|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The millstone that is S**** L******
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Right, that's it Steve.
You are a pointless, sanctimonious pustule on the body of Christ, and can fuck off to the furthest possible point of fuckness. And, when you get there, infinitely further.
You are a millstone round the neck of the Ship, who poisons the well of every thread he ever comments on with his self-righteous obsessive ramblings.
You may indeed go to hell. Or I will: one or the other, but not sharing eternity with you will make the price a joy to pay.
I shall leave it at that, and leave the field open for those whose life's work you take such millstone-like joy in writing off.
That is all.
[Linkfix. —A, HH]
[ 20. February 2016, 12:21: Message edited by: Ariston ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
The offending post is so, well, offensive, that it deserves to be properly linked to in all its glory.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
One does wonder how he copes psychologically with - to use what is apparently his preferred mode of expression - piss and spunk coming out of the same hole.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
One does wonder how he copes psychologically with - to use what is apparently his preferred mode of expression - piss and spunk coming out of the same hole.
Probably by observing his own mouth and its capacity to spill shit in all directions simultaneously. The apparently impossible thus becomes commonplace.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Is this the right time to point out to Steve that his toothbrush has shit on it ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Thank you for calling this smug little fuck to Hell. Thank you.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
He is an annoying twit, isn't he.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
He is an annoying twit, isn't he.
Size isn't everything.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You know, I would have a lot less of my time wasted here if people would try assuming that I am not stupid
I don't think anyone thinks you are stupid. Pity, if you were, there would be an excuse.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
'outside the box'
Absolutely nothing you have said on the subject is anywhere except firmly in a box. Maybe you are stupid after all.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
what the biblical teaching actually variously does or does not find problematic.
The bible is an inconsistent mess if one does not apply interpretation. So you are choosing an interpretation which precludes LGBT.
But I can understand why you hate the idea of a penis in your arse as your head is so firmly planted in the path.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You know, I would have a lot less of my time wasted here if people would try assuming that I am not stupid
Sometimes one gives the benefit of the doubt so many times, and has it thrown back into their teeth so many times, that they have to come to the sad conclusion that the person they are talking with really does have shit for brains. They can come to no other conclusion.
They assumed for as long as they possibly could that this fuckwit did not have shit for brains, until the overwhelming quantity of data completely wiped the notion off the table.
Whether this fits anybody here, is above my pay grade to say.
--------------------
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
Oh FFS. Really.
--------------------
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
Quoting from the thread linked at the start. This isn't going to be terribly Hellish, but here is a better place to respond than on-thread (I think - I have a pitchfork poised posterior if wrong).
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Snags;
quote:
Steve, simple question:
Do you understand, or can you intellectually accept, that it is entirely possible for someone to be gay (or 'Gay' if you prefer) without having had a same-sex sexual interaction of any kind?
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Also, it can't surely have escaped Steve's notice that the CofE has women priests as well as male clergy ... and that women priest's don't have willies. If a woman priest is gay then she isn't going to be putting her willy anywhere soon because she doesn't have one ...
by Doublethink;
quote:
Cos so many lesbians just grow a penis when they cut their hair and put on the doc martens.
You know, I would have a lot less of my time wasted here if people would try assuming that I am not stupid and I can see the obvious - and therefore I'm most likely not making the foolish points you're trying to impose on me ...
I don't think you're stupid. Do you think that if three (at least) people who are all quite different and come from very different places in terms of life, experience, sexuality, theology and churchman(person)ship are all failing to spot the delicate nuance you're seeking to introduce that perhaps you haven't been that clear? Perhaps, actually, you're not communicating what you think you are?
Obviously it's a subject on which knees can jerk, and I've been bitten in the past for posting something that was clear to me and not to others, so I try to read carefully ...
quote:
... but making different and slightly more 'outside the box' points.... This is how 'absent-minded-professory types like me think things through and if you'll bear with it you may ultimately find it useful.
... and I can read nothing 'outside the box' in what you've posted. In fact, almost everything you've posted appears to be orthogonal to the main thrust and context of the OP.
quote:
One of the points I am making here is precisely that this whole issue is dogged by cross-purposes including a considerable cross-purpose about the definition of 'gay' and people's understanding of what the biblical teaching actually variously does or does not find problematic.
Bollocks, quite frankly.
Other than in very specific academic cases, or for pearl-clutching, nit-picking, issue-dodging twatbags, I would have thought that the common usage of gay when referring to sexual orientation is crystal clear. Given that this is not an academic symposium (although it could be argued it's a nit-picking festival at times) the general, common usage, of 'gay' when relating to matters of sexual orientation would be a good place to start, no? That being someone who is not sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, but is sexually attracted to members of the same sex.
That there is a whole mess of stuff around sex, gender and wotnot further down the road isn't relevant. Pretty much everyone gets that 'gay' means "boys who fancy boys" and "girls who fancy girls". If you want to further define what constitutes boy/girl, rock on, but it's not pertinent to the original thread.
Note that in that, I posit, commonly accepted definition there is no indication of actual sexual activity, no statement towards promiscuity, fidelity, abstinence or any such. It's just about attraction. Anything else is read in.
quote:
And if people don't attempt to unravel the cross-purposes they'll get into futile arguments like much of the current one....
There was no futile argument. There was a discussion as to whether gay clergy who stay within the fold of the CofE are or are not 'useful idiots', and the degree to which it's murky.
The only argument cropped up when someone dumped a truckload of external assumptions into the mix and started talking about something totally other.
If you don't think you were doing that, you're going to have to do a better job of showing your workings.
quote:
As far as this thread goes I think I've said all that needs saying on the anyway rather obvious implications for the issue of the CofE's 'establishment' and similar ideas in other denominations. Exploring what 'gay' does/doesn't mean (and how that may affect the OP question) is what I'm here to do....
The thread had NOTHING to do with the CofE's establishment. NOTHING.
It also had NOTHING to do with "exploring what 'gay' does/doesn't mean".
So can you perhaps see why people might think you're a mono-maniacal tub-thumping blinkered cunt* for dragging all that irrelevant stuff in?
If you want to explore what gay does or doesn't mean, start a thread about it. Don't crap all over someone else's thread on a totally different subject. Or just buy a dictionary.
Fox ache.
Whilst you're at it, you might want to start one on the meaning of "biblical meaning" although brace yourself for a shock, because it turns out that people aren't in 100% agreement on what the "biblical meaning" is on a whole host of issues.
Funnily enough I often find your stuff interesting, as in lots of ways I suspect you come from a not dissimilar background to myself. There just seems to be some fundamental lack of understanding what should go where when it comes to posting. Which I guess from your perspective is probably inappropriately appropriate, in context.
*OK, it might get a bit hellish
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Your starred term is more correctly expressed as Jeremy, as in the rhyming slang.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I do think he is stupid.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Ahem! Showing my age, I know, but the original rhyming slang is Berkshire - which is why some of us get intense enjoyment hearing stuffed-shirt types refer to 'berks' thinking they are being restrained in their language.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Sorry everyone I forgot where I was posting before..
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm also talking about 'sexuality'; I'm querying the current understanding of that issue and trying to assert the biblical understanding for Christians...
This website is not for you to assert things as fact. The thread in question was not something you can use to broadcast your ideas which are only tangentially to do with the thing you want to talk about.
If it was WE COULD ALL FUCKING TALK ABOUT OUR PET SUBJECTS ON ANY FUCKING THREAD. How hard is that to understand? Why do you lack the self-awareness that not everyone wants to hear your assertions over and over again?
The issue here is not that your views are totally unacceptable, but that you fail the basic grammar of netiquette which asks you to stick to the subject and don't go bringing in things that you want to talk about on unrelated threads.
quote:
The Bible says three basic things here...
Frankly, I doubt anyone currently gives a shit what you think the bible says.
quote:
3) It is wrong/inappropriate and disrespectful of sexuality and humanity for people to do what can only be regarded as a parody of sex between two men. And by reasonable extension between two women....
That right there is an opinion you are entitled to hold. But it isn't a fact that you can wheel out in any given discussion even when the OP is clear that this is not the assumptions we're making for discussion in the OP.
quote:
And Christians in the church are meant to exemplify God's teaching...
See the thing is that it is not unbelievable that we could have a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Mormon wanting to use these boards.
Let's just imagine that a Mormon wants to talk about a Dead Horse subject with relation to the theology and practice of their religion. Rightfully they start a thread in the correct part of this website: Dead Horses. Maybe they're asking whether people have an opinion as to whether being gay is compatible with the Mormon theology of Prophets.
It is a bit unlikely this would ever happen because I doubt many of the rest of us know enough about Mormon theology and practice to comment.
But let's just imagine a group of users of SoF do and want to discuss it here.
Question: would it be acceptable for you, Steve, to post to that thread decrying the Mormon religion as being heretical, against the New Testament, against the teaching of Menno Simmons and so on?
Let's examine how SoF defines acceptable behaviour here, the 10 Commandments
1. Are you being a jerk? Are you trolling or flame-baiting? No, technically you are not quite trolling - but you are throwing down something which prevents other people from engaging with the OP and instead has them turn focus to you and your comments about their religion. If we all did that, there wouldn't be anything to discuss because someone would always pipe up "ah yes, but this God thing - it's all bollocks, right. Prove to me that God exists, prove to me that Joseph Smith really existed.. and so on."
So yes, you're being a jerk.
2. Have you engaged brain before commenting? For sure you think you've thought about the subject and are attempting to get to the bottom of the issue, albeit at a level beyond that mentioned in the OP and by the participants of the discussion thus far.
But in another sense no, because you've not engaged your brain to the extent of getting the self-awareness needed to realise that the thing you want to discuss is not the thing that everyone else is talking about.
So no, you haven't engaged your brain. In fact, you've decided that whatever anyone else says or wants to talk about, your need to assert things as you see them overrules the normal norms of discussion.
3. Are you attacking the issue not the person? Well yes you are attacking an issue but not the issue - because of the above.
4. Are you getting personal and do you need to take it to hell? Hard to be definitive in this hypothetical example.
5. Are you easily offending, easily being offended? To some extent the discussion here is predicated on the basis that someone is always going to be offended by someone else's words. But the idea is not just to rubbish someone else's beliefs: so if you were just posting to assert that Mormonism is wrong, then ISTM that you are simply being offensive.
6. Are you respecting the crew? Not for me to comment.
7. Are you posting illegal content? Probably not.
8. Are you crusading - defined as "pursue specific agendas and win converts"? I think that if you only post in such as way as to assert your opinions as fact, and that you often or always post on the same subjects, then you're getting pretty fucking close to crusading.
9. Are you advertising? Probably not.
10. Do you have more than one identity? I've no idea.
On that basis, I think there is probably evidence that you're breaking a good number of the rules of engagement here.
It seems to me that you are able to contribute to conversations constructively, but only when they are conversations that you want to have and which are dictating the direction of discussion. When that doesn't happen, you seem to think you have free rein to change the parameters of any other discussion until it becomes the one that you do want to discuss.
That is almost the definition of annoying.
And then, to top it all off, you'll no doubt not bother reading or responding to posts where people actually attempt to engage with you and instead constantly harp back to your three favourite causes.
Frankly: just FUCK OFF already.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But I can understand why you hate the idea of a penis in your arse as your head is so firmly planted in the path.
That' s an alarming as much as humorous mental image.
Does anyone else here, where this topic is concerned, feel like shutting themselves in a soundproof room and shouting
AARR-GGGGGGGGG.........!!!!! for as long as it takes to feel better ?
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
starbelly
but you can call me Neil
# 25
|
Posted
Thanks for drawing my attention to that thread, I had forgotten that such idiot evangelicals like this are still around!
My personal favourite line is:
quote:
Should perhaps be pointed out that the financial power of evangelicals arises because they are not compromising the gospel and are preaching something solid, worthwhile and counter-cultural rather than something vague and woolly and more concerned to be cosy with the world than to stand for God. The lack of financial power elsewhere is precisely because they have a compromised and so ineffective message in general.....
CLASSIC!
Neil
Posts: 6009 | From: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Self-righteous obsessive rambler indeed.
He's got a real thing about anal and oral sex hasn't he?
I wonder if he shouts his foul views as loudly in RL? - I imagine he pretends to be tolerant and kind there ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by starbelly:
quote:
the financial power of evangelicals
What? Where is it, and how can I get some?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What? Where is it, and how can I get some?
C'mon now, that's obvious (altogether now): you just read and apply the clear orthodox teaching of the bible.
You are welcome.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
starbelly
but you can call me Neil
# 25
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by starbelly:
quote:
the financial power of evangelicals
What? Where is it, and how can I get some?
I was broke as an evangelical, I am broke now...
If you are looking for some I did see a man on the TV claiming we can all be rich if we just sent him an envelope full of cash...
Neil
Posts: 6009 | From: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by starbelly:
I was broke as an evangelical, I am broke now...
Me, I'm more of a broken evangelical...
--------------------
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
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The offending post is so, well, offensive, that it deserves to be properly linked to in all its glory.
It strikes me as more offensive given the context of that post too; Steve, even if your post linked to above is completely correct, and even if I completely agreed with you*, it would still be offensive.
As you go along dismissing people with such cavalier disregard for their humanity, you hurt them. Many of the posters on that thread were struggling with difficult and complex feelings, including feelings of the futility of the years they had out into their calling and similar. To come along and drive a tank through that, not caring how much you hurt, maim and damage is surely about as unbiblical as it gets. Loving your neighbour doesn't come with provisos and get out clauses.
It's not just some dry academic debate where you can joust away with the verbal equivalent of tourney lances, it's real people you are striking with your carelessly flailed barbs and blades, and whatever your point or agenda, making it as you are by causing injury to other people is not acceptable either in general civilised discourse or in the sort of community striven for in the Bible, which should surely be holding itself to higher standards than secular society.
*lest there be doubt, I don't agree with you. I don't agree with what you say the Bible says about homosexuality. Please see here for a better summary that I could give, a link for which I have often been grateful to Joan the Outlaw Dwarf for providing on the first page of this epic thread .
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Does it not seem that the ability of a denomination to extract funds from its adherents is most highly-correlated to the apparent idiocy of said demographic. For example, Scientology seems to be rather prosperous, and they're all crazed fuckballs.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Hostly furry hat on
mr cheesy, while I'm not going to comment on your analysis re the 10Cs, I am going to comment on whether it smells a bit of Junior Hosting.
And yes, it does a bit.
So let's have no more of that, thank you. It's not like anyone lacks ammunition, or can miss the target. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
DT
HH
Hostly furry hat off
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
... please remember that you are talking about people and intimate parts of who they are. If you love someone, try and think about how you would feel if someone told you that your feelings for them were sinful or the result of a handicap, and were not proper love. This precious bond that you share with another person is being declared at best second-class. Be aware of this in your arguments; be sensitive to others' feelings.
Amen ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The financial standing of American Evangelicals has been consistently eroding for the last 30 years, thanks to the Republican candidates they tirelessly pimp for, then get reamed up the ass by. And yet they claim they don't like reaming up the ass. Go figure.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The offending post is so, well, offensive, that it deserves to be properly linked to in all its glory.
It strikes me as more offensive given the context of that post too; Steve, even if your post linked to above is completely correct, and even if I completely agreed with you*, it would still be offensive.
I'm going to defend Steve L a bit on that, as it was me who started the use of rather crude and offensive language for gay sex*, and I think the objectionable post was more an attempt to up the ante a bit in terms of bluntness of speech than to be insulting. I think Steve's post was a failure of rhetoric rather than a failure of compassion.
I disagree with practically everything Steve says on this subject, but I do think he is honestly and non-maliciously trying to discern and apply God's will. I value his attempts to do this very much, as I move closer and closer to the view that the traditional conservative teaching about homosexuality is indefensible - Steve is tying himself up in knots about "the meaning of gay", in appearing to despise (as "soppy") feelings of love which elsewhere he purports to value, and in failing to engage with any concept he can't find in the Bible, and the reason for this is that the conservative view can't be maintained without doing violence to truth and morality. Steve is trying, though, and I appreciate that.
(*I was intending the make the point that the approach of making discussions of homosexuality all about sex is actually impolite, so used impolite terminology - Steve seems to have missed that point)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
I'm going to defend Steve L a bit on that, as it was me who started the use of rather crude and offensive language for gay sex*, and I think the objectionable post was more an attempt to up the ante a bit in terms of bluntness of speech than to be insulting. I think Steve's post was a failure of rhetoric rather than a failure of compassion.
I disagree with practically everything Steve says on this subject, but I do think he is honestly and non-maliciously trying to discern and apply God's will. I value his attempts to do this very much, as I move closer and closer to the view that the traditional conservative teaching about homosexuality is indefensible - Steve is tying himself up in knots about "the meaning of gay", in appearing to despise (as "soppy") feelings of love which elsewhere he purports to value, and in failing to engage with any concept he can't find in the Bible, and the reason for this is that the conservative view can't be maintained without doing violence to truth and morality. Steve is trying, though, and I appreciate that.
I don't appreciate it at all. If he wants to apply his interpretations of the word of God and his version of the Bible, let him apply them to himself and to you and leave everyone else alone.
His Constantine like stance that he knows the single correct interpretation of the Bible is tiresome in the extreme when he keeps butting in on other threads to rant it.
Steve, The reason we assume you're stupid is that you've been told people want to converse without your interjection of your obsessions yet you continue.
If you could get someone to stick a penis down your throat and keep it there, perhaps we wouldn't keep hearing the crap you post over and over and over again. There's nothing we've missed from what you think is outside the box subtle nuances. It's all crap.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I disagree with practically everything Steve says on this subject, but I do think he is honestly and non-maliciously trying to discern and apply God's will.
There are a great many things in this world that are capable of doing a great deal of harm without malicious intent.
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
It's difficult to "scratch beneath the surface" with Steve and discern his "gut feelings" - but I'm with Eliab on this. Problem is that he (Steve) will argue until the cows come home and never seems to realise that (a) there are much more nuanced points of view than his binary ones and (b) that his readers are losing the will to live.
By the way, knowing that he is a railway enthusiast, I wonder what his views are on nationalised British Railways vis-a-vis privatised rail operators? Presumably his anti-Constantinian will not allow for the former, whether they were better or worse than the present set-up?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Just to add a brief fuck-you for using your autism as an excuse for being an arsehole. I have autism too, that means I try to keep an eye out for situations where I'm prone to being an arsehole unintentionally and apologise if I miss them. You use autism as an excuse to carry on being an arsehole so, once again: fuck you.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I disagree with practically everything Steve says on this subject, but I do think he is honestly and non-maliciously trying to discern and apply God's will.
There are a great many things in this world that are capable of doing a great deal of harm without malicious intent.
This is true. I think that if you are seriously trying to apply the Bible, and end up with a position which is obviously untrue* and damaging, that's a sign that you've gone wrong somewhere. Not re-thinking at that point is a fault. It's just not the same sort of fault as deliberately using scripture to injure people you despise - which some anti-gay Christians do. I don't think Steve is like that.
(*on the current DH thread Steve is getting pretty close to saying to gay Christians that if only they would realise that they aren't actually gay, that being gay is a worldly, not a Biblical concept, then the 'problem' would magically go away. They could then accept that "gay" isn't who they are, it's just something they do, and they could give it up cheerfully and not have to worry. That's seems to be where Steve's arguments are taking him, and he ought to realise that it's a load of balls. It would take very little empathy to realise that. I'm not defending Steve on the charge of being culpably wrong, I just don't think he's motivated by malice.
Specifically, I don't think the post quoted as offensive was really as malicious as it seems when taken out of context. It was more in the way of being a "hey, look, I can swear, too - what does that prove?" response to me.)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I disagree with practically everything Steve says on this subject, but I do think he is honestly and non-maliciously trying to discern and apply God's will.
There are a great many things in this world that are capable of doing a great deal of harm without malicious intent.
For example the persecution of the Anabaptists in the 16th century. Most of it was done honestly and non-maliciously by those following what they were sure was correct biblical interpretation.
That matters very little. To hear the cries of pain in the postings in the thread and watch Steve try to hijack the thread for his obsessions and his arrogant assumptions that everyone else stupid and he's got it all figured out and will go on at length doesn't make me care that he's doing it out of honest and non-malicious motives. Why Eliab thinks that's important is beyond me.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
*lest there be doubt, I don't agree with you. I don't agree with what you say the Bible says about homosexuality. Please see here for a better summary that I could give, a link for which I have often been grateful to Joan the Outlaw Dwarf for providing on the first page of this epic thread .
Thank you for that link to Joan's post which I read ages ago and had forgotten. I wish she was still posting.
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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
That matters very little. To hear the cries of pain in the postings in the thread and watch Steve try to hijack the thread for his obsessions and his arrogant assumptions that everyone else stupid and he's got it all figured out and will go on at length doesn't make me care that he's doing it out of honest and non-malicious motives. Why Eliab thinks that's important is beyond me.
Because it means that there's some point in having the discussion with him.
If Steve L hated gay people, and valued the Bible because it gives him a way to hurt them, there'd be no reason for discussing the Bible - that wouldn't be what he cared about.
If I'm right, the opposite is true - Steve L doesn't especially want to be mean to gay people, but loves the Bible, wants to follow it's teachings, and is therefore saying homophobic things because he thinks that's where it leads. There seem to be quite a few Christians (myself included) who are conflicted in that way - not wanting to be homophobic, not wanting to ignore scripture, and not quite comfortable with the way that they are reconciling the two. It's quite easy to be tactless, or to misunderstand, or to offend, when one is in that position - but those things are challengeable. Because the intent isn't to offend, the fact that one has offended can prompt a re-think.
I'll concede that there's no actual evidence of Steve re-thinking anything, but we can hope.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
That matters very little. To hear the cries of pain in the postings in the thread and watch Steve try to hijack the thread for his obsessions and his arrogant assumptions that everyone else stupid and he's got it all figured out and will go on at length doesn't make me care that he's doing it out of honest and non-malicious motives. Why Eliab thinks that's important is beyond me.
Because it means that there's some point in having the discussion with him.
If Steve L hated gay people, and valued the Bible because it gives him a way to hurt them, there'd be no reason for discussing the Bible - that wouldn't be what he cared about.
If I'm right, the opposite is true - Steve L doesn't especially want to be mean to gay people, but loves the Bible, wants to follow it's teachings, and is therefore saying homophobic things because he thinks that's where it leads. There seem to be quite a few Christians (myself included) who are conflicted in that way - not wanting to be homophobic, not wanting to ignore scripture, and not quite comfortable with the way that they are reconciling the two. It's quite easy to be tactless, or to misunderstand, or to offend, when one is in that position - but those things are challengeable. Because the intent isn't to offend, the fact that one has offended can prompt a re-think.
I'll concede that there's no actual evidence of Steve re-thinking anything, but we can hope.
I think the problem is that you eventually tire of the "I'm not homophobic but I have to act that way because God is" line.
Cf. women priests.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Yes, but that doesn't mean the holder of that POV is necessarily malicious, just annoying and - and here be the rub - in some cases damaging.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: quote:
I'll concede that there's no actual evidence of Steve re-thinking anything, but we can hope.
I think the problem is that you eventually tire of the "I'm not homophobic but I have to act that way because God is" line.
"You" the listener, or "you" the homophobe?
Because if you mean the first, I agree, but being straight, I always have the option of taking a break from the conversation (gay people, of course, are frequently not allowed that option).
If you mean the second, I hope so. I hope people get tired of defending the indefensible, and tired of defending themselves against charges of bigotry, and begin to explore other ways of being faithful to the Bible.
[ 22. February 2016, 11:44: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
It's difficult to "scratch beneath the surface" with Steve and discern his "gut feelings" - but I'm with Eliab on this. Problem is that he (Steve) will argue until the cows come home and never seems to realise that (a) there are much more nuanced points of view than his binary ones and (b) that his readers are losing the will to live.
By the way, knowing that he is a railway enthusiast, I wonder what his views are on nationalised British Railways vis-a-vis privatised rail operators? Presumably his anti-Constantinian will not allow for the former, whether they were better or worse than the present set-up?
Should SL decide to share those thoughts about railways on this Hell thread, you may well be on your own ...!
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
*lest there be doubt, I don't agree with you. I don't agree with what you say the Bible says about homosexuality. Please see here for a better summary that I could give, a link for which I have often been grateful to Joan the Outlaw Dwarf for providing on the first page of this epic thread .
Thank you for that link to Joan's post which I read ages ago and had forgotten. I wish she was still posting.
Huia
I have wondered from time to time whether the site editor should consider providing a link to that thread to those managing the CofE listening process, with the observation - "read, mark, learn and inwardly digest". Joan's observations from about 15 years ago stand up rather well.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
There seem to be quite a few Christians (myself included) who are conflicted in that way - not wanting to be homophobic, not wanting to ignore scripture, and not quite comfortable with the way that they are reconciling the two.
This I do not understand. There are plenty of things in the bible that most Christians ignore or interpret away.
--------------------
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
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Is this the right time to point out to Steve that his toothbrush has shit on it ?
Oh to edit Leviticus for just one day. I would quickly mark through anything that had to do with how consenting adults express themselves in private and write some much needed passages about this very subject. Even this link doesn't touch on what I consider a big source of the problem -- people flushing the toilet with the lid up so that a cloud of bacterial rises up and over takes the innocent toothbrushes in their holders.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Should SL decide to share those thoughts about railways on this Hell thread, you may well be on your own ...!
I suspect you may be right ... I was just ruminating on whether that his theological and ferroequinological views were congruent or disparate. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
There seem to be quite a few Christians (myself included) who are conflicted in that way - not wanting to be homophobic, not wanting to ignore scripture, and not quite comfortable with the way that they are reconciling the two.
This I do not understand. There are plenty of things in the bible that most Christians ignore or interpret away.
100s of things, as Eliab must know!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Is this the right time to point out to Steve that his toothbrush has shit on it ?
Oh to edit Leviticus for just one day. I would quickly mark through anything that had to do with how consenting adults express themselves in private and write some much needed passages about this very subject. Even this link doesn't touch on what I consider a big source of the problem -- people flushing the toilet with the lid up so that a cloud of bacterial rises up and over takes the innocent toothbrushes in their holders.
Curiously, I had reason to look at this subject elsewhere the other week, and found (but cannot find again) a site where some science had been done on this topic. It was claimed that there was no more contamination by gut flora where the toilet seat was left up during flushing than where it was down, and indeed no more than in other areas around the home. The only concern the writers had about toothbrushes was if there were some infection in the home. Sneezing and coughing being more of a problem, apparently.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I was just ruminating on whether his mortequinological and ferroequinological views were congruent or disparate.
FTFY
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Curiously, I had reason to look at this subject elsewhere the other week, and found (but cannot find again) a site where some science had been done on this topic. It was claimed that there was no more contamination by gut flora where the toilet seat was left up during flushing than where it was down, and indeed no more than in other areas around the home. The only concern the writers had about toothbrushes was if there were some infection in the home. Sneezing and coughing being more of a problem, apparently.
There are bacteria such as E.coli everywhere in the environment so the media regularly report studies that find levels are high in all kinds of places: on lift buttons, on door handles, on toothbrushes, etc and so on.
This does not actually mean that there is really human faeces in these places nor does it mean that handling them would lead to diarrhoea or worse.
In fact E.coli is a very generic group of organisms which are not really much use for identifying faeces presence. A group of bacteria called faecal coliforms are a much more reliable indicator of the presence of faeces, but even this is not necessarily an indication of dangerous faecal pathogens.
A friend of mine, who is a microbiologist, is collecting a list of these stories, and it is getting very long.
TL;DR: these bacteria are everywhere. Don't believe everything you see written in the HuffPo - which is mostly written by unpaid writers or overworked non-specialist journalists struggling to turn press releases into interesting sounding stories.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
That, and any fecal coliforms on SL's toothbrush are as likely from what pours out of his mouth as anything else.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
