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


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | 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 6)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ...  12  13  14 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Dear Steve Langton,
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
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?

This is a Bill Clinton argument. It depends on what "is" means. When you say "marriage is X" you mean NOW. If you say "it has become X" you mean the same thing as "it is X but it didn't used to be."

But in either case, what is it NOW? If you say "it is Y" but it no longer is, then you are not speaking the truth.

When you say "marriage IS primarily about property" you are wrong because it's not about that NOW, and "is" means NOW.

[ 18. February 2017, 23:31: Message edited by: mousethief ]

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

Posts: 63203 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Seriously? Marriage began as a statement of property. It has evolved into including responsibility and as a statement of equality. For some, it is also a symbol of commitment. It was not designed by any god.
Does that work for you?

[ 18. February 2017, 23:36: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

--------------------
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: 17109 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Seriously?

Is the difference between something's origins and its current form that difficult a concept? Seriously?

quote:
Marriage began as a statement of property. It has evolved into including responsibility and as a statement of equality. For some, it is also a symbol of commitment. It was not designed by any god.
Does that work for you?

All those are true. One wonders if it's necessary to drag them out every time one discusses marriage. There are probably fifty other things that are true about marriage. Usually one only drags out aspects that apply directly to the current context. And if one knows what one is doing, one doesn't make tense errors.

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

Posts: 63203 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
The basic point was that Steve Langton's claims on what marriage is and was are bullshit special pleading to be allowed to discriminate.
The million meanings that marriage might have to individuals is irrelevant. The legal definition is paramount. It is the concrete tie across personal meanings.

--------------------
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: 17109 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Certainly marriage was defined and regulated as deemed best by society, where by "society" I mean the ruling males of the society. For any given society.

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

Posts: 63203 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
That, by itself, doesn't conflict with what I said.
Do I sense you would apply additional definition to marriage?

--------------------
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: 17109 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That, by itself, doesn't conflict with what I said.

Indeed. I was agreeing with you. Hence the lack of conflict.

quote:
Do I sense you would apply additional definition to marriage?
I wouldn't define marriage. Beyond my remit. My bugbear re. marriage is that it is two different things that are only marginally related: one in civil society / law, and one in religion(s). And all sorts of headache and heartache accrue when the two are conflated.

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

Posts: 63203 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I think Germany has the best solution.
The legal marriage is strictly civil. If you wish to have a religious ceremony as well, go for it.
The mix we have in the U.K. and US is problematic as it gives weight to prejudice.

ETA: I do not like that religions enforce their predjudices, but it is their right to do so internally. People who disagree are free to leave, but that sucks for believers.

[ 19. February 2017, 01:25: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

--------------------
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: 17109 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think Germany has the best solution.
The legal marriage is strictly civil. If you wish to have a religious ceremony as well, go for it.
The mix we have in the U.K. and US is problematic as it gives weight to prejudice.

ETA: I do not like that religions enforce their predjudices, but it is their right to do so internally. People who disagree are free to leave, but that sucks for believers.

Agree with all of this and probably for the same reasons.

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

Posts: 63203 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
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.

In Romans 1, after the greeting, Paul extols the power of the gospel to save then in v18-32 calls mankind on sin and then proceeds with the list of sins after saying that God has 'given over' mankind to such things as a judgement for idolatry. His point is that no matter what we have fallen into, God can save us out of it.

In Romans 2, he is emphasising that no one CAN keep the Jewish law as being pretty self evident and pointing out the hypocrisy of preaching the law while being a breaker of the law.. In v12 of Ch 2 we see that he is commenting on sin in relation to law keeping which suggests he has a contrast between Judaism and the gospel in mind. That context is evident as he continues through ch 2.

While what you say about it above is fair enough, that does not prove anything with relation to justifying any of the things he lists as sins in vs 18-32 of ch 1. As a hermeneutical exercise it is at best pissing in the wind to try and infer you can do it. The best you can do is suggest that the sin described and condemned by Paul here does not include the kind of sexual behaviour you want to justify. That, is what simply does not fly.

In the end you have to let human compassion trump the Bible. If someone in all conscience does not agree then the hate speech kicks in, that person is necessarily homophobic. But that is NOT necessarily the case. The person can love and tolerate, they simply cannot concede that God thinks it is all fine.

--------------------
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: 2986 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

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

In the end you have to let human compassion trump the Bible. If someone in all conscience does not agree then the hate speech kicks in, that person is necessarily homophobic. But that is NOT necessarily the case. The person can love and tolerate, they simply cannot concede that God thinks it is all fine.

If they truly love and tolerate, then they do not try to hide behind their religion and impose it upon others. Otherwise it is effectively the same as the hate. And they do not troll message boards with inflammatory speech.

--------------------
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: 17109 | 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 
Jamat--

...except posts by Shipmates who believe that homosexuality and/or homosexual behavior are sinful often show anything but love and compassion. You did a post, maybe a few pages back and to which I responded, where you sounded furious and out of control. That's why I said that I first thought you were doing a parody.

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

Posts: 18177 | 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 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
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.

Do you? It seems to be what you want. You said explicitly that marriage was not for those who can't "naturally" do sexual intercourse. Do you want to retract that?

quote:
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
Whichever option "we" go for, I look forward to seeing how you get God's disapproval of anal or oral sex between partners of different sexes out of it.

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

Posts: 17312 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
While what you say about it above is fair enough, that does not prove anything with relation to justifying any of the things he lists as sins in vs 18-32 of ch 1. As a hermeneutical exercise it is at best pissing in the wind to try and infer you can do it.

a) If you accept, as you seem to, that Paul was listing things Jews would find reprehensible for the purposes of going on to say that they were no better, what matters is that they, not Paul, saw those things as evil, a caricature of "all the nasty stuff those Gentiles do".

b) even if one assumes they were also seen as evil by Paul, there is still the problem of precisely what he means by arseonkoitai. As I said, I'm increasingly suspicious of hermeneutics that rely on obscure Greek words to enforce a power structure. (For more on the hermeneutic issues see this post which I have literally cut out and kept).

c) if one assumes this to be a definitive list of evil things as listed by Paul, the question arises as to why the Church is generally so quick to put up with some of the other things on that list (covetousness, malice, envy, strife, deceit, craftiness, the gossips, the slanderers, the haughty, the boastful, the heartless and the ruthless) and focus (obsess?) on this one.

quote:
In the end you have to let human compassion trump the Bible.
The bible says God is slow to anger and abounding in love.

I think Adrian Plass was on the right lines when he said that like the sabbath, the Bible was made for man, not the other way arounnd.

quote:
If someone in all conscience does not agree then the hate speech kicks in, that person is necessarily homophobic. But that is NOT necessarily the case. The person can love and tolerate, they simply cannot concede that God thinks it is all fine.
But you expressed neither love nor tolerance. You decreed an entire category of people could not possibly be Christians.

If that's not haughty (see above) I don't know what is.

Why is that OK for you when gay sex isn't?

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

Posts: 17312 | 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 
Talk about proof again. It's interesting that those who declare one true interpretation won't allow space for more than one interpretation. There can Only Be One, and so therefore everything becomes whether a more gay-friendly interpretation can somehow wipe out the opposing interpretation.

Which of course it can't. Not with mere text, anyway.

I always thought that the creeds were supposed to mark out the essentials. The things on which you couldn't differ. I really wish I could remember which creed it was that said you couldn't be a Christian if you believed homosexuals were part of God's creation.

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

Posts: 18147 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Here is a thought (probably unhelpful): even if one thought that various prohibitions really were dictats from the deity in the past we dont consider them to be now.

So even if one accepted that black pudding and shellfish was once of-the-devil, we don't assume that someone consuming such foods is today too sinful to be of God.

Similarly, even if we accepted that it was once godly that only men were rulers and judges - and by extension police and prime ministers - we don't have evidence today of the sky falling in by having them today. I've never heard of anyone claiming that a sign of the ungodlyness of society was that we have women police outside of the Taliban.

So if we accept that those things are no longer indications of an unbreakable wall between us and God, then why would there be a different category for men who have sex with men?

On some level, however much one might want to claim to be acting "biblically", a choice is being made as to what is or isn't unacceptable. And in this case the choice is being made in the most unpleasant way possible.

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

Posts: 10325 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I'm currently chacking in on the thread to see where it's going. After a long day, probably won't manage any lengthy answer till tomorrow. But I can maybe throw some light on this where I recently learned something I'd not known before.

by Eutychus;
quote:
b) even if one assumes they were also seen as evil by Paul, there is still the problem of precisely what he means by arsenokoitai.
Apparently this is related to words used in the LXX in one of the Levitical passages. And there it's part of the description of men lying with men as with women. It's an old word for (male) man combined with one that I gather basically means 'bedding'. Paul presumably knew the LXX and uses this 'portmanteau word' combining two words of the original text to effectively refer to the LXX command. Presumably the implication is that Paul means by 'arsenokoitai' the activity referred to in the LXX where the similar word is used.
Posts: 2149 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Yes, there is at least some evidence of a Levitical reference which can be handy because once it's shown that the Levitical reference is to a purity code rather than to a deep moral wrong, the objection to homosexuality falls into the same category as a whole lot of other Jewush purity codes that Christians no longer concern themselves with.

Tell me Steve, how do you feel about women who are having their period?

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

Posts: 18147 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Paul presumably knew the LXX and uses this 'portmanteau word' combining two words of the original text to effectively refer to the LXX command. Presumably the implication is that Paul means by 'arsenokoitai' the activity referred to in the LXX where the similar word is used.

I see. So Paul must have agreed with you, because you just said so. That's a very interesting argument, Steve - very impressive.

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

Posts: 10325 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
mr cheesy
All I've done there is to report some research into the origins of a word Paul used. The sources I googled say that related words were used in an LXX text on the same topic. In the LXX the phrasing is as two separate words; it appears that Paul knew the text - the LXX is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, a text Paul often quotes in all kinds of contexts.

It appears highly likely that Paul used this combined version of the words - whether he coined it himself or whether he was just the first person whose use was both written down and survived to today - to relate his later comment to the earlier text.

If that is correct, then it is also highly likely that his use of the word means the same kind of thing as the earlier text meant.

In response to a query from Eutychus I offered this suggestion for his consideration - look how often I used tentative words like 'apparently' or 'presumably'. I'm a lot more interested in Eutychus' opinion of this suggestion than I am in your sneering which doesn't helpfully advance the argument one bit....

[ 19. February 2017, 20:57: Message edited by: Steve Langton ]

Posts: 2149 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I'm a lot more interested in your answers to my straightforward questions above first.

[ETA: for the avoidance of doubt: these ones]

[ 19. February 2017, 20:59: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

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

Posts: 17312 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Eutychus, I just clicked on your 'these ones' and it connected me to a post in which you're asking Jamat questions about something he posted and for which I am not personally responsible and don't necessarily agree with Jamat.

So I won't be answering 'those ones' as they're nothing to do with me. But I think I know which questions you did mean and answers are on the way - just, like I said, not tonight....

Was my hint on 'arsenokoitai' any use??

Posts: 2149 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm a lot more interested in Eutychus' opinion of this suggestion than I am in your sneering which doesn't helpfully advance the argument one bit....

Oh I'm far beyond sneering.

Your argument is shit, Steve. Just because you say or think something doesn't make it an argument.

Only one person in this thread thinks what you are doing is presenting an argument. Guess who, bozo.

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

Posts: 10325 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
mr cheesy at this particular point I was, as I said, not 'putting an argument' but just trying to help Eutychus by reporting something I'd discovered. That even that attracts your sneering (or even more worrying, 'way beyond'...) - what is wrong with you?????
Posts: 2149 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
What's wrong with me? What's wrong with me? Mmm let's see, might it be that you wouldn't know an argument if it bit you on the arse? Might it be that you excel at avoiding any actual thought on anything? Might it be that you are expressing yourself in the most offensive way possible?

I dunno, Steve, what is wrong with me, but I suspect it was the point where you boldly stated that those who disagree with you are disagreeing with God. That's the point where you tipped over from being a bit of an are to being a truly offensive dick.

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

Posts: 10325 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Only one person in this thread thinks what you are doing is presenting an argument. Guess who, bozo.

I'm guessing it's you, Mr Cheesy. Much as I dislike SL's arguments, right now he actually was doing what he said he was doing.

Until you came along with a massive pile of projection, that is.

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

Posts: 18147 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Nope, saying that he knows what Paul read his not an argument. Saying that one can't be gay and Christian but can be a black pudding eater and a Christian is not an argument.

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

Posts: 10325 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Eutychus, I just clicked on your 'these ones' and it connected me to a post in which you're asking Jamat questions about something he posted and for which I am not personally responsible and don't necessarily agree with Jamat.

The link worked fine. In two different browsers.

You're welcome.

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

Posts: 8921 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Nope, saying that he knows what Paul read his not an argument. Saying that one can't be gay and Christian but can be a black pudding eater and a Christian is not an argument.

[Roll Eyes] By all means, feel free to continue to miss the point and bring in what SL said in earlier posts and project it into what SL said in the the post you decided to attack.

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

Posts: 18147 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
yes, came right just now trying again; not sure what happened first time. Perhaps combination of dyspraxia and tiredness. Still I wasn't going to answer the questions tonight, and won't have too much time tomorrow either.

Orfeo and mr cheesy, the answers about which bits of the OT remain valid in the NT really can't be dealt with in the kind of space available in this discussion thread. But there are principles which we use for it and they are coherent. But Hosts are very unlikely to take a post that detailed here, or even in Keryg where it really belongs.

What is clear is that there are both things in the OT which are changed because of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, and things which remain true over and through that.

One of the more obvious principles we use is when the validity of the OT in 'moral rule' terms rather than just 'purity rules' is or at least appears to be confirmed by commentary by Jesus himself, or by the apostles interpreting with their understanding of Jesus and the implications of his coming.

Another is the reasons given in the original text - as in, if it says it's something other than a mere purity rule, it probably is something other.

The Genesis example is 'antediluvian' - indeed 'back to the beginning' - but it is also very much confirmed by Jesus. The one about 'arsenokoitai' is simultaneously Levitical but confirmed as a moral rule by Paul who didn't have much time for the merely 'purity rules'.

That's enough for tonight; other things to do now or an already busy tomorrow may be even worse....

Posts: 2149 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:

Orfeo and mr cheesy, the answers about which bits of the OT remain valid in the NT really can't be dealt with in the kind of space available in this discussion thread. But there are principles which we use for it and they are coherent. But Hosts are very unlikely to take a post that detailed here, or even in Keryg where it really belongs.

What is clear is that there are both things in the OT which are changed because of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, and things which remain true over and through that.

And then those that can be dropped or enhanced depending on your own very idiosyncratic interpretation of the New Testament.

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

Posts: 6774 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
the answers about which bits of the OT remain valid in the NT really can't be dealt with in the kind of space available in this discussion thread.

The fuck it can't. If you need to write a thesis, you are not on solid ground.
quote:

But there are principles which we use for it and they are coherent.

That last word you used, I do not think it means what you think it means.

--------------------
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: 17109 | 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 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:


What is clear is that there are both things in the OT which are changed because of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, and things which remain true over and through that.

One of the more obvious principles we use is when the validity of the OT in 'moral rule' terms rather than just 'purity rules' is or at least appears to be confirmed by commentary by Jesus himself, or by the apostles interpreting with their understanding of Jesus and the implications of his coming.

Even if the first para is true, you've supplied no reasoning to show why this issue is in the latter category.

quote:

Another is the reasons given in the original text - as in, if it says it's something other than a mere purity rule, it probably is something other.

And what reasoning is given in the "original text" that cannot be explained by purity rules - such as no non-male, non-Jew, non-Levite should enter the holy-of-holies to sacrifice anything other than a splotless, flawless animal victim?

quote:


The Genesis example is 'antediluvian' - indeed 'back to the beginning' - but it is also very much confirmed by Jesus. The one about 'arsenokoitai' is simultaneously Levitical but confirmed as a moral rule by Paul who didn't have much time for the merely 'purity rules'.

Just an assertion. This is that, because I say so.

[ 20. February 2017, 04:27: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

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

Posts: 10325 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
yes, came right just now trying again; not sure what happened first time. Perhaps combination of dyspraxia and tiredness. Still I wasn't going to answer the questions tonight, and won't have too much time tomorrow either.

That is, frankly, lame. You've managed to post enough other verbiage since on the same evening.

These are straightforward questions which should be much simpler to answer than questions about the etymology of Greek words.

If your next post here isn't an attempt at an answer, it will be hard not to see your lack of one as evasiveness and nothing more.

For the avoidance of doubt, again, the link to my (already boiled-down) questions is here, I've checked it (just as I did the first time) and it works.

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

Posts: 17312 | 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 
In my insomnia I was also thinking about something else - the OT says some things about capital punishment and war. Those aren't specifically purity laws* and yet, Steve, you've elevated your anti-statism and Anabaptist pacifism to a religious bottom line.

The point being that the purity rules are mixed into a whole lot of other stuff in the OT to the extent that trying to suggest it is a simple task to divide it all into "purity laws" and "moral laws" is bullshit. We only have classes that individuals decide and those are open to debate, particularly when the gospels say nothing about it.

Personally, I think the anabaptist peace position makes a lot of sense. But arguing that it is something which is obvious and arrived at without a novel understanding of the OT is bunk.

* at least to the extent that we can think of reasons why capital punishment and war might be justified outwith of simple "do this because this is what God said we must do in these circumstances".

[ 20. February 2017, 05:19: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

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

Posts: 10325 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Eutychus, I've heard others who take the line that heterosexuals can always marry because "God-willing" miracles can happen relating to child birth. Even if one or both are sterile or old. According to them, that's never going to happen for homosexuals.

Oddly, these often seem to be the same people who most strongly fight for theology of the virgin birth of Christ.

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

Posts: 10325 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Are you trying to give SL an excuse to say "well, I don't need to bother to answer that now, because mr cheesy has said pretty much everything I wanted to"?

He has been evading the questions for some time now, as can be seen from here and the post thereafter, in which neither tiredness nor dyspraxia were invoked. I'm not letting him off the hook. I want to know what he thinks.

Besides, aspects not covered by your answer raised by my questions include:

What his view of physically impotent gay guys in or seeking a relationship;

Where in the Bible God condemns either oral or anal sexual practice irrespective of the sex of the people involved.

[ 20. February 2017, 05:33: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

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

Posts: 17312 | 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 
Fair enough. I think you're dreaming if you think he is going to offer anything beyond that.

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

Posts: 10325 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Fair enough. I think you're dreaming if you think he is going to offer anything beyond that.

Well let's give him a chance shall we?

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

Posts: 17312 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I think you have. Several times.

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

Posts: 10325 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Fair enough. I think you're dreaming if you think he is going to offer anything beyond that.

Well let's give him a chance shall we?
Strange echoes of a Trump supporter here... [Ultra confused]

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

Posts: 8921 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Fair enough. I think you're dreaming if you think he is going to offer anything beyond that.

Well let's give him a chance shall we?
Strange echoes of a Trump supporter here... [Ultra confused]
That would be funny if it weren't so sad/frightening.

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

Posts: 63203 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm currently chacking in on the thread to see where it's going. After a long day, probably won't manage any lengthy answer till tomorrow. But I can maybe throw some light on this where I recently learned something I'd not known before.

by Eutychus;
quote:
b) even if one assumes they were also seen as evil by Paul, there is still the problem of precisely what he means by arsenokoitai.
Apparently this is related to words used in the LXX in one of the Levitical passages. And there it's part of the description of men lying with men as with women. It's an old word for (male) man combined with one that I gather basically means 'bedding'. Paul presumably knew the LXX and uses this 'portmanteau word' combining two words of the original text to effectively refer to the LXX command. Presumably the implication is that Paul means by 'arsenokoitai' the activity referred to in the LXX where the similar word is used.
The Hebrew of the Leviticus tet is obscure and may refer to a man having sex with his mother, in her bed.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23075 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
While what you say about it above is fair enough, that does not prove anything with relation to justifying any of the things he lists as sins in vs 18-32 of ch 1. As a hermeneutical exercise it is at best pissing in the wind to try and infer you can do it.

a) If you accept, as you seem to, that Paul was listing things Jews would find reprehensible for the purposes of going on to say that they were no better, what matters is that they, not Paul, saw those things as evil, a caricature of "all the nasty stuff those Gentiles do".

b) even if one assumes they were also seen as evil by Paul, there is still the problem of precisely what he means by arseonkoitai. As I said, I'm increasingly suspicious of hermeneutics that rely on obscure Greek words to enforce a power structure. (For more on the hermeneutic issues see this post which I have literally cut out and kept).

c) if one assumes this to be a definitive list of evil things as listed by Paul, the question arises as to why the Church is generally so quick to put up with some of the other things on that list (covetousness, malice, envy, strife, deceit, craftiness, the gossips, the slanderers, the haughty, the boastful, the heartless and the ruthless) and focus (obsess?) on this one.

quote:
In the end you have to let human compassion trump the Bible.
The bible says God is slow to anger and abounding in love.

I think Adrian Plass was on the right lines when he said that like the sabbath, the Bible was made for man, not the other way arounnd.

quote:
If someone in all conscience does not agree then the hate speech kicks in, that person is necessarily homophobic. But that is NOT necessarily the case. The person can love and tolerate, they simply cannot concede that God thinks it is all fine.
But you expressed neither love nor tolerance. You decreed an entire category of people could not possibly be Christians.

If that's not haughty (see above) I don't know what is.

Why is that OK for you when gay sex isn't?

Despite this, ie whether the writer’s intention is to suggest these evil things listed are in fact his own opinion, the fact remains that this IS a list of commonly accepted evil activities and with most of them, no discussion regarding this is needed. It is soley because you so desperately wish to justify one particular thing on that list that there is a discussion. The provenance of the Greek word used to denote homosexuality, is clearly linked to the Levitical description which anathematises it, so that too, is very clear as to what is meant. It is simply nonsense to try and say Paul may not have meant to include ‘loving same sex relationships.’ To him, ‘same sex sex,’ is condemned out of hand and he is an apostle, a conduit of God’s opinion on the matter.

This is not to condemn anyone for being tempted. It is rather to urge saints to resist temptation to do all that stuff. There is simply no hermeneutical microscope that can change the statements made.

As to the church putting up with other things on the list, this obviously is intended not as a list the church can use to anathematise anyone as a corporate entity, but as a warning to individuals. I think Paul is doing what he did in 1Cor 6:9-11 as well, warn individual Christians not to get re entangled in sinful practices if they want to inherit the kingdom of God. In any case, it is very dodgy reasoning that says ‘I won’t condemn a bad thing because the church puts up with other bad things.’

Regarding love and tolerance, I am certainly not wishing to ostracise or deny human rights and agree with you that the church has not treated gays with tolerance and also that this is an ongoing problem. But what love is it to leave someone in deception, someone that thinks ‘God is cool with that, I’ll certainly go to heaven’ when it is not the case.. when they are deceived? If you lead people to stumble than you share the guilt.

Remember Ezekiel’s picture of the watchman? (Eze 33:14-19) If you warn someone they may change, if you warn them and they do not, you have delivered yourself. I, frankly, have no concern that you think that is judgemental. Of course it is; it is a necessary part of seeing things that way. But I do deny it is haughty. You could say that also about pretty well all the prophets who called sin what it was and were seriously unpopular for doing so. The motive though was always one of love, to stop the ultimate judgement from happening, to stop people being eternally lost.

I too read the post you linked to. I am not convinced by that. Compassion trumps scripture again..and hermeneutically, it is just wishful thinking.

--------------------
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: 2986 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Scripture is inconsistent, both with itself and with the message of Jesus. So, unless one is a complete moron or looking for an excuse to hate, one reads for fucking comprehension.
Hold the book to your mouth; your head is so far up your own arse, you can probably peek out through your teeth.

--------------------
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: 17109 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It is soley because you so desperately wish to justify one particular thing on that list that there is a discussion.

In my case it's because so many other aspects of the discussion have caused me to re-examine how I read this passage. It's that old "understand the difficult parts in the light of the easier parts" hermeneutic that we fell out about re: dispensationalism, and I stand by it.
quote:
The provenance of the Greek word used to denote homosexuality, is clearly linked to the Levitical description which anathematises it, so that too, is very clear as to what is meant.
Cue Dead Horse discussions about purity laws and wearing two types of fabric.
quote:
It is simply nonsense to try and say Paul may not have meant to include ‘loving same sex relationships.’
To my mind it is no more nonsense than a particular enthusiasm to go after homosexuals in preference to slanderers, the haughty, etc. This disparity in the meting out of "justice" is one of the things that gives me pause.
quote:
To him, ‘same sex sex,’ is condemned out of hand and he is an apostle, a conduit of God’s opinion on the matter.
I presume you also insist on women wearing head coverings and having a full head of hair, and think sinning individuals should be handed over to Satan for the destruction of their flesh during church meetings (presumably some time between the notices and the offering)?

The number of people who don't contextualise Paul's "conduit of God's opinion" at some point or other is vanishingly small.
quote:
In any case, it is very dodgy reasoning that says ‘I won’t condemn a bad thing because the church puts up with other bad things.’
I think it's very dodgy reasoning that jumps to condemn one of them (to anathema, no less) and is far less hasty to do so for the others.
quote:
what love is it to leave someone in deception, someone that thinks ‘God is cool with that, I’ll certainly go to heaven’ when it is not the case.. when they are deceived? If you lead people to stumble than you share the guilt.
Has it entered your mind that you might be at least partly deceived?

If not, I refer you back to my charge of "haughty".

If so, then I would not be so quick to be sure you can go around leading people out of deception and not lead them to stumble yourself.

What do you make of the innumerable testimonies of people who christians have sought to "degayify" who have ended up killing themselves and/or abandoning the faith altogether? How have they been kept from stumbling? I find it hard to think of a better way of setting up a stumbling-block for someone sincere (even if deceived and sincere) than saying to them "there is no way you can be a Christian because of this behaviour". Which you did.

quote:
Remember Ezekiel’s picture of the watchman? (Eze 33:14-19) If you warn someone they may change, if you warn them and they do not, you have delivered yourself.
The last time I looked I wasn't an Old Testament prophet sent by God to address a particular constituency. From this and your comment on stumbling above it sounds like your judgementalism is motivated by a fear of guilt. I think there is no place for that in the New Covenant.
quote:
You could say that also about pretty well all the prophets who called sin what it was and were seriously unpopular for doing so. The motive though was always one of love, to stop the ultimate judgement from happening, to stop people being eternally lost.
Are you sure you're not deceived? Casting oneself as some modern-day equivalent of Ezekiel, arguing that unpopularity simply proves you're right, insisting your motivation is one of love when what comes across is overwhelmingly a fear of losing your own salvation by sharing the guilt of the accused sounds like a sure-fire recipe for self-deception to me: when people object to your diatribes, it simply proves they're true!

quote:
I too read the post you linked to. I am not convinced by that. Compassion trumps scripture again..and hermeneutically, it is just wishful thinking.
You make it sound as though one can reach a definitive understanding of Scripture. I am pretty sure that believing one has achieved this will indeed erode one's compassion pretty fast.

For the rest of us, I think our understanding of complicated parts of Scripture, especially ones that we take as grounds for sweeping judgements of categories of people within which we ourselves do not fall, should indeed be tempered by compassion, or at least justice, mercy, and faithfulness.

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

Posts: 17312 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Scripture is inconsistent, both with itself and with the message of Jesus. So, unless one is a complete moron or looking for an excuse to hate, one reads for fucking comprehension.
Hold the book to your mouth; your head is so far up your own arse, you can probably peek out through your teeth.

It's ok you don't need the hate speech mate, breathe...breathe... there..feel better? When you regain control, document the inconsistency. I realise this is hell and you want to vent so whatever. I'm kind of over your abusiveness though.
Posts: 2986 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
has it entered your mind that you might be at least partly deceived?
Yes, it is always possible, no doubt about it at all. I would actually like it if you could prove me wrong.

--------------------
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: 2986 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Eutychus: [Overused]

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21310 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
What do you make of the innumerable testimonies of people who christians have sought to "degayify" who have ended up killing themselves and/or abandoning the faith altogether
I totally agree with you on this. It is absolutely tragic. It is not relevant to the interpretive issues though. The church has not answered or handled this at all and perhaps it is a different discussion altogether.

--------------------
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: 2986 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ...  12  13  14 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

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