|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why is Evangelicalism associated with homophobia?
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Leorning Cniht;
quote:
This strikes me as rather like arguing that you're not discriminating against black people, just as long as they, you know, don't act black.
And 'acting black' would mean exactly what acts, please? What distinctively 'black' acts are there? Whereas the biblical prohibitions are specifically about actions.
Basic proposition - what you are in racial terms does not compel you to do particular actions that nobody else might. Your local culture might include acts different to others - those acts would surely be potentially open to moral judgement precisely because they are actions, not just what you are; whatever your race.
Of course if that is right, then gay people using the "It's like racism" claim would actually be taking a bigoted persecuting position...?
But there are no distinctively heterosexual or non-heterosexual acts. That is what I and others are trying to say. If we're talking about sex (and if we are then just say so, rather than nonsense like 'homosexual acts') then that's still the case - there's nothing same-gender partners do in the bedroom that different-gender partners don't also do.
What you are in sexual terms does not compel you to do particular actions that no one else might. However, people of all sexualities seek companionship and love, expressed through sex. That isn't something that can be categorised as 'homosexual acts' but not 'heterosexual acts'.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Don't have any evangelicals in your family, do you? I'd have to write off whole branches of my family to disassociate myself from evangelicals. OK, so that's just a bunch of cousins I don't see very often. But one of them has a son who is gay -- what's he supposed to do?
I've got quite a few evangelicals in my extended family, but I don't have to deal with them every day, fortunately.
As for your cousin - yes, what can he do? Beg his folks to become Episcopalians? No. When he's of age he'll just have to go off to live his own life, make his own friends, find his own spiritual community, and come back for the occasional flying visit, if that's bearable. Plenty of people in our mobile, global societies hardly ever see their parents; we don't have to wait around for their approval and we don't have to attend their churches.
Yes, because people can just ditch homophobic family like that ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) In the real world, there's a thing called complex familial relationships which mean that you can love someone who is ultimately damaging to you. People do it all the time - people aren't purely logical, which is what your arguments seem to be suggesting. It's a lot like that for churches too.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Jade Constable;
quote:
But there are no distinctively heterosexual or non-heterosexual acts.
Given the physical differences between men and women that sounds implausible to say the least?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I don't have the time this deserves right now, but here goes.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which then provides you with a way to compare two relationships, and decide that one is closer to the ideal than the other. Which means that it's better than the other.
I've thought about this a bit more, and decided that I honestly don't think in terms of better. I'm not proud of being straight; I just am. But I will keep on exploring the use of the word "archetype" in preference to "ideal".
quote:
Regarding procreation, I will happily accept that a heterosexual relationship is better than a homosexual one.
And in the really long term, perhaps that's an important point to bear in mind. I think we can be more confident that men and women will be able to make babies anywhere and everywhere than we can be confident that technology can enable us to explore alternatives anywhere and everywhere.
On to your questions...
quote:
1. Why is there only one single ideal for all purposes?
I think this has been addressed by swapping "archetype" for "ideal". There simply is only one archetype. You don't have to go much further in Genesis to realise plenty of people didn't conform to it, though.
quote:
2. Would a procreative relationship really always be 'better' than a non-procreative one?
No, but it would conform to the archetype in a way that a non-procreative one wouldn't. That doesn't mean there's no room for non-procreative relationships any more than it means there's no room for single people.
quote:
I have challenged people in the past about just why marriage services talk about procreation as if it's one of the things that marriage is fundamentally about
I said on the French gay marriage thread that the legal institution of marriage is largely about protecting the rights of the parties and their children, so in that sense at least it is about procreation.
quote:
And finally, I would say that the statement in Genesis that "for this reason" a man will leave his parents and join his wife does not, in my view, indicate that "this reason" is a procreative one. It is a relational one.
I agree.
quote:
It is about one person completing another. I know there are people who think that only a man can 'complete' a woman, and vice versa, but I don't agree with this. The only sense they can do this 'better' is the procreative, a-penis-fits-neatly-into-a-vagina form.
I see your point, but am not convinced. I think biological differences do count for something, part of a broader notion of "difference". I admit I'm going to have trouble backing that up, though. All I can say is that's how the archetype works.
Let me however ask you a question: why, in your view, should committed sexual relationships be between only two people? Why not three or more?
quote:
Any homosexual relationship I'm in is inevitably going to fall short of an ideal that involves procreation. But my response is: what if I'm not trying to procreate? What if I'm trying to achieve deep loving connection with another human being? Why would ability to procreate be relevant to THAT goal?
No, and all I can say at this point is, I won't stand in your way (or parade on your lawn ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ).
My serious, honest problems might begin if you turn up in my church with your other half. I really hope you'd feel welcome and guess you would not be quizzed about your status by anyone, any more than we quiz hetero couples on what they are doing behind closed doors.
So far so good.
Now, if you want a blessing on your relationship, I'd be minded to organise one, though there'd likely be "winning hearts and minds" to do first. If you want a (non-legally-binding, 'cos that's the way it is here) marriage ceremony, I'm struggling.
I'd like to think you'd get a more graceful reception than anywhere else in town, but sadly I'm guessing gay christians here are either firmly in the closet or not feeling welcome anywhere near churches. Sorry ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Jade Constable;
quote:
But there are no distinctively heterosexual or non-heterosexual acts.
Given the physical differences between men and women that sounds implausible to say the least?
No, not at all - I believe the more polite term for what enables this is 'marital aids'. There is seriously nothing non-heterosexual people do in bed that heterosexual people don't.
Also, gender is not the same as sex - a couple made up of a woman and a trans woman who has not had lower body surgery has essentially the same bodies as a straight couple, but are still a non-heterosexual couple.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
This is fair enough to a point. However, thinking of two other analogies, it's a bit muddier. Firstly, most people who object to 'homosexual acts' would do so as they fall into the category of 'sex outside marriage'.
And in almost all cases their logic here is Kafkaesque. "Gay sex is wrong because it's sex outside marriage." "We must not allow gay people to get married." "We will continue to condemn people for homosexual acts outside marriage."
Anyone who believes sex outside marriage is wrong while at the same time campaigning in favour of gay marriage is exempt from this condemnation. And I'd be interested to meet, if only for the rarity value. But supporting and fighting to maintain a Catch 22 situation does not let you off the hook.
quote:
The other analogy is vegetarianism. Many vegetarians think that eating meat is morally wrong (i.e. a sin), don't do it, and think that others shouldn't do it, though wouldn't want to make it illegal for others to eat meat. However, we don't tend to label them bigots either. Some vegetarians do get some abuse, of course.
And I don't want to lock homophobes in the gulag.
quote:
I think anyone who adopts a stance of "I disaprove of your actions/beliefs, but will fight for your right to hold them" isn't in too horrendous a place. Sadly, amongst most evangelicals the stance is "I disaprove of your actions, but think you should probably be legally allowed to do them, however, I'm not going to do anything to help you in your fight for that in case people think I approve of your actions"
That's closer. Add in "I'm also going to fight against your rights to get married and then condemn you for not having sex within the bounds of marriage."
quote:
Kaplan has already said that he doesn't want to deny those rights, which is a very good thing. There are a lot of evangelicals out there that do, however, and I get the impression that on his thread Kaplan has received a lot of the ire that they should.
This can be answered by one simple question. Kaplan Corday, are you unequivocally in favour of gay marriage? If the answer is anything other than "Yes" then you are in favour of legal discrimination and all the words you say otherwise are mere words. Otherwise I owe you an apology - and you are out of step with almost all major Evangelical leaders.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Jade Constable
I've a feeling you are making my point, without meaning to - but for tonight, I'm giving up!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Anyone who believes sex outside marriage is wrong while at the same time campaigning in favour of gay marriage is exempt from this condemnation. And I'd be interested to meet, if only for the rarity value.
I think this describes my views. *Basks in glow of quirky individuality*
Mind you, I've not really campaigned in favour of same-sex marriage, just posted the odd Facebook status and blog post. Does that count...?
And well done Eutychus, a few posts upthread. Brave words. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And 'acting black' would mean exactly what acts, please? What distinctively 'black' acts are there?
As I alluded to in my earlier post, due to the difference in texture between standard "black" hair and standard "white" hair, you can't achieve most normal "white" hairstyles without expensive and damaging hair products. In some cases, "acting black" means "having natural black hair in some style that works for that kind of hair".
In other cases, "acting black" is certainly cultural - it might mean having the temerity to have an African or an African-American name, rather than being called John Smith.
quote:
Whereas the biblical prohibitions are specifically about actions.
And if the position that you espouse is correct, and gay sex is forbidden, then God is homophobic (under the normal English definition of that word.) It would certainly follow from this that being homophobic in this particular way was a good thing (God's will and all), but it wouldn't redefine the word in the English language.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, gender is not the same as sex - a couple made up of a woman and a trans woman who has not had lower body surgery has essentially the same bodies as a straight couple, but are still a non-heterosexual couple.
I rather suspect that most people who consider homosexual sex sinful also have issues with trans people.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Anyone who believes sex outside marriage is wrong while at the same time campaigning in favour of gay marriage is exempt from this condemnation. And I'd be interested to meet, if only for the rarity value.
I think this describes my views. *Basks in glow of quirky individuality*
I wonder if there are any evangelical clergy or theologians who've ever explicitly argued this. One imagines that many of them tolerate their members being in intimate but premarital gay or straight relationships mostly for pragmatic or for pastoral reasons. But it doesn't really serve the purposes of either pragmatism or tolerance to expect both groups to remain celibate before marriage!
And what about people are unsure of their sexuality, or people who think they're bisexual? Should they be allowed to 'test the waters' before committing themselves to monogamy?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
This strikes me as rather like arguing that you're not discriminating against black people, just as long as they, you know, don't act black.
At first I thought that "acting black" was a mindless and meaningless expression, but you clarified it later on by showinging that it means wearing cornrows.
If I come across any black people in future wearing their hair in any other style, I will now know hey are not "really" black.
quote:
But that's pretty cold comfort for the poor buggers he'd condemn to a lifetime of celibacy.
In getting into a discussion like this, I thought
I was ready for anything ("If you don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen"), but never in my wildest dreams did I anticipate being endowed with omnipotence.
Thank you.
I'm overwhelmed.
Well, got to run - have to start drawing up my list of people whom I am empowered to prevent having sex...
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
However, thinking of two other analogies, it's a bit muddier. Firstly, most people who object to 'homosexual acts' would do so as they fall into the category of 'sex outside marriage'. Parents who disaprove of their unmarried children having sex at 16 don't tend to get labelled as bigots, but their reasoning probably isn't vastly different from an anti-homosexual "it's sex outside marriage" stance (however, now that homosexuals can get married, that argument is nicely screwed, anyhow)
The other analogy is vegetarianism. Many vegetarians think that eating meat is morally wrong (i.e. a sin), don't do it, and think that others shouldn't do it, though wouldn't want to make it illegal for others to eat meat. However, we don't tend to label them bigots either. Some vegetarians do get some abuse, of course.
Thanks goperryrevs.
You obviously don't agree with me, but I don't mind that.
It's just such a relief when someone genuinely tries to engage with the issue, instead of pontificating from their moral high horse, attempting emotional blackmail, and tossing around melodramatic imagery.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
This can be answered by one simple question. Kaplan Corday, are you unequivocally in favour of gay marriage? If the answer is anything other than "Yes" then you are in favour of legal discrimination and all the words you say otherwise are mere words. Otherwise I owe you an apology - and you are out of step with almost all major Evangelical leaders.
As usual, Justinian, you display a genius for manipulative use of language.
Of course I am not "unequivocally" in favour of gay marriage, but FWIW, I support legislation legalising gay marriage, in the same way as I disapprove of Hindu worship, but support the legislation which guarantees Hindus (and all other faith systems) freedom of religion.
And as to whether or not that response merits your apology, frankly I don't give a damn.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Let me however ask you a question: why, in your view, should committed sexual relationships be between only two people? Why not three or more?
There was a thread on polygamy in Purgatory some time ago which I attempted to wade into a little. As best as I can recall, I was among those who didn't see any fundamental moral objection to polygamous relationships. The issues are far more likely to be about the practical reality of whether it's possible to share the proper level of commitment and love between all 3 people, not some objection at the level of theory that you must not be committed to more than one person.
It's especially hard to say that polygamy is inherently wrong when the Bible is full of men with multiple wives, some of whom God looked upon with great favour.
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
A brief post on some of the legal difficulties involved in plural marriages and how they differ from two-partner same-sex marriages, from the last go-around on this topic.
The tl;dr version: two-party same-sex marriages slot right in to existing marital laws in most modern Western nations, whereas plural marriage would require redesigning virtually all of family law from the ground up.
[ 01. July 2014, 03:28: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Leorning Cniht;
quote:
This strikes me as rather like arguing that you're not discriminating against black people, just as long as they, you know, don't act black.
And 'acting black' would mean exactly what acts, please? What distinctively 'black' acts are there? Whereas the biblical prohibitions are specifically about actions.
Basic proposition - what you are in racial terms does not compel you to do particular actions that nobody else might. Your local culture might include acts different to others - those acts would surely be potentially open to moral judgement precisely because they are actions, not just what you are; whatever your race.
Of course if that is right, then gay people using the "It's like racism" claim would actually be taking a bigoted persecuting position...?
If you're looking for a distinctive act, there's Drving While Black
For the gay equivalent, how about two men kissing?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
You must understand that I have nothing against Evangelicals as people : it's their practices I object to...
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There was a thread on polygamy in Purgatory some time ago which I attempted to wade into a little. As best as I can recall, I was among those who didn't see any fundamental moral objection to polygamous relationships. The issues are far more likely to be about the practical reality of whether it's possible to share the proper level of commitment and love between all 3 people, not some objection at the level of theory that you must not be committed to more than one person.
Aha, so you think that in some way, even if it's only "practical", monogamous relationships are "better" than polygamous ones...?
It seems to me that following this line of reasoning means that in order for nobody to be left out, "marriage" would need to be redefined as encompassing any sexual relationship between any number of committed and consenting individuals. In fact it might need to include non-sexual relationships too (because after all, why is a sexual relationship "better"?), if there is a sense of "commitment". The definition becomes so broad as to collapse into meaninglessness.
quote:
It's especially hard to say that polygamy is inherently wrong when the Bible is full of men with multiple wives, some of whom God looked upon with great favour.
I think this is actually where you and I fundamentally differ.
You seem to believe that God only looks with great favour upon those who conform to his ideal/archetype/whatever (or at least that the expression of God's favour on those that don't proves that their circumstances are inherently right).
I think the whole point of the Good News is that God looks with favour upon those who don't conform, and that extends to all of us.
Polygamy was just one of the ways all those OT people didn't conform to the ideal, but God accommodated them anyway because he had other priorities for them. Enjoying the scope of God's grace in this respect is not the same as setting up polygamy as a benchmark for all time.
To repeat, I think hetero marriage is closer to the biblical archetype (so I think the church has some responsibility in perpetuating it when possible), but that doesn't make hetero couples inherently better than anyone else, nor does it inherently condemn anyone else.
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You seem to believe that God only looks with great favour upon those who conform to his ideal/archetype/whatever (or at least that the expression of God's favour on those that don't proves that their circumstances are inherently right).
I think the whole point of the Good News is that God looks with favour upon those who don't conform, and that extends to all of us.
Polygamy was just one of the ways all those OT people didn't conform to the ideal, but God accommodated them anyway because he had other priorities for them. Enjoying the scope of God's grace in this respect is not the same as setting up polygamy as a benchmark for all time.
You, of course, have some Old Testament citation demonstrating God's disapproval of plural marriage, right?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You, of course
Listen, Croesos, I'm happy to try and engage with your questions, but I'd be a lot happier if you could do it without the snark. I'm not claiming to have the definitive Christian™ answer on this, I'm trying to have a conversation and clarify my thinking. If you align with Justinian in the view that, along with anybody else who dares express a differing view to yours, I should simply be treated with contempt, I don't think I'm going to bother interacting. quote:
have some Old Testament citation demonstrating God's disapproval of plural marriage, right?
Luckily I thought of one while cleaning my teeth just now. There's a bit in Samuel or Kings somewhere where kings are advised not to have multiple wives. Oh goodie, I have a prooftext ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
More importantly, Genesis 2 to me shows an archetype of monogamy.
Also while cleaning my teeth, I asked myself whether I have had to act pastorally on plural marriage. As it happens, yes I have (well, something approaching it). An inmate in the prison I'm chaplain at has two common-law wives. Most of the pastors he's spoken to seem to think he's going to Hell if he doesn't split with one. I told him that wasn't the case. Like many such situations, it's complicated, and I'm not about to be some sorcerer's apprentice by mucking about with it, and I don't believe God's favour on him is conditional solely on ditching one of them.
[ 01. July 2014, 05:47: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It seems to me that following this line of reasoning means that in order for nobody to be left out, "marriage" would need to be redefined as encompassing any sexual relationship between any number of committed and consenting individuals. In fact it might need to include non-sexual relationships too (because after all, why is a sexual relationship "better"?), if there is a sense of "commitment". The definition becomes so broad as to collapse into meaninglessness.
Laws are all about drawing lines. The thing is, for the line to be defensible, it has to have a rational basis. The line has to be in furtherance of a policy goal.
There are now a long line of US court decisions, and indeed decisions in other countries, saying that drawing the line between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples is not rational in furtherance of any State interest. Other lines, such as between couples and larger groupings, may well be more rational. As Croesos says, polygamy requires massive rewriting of the law in a way that SSM doesn't.
The fact that clearly non-procreative heterosexual couples may marry, but homosexual couples may not, is entirely inconsistent with any claim that the underlying policy rationale of (secular) marriage has to do with encouraging procreation.
I have personally said a number of times on the Ship that I would actually be perfectly happy to leave marriage to procreative heterosexual couples if all non-procreative couples were excluded from marriage. I might not personally like that outcome, but it would be rationally defensible as it would be in accordance with an identifiable objective of the institution of marriage.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
More importantly, Genesis 2 to me shows an archetype of monogamy.
One could just as easily argue that it merely shows the impracticality of polygamy on a planet with a total population of 2.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
polygamy requires massive rewriting of the law in a way that SSM doesn't.
But if you don't see any moral difference, the effort should be worthwhile, shouldn't it? (For the record, I'm in favour of equal treatment for gay couples under the law, specifically with regard to inheritance, reversion (ie pensions being paid to the surviving partner) and (clenches teeth) adoption (I think!).)
quote:
One could just as easily argue that it merely shows the impracticality of polygamy on a planet with a total population of 2.
I wonder why it talks about the man leaving his father and mother then?
[ 01. July 2014, 06:02: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Genesis 2 to me shows an archetype of monogamy.
Your talk about it being an archetype baffles me. I don't really understand what useful purpose you think such a label serves.
As in, does it make non-conforming relationships bad? Does it mean it's sinful not to be like Adam? Are we supposed to actively aim to conform to the archetype? (I've heard of aiming to be Christ-like, but I find the idea of aiming to be Adam-like rather baffling!) I can't seem to find a way to unpack your talk of it as an archetypal relationship into any idea that I can make sense of.
Something I personally think is not remarked on often enough about the Genesis 2 story, is that the major part of the story is all about how the animals were not sufficiently similar to Adam to be his mate. God then clones Eve out of Adam's own flesh, and she is sufficiently similar to Adam to be his mate. The criteria emphasized throughout is sufficient similarity. As such, I would say that the Genesis 2 account is extremely favorable toward same-sex relationships as they meet the criteria of sufficient similarity with flying colours. By contrast the Genesis 2 account is not particularly consistent with the "different but complementary" theology of marriage that is usually taught by those who disagree with same-sex relationships.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I wonder why it talks about the man leaving his father and mother then?
Because it is an allegory and not a literal story?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I wonder why it talks about the man leaving his father and mother then?
Because it is an allegory and not a literal story?
That's another discussion. But either way, it rather pulls the rug from the idea that it applies only when there is a global population of 2.
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Genesis 2 to me shows an archetype of monogamy.
Your talk about it being an archetype baffles me. I don't really understand what useful purpose you think such a label serves.
I'm not sure yet either, except that orfeo finds it more palatable than "ideal" ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
The two problems with the term "ideal" I can see are 1) the possible implication that anything less is irredeemably bad 2) the idea that nobody can ever live up to it. A quick Google for a definition of "archetype" produces quote:
the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies
From a christian perspective, I think that is a good fit for Adam and Eve, and "Adam and Steve" (or where I live, "Adam and Yves") cracks are not really enough to overcome this consideration. I'm not saying no alternative accommodations are possible, but that we should not throw away the archetype too quickly.
quote:
As in, does it make non-conforming relationships bad? Does it mean it's sinful not to be like Adam? Are we supposed to actively aim to conform to the archetype?
That's a really good question and it's one I'm struggling with in this conversation, and struggling even more to answer without falling into too many holes. Here goes...
I think we as a race are fallen. Genesis 2 is pre-Fall. In that sense the archetype is unattainable for all of us; the judgement of God on Adam and Eve resonates for us all. Rather than say it's sinful not to be like Adam, I'd say that we are like Adam in that we are sinful. We can't escape that, and conforming to any archetype, be it Adam or Christ, is necessarily going to be flawed.
I think the Church has the unenviable task of seeking to uphold the "original pattern" in many aspects (not just sexuality) whilst simultaneously acknowledging that we're never going to manage this side of the eschaton (after which it looks like none of us get sex anyway...), and expressing God's grace to all of us in the many ways we variously fall short of that.
Somewhere in the middle of that paradox, believers bump along the road to sanctification, which is going to mean adjusting their behaviours as the Spirit leads them and within their possibilities. Those adjustments will be different for different people, and it is not up to us to make a moral judgement on how people sincerely attempt to adjust.
As regards sexuality, I emphatically don't think that means degayifying all the gays, and I don't think it means all truly monogamous, procreational hetero marriages are paragons of holiness. I hope that makes some sort of sense even if others disagree.
quote:
Something I personally think is not remarked on often enough about the Genesis 2 story, is that the major part of the story is all about how the animals were not sufficiently similar to Adam to be his mate ... by contrast the Genesis 2 account is not particularly consistent with the "different but complementary" theology of marriage that is usually taught by those who disagree with same-sex relationships.
That's a good point too, and one that had occured to me. It probably turns partly on whatever the meaning of the Hebrew translated by "suitable help" or, as some French versions delightfully have it, vis-à-vis. But once again we come back to biology. There was a difference, not just with the animals but also between Adam and Eve. God didn't create another male. Adam and Eve were more similar to each other than to the animals, but they were different.
[ 01. July 2014, 08:36: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
An evangelical preacher I knew some years ago was very fond of saying "a narrative is not normative". He was, basically cautioning against taking any story in the Bible and treating it as an expression of principle that people ought to live by.
As I understood it, he wasn't saying that you couldn't learn anything from stories. He was saying that there was a basic problem in thinking "this happened, therefore this should always happen".
I've no idea whether he would have applied that principle to Adam and Eve, but it does encapsulate the basic problem with ideals and archetypes. There is a crucial piece of logic involved in going from "this is what happened" to "this is what should always happen".
Even if you regard a story as symbolic rather than factual, there is always the question of what, precisely, it is supposed to be symbolising.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There is a crucial piece of logic involved in going from "this is what happened" to "this is what should always happen".
What about, in the case of Genesis, "this is how it was supposed to be"? The text there is framed as more than simply narrative, methinks. "For this reason...".
quote:
Even if you regard a story as symbolic rather than factual, there is always the question of what, precisely, it is supposed to be symbolising.
Agreed. I've set out my stall in that regard as best I can.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There is a crucial piece of logic involved in going from "this is what happened" to "this is what should always happen".
What about, in the case of Genesis, "this is how it was supposed to be"? The text there is framed as more than simply narrative, methinks. "For this reason...".
I agree, there is more in that particular spot than simple narrative. But it is still all too easy to jump from "there's a principle here" to "everything here is a principle".
I've already indicated my opinion about what "for this reason" means, and that I can't see any grounds for saying that only a heterosexual couple can fulfil the 'reason'. If you believe in some kind of complementarity of the sexes, as opposed to complementarity of two particular individuals who may or may not be different sexes, then you are inevitably going to come to a different conclusion. But I'm not confident that you can get a principle that "it was vital to their complementarity that they were male and female" from the text. It is just as likely that the complementarity of the sexes is being imported into a reading of the text, not derived from it.
As has been pointed out, the key point in the text is that none of the animals were suitable - it is humanity that is labelled as a key criterion for complementarity, more than gender. Eve is bone of Adam's bone and flesh of Adam's flesh. At last, here is someone sufficiently similar to complement him. Not someone sufficiently different. Adam does not celebrate or highlight Eve's difference from himself. It is not saying "thank God that He created fundamental difference so that men and women could misunderstand each other and work at cross-purposes but reach enough common ground to be worthwhile for each other", it is saying "thank God that He said man should not be alone and needs someone fundamentally similar to relate to".
[ 01. July 2014, 10:24: 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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I should perhaps add that "male and female he created them" is, purely on its own, simply a statement of fact.
Exactly WHY God did so is the question. Is it simply because God was well aware of the advantages of sexual reproduction over asexual reproduction? Or is the mix-and-match important not only in literal chromosomal terms but also in relational/spiritual terms?
That's the fundamental issue, really. We know He created males and females. I think it's a lot less obvious just what that was supposed to mean.
--------------------
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 Palimpsest;
quote:
If you're looking for a distinctive act, there's Driving While Black
For the gay equivalent, how about two men kissing?
But the point is precisely that driving is a normal general human activity not distinctive to black people. Race is irrelevant to driving, it's just that unfortunately racists improperly pick on black drivers. This illustration is not relevant to this particular case.
Two men kissing - David and Jonathan...?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Palimpsest;
quote:
If you're looking for a distinctive act, there's Driving While Black
For the gay equivalent, how about two men kissing?
But the point is precisely that driving is a normal general human activity not distinctive to black people. Race is irrelevant to driving, it's just that unfortunately racists improperly pick on black drivers. This illustration is not relevant to this particular case.
Two men kissing - David and Jonathan...?
Kissing is a normal general human activity not distinctive to homosexuals. So what's your point?
EDIT: There are people out there who object, sometimes quite loudly, to homosexual displays of affection - whether it's kissing or holding hands or even talking about 'my boyfriend/girlfriend'. Such people manage to ignore that none of these things are remotely unique to homosexuals. Heterosexuals constantly do the exact same things without much comment.
[ 01. July 2014, 11:15: 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
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
An evangelical preacher I knew some years ago was very fond of saying "a narrative is not normative". He was, basically cautioning against taking any story in the Bible and treating it as an expression of principle that people ought to live by.
As I understood it, he wasn't saying that you couldn't learn anything from stories. He was saying that there was a basic problem in thinking "this happened, therefore this should always happen".
A lot of biblical stories don't supply any moral commentary or reflective judgment on the stories. The writers presumably took it for granted that their audience would judge the character's actions in certain ways. But judgments that modern readers are likely to make from the standpoint of our current culture are probably quite badly out of sync with the judgements of the original audience.
I am often reminded of this problem of "ambiguous moral interpretation" or "open to judgment" (as it could be called) whenever someone shares with me an anecdote about something that happened to them, and then says something that makes it clear that their own take-away from the event was nothing whatsoever like the one that had formed in my own mind while listening to their story. The fact that someone did X, doesn't really tell you whether X is bad or good or something complicatedly in between without additional assumptions that have to come from outside the account itself. And the view taken will likely depend on who the audience is. This is especially true in politics, where the statement "Politician X said Y" will likely elicit cheers from some, ambivalence from others, and face-palms from others.
Part of our arbitrary interpretation of biblical texts is also which phrases or words we choose to focus on. For example with the sentence: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh". We could focus on the bit about staying with one's father and mother until one marries. So we could have the church make rules that sons are not allowed to move out of their parent's home until they marry, because that is when that passage says the home should be left behind. That has the historical merit of being pretty much exactly how it worked in biblical times, so we could say that the bible is here explicitly endorsing their cultural practice, and any of us (eg me) who have moved out of home before getting married have badly transgressed the will of God (oops).
Or we could focus on the father and mother part, and we could say that a son who is marrying needs both his father and mother to give him in marriage. Indeed the parents coming forward to give the son and/or daughter in marriage is often a ritualized part of wedding ceremonies, so much so that if one of the parents is dead or cannot be present, it is sometimes the case that a substitute will stand in for the absent parent and take the ritual role of the parental figure. But if we were to interpret this passage as implying that the bible teaches that it's really important that a son who is marrying has both a mother and father to give him in marriage, then we could argue for the rule that if it is the duty of any father who has unmarried sons to himself remarry in order for the son to be able to be given in marriage by his father and mother.
The anti-gay reading of this particular passage has focused on the genders mentioned as being all-important, and suggested that the really important part is that a man is marrying a woman. This has always struck me as a rather arbitrary choice of focus. The vast majority of all unions both today and throughout history have been male-female unions, so the fact that the passage happens to generalize it as male-female is simply a reflection of what tends to happen in practice. Usually when generalizing you simply give an example of what happens in general and don't both to go through all the exceptions in detail, but you are not thereby meaning that exceptions don't exist - quite the opposite in fact. So the fact that this wording of male-female unions truthfully reflects typical practice, I completely fail to see why it should be read as a declaration that there can or should be no exceptions rather than simply a general statement of what usually happens.
In fact, I think there is a strong argument that the statement is clearly a statement of what usually happens, rather than a statement to which there ought to be no exceptions. Because the son doesn't always and without exception "leave" his father and mother's house when he marries (he may have already left, or may continue living with his parents plus his new wife), and the father and/or mother may not be alive when the son marries and so that part of the sentence is also a generalization not a hard-and-fast rule. So the passage describes a fairly general situation but one which everyone would agree is clearly not going to be true for each and every marriage. So the fact that the genders of people getting married (which in practice are indeed usually a male marrying a female) happen to be specified can also be reasonably assumed to be just a generality that is no more binding than is the fact that the son must physically move out of his parents' house or that they must be alive. To seize on the words "man" and "wife" in the sentence, as anti-gay readings tend to do, and assert that they are absolutely crucial and that there can be no exceptions to them while taking every other part of the sentence as entirely optional and contingent and allowing for exceptions, strikes me as totally arbitrary, and IMO it says vastly more about the mind of the interpreter than it does about the biblical text.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Thank you, Starlight, for that thoroughly excellent dissection of one sentence!
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I agree, there is more in that particular spot than simple narrative. But it is still all too easy to jump from "there's a principle here" to "everything here is a principle".
Okay, but if you are going to go down that road there's a lot else you have to be willing to jettison too. If there's one place in the Bible where I think we might be justified in looking for universal principles, it's in those early chapters of Genesis - responsible stewardship of the Earth is, for instance, also in there somewhere.
I also think you will have a hard time distinguishing between any configuration of consenting sexual relationship, irrespective of the number of partners. After all, if Genesis has nothing to say about the gender of the partners, it has nothing to say about how many of them there should be, either (presumably it was only limited to two at the time because that was after all the entire global population ).
You might express doubts about the practicalities of plural relationships, but I'm sure there'll be a voyeuristic Daily Mail article along sooner or later showcasing some plural relationship or other and how happily they all get along.
quote:
I'm not confident that you can get a principle that "it was vital to their complementarity that they were male and female" from the text.
I'll concede that it may not have been vital to their complementarity, but I persist in the notion that them being male and female says something vital, not about complementarity, but about difference.
quote:
At last, here is someone sufficiently similar to complement him.
And, I would add, add to that complementarity the dimension of difference. quote:
It is not saying "thank God that He created fundamental difference so that men and women could misunderstand each other and work at cross-purposes but reach enough common ground to be worthwhile for each other"
That wasn't how it was before the Fall. All that stuff came later. quote:
it is saying "thank God that He said man should not be alone and needs someone fundamentally similar to relate to".
"...and yet different", I interject (again).
Are differences only differences of biology? No. Are differences in gender a guarantee of a relationship that reflects everything God wants relationships to demonstrate? No. Does a lack of difference in gender condemn a relationship to not reflecting anything of what God wants in relationships? No. Should we then ignore the component of differences in gender when describing the divine archetype of relations...? No.
[missed Starlight's x-post, will try and return later]
[ 01. July 2014, 11:30: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
So the fact that this wording of male-female unions truthfully reflects typical practice, I completely fail to see why it should be read as a declaration that there can or should be no exceptions rather than simply a general statement of what usually happens.
Let me just pick that up.
Starlight, in my heart of hearts I completely agree with the way you have phrased that, and if I was sure of everybody involved and looking on seeing any same-sex ceremony I was involved in with that perspective, I'd do one tomorrow. No, today.
However, I think a substantial number of people take exception to the fact that that such circumstances are exceptions to what you call typical practice. They would like to see "typical practice" expanded to include every conceivable "exception" (or more usually, to include whichever exception they happen to prefer), seek to make any exceptional event a precedent, and feel discriminated against and second-class when that doesn't happen. That is the very real pastoral dilemma I face (or fear/hope I will).
--------------------
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
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Thank you, Starlight, for that thoroughly excellent dissection of one sentence!
Not quite sure whether that's sincerely meant thanks, or a gentle rebuke for wordiness, or both. I guess the ambiguity is appropriate.
quote:
There are people out there who object, sometimes quite loudly, to homosexual displays of affection - whether it's kissing or holding hands or even talking about 'my boyfriend/girlfriend'. Such people manage to ignore that none of these things are remotely unique to homosexuals. Heterosexuals constantly do the exact same things without much comment.
There was a 5 minute segment on my local TV last week about gay people kissing in public. (No idea if it will play for ppl outside NZ)
Something I took away from it was that they couldn't even find 3 gay couples in the entire country who were prepared to kiss in public, because gay couples are that scared of negative reactions from passers-by. That totally 100% agrees with what gay people I have personally talked to have said to me, but it was somewhat mindblowing to see that this is such a serious problem nationwide that a major news organisation couldn't find 3 couples willing to kiss in public (you may validly raise questions about how hard they really looked, but I think we can assume that they made a reasonable effort).
I think a lot of straight people just totally have no idea that gay PDA is a thing that gay couples have learned to their cost to never do. To some extent this probably reflects the fact that intimacy is a particularly personal and deep thing, so that even if only a few people say judgmental and nasty things to you both very rarely when you kiss in public then that still taints the entire kissing experience and you feel extremely self-conscious ever after when kissing in public.
The other thing that amuses / saddens me about it, is that people who respond negatively to gay PDA often claim they're not anti-gay that they're just anti-PDA. Of course when opposite sex couples kiss in public no one does anything, but when gay couples do it, it's bad because PDA is bad...?! Ah, the lies people tell themselves...
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I also think you will have a hard time distinguishing between any configuration of consenting sexual relationship, irrespective of the number of partners. After all, if Genesis has nothing to say about the gender of the partners, it has nothing to say about how many of them there should be, either (presumably it was only limited to two at the time because that was after all the entire global population ).
You might express doubts about the practicalities of plural relationships, but I'm sure there'll be a voyeuristic Daily Mail article along sooner or later showcasing some plural relationship or other and how happily they all get along.
If you expect me to throw up my hands in horror and say "oh no, we must find some principle that allows us to exclude polygamous relationships", you are going to continue to be disappointed.
Also, I find your response in relation to the point that God created a similar companion for Adam very odd. Every time someone points out that the emphasis is similarity, you just say "and also difference!". It's a bare assertion. People are working from the text on that point, in the very best Evangelical tradition, and it feels like you just flat out ignore the point. The animals were not suitable companions. God made a more similar being to be a suitable companion. Why are you seemingly so dismissive of this point, when it is one of the points that can clearly be made DIRECTLY from the statements in the text made by both God and Adam?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
ADDENDUM: Because every time you say "she was different", you are emphasising something that the text does NOT emphasise, in the way that it emphasises "she was similar".
--------------------
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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I should perhaps add that "male and female he created them" is, purely on its own, simply a statement of fact.
And wasn't Quentin Crisp's reply to that supposed to have been 'Male and female created he me '?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
ADDENDUM: Because every time you say "she was different", you are emphasising something that the text does NOT emphasise, in the way that it emphasises "she was similar".
My own literal reading of the passage in light of modern technology (which I grant is a kind of absurd interpretive hermeneutic, yet seems to be a common standard among evangelicals), is that Eve is a literal genetic clone of Adam, being grown from Adam's DNA extracted from his rib. It is possible (theoretically) to clone a female from a male by removing the Y chromosome and duplicating the X chromosome (and keeping the other 22 chromosomes the same). I have occasionally seen this interpretation espoused by evangelical authors (including one who claimed to have essentially predicted the existence of DNA due to this biblical passage - at least insofar as it led him to claim that the entire information necessary to reconstruct a person was contained in a subset of their body such as a rib). That pushes the similarity between Adam and Eve to quite an extreme. (And could be argued as providing a biblical justification for the scientific use of artificial reproductive techniques! Particularly to allow gay couples who can't otherwise have children to reproduce - since we would be following the biblical archetype of God using artificial reproduction techniques on Adam when he was incapable of reproducing. So, if, to pick a very likely near-future example, scientists were to take some blood from one gay partner to turn into stem cells and then into an egg and to fertilize it with the sperm of the other, then that would be a very Genesis 2 type way of creating life, closely following the biblical archetype sans the loss of a rib.)
God's choice to make Eve a female serves a rather obviously necessary function with regard to her purpose in helping Adam populate the world. But the text does not seem to go to any particular lengths emphasize the importance of the gender difference. She is made female because God wants them to reproduce. But it is never stated that a male would have provided a partner incapable of fulfilling Adam's psychological needs - which was the original motivation of the entire biblical story. It is the lack of similarity with the animals that was the original problem in fulfilling his psychological needs in a mate, and it is clear from the experience of gay couples today that a mate of the same sex is indeed psychologically fulfilling for those to whom such is desirable. (We could hypothesize that Adam was straight and that that was another reason that God deliberately made Eve a woman rather than a man, because God happened to know that a man wouldn't have fulfilled Adam's own psychological requirements that Adam himself wasn't yet away of...)
I suspect I'm overanalyzing it... It's dangerous to let me get loose on biblical interpretation, I tend to get a little too overanalytical...
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Justinian: quote:
Anyone who believes sex outside marriage is wrong while at the same time campaigning in favour of gay marriage is exempt from this condemnation.
Does signing petitions and writing to my MP count as campaigning? Because that would be me, too.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I suspect I'm overanalyzing it... It's dangerous to let me get loose on biblical interpretation, I tend to get a little too overanalytical...
No such thing in my book. And by the way, my thanks for your previous discussion was entirely sincere. It was a beautiful demonstration of just how many meaning are possible depending on what you emphasise.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you expect me to throw up my hands in horror and say "oh no, we must find some principle that allows us to exclude polygamous relationships", you are going to continue to be disappointed.
I'm not expecting any such thing, but given your moral position on plural marriages, I find your argument suggesting that we shouldn't be legislating to allow them because there are no policy reasons for doing so rather thin.
quote:
Also, I find your response in relation to the point that God created a similar companion for Adam very odd. Every time someone points out that the emphasis is similarity, you just say "and also difference!". It's a bare assertion. People are working from the text on that point, in the very best Evangelical tradition, and it feels like you just flat out ignore the point. The animals were not suitable companions. God made a more similar being to be a suitable companion. Why are you seemingly so dismissive of this point, when it is one of the points that can clearly be made DIRECTLY from the statements in the text made by both God and Adam?
I don't think it's quite that clear-cut. Genesis 1:27 says that God created "male and female" in his image. That's quite clearly "both/and" and highlights difference, not similarity.
As to Genesis 2, the word "similar" does not appear in my (French) Bible. The expression used is "help to be his vis-à-vis". I think we need to know more about the Hebrew to know whether that enshrines similarity, difference, or both. I think the point is that man(kind) needed a companion who was more than what the animals had to offer.
Starlight argues that God had little option but to create someone biologically different simply to ensure reproduction at that point. This runs counter to orfeo's argument that this passage is not primarily about procreation, and also runs into the difficulty that childbearing is not mentioned in the clause following the words "for this reason", which seems odd if that was the main (or only) reason for la différence.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that archetypally, we were created male and female. And for procreation purposes at least, that's how the archetype is. We don't reproduce asexually. There is a difference, and it's there right from the beginning.
--------------------
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
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
On the subject of archetypes, I am reminded of the countless times I have heard it expressed in sermons and at weddings that the true archetype of married love is the love that exists between the persons of the Trinity. Apparently the love between a man and his wife, including sex, is a human reflection of the depth of the love that exists in the Trinity itself.
Yet none of the many ministers and wedding preachers I have heard pontificate on this archetypal Trinitarian love have ever even commented on the obvious: The Trinity is a gay three-way.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Preachers that use the Trinity as an archetypal example for committed loving (monogamous!) relationships, and who also insist on gender differentiation in marriage, have always struck me being obviously inconsistent, and I have never seen them even attempt to address the obvious inconsistency.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I wonder why it talks about the man leaving his father and mother then?
Because it is an allegory and not a literal story?
That's another discussion.
I am not certain it is. Interpretation is the whole of the issue. Starlight's excellent dissection is one illustration of this. Others would be the passages such as the one instructing you to kill disobedient children.
Everyone interprets the bible and none seem to apply everything with equal measure. So, I think it important to evaluate interpretation through the lens of the complete work.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
We don't reproduce asexually. There is a difference, and it's there right from the beginning.
and homosexuality exist in animals which reproduce sexually. Mallards seem a high percentage of homosexuals and reproduce a little too well.
[ 01. July 2014, 13:45: 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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
The Trinity is a gay three-way.
What makes you think all three members are the same sex, or that the number of genders involved is only two for that matter?
I think God transcends gender (CS Lewis referred to this idea as being "trans-sexual", but that was back in the day...), and that humankind being both male and female is a - partial - indicator of that fact.
To me the nature of the Trinity points precisely to similarity and difference. If there's a parallel to be drawn with marriage, it's that God is by nature relational, that's all. No kinky sex need be involved.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I wonder why it talks about the man leaving his father and mother then?
Because it is an allegory and not a literal story?
That's another discussion.
I am not certain it is.
Whether or not it's allegory has no bearing on my point in that exchange, which was that contrary to orfeo's assertion, the maximum number of persons present in the narrative is more than two.
[ 01. July 2014, 13:46: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
homosexuality exist in animals which reproduce sexually. Mallards seem a high percentage of homosexuals and reproduce a little too well.
I'm not denying the existence of homosexuality. The question is how it fits with the instance of Adam and Eve. One of the outstanding questions from the recent exchanges is whether admitting it as an exception (alongside lots of others) to typical orientation (Starlight's words) could be acceptable. My personal headache is how this works pastorally.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
