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 58)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  ...  92  93  94 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

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

quote:
We cannot believe in an unreasonable God—for evil is clearl unreasonable and denies rationality: the blind faith of Nazism, White Supremacy, Al Qaeda, Zionism, any following of a leader, a Führer, etc. etc.
I am far from being an unqualified admirer of Zionism but I would rather hesitate to bracket it with Nazism, White Supremacy or Al Qaeda.

--------------------
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
Incipit
Shipmate
# 10554

 - Posted      Profile for Incipit   Email Incipit   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This has led me to all sorts of questions and the discovery of Queering Theology, which is indeed very challenging.[/QB][/QUOTE]


Thanks for your reply, Alliebath - but what is Queering Theology?

Posts: 51 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547

 - Posted      Profile for Alliebath   Email Alliebath   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Incipit, I came across Queering Theology through two books—
The Sexual Theologian: Essays on Sex, God and Politics, edited by Marcella Althaus-Reid and Lisa Isherwood (2004)
Practicing Safer Texts: Food, Sex and Bible in Queer Perspective, Ken Stone (2005)
They basically challenge the assumptions that Christians and the Church have made about sexual behaviour and sexual boundaries. So, for instance, Stone would argue that the Church quite quickly gave up the Jewish food laws as seeing them as non-Christian, similarly with the dress codes, should we not do the same for other cultic practices, such as sexual and gender divisions.

Very provocative and challenging: especially on looking at boundaries: the defining of ourselves as apart from the Other, and some exciting reinterpretations in Althaus-Reid and Isherwood with regard to the two angels in the resurrection tomb, the visions of Margery Kempe and much else. [Devil]

--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles

G. K. Chesterton

Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547

 - Posted      Profile for Alliebath   Email Alliebath   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I am far from being an unqualified admirer of Zionism but I would rather hesitate to bracket it with Nazism, White Supremacy or Al Qaeda.

Callan, what about the latest news that israel is taking away from the Palestinians more land than it returned back.

I would link all of these organisation because of their unhelathy and holy marriage between politics and religion—and I would see both of the partners as unhealthy and unholy! [Tear]

--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles

G. K. Chesterton

Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533

 - Posted      Profile for the_raptor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Doing what?

Idolatory. Rejecting God. As per your post.

(Your sex life I claim not insight on)

Gah. Your double negative got me.

[ 18. October 2005, 14:15: Message edited by: the_raptor ]

--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly

Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533

 - Posted      Profile for the_raptor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alliebath:
[QB] Callan, what about the latest news that israel is taking away from the Palestinians more land than it returned back.

Uh huh. And how much land are North American governments giving back to Native Americans? Or my country giving back to the Aborigines?

I don't approve of the zionist policies of Israel, but most western nations don't have the moral standing to call Israel out on them.

The western powers history is why the rest of the world laughs at us when we try and moralise.

--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly

Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547

 - Posted      Profile for Alliebath   Email Alliebath   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Uh huh. And how much land are North American governments giving back to Native Americans? Or my country giving back to the Aborigines?

I don't approve of the zionist policies of Israel, but most western nations don't have the moral standing to call Israel out on them.

The western powers history is why the rest of the world laughs at us when we try and moralise.

Two wrongs do not make a right, Raptor.

Also, you do not have to perfect to point out the imperfections in others, as long as you are aware of (as far as one is able) to see one’s own imperfections, and to acknowledge them when they too are pointed out.

I would agree that Western policy has been a narrow racially-directed series of sad and sordid stratagems—smallpox blankets to Amerindians, genocide in Tasmania, the RAF gas-bombing Kurdish villages just before the Italians did the same with Abyssinian villages. But there were those who stood up and over and against such policies, sometimes ineffectually. The basis of the biblical legacy of Ham justified the Boers’ Apartheid and the Bible Belt Segregation, but it a different part of that tradition inspired Trevor Huddlestone and Martin Luther King.

Within the ranks of the organisations I have mentioned there is no dispute, just harsh cold lebensraum—I am am using the word justifiably. There is no difference to the Neo-Assyrians needing more lands for more tribute to their God Ashshur. There is nothing new under the sun: only the speed and intensity and thoroughness with which it can now be done.

--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles

G. K. Chesterton

Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Luke

Soli Deo Gloria
# 306

 - Posted      Profile for Luke   Author's homepage   Email Luke   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alliebath:
I would agree that Western policy has been a narrow racially-directed series of sad and sordid stratagems—smallpox blankets to Amerindians, genocide in Tasmania, the RAF gas-bombing Kurdish villages just before the Italians did the same with Abyssinian villages.

Genocide in Tasmania? I see you have slipped that accusation in with a list of historical events. I am unaware of a genocide occurring in Tasmania.

[ 18. October 2005, 22:50: Message edited by: Luke ]

--------------------
Emily's Voice

Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37

 - Posted      Profile for Paul.   Author's homepage   Email Paul.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alliebath:
How do we understand God’s revelation to us, LatePaul? That is really the question.

Yes it is. It's also about what we understand as being God's revelation. At least for me it is.

However to discuss that fully would not be entirely on-topic for this thread. As I said I may move it to the right thread when I've caught up on what's already been posted there.

Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes Luke -- just as the Beothuks were systematically exterminated in Newfoundland.

To everyone else -- of course, the Iroquois systematically exterminated the Huron in Canada -- admittedly with some small help from Europeans -- but the war had been going on for decades before a single white man hove into view. Aboriginal peoples throughout history have exterminated their rivals. Take for example the original inhabitants of Easter Island.

THis is a case where no-one is innocent, if you go far enough back. Where the victims are largely not around -- and where, as a result, just about everybody left today has been guilty.

Still doesn't justify tolerating it today. On the other hand, much as I dislike the current Israeli regime, it is not fair comment to compare them to Nazis -- which comes perilously close to that prime sin involving Godwin's Law.

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ananke
Shipmate
# 10059

 - Posted      Profile for ananke   Email ananke   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Genocide in Tasmania? I see you have slipped that accusation in with a list of historical events. I am unaware of a genocide occurring in Tasmania.

Educate yourself. As much as I love the widespread ignorance of my whitewashed cultural heritage, I'm not one to stand in the way of education...

--------------------
...and I bear witness, this grace, this prayer so long forgotten.

A Perfect Circle - Magdalena

Posts: 617 | From: australia | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547

 - Posted      Profile for Alliebath   Email Alliebath   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Even worse, the genocide was effectively orgaised by a clergyman! [Mad]

--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles

G. K. Chesterton

Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Luke

Soli Deo Gloria
# 306

 - Posted      Profile for Luke   Author's homepage   Email Luke   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ananke:
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Genocide in Tasmania? I see you have slipped that accusation in with a list of historical events. I am unaware of a genocide occurring in Tasmania.

Educate yourself. As much as I love the widespread ignorance of my whitewashed cultural heritage, I'm not one to stand in the way of education...
Shouldn’t it read the alleged genocide of the Tasmanian Aborigines. Its a little insulting to the survivors of the Jewish genocide to label the destruction of Tasmanian Aborigines as a genocide. Where was the organised campaign of extermination based on a policy of racial superiority and ethnic cleansing? Furthermore some of the alleged massacres such as the one meant to have happended at Risdon Cove are based on scant written evidence and hearsay. Sure there are injustices, murder and fighting and a dark colonial past but that does not add up to the charge of genocide. If you call what happened in Tasmania a ‘Genocide’ then you can call any conflict that involves innocent deaths a genocide.

--------------------
Emily's Voice

Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533

 - Posted      Profile for the_raptor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Shouldn’t it read the alleged genocide of the Tasmanian Aborigines. Its a little insulting to the survivors of the Jewish genocide to label the destruction of Tasmanian Aborigines as a genocide. Where was the organised campaign of extermination based on a policy of racial superiority and ethnic cleansing? Furthermore some of the alleged massacres such as the one meant to have happended at Risdon Cove are based on scant written evidence and hearsay. Sure there are injustices, murder and fighting and a dark colonial past but that does not add up to the charge of genocide. If you call what happened in Tasmania a ‘Genocide’ then you can call any conflict that involves innocent deaths a genocide.

Any conflict where the majority of one side gets wiped out. If that Wiki article is to be believed then 3000 got reduced to 800, which means 70% of Tasmanian Aborigines where killed. I would call that genocide. In fact that is probably a higher proportion of the population killed then during the Holocaust. And as the definition on genocide is wiping out most of a population, that is probably a "bigger" genocide then the holocaust. The fact that it was until recently thought that all the Tasmanian Aborigines had been wiped out should give you a clue.

P.S. Never use the excuse that we can't use the word genocide because of the Holocaust. There have been campaigns that fit the definition of genocide better then the Holocaust does. It was attempted genocide, which is why we call it the Holocaust and not the Genocide.

--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly

Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533

 - Posted      Profile for the_raptor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
* clicked quote instead of edit *

[ 20. October 2005, 05:31: Message edited by: the_raptor ]

--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly

Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Luke

Soli Deo Gloria
# 306

 - Posted      Profile for Luke   Author's homepage   Email Luke   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But the same wikipedia article pointed out that the Tasmanian Aborigines were not wiped out as previously thought. Granted your point that the majority of the pre-existing population died over short period. However you haven't pointed to a sound definition of genocide and secondly the original population figures are disputed. I assumed genocide included a deliberate and organised policy of extermination based on a theory of racial superiority. Furthermore, no genocide is complete . For example the see the thread about the Armenian genocide thread in purgtory.

Which brings me to another point. Maybe this debate should be moved to another thread?

--------------------
Emily's Voice

Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kelly Alves

Bunny with an axe
# 2522

 - Posted      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I vote yes. [Big Grin]

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533

 - Posted      Profile for the_raptor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
But the same wikipedia article pointed out that the Tasmanian Aborigines were not wiped out as previously thought. Granted your point that the majority of the pre-existing population died over short period. However you haven't pointed to a sound definition of genocide and secondly the original population figures are disputed.

Dictionary.com gives me:

"The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."

So nearly all our historical "genocides" are attempted genocide. But if that Wikipedia article is to be believed (which I wouldnt bet on) then the Tasmanian Aborigines came closer to genocide then a most of the other attempted genocides.

And no this doesn't need its own thread we just need to drop it.

Mea Culpa. [Overused]

--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly

Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Luke -- genocide doesn't require a theory of racial superiority, though it frequently does include that as a motivator. Nor does it have to be carried out over a specified, relatively short period of time. Sometimes it need not even be intentional. Basically it's about exercising power.

However, like the Beothuks, the Tasmanian aboriginals were almost certainly considered an inferior race by the people who participated. The same attitude can sometimes be seen today towards Canada's First Nations or Australia's Aborigines, though it tends to be expressed more carefully, and the normal constraints of -- well, we'll call it civilized -- society usually mean no one actually dies. I am, however, reminded of the recent conviction of a (white) farmer in South Africa for murdering one of his (black) workers by feeding hi to a lion. He pleaded not guilty because he thought the man was dead when he gave the body to the lion -- apparently black bodies are just lion-food, so that was all right, so far as he was concerned.

John

[ 20. October 2005, 14:14: Message edited by: John Holding ]

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547

 - Posted      Profile for Alliebath   Email Alliebath   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry if I have inadvertently started a ‘definition of genocide’ thread—which was not what i was intending.

However, splitting hairs about how many people or what percentage of people need to be killed to justify a mass murder to be called a genocide seems to be fatuous.

But then again, that seems to be one of our problems as human beings: when confronted by something unimaginable, we resort to dealing with the banal.

--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles

G. K. Chesterton

Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005  |  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 Spiffy da Wonder Sheep:
Josephine, you are my hero. [Overused]

Just read this post and WOW!!!

[Overused] [Axe murder] [Overused] [Axe murder] [Overused] [Axe murder] [Overused]

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

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Luke

Soli Deo Gloria
# 306

 - Posted      Profile for Luke   Author's homepage   Email Luke   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:

"The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."

The destruction of most of the Tasmanian Aborigines through disease and warfare was not a systematic and planned extermination. It has been labelled a genocide for political reasons.

quote:
So nearly all our historical "genocides" are attempted genocide.
Doesn’t that make the term almost meaningless if you apply it willy nilly across history?

quote:
Mea Culpa.
Hardly.

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Sometimes it need not even be intentional.

What about the definition posted above?

--------------------
Emily's Voice

Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As commonly used, the definition is wrong.

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Luke

Soli Deo Gloria
# 306

 - Posted      Profile for Luke   Author's homepage   Email Luke   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've started a new thread about this topic in Purgatory.

--------------------
Emily's Voice

Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
TonyK

Host Emeritus
# 35

 - Posted      Profile for TonyK   Email TonyK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you, Luke.

Can we now please return to the thread's mainline, after a rather tangential branchline?

Thank you.

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses

[edited for grammer [Hot and Hormonal] ]

[ 21. October 2005, 10:44: Message edited by: TonyK ]

Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547

 - Posted      Profile for Alliebath   Email Alliebath   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As I was the one who led this thread astray, mea culpa [Hot and Hormonal] , let me bring it back on line with the following quotation…
quote:
Archbishop Robin Eames, in his 2005 Pitt Lecture at the Berkeley Divinity School, Yale, wrote

I am suggesting that in traditional Anglican approach to theology there must be a new and urgent focus on first, the Christian view of Creation, and second, the Christian understanding of salvation. Whatevber one’s sexual orientation may be we are part of creation—and we all need salvation. If our view is that homosexuality has been a part of the created world from the start and thus ‘without sin’ we need to engage at new levels of sensitivity with those who accept that it entered with man’s first fall and so is sinful. Surely if unity is not to be fractured beyond recovery this Augustinian approach must be a first rather than a final stage. [My emphasis.]

There are two things I would like to throw in to respond to this.

(1) Do we need to chuck out the Augustinian theological model anyway. [Devil] (I am a fan of Pelagius, so I have a distinct bias here.)

(2) Is the story about Creation in Genesis 2 ff. actually about a ‘Fall’. [Angel] It is about Judgement—and I would see that it is paradigmatic to the judgement that Christ brings—but I do not see it as a ‘Fall’.

--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles

G. K. Chesterton

Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Get with the game. Go Irenaeus. Read it here in my article. Recapitulation means that all is gathered up. Eames says, "what is 'all'"?

Ancestral Sin and Salvation in the Orthodox Church

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547

 - Posted      Profile for Alliebath   Email Alliebath   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
We are responsible for the sins that we commit, not the sins of our forefathers and not the sins of our first parents. Moreover, the Fall is not a taint in our character transmitted by sex, nor is sex itself necessarily tainted by lust. Orthodox refer instead to "ancestral sin," by which we mean our participation in the disobedience of the first Adam as inherited through death, not sex. It is a curse that the Law exposed in the inability of humans to fulfil the Mosaic Covenant. It is a curse which has been redeemed by Christ. [Galatians 3:13].

This, then, is the characteristic understanding of the Fall in the Orthodox Church: sin generated by the corruption of death. In the post-Orthodox, post Christian west however, many people see death as both the natural created state of man and an unacceptable reality. This mental bind is also not Orthodox. Death, being the curse of Eden, is an unnatural enemy, neither designed into Creation by God nor desired by Him.

I much prefer the Orthodox understanding to the Catholic, but I still see two major flaws in the theological basis and subsequent unfolding of the logic.

The first is the use of the word Adam as an implied name. Although this is the translation in the Septuagint, it is a wrong translation. Hebrew adham should have been translated anthropos = Human. The personification of what is humanity as a person leads to a whole wrong theological framework, which we see in Paul comparing the ‘man’ ‘Adam’ through whom came sin and death, and Jesus, who conquered such.

The second basic flaw and consequent theological development is to ass ume death came from the eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil: it didn’t. The Human did not die. the argument that his life was constrained to a (rather large but) set number of years does not wash with the text. The serpent was right when it said you will not die. In fact God was wrong (in the story) when he said the Human would. In fact by the conception of children, life indeed does go on, and there is no death: as life is all about seeding and continuance in the Old Testament.

--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles

G. K. Chesterton

Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why are you so sure the Septuagint got it wrong? They were much closer to the original writers than we. I accept the story may not be intended literally; but I don't think that interpretation can be proved by such confident linguistics.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547

 - Posted      Profile for Alliebath   Email Alliebath   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Why are you so sure the Septuagint got it wrong? They were much closer to the original writers than we. I accept the story may not be intended literally; but I don't think that interpretation can be proved by such confident linguistics.

Because Adham is the word for Human and not a proper name, it is used as such throughout the OT. The LXX is now not the only ealeist translation, we have the Hebrew scrolls from the Dea Sea caves. They ahave recently been published, and the translator (as with Alter) translates the word as Human.

It also makes much more theological and scientific sense.

--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles

G. K. Chesterton

Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Adham? Where did the "h" come from?

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
He was a Cockney. His real name was H'Adam.

--------------------
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
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You prompt the poem, surely, Wanderer?

Fleas.

Adam had'm.

Alliebeth, it seems your point rests on a translation of the dead seas scrolls, then.

Who was the translater?

(PS whether it makes more theological or scientific sense is another matter - we were arguing the translation, I think)

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547

 - Posted      Profile for Alliebath   Email Alliebath   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Adham? Where did the "h" come from?

It is pronounced with the softened ‘d’ sound in Hebrew, like the ‘th’ in the. I was trying to reproduce the the sound. If the ‘h’ was in front, it would the Human—hâ’dhâm—i.e. Humanity, Humankind. Male/man is ’îsh, Greek anêr.

--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles

G. K. Chesterton

Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547

 - Posted      Profile for Alliebath   Email Alliebath   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
You prompt the poem, surely, Wanderer?

Fleas.

Adam had'm.

Alliebeth, it seems your point rests on a translation of the dead seas scrolls, then.

Who was the translater?

(PS whether it makes more theological or scientific sense is another matter - we were arguing the translation, I think)

No, my translation rests on the Hebrew.

The English translation—The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible is edited by Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich and published (1999) by HarperSanFrancisco.

quote:
Genesis 1:27
And God created humankind [… … … fe-]male he created them.

Robert Alter, in his Genesis translation, published (1996) by W. W. Norton & Co. also emphasiszes the word play of the Hebrew.

quote:
Genesis[/} 2:6
…then the Lord God fashioned the human, humus from the soil…

The Hebrew writers, P and J sources, loved word play. [I][B]hâ’dhâm[B] from [B]hâ’adhâmâh[B] ‘ground’.

--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles

G. K. Chesterton

Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Incipit
Shipmate
# 10554

 - Posted      Profile for Incipit   Email Incipit   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There doesn't seem much hope of resolving this issue from within the fold of Christianity - that is, for those who already accept Christianity's premises. From the point of view of one on the boundary, it's hard for me to see the relevance of what seems like pretty much arbitrary quoting from Leviticus and Paul, around a word the meaning of which is disputed anyway, from an era when there was no conception anyway of loving and committed same-sex relationships, and where there was no idea of (possibly) innate setting of sexual preference. But none of my doubts is going to convince someone who believes a priori in the binding nature of (at least selectedly quoted bits of) the bible, and so on.

I wonder if it might be worth looking at it from a different angle - viz. what moral and ethical attitudes held by Christians, and what behaviours towards others carried out by Christians, might convince an outsider, or one hesitating on the boundary, of the truth of Christ's teaching?

For myself, nothing has repelled me more than the smugness of some Christians on this topic - the blindness of the breezy Baptist minister who told me how 'the Genesis injunction to be creative' meant that homosexuals were intrinsically sinful; the apparently hateful words of the Pope I quoted above, etc. It has diminished in my mind the religion I used to try to follow to the status of a strange, obsessive sect, ruled in many places by power-hungry men intent on controlling others' sexuality (and the position of women - another touchstone for me in relation to the 'abundance' brought by Christianity). The choice made by these men of selective texts from 3000 and 2000 years ago has come to seem in the light of this absolutely arbitrary; and the tissue of the religion has come to seem perhaps no more than Larkin's
'vast moth-eaten musical brocade
Created to pretend we never die'.

In other words, seeing all this from the peripheral and sceptical position that much of the church's teaching in the area of the treatment of women and of homosexual people has led me to has made me think that the proof of the pudding (of Christianity) should be in the eating - in it producing evidently better moral attitudes and behaviour to others. In the case of the dominant attitudes towards homosexual people in the Christianity that I have come across, the moral attitudes seem self-evidently worse: crueller, more judgmental and hateful. If this stinks, then why should the rest compel assent?

Posts: 51 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547

 - Posted      Profile for Alliebath   Email Alliebath   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I wonder if it might be worth looking at it from a different angle—viz. what moral and ethical attitudes held by Christians, and what behaviours towards others carried out by Christians, might convince an outsider, or one hesitating on the boundary, of the truth of Christ's teaching?
In an early dialogue with one of my contacts in the paraphilia world, when I revealed that I was a priest, and—because the person was in the US—I said an Episcoplaian, she said that they, with the United Church of Christ, were the only two denominations that were recognised and seen to be reaching out to those on the edge of the Church.

The importance of that positive personal reflection from someone (who of course would be regarded as as sinner and promoting sinful behaviour under the conservative evangelical moral code) was then overshadowed, of course, by the southern hemisphere Anglican churches to condemn such an outreach and mission.

You are right, Incipit, to question the soapbox and pulpit moral superiority when it it fails to connect with ordinary people in ordinary life (even if that is extra-ordinary to many Christians).

Are you on the edge having worked your way out towards that, or are you on the edge, wondering if there is anything of value worth entering for? If I might ask?

--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles

G. K. Chesterton

Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Alliebath

I did not suppose for one minute in my explanation that "there was this guy called Adam." "Human" (or "Everyman") is correct... hence recapitulation.

It was a commonplace of Greek thought before Christ that humans were a microcosm of the Universe. This fitted very well with the Jewish sense of the priestly role of humans in relation to the Cosmos.

As to humans not really dying, if you don't mind me saying that's a 'fluffy' interpretation but doesn't deal with the shear nastiness of death. It's always the enemy in Christian theology and should remain so. The fact that the Jews were later to embrace this "I will live on through my children" idea doesn't alter the apocalyptic premise of 1st century Judaism ... which is he context for the resurrection of course, (not 'natural' immortality).

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alliebath:
No, my translation rests on the Hebrew........Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich ........

Don't they all? Including the Septuagint?

Your translation rests on Martin Abegg et al.

Now, I don't know enough on the various translation issues to know one way or t'other; but it seems not to be a black and white issue - else the Septuagint would not have translated otherwise..... and I'm slightly suspicious of the notion that Abegg et al know better.

How do we know that's what the word meant in the Hebrew usage of the time? This seems, to me, very like the the virgin/young woman translation issue in Isaiah.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Incipit
Shipmate
# 10554

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

Are you on the edge having worked your way out towards that, or are you on the edge, wondering if there is anything of value worth entering for? If I might ask?

Thanks for asking, Alliebath. Unfortunately, my trajectory is centrifugal, but it doesn't stop me wondering if there's anything of value worth staying, or returning, for. It's just that it's hard to see what that might be.
Posts: 51 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547

 - Posted      Profile for Alliebath   Email Alliebath   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Incipit:
Thanks for asking, Alliebath. Unfortunately, my trajectory is centrifugal, but it doesn't stop me wondering if there's anything of value worth staying, or returning, for. It's just that it's hard to see what that might be.

I would agree. But I see the faith as bigger than the religion that (re-)presents it (often very badly). But one of the important things for me is the challenge of engaging to find the truth (and maybe I am in a privileged position being in the clergy) but also the fellowship of the sacrament of communion is very important means of sharing and being strengthened. That may seem quite odd looking in from the edge, but being more inside it seems to make sense. If you want to PM please do.

--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles

G. K. Chesterton

Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547

 - Posted      Profile for Alliebath   Email Alliebath   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Alliebath:
No, my translation rests on the Hebrew........Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich ........

Don't they all? Including the Septuagint?

Your translation rests on Martin Abegg et al.

Now, I don't know enough on the various translation issues to know one way or t'other; but it seems not to be a black and white issue - else the Septuagint would not have translated otherwise..... and I'm slightly suspicious of the notion that Abegg et al know better.

How do we know that's what the word meant in the Hebrew usage of the time? This seems, to me, very like the the virgin/young woman translation issue in Isaiah.

Pertinent to the thread, I think that the translation of ‘adam’ makes much more theological as well as linguistic sense, because it is talking about all humankind and not just male-man, which in English translations comes across inaccurately.

It also means, again linguistically but also theologically (and it's also more fun in the Henrew punning) that the defining of humankind in differentiation is from the moment when the female is created. Now I know it is oversimplistic to just differentiate XX and XY chromosome genders, but within the biblical record, in spite of a patriarchal presence for over 2000 years, we have the ‘good’ science of the normative of humanity being XX expressed theologically.

It is also important to see that the “human > male and female” creation can be see as a continuum and spectrum, not just as bi-polar.

This may seem to be just linguistic and semantic, but I think that there is a very important theological hermeneutic going on with correct translation (as with poor translation).

In short, it means that we have been sold short on a complete theological understanding of the biblical record of the ‘Genesis’ creation.

There are of course other creation stories as well in the OT (in the book of Job, for example, and Psalm 74)…

--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles

G. K. Chesterton

Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547

 - Posted      Profile for Alliebath   Email Alliebath   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Alliebath

I did not suppose for one minute in my explanation that "there was this guy called Adam." "Human" (or "Everyman") is correct... hence recapitulation.

It was a commonplace of Greek thought before Christ that humans were a microcosm of the Universe. This fitted very well with the Jewish sense of the priestly role of humans in relation to the Cosmos.

As to humans not really dying, if you don't mind me saying that's a 'fluffy' interpretation but doesn't deal with the shear nastiness of death. It's always the enemy in Christian theology and should remain so. The fact that the Jews were later to embrace this "I will live on through my children" idea doesn't alter the apocalyptic premise of 1st century Judaism ... which is he context for the resurrection of course, (not 'natural' immortality).

I would not want to deny death, Fr Gregory, I have to deal with it very regularly, and often very tragically.

I don’t think it is ‘fluffy’ to recognise that the understanding of the words “you will die” are not fulfilled. There is implicit within that prescription and description an imminent application. Early (pre-Exilic) OT theology has no clear understanding of an afterlife, the destruction of sinners, their family, livestock, homes and possessions shows the horror of no future ‘seeding’, no future life. That is indeed death (by way of radical surgery on the body politic.

Man as the measure of all things? Yes… Particularly because of the incarnation, though. And the priestly rôle of humanity in relationship to creation? That is an interesting thought-line, to which I will come back: but it has a nice potential tie-in with priesthood of all believers. Are we talking hieros/cohen-priesthood or presbyterate, though?

--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles

G. K. Chesterton

Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Pertinent to the thread, Alliebath, but entirely irrelevant to my point.

Secondly, I have no idea what "we have the ‘good’ science of the normative of humanity being XX expressed theologically" is trying to say....

If Adam really is "human" all the way through, it seems rather odd to be making Eve from human's rib?

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547

 - Posted      Profile for Alliebath   Email Alliebath   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Pertinent to the thread, Alliebath, but entirely irrelevant to my point.

Secondly, I have no idea what "we have the ‘good’ science of the normative of humanity being XX expressed theologically" is trying to say....

If Adam really is "human" all the way through, it seems rather odd to be making Eve from human's rib?

We are talking story, here, Mdijon [Cool] like the human being shaped out of clay!

When the female is created, only then is there there is a differentiation between ish and ishshah, that is man and woman.

The stereotypical biblical image is that the male is the norm, the archetype. Well actually the XX-chromosome is the human/mammalian norm, a foetus has to be ‘soaked’ into testoterone to become male. But this stereotypical male prototype is wrong, because as you state it is humankind that is created, and the division between gender is secondary.

The other problem with the stereotypical inherited model (which is based on a very fluid translation) is that it also prioritises the male function of the seed-giver. Women are purely walking garden-beds into which the seed is planted and carried around until birth.

However,in the ‘J’-strand model, the Eden story, there is no assumption of ‘nooky’ having to lead to bearing children. Sensuality and sexual expression are purely for pleasure, part of the paradisical environment. The woman only conceives outside of Eden, and there says the interesting words that she has a child ‘by the Lord/YHWH’.

But these are all stories, trying to tell something that language is limited by without a vast array of technical terms and a histroy of such explanation.

--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles

G. K. Chesterton

Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Slight tangent here, but within the overall remit of this thread. I've just watched QI on BBC2, a light hearted quiz show.

Stephen Fry asked: Which sect did Nero blame for the burning of Rome?

Alan Davies: Was it the gays? (much laughter)

Fry: Funny you should say that; this group is often regarded as the natural enemy of gays.

The answer of course was the Christians. Now I know it's only a silly quiz, but I find it rather sad that Christianity can be regarded as the "enemy" of homosexuals even in jest.

--------------------
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
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547

 - Posted      Profile for Alliebath   Email Alliebath   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Slight tangent here, but within the overall remit of this thread. I've just watched QI on BBC2, a light hearted quiz show.

Stephen Fry asked: Which sect did Nero blame for the burning of Rome?

Alan Davies: Was it the gays? (much laughter)

Fry: Funny you should say that; this group is often regarded as the natural enemy of gays.

The answer of course was the Christians. Now I know it's only a silly quiz, but I find it rather sad that Christianity can be regarded as the "enemy" of homosexuals even in jest.

It is a galling perception, but looking at some of the ‘christian’ websites around it would easily seen to be ‘true’. [Mad]

--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles

G. K. Chesterton

Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alliebath:
.....actually the XX-chromosome is the human/mammalian norm, a foetus has to be ‘soaked’ into testoterone to become male. But this stereotypical male prototype is wrong, because as you state it is humankind that is created, and the division between gender is secondary......

I'm still not entirely sure what you're describing.... but the first sentance is not correct biology. If this is part of the point made in the second, I'm not sure how..... if not, well, it's incorrect.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547

 - Posted      Profile for Alliebath   Email Alliebath   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Alliebath:
[qb] I’m still not entirely sure what you’re describing… but the first sentance is not correct biology. If this is part of the point made in the second, I’m not sure how… if not, well, it’s incorrect.

I may have expressed it badly Mdijon, but here is a quotation which may put it better.

quote:
Testosterone’s effects start early—really early. At conception, every embryo is female and unless hormonally altered will remain so. You need testosterone to turn a fetus with a Y chromosome into a real boy, to masculinize his brain and body. Men experience a flood of testosterone twice in their lives: in the womb about six weeks after conception and at puberty. The first fetal burst primes the brain and the body, endowing male fetuses with the instinctual knowledge of how to respond to later testosterone surges. The second, more familiar adolescent rush—squeaky voices, facial hair and all—completes the process. Without testosterone, humans would always revert to the default sex, which is female. The Book of Genesis is therefore exactly wrong. It isn’t women who are made out of men. It is men who are made out of women. Testosterone, to stretch the metaphor, is Eve’s rib.
It is from a newspapoer rather than a scientific source, but it is concise, and expresses what I was trying to say.

Source

--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles

G. K. Chesterton

Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We had a really interesting, and moving, thread about "intersex" some time back. Which I kick myself for not saving whenever this comes back; partly because I am completely unable to re-express some of the really important views and comments which others produced on that thread.

I think the evidence for testosterone priming of brain in utero is not fabulous.... something clearly does go on in terms of brain development etc., but I think it's more complex.

But there is not one factor, and a default state.

There are three key biological factors; the Y chromosome, testosterone, and Mullerian Inhibiting Factor (I am probably using an out of date term, or mangling what was an out of date term.... Ken or someone else may be along to correct me). It is true that if testosterone is lacking, or the receptors lacking, the appearance is quite female at birth. And similarly, that if there is extra testosterone despite XX, the appearance can be more male.

However, these things are not absolutes (as you indicate above) and quite complicated situations can arise.....

But either way, I don't think the Genesis story really contradicts that. I must admit to not being entirely sure what the rib buisiness really means..... but I certainly don't think it was a comment on sex steroid differentiation.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  ...  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