more than a bit of sympathy for that point. I recently made a model Ivor the Engine's funnel from part of a device sold as a 'face massager' but which I've heard others use as a 'vibrator' in other contexts....
But I'm not exactly messing around with what Jesus seems to have stated is a rather fundamental aspect of the creation of humans....
But at this time of night I'll come back to that tomorrow (or possibly even Monday given my expected schedule).
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Tomorrow never comes.
Please.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Marriage is a legal contract about property, first and foremost. Women as property is part of that.
No. Not any more. This is committing the same fallacy with institutions that is committed with words when someone equates a word with its etymology.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But I'm not exactly messing around with what Jesus seems to have stated is a rather fundamental aspect of the creation of humans....
Again, as designed, as built, but not as modified. The world is a different place than when humans were created. We need to apply principles based on that creation to the current situation. You seem stuck in the past here --- the world is not the same world it was in 33 AD, let alone 800 BCE. How do we apply those principles to today's world? Simply giving their origin isn't enough to answer that question. We all agree on their origin. But not what it is about what they meant in that context that can be applied to our context.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
To continue: to you, Steve, clearly the relevant aspect, the thing that applies both then and now, is plumbing. The mechanical aspect. Things of the body.
To others, it's relationship. The spiritual aspect. Things of the soul.
And given everything we know about what Jesus did and taught, I'd have to say the latter is more in line with the entirety of his teaching.
[ 18. February 2017, 23:10: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Marriage is a legal contract about property, first and foremost. Women as property is part of that.
No. Not any more. This is committing the same fallacy with institutions that is committed with words when someone equates a word with its etymology.
Maybe it is my cold, maybe it is the lack of sleep, but could you explain?
I would grant that marriage has become more than about property in responsibility towards children and that it is symbolic of commitment. And in regards to equal marriage it has become about rights.
Did you mean something other than those?
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Perhaps you missed my earlier (non-hostly tagged) posts?
And the last thing this thread needs - next to last thing, because the last thing is a 4 page post - is Junior Hosting.
DT
HH
If this means that you are hosting, then my sympathies when 4 pages comes rolling in.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
