|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dear Steve Langton,
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
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.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) but this is what often happens when such people are "counselled" by people sharing not only your views on homosexuality, but your views on their eternal destination and on Christians' imperious responsibility to set them right, over and above the slanderers, the haughty, etc.
It depends directly on interpretive issues.
[ 22. February 2017, 06:21: 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
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
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.
but this is what often happens when such people are "counselled" by people sharing not only your views on homosexuality, but your views on their eternal destination and on Christians' imperious responsibility to set them right, over and above the slanderers, the haughty, etc.
It depends directly on interpretive issues.
Can we know an interpretation by its fruits? If so, I know where that leads me. But does it work for other interpretive issues?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
That sounds like a discussion for Purgatory.
In brief, I am by temperament a pragmatist. At the end of the day I think Paul was one too, and that this is closely related to his understanding of grace.
In 30 years of pastoral ministry in a variety of church and other settings I have certainly rejected certain interpretations on a range of issues, at least initially on the basis of their fruit.
(I should perhaps say that it tends to be quite specific interpretations, not an entire theological position. For instance, the idea that sins are of the intellect only, or that immorality is above all about what, physically, goes on in bed).
It seems to me that in the passage I quoted earlier, a lot of this is about getting priorities right. Heart trumps appearance and conscience trumps conformity to an external standard.
To quote Adrian Plass again, I love the bit in The Visit where Jesus spends almost all his "pastoral interview" with a gay guy discussing snooker (it's in the same chapter as his commment that the Bible is made for man and not the other way round).
[ 22. February 2017, 10:26: 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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
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.
Not at all; it's a natural outworking of the theology. Considering what God is going to do with unrepentant queers, just about anything is justified to turn them straight.
And this is the root of the problem, Jamat. You portray God as the ultimate homophobic queer-basher. You can provide no actual rationale for why homosexuality is wrong which actually holds water, so you are left with "God hates it" - i.e. is a homophobe, and by calling it sin, you invoke Hell and all that, which is queer-bashing taken to a whole new level. The human thugs just beat people, although I am well aware deaths have also occurred. God on the other hand is going to cast you into eternal fire for it. Makes ISIL and their throwing people off buildings look quite tame, doesn't it?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It's ok you don't need the hate speech mate, breathe...breathe... there..feel better?
It is not hate speech, but anger. Hate speech is more the rubbish you've been spouting. That you cannot tell the difference might mean that I owe you an apology as it is not equitable to hold those of diminished capacity accountable for their delusional utterances.
quote:
When you regain control, document the inconsistency.
It has been documented many times down in DH. So either you are jumping into the conversation without having read the material or the assessment of your mental ability is accurate. Probably both.
quote:
I realise this is hell and you want to vent so whatever. I'm kind of over your abusiveness though.
Awe, this is almost cute! I don't abuse you for your sake, but my pleasure.
[ 22. February 2017, 12:00: 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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Yes, it is always possible, no doubt about it at all. I would actually like it if you could prove me wrong.
I challenged you on a similar comment at the start of this thread, which you then ignored.
Why would you like to be proved wrong?
It seems to me that the only rational and ethical basis for wishing that something (X) which is forbidden instead be permitted is that one does not know of any good reason for thinking X to be immoral.
Suppose God forbids homosexuality as a moral issue (not as part of an abrogated purity code).
He must have a reason.
As he is God, that reason must be a sound one.
If you knew and understood that reason, precisely because it would be an excellent one, you would not then be able (morally) to wish that homosexuality were not forbidden. You would know why it was forbidden, and why it was good that it was forbidden.
As you clearly don't know that, on what possible basis can you fairly say that those people who can't accept a moral rule, which you are quite unable to defend on the merits, cannot be "genuine Christians"?
--------------------
"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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I would actually like it if you could prove me wrong.
I would actually like it if you grasped, at SOME point, that "proof" is not the required standard here.
--------------------
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
In other "totally unrelated" news, seeing as we are talking about fruits and practical outcomes, new research indicates that legalising same-sex marriage significantly reduces the teenage suicide rate.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I saw that too, but opted not to open that can of worms.
The book Freakonomics offers quite compelling evidence that legalising abortion has significantly reduced crime rates in the US by effectively preventing future gang members from coming into the world.
We could have a Dead Horse stampede on our hands.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I thought that God's reason for queer-bashing was that straight marriage was the best way to make sprogs, and generally be an upright citizen? One problem with this is that it seems socially determined, so that an apparent top-down instruction looks more and more like a bottom-up phenomenon. In general, as patriarchal values are being challenged, stuff like misogyny and homophobia, valorized in some religions, are being dismantled. This then clashes with the top-down stuff, and upsets conservatives, who presumably still want to bash queers and keep women under the cosh, or should I say, pace Lacan, the phallus. It's a phallocracy, but not as we know it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
looks more and more like a bottom-up phenomenon.
Now you're starting to sound like Steve.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
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. But there are principles which we use for it and they are coherent.
This is where I fundamentally disagree with you, and I refer you back to the (non-exhaustive) list of theological issues that I posted earlier. I'm very happy if you want to start a new thread on this topic, but here are some questions for you. I'm not asking for you to immediately ask them exhaustively, but to really think about them, and whether the coherent principles that you think exist are really that coherent.
Women in authority in the church - if this is something you accept, then how do you "explain away" the passages that seem to prohibit it? If you don't, how do you deal with the fact that women like Junia and Priscilla are named as leaders in the church?
Slavery - A couple of centuries ago, the same conservative principles you mention were used to defend slavery. It's there, regulated in the Jewish Scriptures. Jesus encountered slavery all around him and never condemned it - in fact, he praised the slave-owning centurion's faith. Paul specifically told the runaway slave Onesimus to return to his master Philemon, thus endorsing slavery. Slavery was clearly and coherently defended from scripture. Do you oppose slavery?
Usury - the charging of any interest within God's people was specifically forbidden in Deuteronomy. This was not recinded in the by Jesus or any of the Apostles - in fact, in Luke, Jesus specifically says "Lend, expecting nothing in return". Universal church teaching interpreted this as forbidding any charging of interest, denying communion to those who did (usurers are in Dante's Seventh Circle of Hell). Although the meaning of the word has changed now to refer to excessive interest, it's clear that the Church forbade any charging of interest up until very recently. Do you have a mortgage or a credit card? A loan?
Eating eating meat sacrificed to idols - this was a massive divisive theological issue in the early church. Paul allows it (1 Cor 8), but John rejects it (Rev 2:20). Who was right? How do you decide on the correct interpretation, given that they disagree? It doesn't matter that it's no longer a divisive, issue, but how do the principles of interpretation work?
Eating food with blood in - explicitly forbidden in the Jewish Scriptures (Genesis, Leviticus) and in the Christian Scriptures for Jews and Gentiles alike (Acts 15). Do you have steak rare? Eat black pudding? Do you condemn a brother that does? Why should we decide that this, a clear principle in scripture, is a culturally irrelevant issue?
Divorce & remarriage - despite Jesus' strong words on this topic, most Christians don't condemn divorced brothers and sisters. I'm divorced, and I'm getting married in a month's time. Do you condemn me?
Baptism for the dead - a single, hard to interpret passage on a cultural issue that we don't understand. Most Christians (not the Mormons though) just ignore it. Hmmm. There's just one single verse that appears to forbid lesbianism - the Romans 1 passage in current discussion. Is that single verse enough to condemn all lesbians? (let's forget about male homosexuals for now...)
Women wearing head coverings in church - Paul's clear that they should (1 Cor 11). But very few churches practice it nowadays. Why should we ignore Paul on this issue?
and so on... that's ignoring other previously contentious issues such as heliocentrism... To me, it's clear, especially given on things like the history of theological defence of slavery, that these "coherent set of principles" are nothing but a smokescreen. They have a plethora of exceptions and refinements so that they fit the theological disposition of the reader. They choose what they choose to choose and reject what they choose to reject.
It's those so-called coherent principles that should be rejected, for a higher hermeneutic of Love; an acknowledgement that the bible is Hard To Interpret; and that we should hold tight to the clear themes of scripture - love for our God and our neighbour, forgiveness, peace, faith, hope... (and so on); but hold lightly to the complicated and nuanced details and outworkings.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Hey! There's a queue!
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I'm very happy if you want to start a new thread on this topic
I would be very happy too. Just as long as it's not in Hell.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
S'cool. I'm in no rush ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Do you have steak rare?
Well-done steaks have no more or less blood than rare ones. Cooking doesn't make blood evaporate.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
I stand corrected! Thanks, MT.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
pedantic note/
There is little blood in any meat you eat unless you are carving it from the animal directly. The red you see is a protein called myoglobin./pedantic note
--------------------
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
Thanks LB. I knew that at one time, I think. But the ol' havarti cortex ain't what it used to be.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Do you two mind? I see new posts here and look forward to seeing the bigots being torn a new arsehole only to find banter.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do you two mind? I see new posts here and look forward to seeing the bigots being torn a new arsehole only to find banter.
Do you mind? I see new posts here and only find a kind of junior hosting that wastes my time.
--------------------
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 Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do you two mind? I see new posts here and look forward to seeing the bigots being torn a new arsehole only to find banter.
Don't mind at all, but thank you for your concern.
--------------------
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
|
|
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Do you have steak rare?
Well-done steaks have no more or less blood than rare ones. Cooking doesn't make blood evaporate.
2 ways to cook a steak:
1) Rare
2) Ruined.
--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/
Posts: 1020 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
mt--
So you have a cheese brain??
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Do you have steak rare?
Well-done steaks have no more or less blood than rare ones. Cooking doesn't make blood evaporate.
2 ways to cook a steak:
1) Rare
2) Ruined.
Oh God don't you fucking start. As I've managed to teach my 8 year old, but apparently not certain steak snobs - "Different people like different things".
Now fuck off.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do you two mind? I see new posts here and look forward to seeing the bigots being torn a new arsehole only to find banter.
Do you mind? I see new posts here and only find a kind of junior hosting that wastes my time.
Well, you try to turn the heat back up again and what do you get?
No fucking gratitude, that's the problem around here.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Indeed, the gratitude for the actual pilots is sorely lacking, instead some of the passengers are trying to take over the steering.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
All of this would be solved if the figurehead would simply show up and do some answering.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Do you have steak rare?
Well-done steaks have no more or less blood than rare ones. Cooking doesn't make blood evaporate.
2 ways to cook a steak:
1) Rare
2) Ruined.
Oh God don't you fucking start. As I've managed to teach my 8 year old, but apparently not certain steak snobs - "Different people like different things".
Subjective taste based on personal ick factor passed off as a hard-and-fast rule? I just assumed it was an ironic meta-commentary on the thread.
Otherwise then yeah,
quote:
Now fuck off.
is the right response.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Do you have steak rare?
Well-done steaks have no more or less blood than rare ones. Cooking doesn't make blood evaporate.
2 ways to cook a steak:
1) Rare
2) Ruined.
Oh God don't you fucking start. As I've managed to teach my 8 year old, but apparently not certain steak snobs - "Different people like different things".
Subjective taste based on personal ick factor passed off as a hard-and-fast rule? I just assumed it was an ironic meta-commentary on the thread.
.
In Hell? Well it could be I suppose, but I wouldn't be looking for it here.
Anyway, the thread's improved at least.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do you two mind? I see new posts here and look forward to seeing the bigots being torn a new arsehole only to find banter.
How long have you been here? And you're still this naive?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do you two mind? I see new posts here and look forward to seeing the bigots being torn a new arsehole only to find banter.
How long have you been here? And you're still this naive?
Well, I'd prefer cheerfully optimistic, but we both know that would be a lie.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
As would, apparently, the whinging about conversation...
😜
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You get sucked in.
And that's exactly the sort of thing that the Bible warns us about. Probably.
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Do you have steak rare?
Well-done steaks have no more or less blood than rare ones. Cooking doesn't make blood evaporate.
This is one hundred percent accurate.
Both have zero blood in them.
Just a little morning pedantry for you all.
Given the thread, Note I said pedantry, not pederasty.*
From a conversational point of view, It is a beautiful morning here.
And I have just decided to forego my morning run which brings me and the aesthetically minded walkers great joy.
But I do have to go work and and I remain on call for another 48 hours.
*Yes I know. I am not equating the two...<sigh>
I'm one of the those converted liberophobes.
Not so much conversion therapy as conclusion therapy.
I reached the conclusion Grace trumps** all.
**Just reappropriating the word.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You get sucked in.
And that's exactly the sort of thing that the Bible warns us about. Probably.
Beware of vacuum cleaners. And vegetarians.
--------------------
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 Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well, you try to turn the heat back up again and what do you get?
No fucking gratitude, that's the problem around here.
Whining is heat?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
So does a fart.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
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.
Right; on your first point you appear not to be comparing like with like. In the Christian world, where Jesus - God Incarnate - is Lord, marriage and sex are as he said in Mark 10. God made them male and female and sex and marriage are for male and female using the complementary parts God designed for the purpose. Since neither male-with-male nor female-with-female can actually do sex as designed, 'gay sex' is a non-starter.
Yes in a sin-spoiled world there can be some practical problems for heterosexual practice - but none of those can actually affect the big point that sex and marriage are not designed for same-sex relations. It's simply not the same question.
On further checking the supposed new interpretation of Romans 1 turns out not to be relevant to the current questions.
On oral sex in heterosexual relations - I'll take another look. Because of Mark 10 I think it would still be out in 'gay sex' terms.
Anal sex - look, whatever language you use about it, polite, 'playground', or fudge/obscure, excrement is simply not nice stuff and sexuality - in God's world anyway - deserves more respect and honour than that. I also note that it is an aspect where a lot of gay people - even activists like Stephen Fry - seem to have reservations, to put it mildly....
People of other worldviews are free to disagree, of course; whether they're entitled to force everyone else to agree with them is a decidedly different issue.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
Langton, you are a complete troll who loves the sound of his own voice so much that you dredge up a quiescent thread to reiterate your same old arguments.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Yes in a sin-spoiled world there can be some practical problems for heterosexual practice - but none of those can actually affect the big point that sex and marriage are not designed for same-sex relations. It's simply not the same question.
BWA HA HA HA HA!
First there's the hilarity of imaging a divine creator explaining their design specifications to Steve unclefucking Langton. And Steve smeg-gargling Langton only.
Second, there's the complexity of "heterosexual practice" itself, which leads one to suspect that Steve dutch-rudder Langton knows extremely little about the subject. It seems painfully obvious that his comprehension begins and ends with reproduction, and has exactly zero comprehension of intimacy or shared experience. It makes one feel very sad for Steve fuckdribbling Langton - and every single sexual parter he has ever fucked.
Third, and perhaps most flabbergasting, is the painful truth that there are more than just two sexes. There are several types that are commonly found:
X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people
XX – Most common form of female
XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people
XY – Most common form of male
XYY – Roughly 1 out of 1,000 people
How the everliving fuck is Steve fuckmuppet Langton's oversimplified concept of "design" apply to real humans? Other than by ignoring reality and making assumption-reinforcing assertions, I mean.
Hilarious stupidity. Eat shit and die, Steve #shitforbrains Langton.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Anal sex - look, whatever language you use about it, polite, 'playground', or fudge/obscure, excrement is simply not nice stuff and sexuality - in God's world anyway - deserves more respect and honour than that. I also note that it is an aspect where a lot of gay people - even activists like Stephen Fry - seem to have reservations, to put it mildly....
Folks this is SHOW-STOPPING here. Steve Langton has admitted here, for the first time ever in his entire life, that anal sex and male homosexuality are not coterminous! And that there are gay males who don't engage in anal sex!
THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING. A lot of what he has said over the past several years about homosexuality will have to be reinterpreted in the light of this striking revelation.
Watch this space for further developments!
--------------------
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 Uncle Pete:
Langton, you are a complete troll who loves the sound of his own voice so much that you dredge up a quiescent thread to reiterate your same old arguments.
I'm sorry, that was my fault, because I called him on Purg on his failure to answer my post despite promising to do so (he seemed to think that lying low for a couple of months would do).
The original statement of Steve's I challenged him to uphold or retract was this one: 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
Steve, you haven't answered this challenge, so I assume the assertion stands. No more marriage for impotent and/or disabled straight couples it shall be.
In the absence of any retraction, I therefore agree with RooK that your comprehension of both marriage and sex begins and ends with reproduction.
As RooK has also pointed out, the words in your post that aren't in the Bible are "sex as designed".
Anyone who thinks penis-in-vagina sex is the design limit on sexual intimacy has less creative imagination than even secular law (which usually revolves around notions of penetration), and anyone who thinks God restricted sex to that hasn't read Song of Songs very closely.
The fact is, the Bible has precisely nothing to say condemning particular sexual practices between heterosexual partners apart from condemning rape (i.e. lack of consent) (presumably you also think that provided p-i-v sex hasn't happened, no rape has occurred?).
You are confusing your personal ick factor with what the Bible actually says (or doesn't say).
By the way, has it ever occurred to you that p-i-v sex involves inserting the urine-excreting bit of a man's body into the woman's baby-making bits?
(To help you out, I think the conservative way of avoiding this ick factor - which I don't expect you, as a man, to have ever considered - is to talk prudishly in terms of a "wonderful economy of design").
[ 15. May 2017, 05:22: 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
|
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
