|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I call all homophobes to Hell - especially Russ
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Not only has science moved on since Paul's time, the science of psychology and human development has moved on since the era (between the late-19th and mid-20th centuries) when most of the current pro-gay rhetoric was devised, and the bits of that 'moving on' that I'm aware of don't necessarily support that pro-gay rhetoric.
Allow me to correct your gross misunderstanding of this specific topic.
Psychology of the late-19th to late-20th century generally reflected the squeamish general understanding of sexuality - such that until 1987 (with the DSM-III-R) homosexuality was considered a disorder. It is only in the last couple decades that actual statistical rigor has been applied to the research, revealing anything beyond the classic homophobia.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Curiosity killed....
quote:
Steve, I thought that there were queries as to what Paul means by the Greek wording used in Romans 1: 26-28 which is often translated to proscribe homosexual activities. Doesn't he use words that don't appear anywhere else in the Bible or anywhere else in writings of the time? Which immediately means any translation is an interpretation (through whatever lens used at the time). It could mean any sort of perversion: temple prostitution is one that is suggested regularly.
Romans 1: 26-28 is really subject to interpretation in all senses of that word.
(And shouldn't we be having this conversation in Dead Horses?)
As regards Dead Horses, complaints to the people who set up a hell call on a DH topic - and whoever that was, it wasn't me!
As regards Romans 1, I was addressing above the issue of context, that is, Romans 1 as a whole and its place in the letter as a whole. It isn't just a straightforward declaration that "homosexuality is sinful", but a wider examination of the human condition.
In that wider argument Paul is effectively saying that in rebelling against God, the human race has created not only dislocation of the relationship with God (leading to the absurdity of idol-worship) but also dislocation within men, dislocation between men, and dislocation between man and nature. Sexual disorientation is part of this and he is effectively using this example to say "Look how deep it can go....".
Turning to the narrower question of vv26-8 that you raise, there is I think no realistic doubt that Paul is referring here to acts of 'gay sex' between men. The question seems to be whether you can somehow limit that reference so as to be able to say (1) that Paul is not explicitly condemning the particular gay sex that you want to approve of, and also (2) (by what can only be a rather tenuous 'argument from silence') that 'not explicitly condemning' can be taken to mean pretty much whole-hearted approval. That's a considerable stretch, and also would seem to involve divorcing the text from its context in the wider Bible and, for example, the teachings of Jesus about sexual relationships.
If Paul did intend to change things to make sex between men allowable, I'd expect him to say so as frankly as he deals with the circumcision issues, not to leave it requiring wire-drawn and tenuous distinctions. In effect, Paul (and Jesus) don't say much here, or feel the need to say much, because they are NOT changing things in terms of what is sexually appropriate.
I can see someone coming up with a clever sound-bite that I'm using an 'argument from silence' myself; and in a sense I am. But I'm making the commonsense point that there is a fairly solid presumption against change here. Silence because you're NOT changing the existing state of affairs is inherently plausible; making a major change but not explicitly mentioning it is inherently implausible especially from teachers as iconoclastic as Jesus and Paul.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Sorry, SM, not quite clear what you're saying here. That these are the baddest words that your peer group knew ? Or that there was something about your demeanour that suggested to them that these insults were appropriate ? Or that you responded to the ill-intent even though you knew the content wasn't true ? Or that this was in some way worse than being looked down on for being unsporty ? Can you explain why ?
Russ, you're funny. Sometimes it's hard to tell if you're just pretending to be stupid. Anyway, obviously, it's the first. Thanks to homophobic jerks like you, "gay" is the worst thing anyone can be.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by orfeo;
quote:
Steve, please just get it through your head that your interpretation of Romans 1 is not everyone's interpretation of Romans 1. Ta.
Been through this before, haven't we? ....
Yep. We have. So thanks for showing up late to the party and repeating stuff we've all heard before. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As regards Dead Horses, complaints to the people who set up a hell call on a DH topic - and whoever that was, it wasn't me!
I called all homophobes, especially Russ, to Hell - due to what he was saying in Dead Horses. Nice to see another turn up ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
It's very obvious who made the call, it was me. (hint - look at the 'person to blame' list)
I wanted to highlight homophobia and the horrible attitudes to people which ride in along with it, but especially in those who want to be seen as 'good' people.
Russ even signed off his foul homophobic posts 'best wishes' when he wished them anything but the best! At least he's stopped doing that, if nothing else.
[ 27. September 2015, 16:58: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Steve, you just make scripture up in your own image, or at least that of your own hang-ups. But then we all do: maybe that's the human condition.
Otherwise, the human condition is humanity. It's certainly the condition for being human. Some people can only aspire. Especially those most keen to brandish their favourite bits of the bible.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Russ wrote:
Just as I use analogies to try to show you that anything I say about homosexual people follows logically from the (to me self-evident) idea that heterosexuality is Nature's way of continuing the human species and that homosexuality is a corrupted manifestation of that. I find that in general showing is more effective than telling. Just as the analogy of left-handedness showed me clearly your point of view.
I do find these arguments interesting in a way, as a kind of museum of fallacies. First, 'Nature's way' seems to show the appeal to nature fallacy, ironic, since nature's way produces gays and lesbians with some regularity. It also introduces the idea of teleology, erroneously, since nature does not intend.
But then the switch to 'corrupted' shows a kind of bait and switch technique, since this is not a biological category but a moral one.
Keep 'em coming, I'm hoping for a full set!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Thanks to homophobic jerks like you, "gay" is the worst thing anyone can be.
I don't think gay is the worst thing. You don't think gay is the worst thing. I don't read Christianity as saying that gay is the worst thing.
You're telling me that amongst your (? 12-year old ?) peer group when you were at school, gay was the worst thing. And that therefore being called gay hurt, even though you didn't think you were. And that therefore you've got a lot of sympathy for anyone who was gay and went through that, because it must have been ten times worse to know that the insult was true ? That where you're coming from ?
(My recollection of schooldays was that insults involved excrement and female genitalia, but I don't doubt your experience).
So what happens if you succeed in convincing 12-year olds as a group that gay is no worse than straight ? What's the new "worst thing" ?
Have you lessened the psychological urge to bully, to take out one's frustrations on a low-status victim, to make oneself feel better by putting somebody else down ? No. All you've done is shift the pain around a bit.
Or maybe you've even validated the idea that gay is worst by getting the kids to notice that gay is the insult that the adults get all uptight about.
It's not that I don't sympathise with the bullied. It's that I don't sympathise with getting outraged at the fact that group A gets bullied more than group B instead of getting outraged at the fact that bullying is happening at all.
And I see that phenomenon as politicising the issue of bullying
instead of trying to prevent it.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Keep 'em coming, I'm hoping for a full set!
And Russ kindly obliges by telling Soror Magna that she is Part of the Problem.
He is either deliberate in his offence or is the idiot savant of insult.
--------------------
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
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And I see that phenomenon as politicising the issue of bullying instead of trying to prevent it.
How do you feel about the word "retard"?
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064
|
Posted
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
I wanted to highlight homophobia and the horrible attitudes to people which ride in along with it, but especially in those who want to be seen as 'good' people.
You wanted to highlight a non-existent, made-up condition?
Homophobia is a word which was coined to stifle opposition, end discussion and tarnish the name of anyone who dared to voice the slightest disagreement with what might be loosely called the 'gay agenda'. It is not a bona fide phobia, and it is not recognised as such by any respectable medical body. It is merely an insult, and a stick with which to beat those who hold different opinions. The use of 'homophobia' and its derivatives is nothing more nor less than a bullying tactic.
I'm sure that among those who have jumped on the bandwagon of labelling others 'homophobes' there are plenty who do it because they "want to be seen as 'good' people," as you put it.
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Keep 'em coming, I'm hoping for a full set!
And Russ kindly obliges by telling Soror Magna that she is Part of the Problem.
He is either deliberate in his offence or is the idiot savant of insult.
Russ tends to cluster bad arguments together. I think there are circular arguments going on, e.g. gay sex is corrupt because it's corrupted. Also, the fallacy of equivocation seems present with terms like 'faulty' and 'defective', which are being used both in a technical sense and a moral sense simultaneously.
But as I've said, it baffles me that theists don't use theistic arguments to justify homophobia, e.g. God doesn't like gay sex. Why do they come up with these sludgy and inaccurate secular arguments?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
It's that I don't sympathise with getting outraged at the fact that group A gets bullied more than group B instead of getting outraged at the fact that bullying is happening at all.
As opposed to saying that because group B gets bullied, I can bully group A (which is what you're doing).
A decent minded individual would view the overall situation and be able to say: Group A is being bullied. Group B is being bullied. How do we stop group A being bullied? How do we stop group B being bullied?
You're not bullying group B? Terrific. Well done you. How about group A? Hmmm. A bit tricky. Why not try not bullying them and see how that goes?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
I wanted to highlight homophobia and the horrible attitudes to people which ride in along with it, but especially in those who want to be seen as 'good' people.
You wanted to highlight a non-existent, made-up condition?
OK, lets have a new way of putting it then, if the word 'phobia' bothers you.
I want to highlight that some people would want to treat people unequally simply because they have a different sexuality than themselves.
Russ is one of them. You too The Rhythm Methodist?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
I wanted to highlight homophobia and the horrible attitudes to people which ride in along with it, but especially in those who want to be seen as 'good' people.
You wanted to highlight a non-existent, made-up condition?
OK, lets have a new way of putting it then, if the word 'phobia' bothers you.
I want to highlight that some people would want to treat people unequally simply because they have a different sexuality than themselves.
Russ is one of them. You too The Rhythm Methodist?
Hold on though. The point that homophobia is not a medical condition is a straw man, nobody has claimed that it is.
To say that it's made up is absurd. Ask somebody who is gay if they encounter negativity, prejudice and hatred.
Please, no fake etymology, along the lines that homophobes are not afraid - this is junk semantics.
Most people objecting to the use of 'homophobia' are homophobes, in my experience.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But as I've said, it baffles me that theists don't use theistic arguments to justify homophobia, e.g. God doesn't like gay sex. Why do they come up with these sludgy and inaccurate secular arguments?
Because the Bible doesn't make a solid case.
Translation is problematic.
Grabbing one or two lines to make a point inevitably brings up the lines which are contrary to Christian practice and also the many Biblical inconsistencies. This leads to interpretation or context: The bane of the God doesn't like queers brigade.
And homosexuality rampant through the natural world that God created is kinda hard to put down to "choice".
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But as I've said, it baffles me that theists don't use theistic arguments to justify homophobia, e.g. God doesn't like gay sex. Why do they come up with these sludgy and inaccurate secular arguments?
Because the Bible doesn't make a solid case.
Translation is problematic.
Grabbing one or two lines to make a point inevitably brings up the lines which are contrary to Christian practice and also the many Biblical inconsistencies. This leads to interpretation or context: The bane of the God doesn't like queers brigade.
And homosexuality rampant through the natural world that God created is kinda hard to put down to "choice".
Yes. I think also that in a secular society theistic arguments have a hard furrow, since people might say, 'fine, if your religion doesn't like gay sex, but I don't want your views to determine my approach, or the approach of civil society'.
I think this is a powerful argument in societies which are more or less secular. Not in Iran.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Well, I think you do the Iranian people an injustice by that statement. Though, ISTM, it does accurately reflect official attitudes.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, I think you do the Iranian people an injustice by that statement. Though, ISTM, it does accurately reflect official attitudes.
Yes, good point. There is a powerful secularist movement in Iran, opposed to religious witch-hunts.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
a non-existent, made-up condition?
Rubbish. The condition for which the word was originally coined exists. As does the prejudice the current use of the word addresses.
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Homophobia is a word which was coined to stifle opposition, end discussion and tarnish the name of anyone who dared to voice the slightest disagreement with what might be loosely called the 'gay agenda'.
And rubbish again. The word was coined to describe a condition. And it is currently used to highlight the prejudicial treatment of LGBT people. I've had polite discussions even here on SOF with people who felt there religion said homosexuality was wrong. The label homophobic is applied to statements and actions which go beyond this.
As far as "Gay Agenda" no one ever gave me a copy. So I searched and found this!
Now, where to find Branjelina at 6:45?
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
The use of 'homophobia' and its derivatives is nothing more nor less than a bullying tactic.
Russ has opined on this thread that many people are hardwired to feel revulsion at homosexuality and other forms of non-reproductive sex.
One might disagree about how hardwired it is, or about the exact nature of it in so far as it is hardwired, but he's certainly admitting the existence of the phenomenon.
Unless someone can show some good reason to actually feel revulsion (we don't usually feel revulsion for things just because we morally disapprove of them) the feeling of revulsion is irrational. Homophobia is as good a term for an irrational revulsion as any.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Just using the term "gay agenda" marks one as a homophobe in my book. It's such a bullshit, paranoid piece of nasty work, never used in any neutral or positive sense, only to slam gays for trying to subvert Western Civilization or some such fuckwittery. It really amounts to a conspiracy theory. The Gays™ as a whole meet in secret conclaves and plan how to impose The Gay Agenda® on an unsuspecting Christian nation. It's nutcase city on a melba round.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I can see someone coming up with a clever sound-bite that I'm using an 'argument from silence' myself; and in a sense I am.
So you're saying when you accuse someone else of using an argument from silence, it's a valid call on their fallacy. But in the very same post, you admit to using an argument from silence, and insult anyone who points it out as "coming up with a clever sound-bite."
So logical sauce for the goose is not logical sauce for the gander. Aren't you a precious little moppet that the rules of logic so don't apply to you that you're entitled to insult people who dare suggest they might.
Swollen head much?
[ 29. September 2015, 02:07: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... It's not that I don't sympathise with the bullied. It's that I don't sympathise with getting outraged at the fact that group A gets bullied more than group B instead of getting outraged at the fact that bullying is happening at all.
And I see that phenomenon as politicising the issue of bullying
instead of trying to prevent it.
Either you're playing stupid or your little dinosaur brain simply can't grasp these concepts.
Homophobic bullying doesn't happen just in schools, you idiot. There's legal discrimination right up to the death penalty all around the world. Plus religious persecution, sports trash-talk ... homophobia is everywhere. Of course it's political. Calling something "political" to dismiss it just shows that you don't know what politics is all about.
And speaking of politics, there are no laws preventing nerds from getting married, and we don't execute people who wear glasses even though they are obviously corrupt and sub-optimal and faulty. Homophobic bullying in schools is a small subset of the homophobia that pervades so many societies. The same goes for insults based on female genitalia and "feminine" characteristics - they are rooted in misogyny, which is homophobia's daddy.
Hope that doesn't overload your widdle bwain.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
It's not that I don't sympathise with the bullied. It's that I don't sympathise with getting outraged at the fact that group A gets bullied more than group B instead of getting outraged at the fact that bullying is happening at all.
And I see that phenomenon as politicising the issue of bullying
instead of trying to prevent it.
Especially when you're one of the ones bullying the people in group A.
The reason people here are bothering with you is to try and stop your bullying.
I'm not in a good mood. Yesterday a friend of mine told me she went to a wake for the 23 year old son of close friends. He had a paranoid breakdown and committed suicide. Part of the problem was he had told his ever so Christian grandmother that he thought he might be gay and she told him it was a sin. Part of the tragedy was that if he had talked to his parents, they would have been supportive.
As for you, Russ, I hope your kids survive your theoretic bullshit and live to realize how wrong and embarrassing you are. Your promotion of your nastiness to a theoretic minor issue is disgusting. I do wish you, and the boys Grandmother, a speedy promotion to your reward in the afterlife.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by orfeo;
quote:
Steve, please just get it through your head that your interpretation of Romans 1 is not everyone's interpretation of Romans 1. Ta.
Been through this before, haven't we? As I recall you accept the somewhat strange and incoherent view that Romans 1 doesn't represent Paul's own view but him putting forward a Jewish 'anti-Gentile rant' which he disagrees with and then in effect makes fun of. When I looked into this I could find NOTHING in the original Greek to support that interpretation - all the 'therefores' etc are exactly as needed for the traditional interpretation.
When I pointed that out on thread I was treated to the information that in effect what the text said didn't matter - the epistle would be delivered by a messenger who would be instructed to read the message out in such a way as to bring out the comic interpretation....
Pardon me if I feel that that kind of suggestion is hardly normal interpretation, more a case of anything goes to make the Bible mean what you want rather than what it actually says! I think it fair comment that if I had proposed such a style of interpretation on behalf of my own position, you'd all have laughed it off the ship - it was only 'got away with' because it was offered on behalf of the popular pro-gay wishful thinking.....
This is a vaguely half-remembered version of what I actually think, peppered with stuff that I think you've drawn in from what some other Shipmate thinks (assuming you haven't just made it up).
Let me pick you up on one part of this post that is profoundly illogical: if an author is making an allusion to another, earlier text that is familiar to an audience, why exactly do you think it would alter the grammar of the text?
Seriously. If I make a reference to a famous line from Shakespeare, or use a phrase found in the Bible, or a well-known quote from a movie, or in this context say "not that there's anything wrong with that" because anyone who's ever seen a particular episode of Seinfeld will immediately recognise I am making a reference to their attitude to homosexuality, it's not going to change the text in the way you suggest. It's not a textual effect at all, it's an effect that relies on existing knowledge beyond the text.
So saying you found nothing in the original Greek to support an interpretation makes no sense in relation to the idea that Paul was quoting/referencing another text. You're never going to find anything in the original Greek on that. It requires you to compare Paul's text to the other text that people claim he was quoting/referencing, to see if there's a match.
(It wasn't me who mentioned this other text, so I can't point you to it right now, but it was certainly not the first time I had come across this idea that Paul was not writing in a literary vacuum.)
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Romans 1: 26-28 is really subject to interpretation in all senses of that word.
(And shouldn't we be having this conversation in Dead Horses?)
I've started a Dead Horses thread on the interpretation issue, for those who wish to discuss the point without acrimony.
--------------------
"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
(There's no rule that says you're not allowed to have civil and meaningful conversations in Hell if they arise out of a thread.)
I tried to add something meaningful about Seinfeld and Bible interpretation to my previous post and the computer ate it, so now I'm attempting to recreate it in a separate post.
One of the biggest problems with Bible reading and interpretation is that we tend to do it in a vacuum. We read the Bible as a self-contained book.
The original readers didn't. Especially with something like Paul's letters, they shared a common culture which meant it was possible for him to make allusions that they would recognise.
A reference to Seinfeld works really well with my own generation as an audience, because a lot of people my age saw a lot of Seinfeld. It was a massively popular show right at the time that my generation was into TV. But there's a younger generation coming through that might struggle to spot that a Seinfeld reference is a Seinfeld reference. And in a couple of centuries, hardly anyone would recognise that something was a Seinfeld reference because they probably wouldn't even know what Seinfeld was.
The same thing happens with Shakespeare: there are lots of references in Shakespeare that an audience in London around 1600 would get, that only make sense to specialist scholars nowadays, who explain the point to modern readers in a footnote.
One of the big questions about reading the Bible is: how exactly do you know whether it's full of "Seinfeld quotes" that you're just completely missing? What if the New Testament is full of things that a mid-1st Century person would readily pick up that you completely miss because you don't have the background cultural knowledge of a mid-1st Century person?
--------------------
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
by Rook;
quote:
Allow me to correct your gross misunderstanding of this specific topic.
Psychology of the late-19th to late-20th century generally reflected the squeamish general understanding of sexuality - such that until 1987 (with the DSM-III-R) homosexuality was considered a disorder. It is only in the last couple decades that actual statistical rigor has been applied to the research, revealing anything beyond the classic homophobia.
What gross misunderstanding - apart from yes, thinking while a bit more awake than when composing the original comments, I might have better said "mid-to-late 20th Century" rather than just "mid-"; As I said, the ideas about psychology and development which underlie the typical pro-gay position really did develop over that period and were fairly well-defined already by the time homosexuality was decriminalised in the UK in 1967. It is true that formalisation in DSM came later; that's how these things tend to work out. Not that DSM is actually infallible, mind....
The later developments I'm thinking of have arisen post-1987 from increasing awareness of issues around autism and what we learn from that about development and the way the brain works generally; and are still a work in progress, though a work I've studied quite a bit as an able Aspie.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Steve Langton:
Jesus didn't say anything about the food prohibitions that Peter later lifted. So by your argument from silence POV, Peter went directly contra Jesus.
And you folks love to trot out Paul, but ignore the fact he wasn't to keen on hetro sex either.
[ 29. September 2015, 14:56: 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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by orfeo;
quote:
This is a vaguely half-remembered version of what I actually think, peppered with stuff that I think you've drawn in from what some other Shipmate thinks (assuming you haven't just made it up).
Given how much time I spent thinking about it at the time, I certainly didn't make up that other Shipmate's 'interpretation' of Romans 1 and that really strange attempt to justify it. You did yourself make a comment about Romans 1 on another thread that at least implied that you had the same basic interpretation.
I agree that your version probably did not include the extra layer about messengers being primed to deliver a somewhat comic version belying the actual words, and I'm sorry if I wasn't quite clear there. My point was that having after a lot of checking concluded that the actual text does bear the standard interpretation and does not bear that other interpretation, I then found that other Shipmate producing this really bizarre further justification of his position, and felt it reasonable to conclude that normal interpretation (of texts of any kind!) was just not happening there!!
The rest of your comments suggest we are slightly at cross purposes here. That alternative interpretation doesn't just refer to the bit of Romans 1 which specifically deals with homosexuality. It is a kind of global re-interpretation of the whole of Romans 1, attempting to say that the whole section doesn't represent Paul's own real view but a kind of caricature of a Jewish anti-Gentile rant, presented by Paul in order to then effectively make fun of it in chs 2-3. What I'm saying is that I can't find anything in the text to suggest such an interpolation - in the original Greek there is a coherent flow-through from the introductory verses right through to ch3, as per the traditional view of the text. If the section were the kind of interpolation suggested by that other interpretation, I'd expect it to be differently connected to the surrounding sections.
Have to go off-line for a while now, I'll try and deal with other issues later.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It is a kind of global re-interpretation of the whole of Romans 1, attempting to say that the whole section doesn't represent Paul's own real view but a kind of caricature of a Jewish anti-Gentile rant, presented by Paul in order to then effectively make fun of it in chs 2-3. What I'm saying is that I can't find anything in the text to suggest such an interpolation - in the original Greek there is a coherent flow-through from the introductory verses right through to ch3, as per the traditional view of the text.
The original greek is an amost word for word quotation from the Book of Wisdom. More detail here.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
What gross misunderstanding
You failed to actually use a question mark in your subsequent grammar-horror, but this appears to clearly be a question.
You made two connected assertions.
1) The science of psychology has improved.
2) The related message of that improvement went from being the source of so-called "pro-gay agenda" to being contradictory them.
While I would agree with 1) overall, I would assert that it was better-characterized as going from wildly unscientific speculations to being trying really hard to be strongly-science-like. Mostly.
The gross misunderstanding is really assertion 2). On the whole, the gestalt of psychology did not distinguish itself as being particularly progressive with respect to conceptualization of various aspects of sexuality, particularly homosexuality. However, as psychology has dragged itself into more empirically-validated modalities in the last couple decades, the research has overwhelmingly supported the concepts of sexual identity and gender identity as being fundamentally intrinsic.
Simply stated: you, sir, were full of shit.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Rook;
quote:
The gross misunderstanding is really assertion 2). On the whole, the gestalt of psychology did not distinguish itself as being particularly progressive with respect to conceptualization of various aspects of sexuality, particularly homosexuality. However, as psychology has dragged itself into more empirically-validated modalities in the last couple decades, the research has overwhelmingly supported the concepts of sexual identity and gender identity as being fundamentally intrinsic.
Can we have that in English please??
quote:
1) The science of psychology has improved.
2) The related message of that improvement went from being the source of so-called "pro-gay agenda" to being contradictory them.
1) Actually, not necessarily....
2) No, I actually said that recent discoveries undermine some of the simplistic assertions of the (since there doesn't seem to be a shorter phrase for it) 'pro-gay agenda'. I would point out that I'm not quite putting forward the standard 'anti-gay agenda'.
Oh - nit-picking grammar - "...contradictory them"???? Which BTW I wouldn't have bothered mentioning but for your own nit-picking, since the meaning was clear....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
'Nature's way' seems to show the appeal to nature fallacy, ironic, since nature's way produces gays and lesbians with some regularity. It also introduces the idea of teleology, erroneously, since nature does not intend.
But then the switch to 'corrupted' shows a kind of bait and switch technique, since this is not a biological category but a moral one.
If you think that the fact that nature produces gays and lesbians is an argument against the proposition that this is not a Good Thing then you're committing exactly the fallacy that you're highlighting.
I don't think I've used the argument "unnatural, therefore bad". So "appeal to nature" disqualifies your point and not mine.
I have talked about purpose. To say for example that the purpose of a creature having legs is locomotion does not seem to be a meaningless statement, although possibly that meaning is imprecisely expressed.
And it does seem to me that therefore a condition of the leg which impairs locomotion is not a "different but equally valid" way if being a leg but is a fault or defect.
But if you say that only a mind can have purposes, that also seems to be saying a true thing, although possibly imprecisely.
Maybe "purpose" is being used to mean something like "function" in one sense and something like "intention" in the other ? And they're not quite the same thing ?
I used "corrupted" because Eliab (if I remember right) objected to the technical sense of "perverted". What word do you suggest to convey this concept ?
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by leo;
quote:
The original Greek is an almost word for word quotation from the Book of Wisdom.
'almost word for word' seems a bit of an exaggeration - 'close paraphrase' might be a better description?
But that isn't the question - clearly Paul is stating what would be common views among Jews in opposition to paganism. And he then goes on, having stated that against paganism, to point out to Jews that they are for various reasons equally guilty in God's sight, because as their own scriptures say, "All have sinned...." The issue is, can you show whether Paul's anti-pagan comments here are his actual view or, as the alternative interpretation suggests, something he didn't believe....
As far as I can work out, all the 'therefores' and other connections are where they need to be if the Romans 1 section represents Paul's actual view of the human situation (bearing in mind that the text is NOT just about sexuality). Plus the argument as to why Paul would put such a contention doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. The argument starting from "For I am not ashamed of the gospel..." needs an exposition of the gospel and so of what the 'good news' saves from; and this alternative interpretation (??) is no such thing. The alternative interpretation trivialises his teaching.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I actually said that recent discoveries undermine some of the simplistic assertions of the (since there doesn't seem to be a shorter phrase for it) 'pro-gay agenda'.
Name one.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And you folks love to trot out Paul, but ignore the fact he wasn't to keen on hetro sex either.
Presumably Paul's massive conversion experience left him somewhat disinterested in his own sexual needs. Hardly rendering him the best qualified person to be telling consenting adults what they should and shouldn't be doing between the bedsheets for the next 2000 years.
But then it hasn't just been Christianity that sought to put limits on human sexual behaviour. Promiscuity, intimacy variations and the tut-tut factor seem to be something deeply rooted in homo-sapiens. Ambiguity being it's soul mate.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by lil Buddha;
quote:
Jesus didn't say anything about the food prohibitions that Peter later lifted. So by your argument from silence POV, Peter went directly contra Jesus.
Er... Mark 7 vv14-23...?? And note that Peter didn't lift the food prohibitions off his own bat, but in response to a divine vision - a vision therefore not 'contra Jesus' but from Jesus, at least in orthodox Christian theology. (And no, I'm not going to go off down that tangent).
My point about 'argument from silence' is that context is important. If the context is a Jesus who has affirmed classic Jewish understanding of sexual relationships ("God made them male and female..." among quite a few other references) and has NOT mentioned 'gay sex', it's a very considerable stretch, and inherently implausible, to say that his 'Not mentioning' constitutes approval. And in contrast, no stretch at all to think that he is most likely to have approved the classic view on 'gay sex' as well, that is, it is not good for men to lie with one another as with women.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And it does seem to me that therefore a condition of the leg which impairs locomotion is not a "different but equally valid" way if being a leg but is a fault or defect.
Such as, for example, an opposable thumb and fingers capable of scissor grips?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Just swinging by to register my furious conviction that the homophobic handwaving and hand-wringing in Dead Horses belongs here along with those perpetrating it.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Russ:
If you think that the fact that nature produces gays and lesbians is an argument against the proposition that this is not a Good Thing then you're committing exactly the fallacy that you're highlighting.
I don't think I've used the argument "unnatural, therefore bad". So "appeal to nature" disqualifies your point and not mine.
Except that I'm not making that point, which would indeed also be an appeal to nature. I don't see how we can extract moral virtue, or lack of, from something existing - that sounds awfully like the is/ought fallacy.
I have talked about purpose. To say for example that the purpose of a creature having legs is locomotion does not seem to be a meaningless statement, although possibly that meaning is imprecisely expressed.
People certainly use 'purpose' imprecisely, but then it's unwise to be imprecise when discussing morality and nature.
I used "corrupted" because Eliab (if I remember right) objected to the technical sense of "perverted". What word do you suggest to convey this concept ?
Hey, I don't want to do your dirty work.
--------------------
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
Oh FFS. You know what prejudice against homosexuals does?
It does conversations like this.
Every day I wonder if it's going to be another day where I have to justify my existence to Christians who basically think they know me better than I know myself. Every fucking day I have to think about how to validate myself because my validity is probably going to be under attack.
Every morning as a Hellhost I come to see whether there's new stuff on this thread about why there's something wrong with me.
That's the bullying. That's the harassment. That's the neverending inability to just go ahead and lead my life secure in the knowledge that people are basically okay with who I am.
And I don't think for a moment that homosexuals are the only ones who cop this. Women have to fight for their validity all the time. Black people do.
But what shits me even more lately is that people who've traditionally held the power squeal about how invalidated they feel by being told it's not okay for them to be in a position of power anymore. Seriously, I've got at least one Christian friend who basically complains about how awful it is that he can't express as freely as he used to that homosexuality is an immoral perversion. As if that's somehow equivalent, as if somehow his identity as a guardian of sexual morality is as fundamental as my identity as a human being who just wants to be able to make my own decisions about my own life.
I just don't want to know anymore. I am so, so sick of attempting to engage with people like Russ and Steve and fucking Ingo in the wild hope that they might ever accept that homosexuality should be left to the homosexuals to sort out. Because every conversation feels like a variation of asserting my own existence and people not being fine with that.
This thread has been going for 7 weeks. And still we haven't run out of people wanting to invalidate my existence.
[ 29. September 2015, 23:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Er... Mark 7 vv14-23...??
Fair enough.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And note that Peter didn't lift the food prohibitions off his own bat, but in response to a divine vision -
Remarkably coincidental to a desire to convert gentiles...
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
My point about 'argument from silence' is
bullshit. I think that is the word that best finishes that sentence.
As far as Jesus not directly changing something means its still on, what about stoning disobedient children? Where does he contradict this?
And you ignore that Paul clearly says getting married is not the hot ticket.
--------------------
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
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Rook;
quote:
The gross misunderstanding is really assertion 2). On the whole, the gestalt of psychology did not distinguish itself as being particularly progressive with respect to conceptualization of various aspects of sexuality, particularly homosexuality. However, as psychology has dragged itself into more empirically-validated modalities in the last couple decades, the research has overwhelmingly supported the concepts of sexual identity and gender identity as being fundamentally intrinsic.
Can we have that in English please??
...
It is English, you dickwad. It is the standard vocabulary used in the social sciences and psychology. If you really don't understand what Rook means, you're obviously arguing from ignorance.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064
|
Posted
Quetzalcoatl wrote:
quote:
The point that homophobia is not a medical condition is a straw man, nobody has claimed that it is.
I think you'll find the clue to people claiming it is, would be in the word phobia, which has various definitions along the lines of an anxiety disorder, or an overwhelming, debilitating or morbid fear. These are mental health issues, of course. Homophobia is not a recognised mental health condition - it is merely a word contrived to insult, silence or intimidate people who are judged to be anti-gay, or even just not pro-gay enough for someone's liking.
I fully accept your assertion that gays may encounter negativity, etc. I don't think the answer to that is to accuse others of having some made-up mental health issue.
Confusingly,lilBuddha claims (for whatever reason) that such a condition actually exists - but the word 'homophobia' now apparently refers to prejudice, rather than to this condition it was coined to describe. Yeah....right. As there never was such a condition, I don't think it really made that transition. I think it was always used exactly as it is now.
And then there was this, from mousethief:
Just using the term "gay agenda" marks one as a homophobe in my book. It's such a bullshit, paranoid piece of nasty work, never used in any neutral or positive sense, only to slam gays for trying to subvert Western Civilization or some such fuckwittery.
Looking at this sad rant, I can only hope you didn't think it through. I can't imagine you are really so naïve that you believe that significant numbers of gay people have never shared common goals, and aspirations for their status in society. SSM is probably the most recent example of something which may be fairly described as coming from a gay agenda, but you could say the same about legalization in the sixties, for example. It is ironic that you accuse me of a non-existent phobia, because I mentioned something that has actually existed for a very long time.
But of course, you weren't the only one who decided that I was probably (or might be) suffering from homophobia. There were a few posts which included suggestions of that nature. I really don't mind, though I don't suppose I'd qualify as a homophobe even if it only meant 'prejudiced'. I will, however, confess to a little disappointment: That people would assume a hostility to gays, just on the basis that I take exception to something that is so often used to bully others. Still, if you guys think that habitually branding people as homophobes somehow helps promote better understanding and relationships, please feel entirely free to carry on.
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Rhythm man, get it into your thick skull. "Homophobia" is not being used by anybody as the name of a medical condition. It is a parallel term to misogyny, racism, or antisemitism. You're hung up on the "etymology=meaning" thing. Get over it. Meaning is use is meaning is use is meaning is use.
--------------------
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
As for the "gay agenda" bullshit, people having common aspirations doesn't make them part of a conspiracy, nor does it mean they have all signed on to some "agenda." If a number of people want to live in peace and not be hounded or denigrated or told they're defective -- like our orfeo here -- that doesn't mean they have an "agenda." It means that they're sick to the teeth of suffering these things and would like it to stop.
Perhaps the problem is that "gay agenda" has become such a common buzzword in homophobic circles that those inside that echo chamber don't realize that it doesn't mean what they think it does to anybody not inside their cabal. I can allow that you pathetic little people have created a new term and imbued it with a certain meaning. But that doesn't mean it actually has a referent.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Rhythm man, get it into your thick skull. "Homophobia" is not being used by anybody as the name of a medical condition. It is a parallel term to misogyny, racism, or antisemitism. You're hung up on the "etymology=meaning" thing. Get over it. Meaning is use is meaning is use is meaning is use.
Why do people drive on parkways and park on driveways?
--------------------
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
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Or when something goes by ship it's cargo, but when it goes by car it's a shipment.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Rook;
quote:
The gross misunderstanding is really assertion 2). On the whole, the gestalt of psychology did not distinguish itself as being particularly progressive with respect to conceptualization of various aspects of sexuality, particularly homosexuality. However, as psychology has dragged itself into more empirically-validated modalities in the last couple decades, the research has overwhelmingly supported the concepts of sexual identity and gender identity as being fundamentally intrinsic.
Can we have that in English please??
...
It is English, you dickwad. It is the standard vocabulary used in the social sciences and psychology. If you really don't understand what Rook means, you're obviously arguing from ignorance.
Nowthat is a surprise!
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
