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 | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Hell   » Dear Steve Langton, (Page 9)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Dear Steve Langton,
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
As for God's natural male and female design... take a fucking biology lesson and learn something about all the wild and weird variety that actually exists in the world.

--------------------
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
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351

 - Posted      Profile for Snags   Author's homepage   Email Snags   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I think a big part of Steve's issue here is that his argument basically boils down to "But it's OBVIOUS! Why can't you see that?"

The problem is that the reasons why it's obvious don't actually stand up to rational scrutiny. So you're left with a choice of either facing up to the fact that just maybe it isn't that obvious after all, or stamping your foot and shouting louder.

I'm not unsympathetic. Emotionally, viscerally, I rather fall into the "But it's OBVIOUS!" camp. Trouble is, when I examine that position intellectually, rationally and indeed prayerfully, I'm forced to conclude that it's only obvious because I'm quietly importing a truckload of assumptions, axioms and prejudices that are nothing more than culturally bound viewpoints and received 'wisdom'. So one's view has to adapt to maintain integrity.

--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)

Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gee D
quote:
1. SL is trying his not-enough-time trick on both this and the Purg thread on episcopi vagrantes.
Not a 'trick' - right now I don't have a lot of free time. Especially if you want the best answers I can give....
What I see is that somebody asks you a real zinger, and you disappear for a month, and when you come back you go on with the conversation as if it was never asked. I can see why people would be frustrated.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
RooK

1 of 6
# 1852

 - Posted      Profile for RooK   Author's homepage   Email RooK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Let's take a stroll down the wondrous beauty of the "natural design" of... The DUCK.

[WARNING: Some things can't be unseen.]

Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Nature is bloody horrible. The only possible moral lesson or example you can possibly take from nature is that humans should not try to take moral lessons or example from nature. At all. Stop it.

[ 26. May 2017, 14:19: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

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

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Yes, it amazes me that people use 'natural' and 'naturally' as moral indicators. I suppose they have to twist it, as with natural law, so that in the end, it doesn't mean natural at all, but what I want it to mean, copyright Humpty Dumpty.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  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 RooK:
Let's take a stroll down the wondrous beauty of the "natural design" of... The DUCK.

[WARNING: Some things can't be unseen.]

[Eek!] [Killing me]

--------------------
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      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
This is the best Youtube channel I have ever seen. Forget ducks. How about true facts about snails?

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

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Snails ARE evil aliens who do nothing good and should be striken from the face of the planet.

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

Posts: 10697 | 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 
I won't keep linking them all, but oh my goodness this is amazing. The one on marsupials had me laughing so hard I could barely breathe.

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

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
See, now that's really gross. Eating faeces. Eww.

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

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
RooK

1 of 6
# 1852

 - Posted      Profile for RooK   Author's homepage   Email RooK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Zefrank's "True Facts About" youtube series is truly epic. My favourite is the Sea Pig. But they're all good shit.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
by Eutychus;
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Male with female sex is 'naturally' in a big sense
You may not realise it, but you are are playing fast and loose with the word "naturally" here.

The only claim you can support with the adjective "natural" is that reproductive sex is the only way of producing children naturally.

I realise, and I assumed you did, that the word 'natural/ly' can be used in more than one sense. Paul for example uses the word 'natural' to refer to things which are 'natural/good' in the sense of being as God made/designed them. But he also uses the word to talk about the 'natural man' as a term of disapproval, meaning the man who follows his sinful nature, doing 'what comes naturally' to him, but in relation to God actually doing the 'unnatural/bad/sinful'. As far as I know those and other uses are clear and easy to sort out by reading 'in context' to see which sense is being used.

In this case I was basically using that first sense - 'the nature of things as God designed/intended'. In that sense, and also anyway as a simple fact about the physical possibilities, only male-with-female' can naturally do what God designed. Male-with-male, female-with-female, can't.

The 'natural' problems which may make practical difficulties for individual cases are somewhere between that usage and Paul's 'natural man' usage; they don't carry the 'blame' aspect of 'the natural man' phrase - but they are 'things natural in a sin-affected world', but ultimately imperfect/unnatural - they don't challenge the over-arching ideal that still only male-with-female can actually do sex as God intended.

by Eutychus;
quote:
Besides, who are you to talk about respect given the violent and childish language you've used?
I of course normally use 'polite' language; and if you can be bothered to check you'll find little coarse language ever used by me - but a very great deal of it, and far worse, used against me. Don't forget to tell them how childish they are...! I certainly don't follow the example of Thomas More in his massively coarse writings against Luther and Tyndale which I've just been reading samples of in a Tyndale biography.

But I can still sometimes feel that in a particular discussion the reality of what's being talked about can be blunted and too much softened by euphemistic polite language and that a pointed literal use of 'basic Anglo-Saxon' brings out reality and stops people hiding behind fudges. That's what I've done here. It's a perfectly grown-up form of argument and there are Biblical examples - indeed quite a few cases where a modern commentary will tell you the word you found in your translation is much more polite than the original.

by Eutychus;
quote:
I really don't think that amounts to supporting people in their certain damnation and that you should grant a shedload more respect to people for whom such issues are not about shoving anything anywhere, scatalogical or otherwise, but about a life-and-death struggle - sometimes literally.
For a bit of perspective here -
1) while there is a sense in which all sins are equally bad as representing a rejection of God,

2) I'd regard most cases of 'dodgy consensual sex' as comparatively trivial sins in themselves, and I believe that 'gay sex' has in many ways been given an unwarranted prominence by the way history has worked out. I'd be pretty sure that Rook, objectively, is committing a worse sin by some of his immature insults at my expense than most gay couples are committing by their sex acts.

3) I too am appalled by such incidents as those canings in Indonesia. Such things are not a matter for criminal law; and indeed you pretty much all know that when that kind of thing expresses supposed religion I'm against it. But I still don't want to compromise Christianity by pretending things are right which God has said are wrong.

As for the time thing, look guys, I am the kind of person who when he's running out of time just like conversationally says so because it's a fact. I'm worried that some of you are so determined to see sinister, cynical or evasive in it - I think that says more about the state of your minds than of mine. As of right now, plenty of time, just had enough of this discussion for now. Goodnight.

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
God has told you nothing. God has not told anyone anything by any demonstrable definition of certainty. You have a book that someone says someone else said God told somebody else. And it is full of stuff that is not considered good by modern Christians. Either your God is an incompetent idiot or you are.
Sorry, not fair. We know you are.

--------------------
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      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As for the time thing, look guys, I am the kind of person who when he's running out of time just like conversationally says so because it's a fact. I'm worried that some of you are so determined to see sinister, cynical or evasive in it - I think that says more about the state of your minds than of mine. As of right now, plenty of time, just had enough of this discussion for now. Goodnight.

No. Your using the "out of time" thing to avoid answering tough questions says nothing about our state of mind, and everything about your ability as an advocate for your position.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
orfeo--

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'll believe that procreation is essential to marriage when people demonstrate their dislike of ALL non-procreative marriages, not just the ones that involve 2 males or 2 females. Until that day, people arguing that procreation is the key thing are nothing more than bigoted liars.

In the discussions I mentioned above, that *was* put forth as being part of the RCC argument.

(I don't agree with any of it.)

--------------------
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
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:
I was basically using that first sense - 'the nature of things as God designed/intended'. In that sense, and also anyway as a simple fact about the physical possibilities, only male-with-female' can naturally do what God designed. Male-with-male, female-with-female, can't.

What you are trying to make "naturally do what God designed" mean is penis-in-vagina sex - to the exclusion of anything else.

There are a number of problems with that argument.

1. It is a simple fact that normally constituted male-with-female couples can engage in other sex acts besides penis-in-vagina sex. Whether you like the prospect or not, these other configurations are quite clearly "natural" in that they are within male-with-female design limits.

2. The only objective way penis-in-vagina sex is "more" natural than other kinds is the potential for reproduction. You cannot champion penis-in-vagina sex on the sole basis of it being "natural" unless you believe that the sole purpose of sex is reproduction (and that should lead you, say, to decry all forms of contraception as "unnatural"..).

When you say
quote:
only male-with-female can actually do sex as God intended
you mean reproductive sex.

3. Paul seems to think that nature itself tells us that women should have long hair and men not. Scarcely any Christians pay attention to that in practical terms today. Invoking the "natural" argument has clearly run up against contextual issues there - why not here?
quote:
But I can still sometimes feel that in a particular discussion the reality of what's being talked about can be blunted and too much softened by euphemistic polite language and that a pointed literal use of 'basic Anglo-Saxon' brings out reality and stops people hiding behind fudges.
No, the fudge is yours. You've used coarse language to insinuate that homosexuality is about violent anal sex and nothing else.

This is not true.

The fact is that anal sex is neither exclusive to nor a required component of homosexual practice.

It is quite clearly possible in male-with-female sex, a point you studiously avoid acknowledging.
quote:
It's a perfectly grown-up form of argument and there are Biblical examples
I'm struggling to see a Biblical example condemning anal or oral sex (I've been asking for one from you for several months now) and I'm struggling still further to see a Biblical example of coarse language being used to conceal the invalidity of an argument (rather than support a valid one).
quote:
I'd be pretty sure that Rook, objectively, is committing a worse sin by some of his immature insults at my expense than most gay couples are committing by their sex acts.
[Killing me] So insulting Steve Langton is a worse sin than the gay sex you feel the Bible so roundly condemns? Glad we got that cleared up.

Did you stop to consider the possibiity of the sin of "shutting the door of the kingdom of heaven to others and refusing to go in yourself"? Or slander (wilful misrepresentation of the facts), right there in Romans 1 and of which you yourself are demonstrably guilty by using anal sex as a descriptor of all homosexuality? Or indeed pride?

--------------------
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
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:


In this case I was basically using that first sense - 'the nature of things as God designed/intended'. In that sense, and also anyway as a simple fact about the physical possibilities, only male-with-female' can naturally do what God designed. Male-with-male, female-with-female, can't.

This argument obviously doesn't work if you've bothered to watch any of the videos we mention above. Male ducks are apparently designed to rape female ducks, sometimes when they're dead - or male.

Plenty of organisms have penises and vagina - you can't go around claiming that this means that "nature" determines they should be doing with them given that "nature" gives extremely mixed messages depending on where you look.

The really tiring part of this discussion is that you seem to try to bring the conversation constantly back to what people do with their gonads. As if the only time a human is fully alive is when they're engaged in sex, pregnating another human or giving birth.

Let me introduce a thing that says humans are more than their sexual urges; you might have heard of it, it is called Christianity.

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

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
by Eutychus;
quote:
So insulting Steve Langton is a worse sin than the gay sex you feel the Bible so roundly condemns? Glad we got that cleared up.
No, more a case of insulting anyone in such terms, and being the kind of person who does so, is a worse sin. As is being the kind of person who will describe Jesus as 'mistaken' if it will enable them to carry on supporting gay sex, while clearly not thinking through the wider implications of that stance....

The point is I don't see 'homosexuality' as all that extraordinary or important in itself. i'm not sure if I've previously used this example on the Ship, but I see it as rather like the case of the very ordinary farms of La Haye Sainte and Hougoumont in Belgium. Nothing special about them in themselves, but on one day in 1815 the way the Brits and their Allies lined up against Napoleon meant that the walled farmyards of La Haye Sainte and Hougoumont became key points in the battle of Waterloo which the Allies had to hold or Napoleon take to decide the result of the battle.

At the same time this is not a simple two-way battle like Waterloo - it's a confused melee of multiple parties with some who aren't really on either of the obvious 'sides' but both partly agree and partly disagree with the 'obvious' combatants. Me, I'm kind of defending a metaphorical La Haye Sainte from all comers and in some ways also defending the other sides from themselves.

I note above (though with the Ship's mechanics I'm not sure I can easily track back to it to quote it) that you effectively conceded you think heterosexual sex is God's intention 'in the beginning' - not at all sure you've proved God's intentions/wishes have actually changed.

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Let me introduce a thing that says humans are more than their sexual urges; you might have heard of it, it is called Christianity.
Exactly; which is why it's fairly important to get right what Christianity does say on the subject. And persuade the non-Christians that there's more to life.

You still appear to be confusing different usages of the concept 'natural'. The world as it is is NOT perfect and entirely as God designed it. How do you avoid the trap the Marquis de Sade fell into of thinking "Whatever is, is right" (and even then I understand he would have said the word 'right' implied far more morality than he really believed in)?

Posts: 2245 | 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 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Me, I'm kind of defending a metaphorical La Haye Sainte from all comers and in some ways also defending the other sides from themselves.

Ah, the "nuclear option" that "if we touch [insert pet peeve here], it's actually blasphemy against the Holy Spirit/an assault on the Trinity/etc".

You might like to look back through history and see what other causes this oh-so-noble-sounding defence has been invoked for. It's not reasoned argument, it's intimidation, nothing more and nothing less.

quote:
I note above (though with the Ship's mechanics I'm not sure I can easily track back to it to quote it) that you effectively conceded you think heterosexual sex is God's intention 'in the beginning' - not at all sure you've proved God's intentions/wishes have actually changed.
Let me help you. I referred to this idea (on this thread) here and before that, here (not that I expect you to consider the substance of these posts, since you have a habit of lightly skipping over everything you can't actually address).

In the very context you quote, Mark 10, Jesus is drawing a contrast between how things were in the beginning and the accommodations made in the Law to cater for the fact that "all have fallen short of the glory of God" (before going on to point out that accommodations should not be abused).

So it is quite clear in Jesus' mind that a) things are not now as they were "in the beginning" and b) reasonably accommodating that present-day state of affairs is desirable.

As I also said, I think God's archetype for sexual relations is heterosexual monogamy, and I missed the edit window at the time to add "for life".

However, human fallenness means that many of us do not match that archetype - and not just in the way you might think. Many who tick the "heterosexual-monogamous-for-life relationship" box may do so in such a way as to make that relationship an abomination (spousal abuse springs to mind).

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

If you're going to insist that God's initial "ideal" is a rule that brooks no exceptions, you are ruling out divorce and remarriage, and probably adoption too.

My experience is that given that things are no longer as they were in the beginning, God's grace and glory shines out from many surprising (to me) quarters, even as it attracts the revulsion and, yes, hatred, of modern-day Pharisees.

--------------------
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
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:


You still appear to be confusing different usages of the concept 'natural'. The world as it is is NOT perfect and entirely as God designed it. How do you avoid the trap the Marquis de Sade fell into of thinking "Whatever is, is right" (and even then I understand he would have said the word 'right' implied far more morality than he really believed in)?

You are a special kind of moron who thinks that everyone who disagrees with you is a sadist. Got it.

The fact that some gay people are beautifully supporting each other (and who, let's be honest, probably aren't having much or any sex at all) seems to completely pass you by given that you're so obsessed with "correct" natural sex.

The fact that plenty of married heterosexual people have sex without it being possible to have children seems to have slipped off your radar.

If it doesn't matter as you claim, stop talking about it. Nobody cares what you think "natural" human sex might or might not include - most of the rest of us are interested in supporting long, stable, supportive, uplifting, loving Christian relationships.

It is basically only you who think that you've got a right to tell other people that what they're doing is ungodly based on your assumptions about what they're doing in the bedroom. Because you're a plain old-fashioned jerk.

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

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I note above (though with the Ship's mechanics I'm not sure I can easily track back to it to quote it) that you effectively conceded you think heterosexual sex is God's intention 'in the beginning' - not at all sure you've proved God's intentions/wishes have actually changed.

God's intention 'in the beginning' didn't include birth defects. But at some point we got over the urge to kill people therefor. "People weren't like that in the beginning therefore God hates people like that now" doesn't work.

But what also doesn't work is "this wasn't in the beginning therefore it's a sin."

People weren't blind in the beginning. So, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?

"Wasn't in the beginning" <> "sinful".

--------------------
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      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The point is I don't see 'homosexuality' as all that extraordinary or important in itself.

Then why don't you shut up about it?

Homosexuals don't have the luxury of seeing their sexuality as unimportant, because society, and assholes like you, are beating on them every day, sometimes literally, for being who they are. Casually tossing off ignorant insults is a stance of privilege, and you are abusing your privilege to make the lives of other people unpleasant.

Why not just shut up about it? Plenty of things to talk about on the ship besides homosexuality and church-and-gummint.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As is being the kind of person who will describe Jesus as 'mistaken'

Please point to where anyone has said this.
What I, and others, have said is that you are reading the bible wrong. And that the bible is not a literal thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

As I also said, I think God's archetype for sexual relations is heterosexual monogamy, and I missed the edit window at the time to add "for life".

However, human fallenness means that many of us do not match that archetype

Actually, you are part of the problem. Well, more correctly, the concept of "fallen" that you embrace.
It is the much same thing as SL's interpretation, just without the condemnation and ick factor.

I know it is a popular Christian thing, but the very concept of a fall from grace pokes a lance directly into the heart of what y'all say God is.

--------------------
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
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
It's not far from "fallen" to "sex is evil". More better is to consider the human body isn't a temple and is an amusement park. That the best rides incorporate the sewage treatment is only a fact of evolution. So be excellent to one another.

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  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 lilBuddha:
Actually, you are part of the problem. Well, more correctly, the concept of "fallen" that you embrace.
It is the much same thing as SL's interpretation, just without the condemnation and ick factor.

Well I'll happily embrace both those exclusions, thank you [Smile]

quote:
I know it is a popular Christian thing, but the very concept of a fall from grace pokes a lance directly into the heart of what y'all say God is.
Yes, I know, you think belief in what is commonly referred to as any kind of "fall" is equivalent to believing Jesus rode on dinosaurs. We've had this discussion already.

The only germane point here is that in my view, the simple observation that the world around us does not correspond to the idyllic picture painted of the Garden of Eden, plus the fact that Jesus himself said something to the same effect, should give us pause before imposing anything depicted as being the case then as being universally binding for now.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It's not far from "fallen" to "sex is evil".

It is in my bible.
quote:
More better is to consider the human body isn't a temple and is an amusement park.
To quote a famous meme Why not both?

Sounds like a great way of describing the current now-but-not-yet incarnated, embodied spirituality christians struggle to get to grips with.

--------------------
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
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I haven't a clue what you mean.

Thought I suspect God wonders why people don't have more orgasms. And some may have to answer the question of why they failed to enjoy the simple things they might have in their post life interviews. There's far too much suffering and far too little love in the world.

[ 27. May 2017, 16:25: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
The idea that sex is inherently sinful is not one I subscribe to.

The Bible depicts the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit and suggests that as such it should be looked after responsibly, but nowhere does it rule out having fun with it.

Admittedly, some Christians have trouble with this idea, as alluded to in the poem on this page by George Target:
quote:
They don’t look at women and girls with lust in their hearts,
But neither do they roll breathless with love and laughter
Naked under the sun of high Summer.

The whole concept of Christianity is bound up with the paradox of a living out a hope that transcends this material world whilst still in it.

--------------------
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
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The idea that sex is inherently sinful is not one I subscribe to.

But by your logic it is. The fall is tied into Adam and Eve. Separating it from a literal Adam and Eve, but keeping it does not have any inherent logic. They are both part of people trying to make sense of their world in context of a rational deity.
In this way, the Greek and Scandinavian systems are much more rational. They do not pretend deities are better than people, just more powerful.
You do so believe, therefore the burden of a rational proof is much more.
And "sin" fucked the world isn't rational in your system.

--------------------
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      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I spent six pages discussing the "fall", to which you contributed very little after the initial posts, and I don't propose to rehash it here and now.

There is abundant theology supporting the theory that sex is not ipso facto sinful.

And I think evil is indeed irrational in the sense that it throws off the entire system.

--------------------
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
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I spent six pages discussing the "fall", to which you contributed very little after the initial posts, and I don't propose to rehash it here and now.

IIRC, it simply boiled down to what point people choose to believe. Still never made any rational sense. I did not bring it up to rehash the argument.
What makes you different to SL is you are not an inveterate arsehole or bigot. And that is no small thing. But your POV still feeds those who are. And that is what I'd have you consider.
quote:

And I think evil is indeed irrational in the sense that it throws off the entire system.

I think the concept of evil as an entity or a force is irrational. And irrelevant.

--------------------
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      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
your POV still feeds those who are. And that is what I'd have you consider.

I've put all my cards on the table in this discussion as regards "the beginning" to show SL the inconsistency of invoking Mark 10 to impose how things were "in the beginning" as a universal binding norm for today. That is all.

--------------------
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
RooK

1 of 6
# 1852

 - Posted      Profile for RooK   Author's homepage   Email RooK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
So be excellent to one another.

PARTY ON, DUDES!
Thank you Rufus / George Carlin.

[ 27. May 2017, 23:08: Message edited by: RooK ]

Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The idea that sex is inherently sinful is not one I subscribe to.

But by your logic it is. The fall is tied into Adam and Eve. Separating it from a literal Adam and Eve, but keeping it does not have any inherent logic. They are both part of people trying to make sense of their world in context of a rational deity.
Milton writes that Adam and Eve had an active sex life before Eve succumbed to temptation, and then pressured Adam into also eating to fruit (Milton's account of it, not necessarily mine). It was these 2 latter acts which constituted the fall, not their having sex.

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

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The idea that sex is inherently sinful is not one I subscribe to.

The Bible depicts the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit and suggests that as such it should be looked after responsibly, but nowhere does it rule out having fun with it.

Admittedly, some Christians have trouble with this idea, as alluded to in the poem on this page by George Target:
quote:
They don’t look at women and girls with lust in their hearts,
But neither do they roll breathless with love and laughter
Naked under the sun of high Summer.

The whole concept of Christianity is bound up with the paradox of a living out a hope that transcends this material world whilst still in it.
It doesn't have to. Some believe in here and now salvation, of the kind that leads to social gospel. Saving people now. Trouble is the dirty sex message so beloved of radical conservatives has become the foundation, even the unconscious foundation of their view of the world. It allows the full flower of the cartesian mind-body separation to reduce healthy orgasms, remotivate sex into violence, and make things like screwing someone over in business become orgasmic replacement.

Can sex be sacremental in your world? Can an orgasm be prayer? Why can't we be excellent to each other, and lose the bogus transcendence?

[tangent]
Was Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure a homoerotic movie?
Does it matter?[/tangent]

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
That's a tangent too far for me, especially as I haven't seen the film.

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

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
A couple of weeks ago, I listened to an episode of a podcast about the Bible ("The Bible Project") that argued most persuasively that the idea that the world was "perfect" before the Fall is not at all supported by the Bible and causes all sorts of problems.

I have to admit I found this a little mind-blowing. But it was also, as I said, persuasive. We read that God made things and they were "good", and we read about what happened after, and we then think that "good" meant "perfect", but it is seriously questionable that it did. It is seriously questionable that the world was designed as a complete work where nothing was supposed to happen before we spoiled it.

Which then throws into question the whole idea that the world's first couple were perfect and everything was fine and dandy and that there never would have been any homosexual people if only things hadn't been stuffed up.

See, at one time as I was slowly coming to terms with my own homosexuality, I reached a conviction that God didn't make a mistake when he made me. I am not a transcription error. I'm a particular kind of person (and I don't think my sexuality is the oddest thing about me) because God was just fine with having a person like that.

I'd really prefer it if people didn't see a significant part of who I am as some kind of evidence of how the world went wrong.

--------------------
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      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
No, more a case of insulting anyone in such terms,

"in such terms"? So, if one insults a person politely, it isn't a sin? You have the mental capacity of a handful of decomposed granite, your arguments are as solid as the vacuum of space and you are as polite as vomiting the contents of your stomach onto the hostess of a formal dinner party.
Is that sinless?

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Milton writes that Adam and Eve had an active sex life before Eve succumbed to temptation, and then pressured Adam into also eating to fruit (Milton's account of it, not necessarily mine). It was these 2 latter acts which constituted the fall, not their having sex.

Well, Milton isn't cannon and Adam and Eve did not exist, 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
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397

 - Posted      Profile for Patdys     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I think our linear understanding of time is flawed. I think all is good because all is completed. We just haven't seen it. And Orfeo, I think you are the perfect Orfeo- and that is good.

It gets confusing because even now -we can all be perfect arses at times.

Cross post

[ 28. May 2017, 05:45: Message edited by: Patdys ]

--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.

Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 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 
I'm sure I'm commented on this preciousness about insults before.

All I'll say this time around is: Jesus called people whitewashed tombs. Now, either you believe that Jesus was without sin, or you believe that insulting people is a horrible sin. Choose.

--------------------
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
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397

 - Posted      Profile for Patdys     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Orfeo either we have cross posted or I have failed in communicating my thoughts - but I am confused- ahh we cross posted

[ 28. May 2017, 05:51: Message edited by: Patdys ]

--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.

Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Eutychus--

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That's a tangent too far for me, especially as I haven't seen the film.

"Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure I" is a fun film. Plays around with history. (Not for little kids, FYI.)

{Puts on cool sunglasses, and plays air guitar.}

--------------------
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
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
np--

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
[tangent]
Was Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure a homoerotic movie?
Does it matter?[/tangent]

Just in case you weren't entirely being flip: The guys both displayed other interests. Now, Socrates was in the film, and reportedly was involved with males in real life; but I don't remember him displaying any interest on screen.

It wouldn't matter if Bill and Ted were gay/bi, except for plot adustments.

{Announcer: We now return you to the thread that seems to run on perpetual motion, and should therefore be patented.}
[Two face]

--------------------
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
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Milton writes that Adam and Eve had an active sex life before Eve succumbed to temptation, and then pressured Adam into also eating to fruit (Milton's account of it, not necessarily mine). It was these 2 latter acts which constituted the fall, not their having sex.

Well, Milton isn't cannon and Adam and Eve did not exist, so...
Well, Milton may not be canon, but his learning (if not the opinions he based on it) does give his statements some respect. And Adam and Eve did not exist, who then fell?

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

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Me. You.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 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 orfeo:
I'd really prefer it if people didn't see a significant part of who I am as some kind of evidence of how the world went wrong.

I wouldn't put it like that and you know I wouldn't. I have skimmed the 6-page Fall thread, and where I've got to in this debate is pretty much still here.

There I stand, at least for now. I may be wrong, but that's where I am in my conscience. I'm genuinely sorry for the hurt that might cause you and I hope you know that.

I also hope that in the meantime, you can still live with "accommodated", which was where the two of us got to once before.

Peace be with you (it is Sunday morning here after all [Angel] )

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

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Eutychus, you don't hurt me.

Well, maybe you tickle.

--------------------
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      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
[Big Grin]

--------------------
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
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I don't think talking about "the fall" with reference to the observable systems of nature makes an sense at all.

When there is a nuclear blast, animals get exposed and this causes various mutations and horrific unusual deformities which make their lives very difficult.

But I don't see that the shape of a duck's penis is like that. On the face of it, it isn't just an unpleasantness which has been inflicted on the poor duck it has to carry around, it appears to be a very specific adaption to a very specific condition. And in that sense it is very hard to describe it as "imperfect" or "fallen" and the term loses all possible meaning. If this is "fallen", what the hell did an "unfallen" duck penis look like?

And there is a lot of other crap spoken ignorantly about the situation before the fall. If there was no death, how exactly did the natural systems work? How would there be anything to eat if there was no death and presumably no reproduction? How did Adam and Eve's gut work if there wasn't anything dying inside them?

To me, the fall can only possibly refer to humanity and makes zero sense when talking about the rest of creation - other than with reference to the way that humanity trashes it.

And so I can't see how homosexuality - however caused - can be seen to be a result of the fall, and I can understand why people find that idea offensive.

I think it makes far more sense to talk about humanity, our animal natures and urges and the spark within us that means we are more than that. Fairly obviously, any sexual interaction is part of our animal nature. And also fairly obviously, abuse of those urges leads to corruption of the humanity within each person.

We're better than that. We can be more than that.

So away with all this shit that sex is worship and all that bollocks. Away with all that crap which says me and mine are part of God's wonderful creation of sex whilst you and yours are part of the fucked-up fallenness.

I want you to be in wholesome, uplifting, loving relationships. I don't want to see you abused and I am not going to assist you in abuse of another person.

But beyond that, I don't care what you do in the bedroom with your own body. I don't want to know, don't want to hear about it, don't want to see it. Put it away.

FFS. Sometimes it really does feel like the only people worth hearing from are children - who can see clearly without constantly waving their willies around.

OK some children do that, but we don't think it is a good thing do we. No.

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

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  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

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools