homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Homosexuality and Christianity (Page 15)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  ...  92  93  94 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:

No author writes anything with the intention of communicating mutliple contradictory meanings.


Simply untrue. Read, say, William Blake's 'The Rose', a piece deliberately admitting a multiplicity of readings.

But I agree in the concrete case - Paul had one intention in writing to the Corinthian church, that is, to communicate his thoughts about various issues, in the light of the Christ event, to the Christians in Corinth. The question then arises of how these letters, which the Church receives as Scripture, are to be read in our contemporary context. Can you not see that reading a letter addressed to people in one particular situation as though it were universally applicable is to smuggle in a hermenutical premiss? You need to have some idea of HOW you read Scripture, with WHOM you read Scripture (i.e. how Scripture is to be related to the thought of the Christian community, past and present), and WHY you read Scripture like that. In other words, you cannot escape doing theology!



Well, one good reason to read scripture as an ahistorical repository of moral truth is because that's how Jesus read it. I don't think I can be blamed for trying to read the New Testament the way Jesus read the Old.


[Killing me] Hello, Jesus and the Mosaic law!

(Incidentally, the idea that Jesus qua man cannot make mistakes sails IMO dangerously close to Apollinarian heresy, but that's a different thread. Suffice it to say that if Jesus was truly human then his human knowledge (as opposed to the eternal knowledge of the Word) was socially and historically conditioned, and limited by the understandings of the time.)

[ 15. July 2003, 18:53: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw-Dwarf ]

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
TheMightyTonewheel
Shipmate
# 4730

 - Posted      Profile for TheMightyTonewheel   Email TheMightyTonewheel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:

No author writes anything with the intention of communicating mutliple contradictory meanings.


Simply untrue. Read, say, William Blake's 'The Rose', a piece deliberately admitting a multiplicity of readings.

But I agree in the concrete case - Paul had one intention in writing to the Corinthian church, that is, to communicate his thoughts about various issues, in the light of the Christ event, to the Christians in Corinth. The question then arises of how these letters, which the Church receives as Scripture, are to be read in our contemporary context. Can you not see that reading a letter addressed to people in one particular situation as though it were universally applicable is to smuggle in a hermenutical premiss? You need to have some idea of HOW you read Scripture, with WHOM you read Scripture (i.e. how Scripture is to be related to the thought of the Christian community, past and present), and WHY you read Scripture like that. In other words, you cannot escape doing theology!

You're absolutely right that texts need to be understood in the context of the audience they were intended for, etc. There's no realistic alternative. To use a basic example: the only way to understand the Good Samaritan story is to understand the context, particuarly how Samaritans were perceived by Jewish society in that culture. If you don't know this, the story won't make sense.

But just because the story has a context does not mean it has no universal meaning. To suggest so is to say that all Truth is bound by context, which is really saying there is no truth, only context. When Jesus told the story of The Good Samaritan, does the meaning He intended to convey have any application today, even though it was told in a particular time and a particular context? I would argue all the meaning of the story has application. Jesus wasn't talking about the nature of Samaritans and Jews, He was talking about the nature of humans.

Of course, the idea of universal truth is easily demonstrated in the world of physics. A man jumping off a balcony in the year 1428 is going to splat in the same he would 2003. And in reason, too: an argument that contains a fallacy is as invalid in the stone age as it is in the cyber age. The very idea that fallacies exist as a test for composing good arguments suggests a universal truth. Even the fact arguments take place at all suggests that they both believe that there is such a thing as right and wrong. Otherwise, why argue?

The problem I have is when the context of a text is use to suppress, modify, or dismiss its meaning instead of enhance our understanding of it. If people want to do that, it's fine with me: but they no longer consider scripture to be an authority of they do. I you read a letter written to you a hundred or a thousand years ago, I can understand if you factor in its context when trying to understand its meaning. But if I dismiss its meaning because of its context, there's simply no way I can continue referring to it as an authority.

That's why these accusations that evangelicals read Scripture literally are actually red herring fallicies. If Evangelicals read scripture literally, there would be a lot more plucked-out eyes in the Church of England. Of course, some evangelicals do read Scripture literally, and selectively, and wrongly. But ultimately, that doesn't mean anything: Scripture can still contain everlasting moral truths, it can still be an authority, and it can still be God-breathed, even if there are nuts on both sides of the debate.


quote:

Well, one good reason to read scripture as an ahistorical repository of moral truth is because that's how Jesus read it. I don't think I can be blamed for trying to read the New Testament the way Jesus read the Old.


[Killing me] Hello, Jesus and the Mosaic law!

(Incidentally, the idea that Jesus qua man cannot make mistakes sails IMO dangerously close to Apollinarian heresy, but that's a different thread. Suffice it to say that if Jesus was truly human then his human knowledge (as opposed to the eternal knowledge of the Word) was socially and historically conditioned, and limited by the understandings of the time.)

Heh. This off-the-chart postmodern nuggest gets the prize. Think through this. If Jesus' teaching was socially and historically conditioned, by bother observing it at all two thousand years later? Why call him "Lord"? Do you have any idea how radical he was for his time?

--------------------
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where." -- Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom

Posts: 57 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022

 - Posted      Profile for Merseymike   Email Merseymike   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Of course it was socially and historically conditioned. How could it not have been. That doesn't mean that much of it doesnt contain truth today, but we are not talking here about the teachings of Jesus.

We are talking about OT law, and two quotes from Paul, one which does not refer clearly to 'homosexuality' at all, and the other which more than adequately demonstrates a total lack of understanding of sexual orientation - hardly surprising, given the concept didn't exist.

quote:
Do you have any idea how radical he was for his time?
Absolutely - but time has moved on, with new revelation, and what could be seen as radical then is not so now.

[ 15. July 2003, 22:19: Message edited by: Merseymike ]

--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced

Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
DON'T CALL ME A POSTMODERNIST!!!!

I am a critical realist, that is an epistemological relativist but an ontological realist. Yes there is universal truth. Yes we can, falteringly, access it. But we always do so through the particular.

Oh, and the christological bit is (give or take) fourth century. So not very postmodern really. Unless they were getting in early. IMO a lot of the christology behind ultra-conservative scriptural hermenutics is heretical, because it is premissed on a Christ who is God walking the earth, unmediated by any kind of meaningful human nature.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
PS : Even radicalism is socially/ historically situated. Yes Jesus was (indeed, is) radical. But he was not radical in the same way that, say, a 20th century feminist is radical - the issues, social forms, means of communication, political options and so forth were different.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Tone Wheel
quote:
Well, one good reason to read scripture as an ahistorical repository of moral truth is because that's how Jesus read it. I don't think I can be blamed for trying to read the New Testament the way Jesus read the Old.
With wonderful creativity and the freedom to reintrepret some fundemantal ideas then?

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
TheMightyTonewheel
Shipmate
# 4730

 - Posted      Profile for TheMightyTonewheel   Email TheMightyTonewheel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:


We are talking about OT law, and two quotes from Paul, one which does not refer clearly to 'homosexuality' at all, and the other which more than adequately demonstrates a total lack of understanding of sexual orientation - hardly surprising, given the concept didn't exist.

At least we're back on topic.

First, you can't make an argument about what is wrong or right based on what the Bible doesn't say. The Bible doesn't say alot of things. Anything about child pornography? White collar crimes? Cybersex? When Paul talks about adultery, he didn't mention cybersex because it didn't exist. So it can't be wrong. Right?

Second, Paul's talking about homosexual activity, which did exist. The term "homosexuality" it a recent term -- but it's not fair to coin a term in the 20th century then say it must be ok because Paul didn't mention it in the first. You might argue that we now know people are born with homosexuality and thus it is a natural attraction, but then you've saying that anyone that has any kind of urge or orientation they were born with is morally excused from acting on it. I dearly, dearly hope you don't mean this, because pedophiles are going to want a piece of that pie. As Robert Gagnon said, the Christian view "incorporates the notion of a human fall from an original sinless state—that innate impulses are not necessarily moral simply because they are innate."

Third, the claim that there is minimal evidence that biblical writers took a dim view of homosexuality is a cheap analysis. I won't recite all the texts (there's more than two from Paul), but we're talking about more than a handful of isolated references. We're talking about some of the strongest condemnations in the entire bible, strong echos in language and ideology between the NT references and OT references, and VERY strong (obvious!) links to the language of the creation story and God's plan for humankind. Not so easily dismissed.

This is no doubt coming across as heavy-handed. But it's not, or shouldn't be. There's nothing the church or scripture is asking of you or anyone else that we're not all subject to. No one's asking anyone to admit anything the rest of us are not already guilty of. I know of my own sin because I trust scripture -- and for the same reason I know of His grace in spite of my sin.

quote:
Do you have any idea how radical he was for his time?

Absolutely - but time has moved on, with new revelation, and what could be seen as radical then is not so now.

There's a new revelation? What is it? Has it made Jesus passe?

--------------------
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where." -- Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom

Posts: 57 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Um, I suggest you might want to reconsider the aptness of the homosexuality/ paedophilia comparison. A lot of upset has been caused in the past by people saying similar things. I'm sure there is another way of you making the point you intended to make.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Tonewheel:
quote:
Third, the claim that there is minimal evidence that biblical writers took a dim view of homosexuality is a cheap analysis. I won't recite all the texts (there's more than two from Paul), but we're talking about more than a handful of isolated references. We're talking about some of the strongest condemnations in the entire bible, strong echos in language and ideology between the NT references and OT references, and VERY strong (obvious!) links to the language of the creation story and God's plan for humankind. Not so easily dismissed.
Seven passing references in the entire Bible, IIRC. All of them with major exegetical problems, which have been done to death earlier on this thread. I know this is Dead Horses, so I shouldn't expect fresh thinking, but have you read the arguement to date? You might find it useful. [brick wall]

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
TheMightyTonewheel
Shipmate
# 4730

 - Posted      Profile for TheMightyTonewheel   Email TheMightyTonewheel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Tone Wheel
quote:
Well, one good reason to read scripture as an ahistorical repository of moral truth is because that's how Jesus read it. I don't think I can be blamed for trying to read the New Testament the way Jesus read the Old.
With wonderful creativity and the freedom to reintrepret some fundemantal ideas then?
Can you give me an example of how Jesus "reinterpreted" fundamental ideas?

--------------------
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where." -- Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom

Posts: 57 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
TheMightyTonewheel
Shipmate
# 4730

 - Posted      Profile for TheMightyTonewheel   Email TheMightyTonewheel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
Um, I suggest you might want to reconsider the aptness of the homosexuality/ paedophilia comparison. A lot of upset has been caused in the past by people saying similar things. I'm sure there is another way of you making the point you intended to make.

I realized it would cause offense when I wrote it. But then again, I didn't compare homosexuality and paedophilia. Read what I wrote: I said the oft-cited argument that people are born with same-sex attraction, and therefore it must be natural, and therefore acceptable -- this argument can also be used for pedophiles. I agree, then, that the argument is offensive, which is why I am trying to defeat it. But it is not a comparison.

There really is no other way to demonstrate how offensive an argument is other than to explain what exactly is offensive about it.

--------------------
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where." -- Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom

Posts: 57 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
TheMightyTonewheel
Shipmate
# 4730

 - Posted      Profile for TheMightyTonewheel   Email TheMightyTonewheel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Tonewheel:
quote:
Third, the claim that there is minimal evidence that biblical writers took a dim view of homosexuality is a cheap analysis. I won't recite all the texts (there's more than two from Paul), but we're talking about more than a handful of isolated references. We're talking about some of the strongest condemnations in the entire bible, strong echos in language and ideology between the NT references and OT references, and VERY strong (obvious!) links to the language of the creation story and God's plan for humankind. Not so easily dismissed.
Seven passing references in the entire Bible, IIRC. All of them with major exegetical problems, which have been done to death earlier on this thread. I know this is Dead Horses, so I shouldn't expect fresh thinking, but have you read the arguement to date? You might find it useful. [brick wall]
I hardly think Romans 1:24-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 could be prefaced with an "Oh, by the way..." And if they all had such "major exegetical problems", why did his audience, and indeed the early church, understand him perfectly?

I have read all the arguments questioning the traditional interpretation of these passages. They all have a range of problems. Very few of them actually agree on what's wrong with the traditional intrepretation, for one thing. The most repeated arguments (by the late John Boswell) have been discredited even by secular scholars. Some arguments are don't even have the facts straight: one website in Canada says the word "malakoi" means pedophile sex.

For me, it's really just a matter being unconvinced of the scholarship and philosophical rigor surrounding this issue, and the model of Jesus and the gospel that has been used to support it.

--------------------
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where." -- Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom

Posts: 57 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022

 - Posted      Profile for Merseymike   Email Merseymike   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, Tone, the problem is not recognising the limitations of the Bible full stop. It is a document of its time and reflects the lack of knowledge and understanding of sexual orientation. If, just for once, we could remember that the Bible is a book, written by men, and should be regarded as culturally and socially conditioned, just like any other book of its provenance, we may actually start to get somewhere

--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced

Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Atmospheric Skull

Antlered Bone-Visage
# 4513

 - Posted      Profile for Atmospheric Skull   Email Atmospheric Skull   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:
First, you can't make an argument about what is wrong or right based on what the Bible doesn't say. The Bible doesn't say alot of things.

And why is that?

You see, one of the (many) big problems I have with trying to interpret the Bible as a set of moral guidelines for modern life is this business of cultural context.

Proponents of this kind of reading agree that Paul didn't mention homosexual orientation because his culture had no concept of it, and yet are happy to accept the comments he did make as coming with divine authority. (Apart from the ones endorsing slavery, obviously.)

If God was inspiring Paul to write his letter to the Corinthians with the intention that that letter would be incorporated into a scriptural canon and used as ethical advice by generations of Christians up to 2000 years later -- and if God condemns sex between people of gay orientation -- then why doesn't the letter say anything specific about the matter? Paul may not have had any concept of homosexual orientation, but are we suggesting God didn't? Or couldn't have explained it?

Why exactly could God not have inspired Paul to write something along the lines of:
quote:
1 There are men who desire not women, and women who desire not men, and to them it seems good to lie man with man, or woman with woman, as God ordains men and women should lie together. 2 They take pleasure in these acts, yet God condemns such acts as wrong and contemptible in his sight. If such people wish to serve Christ, they must give up all such sinful actions, and submit themselves to a life of celibacy, 3 and even if they do, they should definitely not be given episcopal authority over the diocese of Reading [αναγνωσισ].
? That would have been unequivocal and clear, and saved a great deal of grief and division among the people of God.

In fact God could, via Paul, have just as easily condemned cybersex [ερωσ κυβερνετικοσ] if God had wanted to. It might have baffled the Corinthians, but many of the things Paul said to the Corinthians baffle us. Why is that, if God/Paul intended these words to be of universal application?

My answer: because God wasn't dictating to Paul, and the concept is clearly ridiculous. Paul was struggling to understand the revelation he'd received of God's nature and goodness, and in the process a large number of his own cultural biases crept in. How can we tell, from the distance of 2000 years, what came from God and what came from first-century Palestine? Um, we can't. Which rather puts paid to the idea of looking to any biblical writer as an arbiter of 21st-century ethics.

[ 16. July 2003, 09:09: Message edited by: Infinitarian ]

--------------------
Surrealistic Mystic.

Posts: 371 | From: Bristol, UK | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Tone said:
quote:
I hardly think Romans 1:24-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 could be prefaced with an "Oh, by the way..." And if they all had such "major exegetical problems", why did his audience, and indeed the early church, understand him perfectly?
I don't want to go into these in detail, because that really would be repeating very old material. However:

a) The Romans passage talks about people chosing homosexuality. None of the gay people I know chose to be homosexual; some would have given a great deal to chose to be straight.

b) The Corinthinas passage uses a word found nowhere else in classical or biblical Greek. Hence we can't be sure what it means, but many scholars think it might mean "homosexual prostitutes". I have several gay friends, but none of them are prostitutes, so this doesn't seem to apply to them either.

All of which has been said in a far more intelligent and nuanced manner earlier in the discussion. If you want to get to grips with this issue you could do worse than read all the 9,999 posts that make up this thread to date.

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
If, just for once, we could remember that the Bible is a book, written by men, and should be regarded as culturally and socially conditioned

Which of course not all of us agree on...

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
If, just for once, we could remember that the Bible is a book, written by men, and should be regarded as culturally and socially conditioned

Which of course not all of us agree on...
And even if we did agree, it doesn't mean it can't be the word of God, because God being omnipotent can do things like that.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Good point, Ken! [Not worthy!]

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Tone:

quote:
I have read all the arguments questioning the traditional interpretation of these passages. They all have a range of problems. Very few of them actually agree on what's wrong with the traditional intrepretation, for one thing. The most repeated arguments (by the late John Boswell) have been discredited even by secular scholars. Some arguments are don't even have the facts straight: one website in Canada says the word "malakoi" means pedophile sex.
What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. The theological position underlying the St Andrews Day statement is Barthian, the theological position underlying the condemnation of homosexual acts in the Catechsim of the Catholic Church is natural law based. The theological position underlying Peter Akinola's article in the Church Times is fundamentalist. Akinola's article alleges that homosexuality is unknown in the animal kingdom when, in fact, the converse is true.

On the grounds adduced above, therefore, we are quite justified in rejecting the traditionalist case against homosexuality, no?

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
If, just for once, we could remember that the Bible is a book, written by men, and should be regarded as culturally and socially conditioned

Which of course not all of us agree on...
And even if we did agree, it doesn't mean it can't be the word of God, because God being omnipotent can do things like that.
This is precisely the point: human words can be the the Word of God, without ceasing to be human (and therefore social and historical) words. In fact the Word of God speaks human words by virtue of the Incarnation. Christian faith is founded on the conviction that what is ultimate and infinite can be communicated through that which is contingent and finite.

But therein lies the rub, it is through finitude that the infinite is made known to us, it is through humanity that we touch divinity. How does the fact that we learn about the universal from the particular affect, say, the way we view God's revelation in history, and the way we read scripture?

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
TheMightyTonewheel
Shipmate
# 4730

 - Posted      Profile for TheMightyTonewheel   Email TheMightyTonewheel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Infinitarian:
quote:
Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:
First, you can't make an argument about what is wrong or right based on what the Bible doesn't say. The Bible doesn't say alot of things.

Proponents of this kind of reading agree that Paul didn't mention homosexual orientation because his culture had no concept of it, and yet are happy to accept the comments he did make as coming with divine authority. (Apart from the ones endorsing slavery, obviously.)

If God was inspiring Paul to write his letter to the Corinthians with the intention that that letter would be incorporated into a scriptural canon and used as ethical advice by generations of Christians up to 2000 years later -- and if God condemns sex between people of gay orientation -- then why doesn't the letter say anything specific about the matter? Paul may not have had any concept of homosexual orientation, but are we suggesting God didn't? Or couldn't have explained it?

Aside from this interesting idea of God giving ethical advice, [Roll Eyes] this is a good question. The reason that Paul didn't speak against homosexual orientation is because, well, it's not wrong. How can a preference be wrong? In all matters, scripture makes a very clear distinction between the desire to act and the act itself. And I would argue that Paul did say something specific about that.

quote:
Why exactly could God not have inspired Paul to write something along the lines of: There are men who desire not women, and women who desire not men, and to them it seems good to lie man with man, or woman with woman, as God ordains men and women should lie together. 2 They take pleasure in these acts, yet God condemns such acts as wrong and contemptible in his sight. If such people wish to serve Christ, they must give up all such sinful actions, and submit themselves to a life of celibacy, 3 and even if they do, they should definitely not be given episcopal authority over the diocese of Reading [αναγνωσισ].

quote:
That would have been unequivocal and clear, and saved a great deal of grief and division among the people of God.
You're suggesting that you won't obey Scripture unless it's spelled out for you in infinate detail, letter-of-the-law format. The kind of test you're setting up is the same kind the Parisees set up for Jesus. Of course, even in your explicit instructions listed above, many will still have objections. Was he really talking about our modern understanding of "episcopal authority"? Of course, what Paul understood as a "Bishop" is different today than it was then. And the first century understanding of "celebacy" was different then. Or, like Mike, you could simply sweep it all away under the catch-all aucpice of "there were men writing culture". On and on it goes.

quote:
In fact God could, via Paul, have just as easily condemned cybersex [ερωσ κυβερνετικοσ] if God had wanted to.

There's no way Paul could have condemned cybersex in a way that would meet the criteria you seem to advocate. You're looking for a literal list of right and wrongs. You don't think that there would be a thousand scholars lining up to say he wasn't talking about our modern understanding of cybersex?

quote:
How can we tell, from the distance of 2000 years, what came from God and what came from first-century Palestine? Um, we can't. Which rather puts paid to the idea of looking to any biblical writer as an arbiter of 21st-century ethics.

You're right, it's a tough job. But I would like to know your answer. How do we understand these collected works and their meaning, in their imperfection and humanity, as God-breathed and authoritative?

--------------------
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where." -- Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom

Posts: 57 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
TheMightyTonewheel
Shipmate
# 4730

 - Posted      Profile for TheMightyTonewheel   Email TheMightyTonewheel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
a) The Romans passage talks about people chosing homosexuality. None of the gay people I know chose to be homosexual; some would have given a great deal to chose to be straight.

The Romans passage does not talk about "choosing homosexuality". We have all said Paul didn't talk about "homosexual orientation" at all.

quote:
b) The Corinthinas passage uses a word found nowhere else in classical or biblical Greek. Hence we can't be sure what it means, but many scholars think it might mean "homosexual prostitutes". I have several gay friends, but none of them are prostitutes, so this doesn't seem to apply to them either.

You're wrong about this. The word in the Corinthians is not found in the Greek lexicon prior to Paul's usage, but it was found after a number of times. That doesn't mean that his audience didn't know what he was talking about. And it is highly unlikely it was used to refer to "homosexual prostitutes", since are a handful of Greek words that far better than "arsenokoitai" to describe that.

--------------------
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where." -- Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom

Posts: 57 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022

 - Posted      Profile for Merseymike   Email Merseymike   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I know this is a dead horse, but I think we are re-running dead horses, or attempting to.

The material about orientation has been covered above. The Bible does not clearly make a difference clear, because there was no recognition of sexual orientation. Thus any distinction is one you make to suit your argument.

Other than that, you're just going over the same tired conservative arguments which only matter if you believe that sort of theology in any case. I don't, and I wouldn't try to defend my position from a perspective I think is incorrect.

--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced

Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
TheMightyTonewheel
Shipmate
# 4730

 - Posted      Profile for TheMightyTonewheel   Email TheMightyTonewheel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
No, Tone, the problem is not recognising the limitations of the Bible full stop. It is a document of its time and reflects the lack of knowledge and understanding of sexual orientation. If, just for once, we could remember that the Bible is a book, written by men, and should be regarded as culturally and socially conditioned, just like any other book of its provenance, we may actually start to get somewhere

Yes, Mike, I already agree with you. I agree the bible is literature, written by men, within their particularly culture. Where we go from there is the problem. There are two extreme responses: the fundamentalists who say that, word-for-word, the bible is somehow transcultural, and there is nothing that is bound or influenced by culture. The other extreme is to dismiss it all, or at best become a self-appointed editor.

But I also believe it is still God-breathed and authoritative. What I see emerging is a trend of dismissing certain passages, or the tenor of a combination of passages, because they say things that make us uncomfortable. As Peter Kreeft said: if the church is a ship, and scriptural teaching is its cargo, once we start throwing off bits of cargo, we haven't just gotten rid of a little cargo, we've actually made ourselves the Captain.

If we're reading the Bible right, I truly believe it will be both a deeply offensive and deeply joyful book. If we remove the offense, we remove the joy.

So I don't worry that people have specific criticism of specific passages. I worry that we look at Scripture as a sort of consultant's report: interesting, informed, maybe even pivotal -- but no longer an authority. If we do that, we will have set outselves adrift.

--------------------
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where." -- Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom

Posts: 57 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
TheMightyTonewheel
Shipmate
# 4730

 - Posted      Profile for TheMightyTonewheel   Email TheMightyTonewheel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
Originally posted by Tone:


What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. The theological position underlying the St Andrews Day statement is Barthian, the theological position underlying the condemnation of homosexual acts in the Catechsim of the Catholic Church is natural law based. The theological position underlying Peter Akinola's article in the Church Times is fundamentalist. Akinola's article alleges that homosexuality is unknown in the animal kingdom when, in fact, the converse is true.

On the grounds adduced above, therefore, we are quite justified in rejecting the traditionalist case against homosexuality, no?


No.

Your survey of traditionalist arguments is fewer than 75 words and hardly comprehensive. Of all of these, I am only aware of one argument, and that's Akinola's. I don't think his precise claim was that homosexual activity is not found in the animal kingdom. In either case, his arguments don't convince me.

But philosophically speaking, while it gives me a reason to reject this particular argument, it doesn't give me any reason to reject all traditionalist arguments. I might claim I saw Jim at the grocery store on Monday because Jane saw him there. But, even if I later discover that Jane got her days mixed up and actually saw him there Sunday, that doesn't disprove he was also there Monday.

--------------------
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where." -- Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom

Posts: 57 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Tone - have you read the rest of this thread or not?

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by T'Mighty Tone

quote:
If we're reading the Bible right, I truly believe it will be both a deeply offensive and deeply joyful book. If we remove the offense, we remove the joy.

So I don't worry that people have specific criticism of specific passages. I worry that we look at Scripture as a sort of consultant's report: interesting, informed, maybe even pivotal -- but no longer an authority. If we do that, we will have set outselves adrift.

That Jim was at the grocers on Sunday does not prove that he was not also there on Monday. I agree. However, it does not prove that he was there either. In fact, that Jim was at the grocers on Sunday provides us with no information at all, no basis for any strong view (in and of itself) regarding the question of whether Jim was at the grocers on Monday.

In the same way, that we know Paul to have been guilty of anti-gay paranoia does not tell us whether God is for or against gay/lesbian relationships. To argue that Paul's perpectives is automatically the same as God's is nonsensical, I beleive.

So, here we are with the tired fact that there are only 5 or 6 verses in the entire bible which directly alluded to homosexual acts in any way. (I am assuming that verses about hetrosexual sex/relationships are irrelavent to the current debate since they do not mention gay/lesbian activity).

Of these, some almost certainly do not apply today. For example, the Leviticus text is part of the Mosiac law and, on my understanding of scripture, the Mosiac law is not binding either on Christians or on gentiles. Therefore, I do not consider the Leviticus text to be esp. important in this debate. Similiar arguements can be made against the remainder of the O.T passages as while as the arguement that the sexual preferrences of men who wished to rape angels (which is a mythlogical story to begin with) is perhaps not the most important aspect in the story. Perhaps (just perhaps) they were condemned for being rapists, not for being gay.

Also, the text does not say whether the men in the story were gay by choice or by nature for the reasons outlined by others above. However, it seems important to me that this distinction be made before we apply the text willy-nilly against people today.

We are then left with maybe 3 or so verses in the NT which may form credible evidence against gay/lesbian sex. Whether you like it or not, many scholars do not understand these verses in the way you do, MightyTonewheel. Therefore, it is possible (I say possible, not certain. and a possibility is all that is required) that your interpretation is in error.

Morover, it is further possible that these are expressions of Paul's personal prejudice, or hang-overs from the age of law or later insertions into the text. Again, a possibility is all that is required.

So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we have before us the question of whether gay/lesbian sex is outlawed by scripture. If you find there is a reasonable doubt concerning the assertion that gay/lesbian sex is impermissable from scripture, then you are obliged either to reject the notion as being unproved or else, at the very least, to hold a non-dogmatic, non-legalistic attitude towards it. To treat the truth or falsity of the assertaion as ambivalent, if not as downright false.

To treat the assertion as ambivalent or false does not entail a rejection either of scripture or of the authority of scripture. Is there sufficient evidence that gay/lesbian sex is outlawed by scripture?

I submit that there is not.

Therefore, I further submit that is is a little irresponsible to submit our gay and lesbian siblings in Christ to guilt, shame, resentment, prejudice and an unfullfilling "lifestyle" on the basis of a weak and unproved assertation.

Ben26 (who hasn't argued every point in this post in full detail for reasons of both time and space)

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Atmospheric Skull

Antlered Bone-Visage
# 4513

 - Posted      Profile for Atmospheric Skull   Email Atmospheric Skull   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:
Aside from this interesting idea of God giving ethical advice, [Roll Eyes]

It's not my idea...
quote:
You're suggesting that you won't obey Scripture unless it's spelled out for you in infinate detail, letter-of-the-law format.

No, I'm not. I'm saying I don't see why some of the Bible is couched like that ("Slaves, obey your masters" is pretty unequivocal, after all), while other areas are so interpretable. At least, I do see that, because it fits quite happily with my view that the whole book is a culturally-mediated mishmash containing some close approaches to divine truth and some arrant nonsense. But I don't see how the fact can be made to square with a more "respectful" view of "Scripture".
quote:
How do we understand these collected works and their meaning, in their imperfection and humanity, as God-breathed and authoritative?

Well... we don't, or at least I don't. The Bible in my view is "God-breathed" if by that you mean inspired by God, but then so are King Lear and The Lord of the Rings. Authoritative? No thanks.

The way to read the Bible (or King Lear or Lord of the Rings) is by exercising our God-given gift of discernment. God gave us consciences for a reason, and I believe one such reason is that we should not justify prejudice and oppression with quotes from distantly mediated ancient texts.

(Didn't work, of course.)

--------------------
Surrealistic Mystic.

Posts: 371 | From: Bristol, UK | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Atmospheric Skull

Antlered Bone-Visage
# 4513

 - Posted      Profile for Atmospheric Skull   Email Atmospheric Skull   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I said:
The Bible in my view is "God-breathed" if by that you mean inspired by God, but then so are King Lear and The Lord of the Rings

Probably "inspired in part by God" would better express what I'm trying to get at there. (And no, those aren't the only three books...)

--------------------
Surrealistic Mystic.

Posts: 371 | From: Bristol, UK | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Eanswyth

Ship's raven
# 3363

 - Posted      Profile for Eanswyth   Email Eanswyth   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Bravo Ben, well done.
Posts: 1323 | From: San Diego | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Elizabeth Anne

Altar Girl
# 3555

 - Posted      Profile for Elizabeth Anne     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'll second that.

Ben [Not worthy!]

--------------------
Born under a bad sign with a blue moon in my eyes...

Posts: 974 | From: New York | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
TheMightyTonewheel
Shipmate
# 4730

 - Posted      Profile for TheMightyTonewheel   Email TheMightyTonewheel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ben26:

In the same way, that we know Paul to have been guilty of anti-gay paranoia does not tell us whether God is for or against gay/lesbian relationships. To argue that Paul's perpectives is automatically the same as God's is nonsensical, I beleive.



Herein lies the problem. You've taken the views of Paul and simply dismissed them as "anti-gay paranoia". Anybody can do that with anything Paul said, or anything anybody said. It's building arguments on rhetoric. I could just as easily say the stop-sign at the nearest corner is anti-driving paranoia. If God was "against" same-sex activity, why do want Him to get that across to you in any way that is different than the way He got the resurrection across to you?

quote:
So, here we are with the tired fact that there are only 5 or 6 verses in the entire bible which directly alluded to homosexual acts in any way.

Of these, some almost certainly do not apply today. For example, the Leviticus text is part of the Mosiac law and, on my understanding of scripture, the Mosiac law is not binding either on Christians or on gentiles. Therefore, I do not consider the Leviticus text to be esp. important in this debate.



The Levitical text you're referring to also cites adultery, incest, and bestiality as condemnable acts. You sure none of these are binding on Christians today? In the case of incest and bestiality, neither of them are even even directly mentioned in the NT -- yet we still consider them awful acts, even though homosexual activity IS mentioned several times in the NT.

So, in other words, if the biblical evidence against homosexual activity is not enough, on what biblical grounds can we possibly continue to condemn incest and bestiality?

quote:
Also, the text does not say whether the men in the story were gay by choice or by nature for the reasons outlined by others above. However, it seems important to me that this distinction be made before we apply the text willy-nilly against people today.


From cover to cover, the text never ever makes this distinction for any kind of moral behaviour. Where does it say "It is wrong to commit adultery, but only in cases where my adulterous behaviour is by choice and not by nature? No where. That's because it's ALWAYS wrong to commit adultery, even though some people's instincts (all people?) are telling them that it's the most natural thing in the world. You're essentially advocating that if somoene is born with such-and-such an instinct or natural inclination, it must be ok to live out that inclination. Think about this. As I have argued again and again, think of all the nasty "natural" behaviours that your argument excuses, even blesses.

Scripture says we all have an natural inclination to do the wrong thing, we're born with it. But we're all called to do the right thing even if our natural selves are pulling us in the opposite direction. This is all Christianity 101, spelling out in vivid detail in Romans.

quote:
Therefore, I further submit that is is a little irresponsible to submit our gay and lesbian siblings in Christ to guilt, shame, resentment, prejudice and an unfullfilling "lifestyle" on the basis of a weak and unproved assertation.


This is a truly frightening assertion. Think of what you are saying. You're saying that anyone that is guity of some kind of Scriptural prohibition -- even one that we can both agree on -- it's submitting them to guilt, shame, resentment, prejudice and an unfullfilling 'lifestyle'". That's awful. I'm a sinner -- is that kind of treatment you want for me?

There's this mysterious misunderstanding surrounding this debate. It's this idea that if someone is told they are doing the wrong thing, it's the same as condemning them to Hell. So, this is the choice: either we all accept and bless something (doesn't matter what "it" is), or relegate those that do "it" as lepers.

--------------------
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where." -- Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom

Posts: 57 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
TheMightyTonewheel
Shipmate
# 4730

 - Posted      Profile for TheMightyTonewheel   Email TheMightyTonewheel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ben26:

In the same way, that we know Paul to have been guilty of anti-gay paranoia does not tell us whether God is for or against gay/lesbian relationships. To argue that Paul's perpectives is automatically the same as God's is nonsensical, I beleive.



Herein lies the problem. You've taken the views of Paul and simply dismissed them as "anti-gay paranoia". Anybody can do that with anything Paul said, or anything anybody said. It's building arguments on rhetoric. I could just as easily say the stop-sign at the nearest corner is anti-driving paranoia. If God was "against" same-sex activity, why do want Him to get that across to you in any way that is different than the way He got the resurrection across to you?

quote:
So, here we are with the tired fact that there are only 5 or 6 verses in the entire bible which directly alluded to homosexual acts in any way.

Of these, some almost certainly do not apply today. For example, the Leviticus text is part of the Mosiac law and, on my understanding of scripture, the Mosiac law is not binding either on Christians or on gentiles. Therefore, I do not consider the Leviticus text to be esp. important in this debate.



The Levitical text you're referring to also cites adultery, incest, and bestiality as condemnable acts. You sure none of these are binding on Christians today? In the case of incest and bestiality, neither of them are even even directly mentioned in the NT -- yet we still consider them awful acts, even though homosexual activity IS mentioned several times in the NT.

Here's a question -- were they named as "wrong" because of the culture, or are they just wrong no matter what culture you're in?

So, in other words, if the biblical evidence against homosexual activity is not enough, on what biblical grounds can we possibly continue to condemn incest and bestiality?

quote:
Also, the text does not say whether the men in the story were gay by choice or by nature for the reasons outlined by others above. However, it seems important to me that this distinction be made before we apply the text willy-nilly against people today.


From cover to cover, the text never ever makes this distinction for any kind of moral behaviour. Where does it say "It is wrong to commit adultery, but only in cases where my adulterous behaviour is by choice and not by nature? No where. That's because it's ALWAYS wrong to commit adultery, even though some people's instincts (all people?) are telling them that it's the most natural thing in the world. You're essentially advocating that if somoene is born with such-and-such an instinct or natural inclination, it must be ok to live out that inclination. Think about this. As I have argued again and again, think of all the nasty "natural" behaviours that your argument excuses, even blesses.

Scripture says we all have an natural inclination to do the wrong thing, we're born with it. But we're all called to do the right thing even if our natural selves are pulling us in the opposite direction. True?

quote:
Therefore, I further submit that is is a little irresponsible to submit our gay and lesbian siblings in Christ to guilt, shame, resentment, prejudice and an unfullfilling "lifestyle" on the basis of a weak and unproved assertation.


This is a truly frightening assertion. Think of what you are saying. I accept that no one should be subject to "guilt, shame, resentment, prejudice" -- but is that what we're doing, as Christians, by trying to name what is right and wrong, in ourselves and others? How about those things we CAN agree are wrong? Should they be subject to shame and guilt because they're sinful people and have done some wrong things?

Ben, you and I are having a discussion about different gospels. Forgive me, but I do not think sinners should ever be put through guilt, shame, resentment, prejudice. I'm an acknowledged sinner. I sin everyday, in the most hideous of manners. Is that kind of treatment you want for me?

When one Christian points to another's wrongdoing (which we should all do), they are not condemning them as lepers. They're saying, "Pal, you're just like the rest of us". When Paul said there is no man, woman, Greek or Jew under the gospel, he meant we're all broken and in need of God's grace, which is available to everyone. Recognizing one's own brokenness is not a recipe for guilt and shame -- it's the only door to the gospel.

--------------------
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where." -- Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom

Posts: 57 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
TheMightyTonewheel
Shipmate
# 4730

 - Posted      Profile for TheMightyTonewheel   Email TheMightyTonewheel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
How do we understand these collected works and their meaning, in their imperfection and humanity, as God-breathed and authoritative?

Well... we don't, or at least I don't. The Bible in my view is "God-breathed" if by that you mean inspired by God, but then so are King Lear and The Lord of the Rings. Authoritative? No thanks.

Ah, thank you! Someone finally admitted it. It's actually really refreshing to hear this, because at least we know where we stand. It's fine to consider the Bible divinely-influenced, shall we say, like a King Lear or Lord of the Rings. But if someone were to take Lord of the Rings, build a doctrine on it, hire clergy to preach it, build buildings where it is read from every week, marshal about a third of the world's population to sign up as followers -- that's a lot of fuss for something that's just a book with a handful of nuggets of wisdom. I mean, a book club is one thing...

The reality is that almost all Christian churches consider scripture to have some special authority. I accept (and appreciate) that you dissent from that, but if that's the case, we don't really have much to talk about.

quote:
The way to read the Bible (or King Lear or Lord of the Rings) is by exercising our God-given gift of discernment. God gave us consciences for a reason, and I believe one such reason is that we should not justify prejudice and oppression with quotes from distantly mediated ancient texts.

Well of course we are to read with discernment, that's why we have threads like this. We're not cooking here, we're trying to discern. But dismissing one approach as "prejudice and oppression" is really just a old tactic debaters use when they run out of points to make. I could just as easily say your way is used to justify self-centredness, arrogance. There, we've each made argument-less accusations, we're at a standoff. Surely this isn't the kind of discernment you were talking about.
[Wink]

--------------------
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where." -- Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom

Posts: 57 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
TheMightyTonewheel
Shipmate
# 4730

 - Posted      Profile for TheMightyTonewheel   Email TheMightyTonewheel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Wups...sorry for the double post. The 2nd version is holy.

--------------------
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where." -- Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom

Posts: 57 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I repeat:
quote:
Tone - have you read the rest of this thread or not?
Because, unless you have and are prepared to grapple with the intricacies of the arguments already presented, there really is no point in continuing this discussion.

(Sigh. Why do I bother? This is Dead Horses after all.)

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
TheMightyTonewheel
Shipmate
# 4730

 - Posted      Profile for TheMightyTonewheel   Email TheMightyTonewheel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I repeat:
quote:
Tone - have you read the rest of this thread or not?
Because, unless you have and are prepared to grapple with the intricacies of the arguments already presented, there really is no point in continuing this discussion.
Yes, I have read through the thread. As far as I'm concerned, if you're implying that I'm offering nothing new, or I can't "grasp" the arguments, I would suggest that both sides are guilty of that. After all, you said:

quote:
The Romans passage talks about people chosing homosexuality. None of the gay people I know chose to be homosexual; some would have given a great deal to chose to be straight.


...a point which, I would suggest, isn't exactly fresh ground. One of the central pro-gay arguments about the Romans passage is that Paul referred to the concept of "in nature" -- which could not have been referring to those who were lifelong, committed homosexuals who were clearly born with their orientation and did not choose it, therefore it's "natural". Yes yes, I've heard it all before.

--------------------
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where." -- Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom

Posts: 57 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
if you're implying that I'm offering nothing new, or I can't "grasp" the arguments
Yes, that is what Iwas implying. At last we can agree on something! [Devil]

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arabella Purity Winterbottom

Trumpeting hope
# 3434

 - Posted      Profile for Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Email Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Tone,
Do you have any other interests in religion? 20 of your 23 posts on the Ship have been in this one thread. The rest of us get out and around a bit more.

Yours in Christ but highly pissed off
APW

--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal

Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
TheMightyTonewheel
Shipmate
# 4730

 - Posted      Profile for TheMightyTonewheel   Email TheMightyTonewheel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Do you have any other interests in religion? 20 of your 23 posts on the Ship have been in this one thread. The rest of us get out and around a bit more.

Yours in Christ but highly pissed off
APW

You're actually pissed off off at me because of my posting ratio?

Friends, I enjoy a good debate I am not interested in personalizing these discussions. Some of you have been very engaging and respectful, and have given me a good deal to think about.

Shalom.

--------------------
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where." -- Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom

Posts: 57 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261

 - Posted      Profile for Paige   Email Paige   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:
You're actually pissed off off at me because of my posting ratio?

You really ARE dense, aren't you? [Roll Eyes] [Disappointed]

Is your ONLY mission on this board to convince those of us who believe that homosexuality is not a sin that we are in error? If so, you have failed miserably.

If not, try engaging in discussion on something other than this topic. People might get the idea that you were more than a one-trick pony.

--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection

Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Arabella Purity Winterbottom

Trumpeting hope
# 3434

 - Posted      Profile for Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Email Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:
You're actually pissed off off at me because of my posting ratio?

Hm, no, I'm wondering why the only thing you seem to be interested in talking about, on these incredibly varied and fascinating boards, is your views on homosexuality? Which is a dead horse.

Most of us spread ourselves around a bit more. I personally find it difficult to read your condemnations of a group of people to whom I belong when you don't seem to have anything else to be interested in. I am very familiar with people like you appear to be, and I don't much like them. Engage on something meaningful, why don't you? Some of us lesbians and gay men are quite good on, oh I don't know, the resurrection, Augustine, liturgy, the Reformation, liberation theology and music, etc.

And please don't patronise me by suggesting that you're not being insulting. I am currently going through a judicial commission which is debating whether I should be allowed to be a member of the church I belong to by baptism and confession. The views that are being expressed are exactly the same as yours, and they are being used to try and exclude me from Christ's church. Which stinks, since I don't believe Christ would do that.

Your opinions are only your opinions. My life is my life.

[ 19. July 2003, 12:16: Message edited by: Arabella Purity Winterbottom ]

--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal

Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Arabella: [Not worthy!] [Not worthy!] [Not worthy!]

PS [Votive] for all you're going through.

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi TheMightyTonewheel,

You seem to have a number of objections to my latest post on this topic. Let me take them one at a time.

quote:
Herein lies the problem. You've taken the views of Paul and simply dismissed them as "anti-gay paranoia". Anybody can do that with anything Paul said, or anything anybody said. It's building arguments on rhetoric. I could just as easily say the stop-sign at the nearest corner is anti-driving paranoia. If God was "against" same-sex activity, why do want Him to get that across to you in any way that is different than the way He got the resurrection across to you?
but we are talining about a tiny handful of verses. If gay/lebian sex was such a major issue, don't you think more would be said about it? As I said, I do not personally happen to believe that Paul's utterances prove the point one way or the other. On the other hand, are you seriously suggesting that Paul was not a homophobe? Everything we know of him suggests that he was.


quote:
The Levitical text you're referring to also cites adultery, incest, and bestiality as condemnable acts. You sure none of these are binding on Christians today? In the case of incest and bestiality, neither of them are even even directly mentioned in the NT -- yet we still consider them awful acts, even though homosexual activity IS mentioned several times in the NT.

So, in other words, if the biblical evidence against homosexual activity is not enough, on what biblical grounds can we possibly continue to condemn incest and bestiality?

Yes, but it also forbids wearing cloths made out of two or more types of material, and orders you to show to a priest any item of clothing you may have which has mildew on it (13:47). This is why we have to use common sense, not just pull verses out of context and use them against our siblings in Christ or anyone else for that matter.

In any case, if you believe everything Paul said then you will agree that Christians are not under law and that the Mosaic law was not intended for the gentiles. To say that Leviticus is not binding upon us (and I'm sorry, but I don't think it is) does not mean we have no defense against bestiality or adultery since perfectly good moral arguements against these acts exist entirely independantly of Leviticus. Are you seriously suggesting that everyone who rejects Leviticus embraces bestiality?

quote:
From cover to cover, the text never ever makes this distinction for any kind of moral behaviour.
Which is exactly the point, the Bible fails to make valid distinctions between choosing to be gay/lesbian and happening to be gay or lesbian whether you like it or not. There is a distinction. The Bible doesn't make it. Which is one piece of evidence in favor of the contention that Biblical knowledge is outmoded in some departments

quote:
This is a truly frightening assertion. Think of what you are saying. You're saying that anyone that is guity of some kind of Scriptural prohibition -- even one that we can both agree on -- it's submitting them to guilt, shame, resentment, prejudice and an unfullfilling 'lifestyle'". That's awful. I'm a sinner -- is that kind of treatment you want for me?

There's this mysterious misunderstanding surrounding this debate. It's this idea that if someone is told they are doing the wrong thing, it's the same as condemning them to Hell. So, this is the choice: either we all accept and bless something (doesn't matter what "it" is), or relegate those that do "it" as lepers.

You seem to have deliberately misrepresented me on this point. I am sorry, but there is no other to say it. I thought I said the precise opposite of what you are implying I said. I said that I don't want people to be subected to prejudice, shame, an unfullfilling life etc. That includes people I disagree with, such as yourself, as well. I didn't say people were not sinful. Since I believe that sin is falling sort of God's standards (I.E not being perfect) the claim that we are not sinful would be an absurd one for me to make.

Also, while you may not intend to make people feel condemned (which is very, very, very, very different from making them feel convicted of sin) it is the effect that attitudes like yours yours often have, to tell people that their sexuality is unacceptable. I have no objection to condemning certain acts, but I want a slightly better rerason to do so then the final cause arguement or an appeal to the Mosiac law. I find neither tactic convincing.

quote:
You're essentially advocating that if somoene is born with such-and-such an instinct or natural inclination, it must be ok to live out that inclination. Think about this. As I have argued again and again, think of all the nasty "natural" behaviours that your argument excuses, even blesses
What a weak arguement. Are you really saying that every single inclination I ever have is evil? If not, you are saying this:

A) Some of the things human beings wish to do are evil. (I agree with this)

B) I don't like gay/lesbian sex, and neither does Paul as it happens, so gay/lesbian sex must be one of the evil things ( I do not agree with this)

C) Therefore, gay/lesbian sex is evil.

That is very nearly a circular arguement, MightyTonewheel.

I shall refrain from commenting on your implication that I don't have the faintest idea what I am talking about.

Ben

--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by TheMightyToneWheel:

quote:
Your survey of traditionalist arguments is fewer than 75 words and hardly comprehensive. Of all of these, I am only aware of one argument, and that's Akinola's. I don't think his precise claim was that homosexual activity is not found in the animal kingdom. In either case, his arguments don't convince me.

But philosophically speaking, while it gives me a reason to reject this particular argument, it doesn't give me any reason to reject all traditionalist arguments. I might claim I saw Jim at the grocery store on Monday because Jane saw him there. But, even if I later discover that Jane got her days mixed up and actually saw him there Sunday, that doesn't disprove he was also there Monday.

Umm you've missed my point. You originally suggested that liberal arguments were to be rejected because:

a) they contradict other liberal arguments
b) secular scholars have confuted some of the points made
c) some liberals make obvious mistakes

My point was exactly the same could be said about traditionalist arguments. It is the nature of a contested field, I think.

And yes, you should find more on the ship than this one dead horse. [Wink]

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by paigeb:
People might get the idea that you were more than a one-trick pony.

I have here, vouchsafed from, well, me, this month's OTP Award, and it DOES go to The Mighty Tonewheel. Congratulations, dude. You have TOTALLY earned it.

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.

Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mighty Tonewheel, since you're new to the Ship you may not know that posting only on one subject comes across to people -- whatever that subject is -- as "crusading," which is officially something we're not supposed to do here. The Ship is a different place than many others on the Net -- it really is a community -- and as you can see from the location of this thread in Dead Horses, this particular subject has been beaten to death repeatedly.

In addition, I think many of us are a bit sensitised to gay issues right now -- there's been a huge conflict over in England over the ordination of Jeffrey John, a gay (but celibate) priest, to the Bishopric, or the lack thereof, and tempers have been running very hot after the way that wa

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
... after the way that was handled. [Embarrassed]

[ 21. July 2003, 14:50: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:
If God was "against" same-sex activity, why do want Him to get that across to you in any way that is different than the way He got the resurrection across to you?

Maybe there might be a point here?
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If the evidence for the resurrection consisted soley of a handful of badly translated verses I would perhaps doubt it as much as I doubt the verisimilitude of conservative arguements against homosexuality.

--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  ...  92  93  94 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

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