|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: gay sex - being and doing
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As for why racism and homophobia seem alike, in the United States it's often the same racist Christian twaddle. The long history of segregation and anti-miscegenation law and theology is remarkably similar. ... It's the same garbage that is used to propose ways to damage the lives of Gay Christians and to justify governmental interference in the lives of all gays.
This is why I find Steve's explicit rejection of that a breath of fresh air, and wish that all those in the US who have such beliefs (regarding what kind of sexual intercourse is permissible to Christians) were like what he's described.
If people simply said, "My religion forbids me to have sexual intercourse outside of lifelong male-female marriage, but I believe in equal rights for everyone," then it would be vastly, vastly different than what we've been struggling with in the US with laws and such.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If contempt for those who do this damage bothers them
Surely you mean contempt for the actions and attitudes in this case, rather than the actual people? Or do you mean contempt for the actual people?
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If contempt for those who do this damage bothers them
Surely you mean contempt for the actions and attitudes in this case, rather than the actual people? Or do you mean contempt for the actual people?
Both the people and the acts. I have contempt for racists and acts of racial bigotry. But logically it's about doing not being, so it should just be fine.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Both the people and the acts. I have contempt for racists and acts of racial bigotry. But logically it's about doing not being, so it should just be fine.
Oh. Um... To paraphrase my example above, my religion forbids me to have contempt for other human beings, even (or perhaps especially) my enemies, but... well, there's really no "but," that's just it really.
(I personally suck at loving my enemies. God have mercy...)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
ChastMastr: quote:
(I personally suck at loving my enemies. God have mercy...)
Join the club.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
my religion forbids me to have contempt for other human beings, even (or perhaps especially) my enemies, but... well, there's really no "but," that's just it really.
I think this is being a bit disingenuous, because Christianity doesn't just label the actions that people take as sinful actions, it actually labels the people taking those actions as sinners. So it's not about "actions and attitudes... rather than the actual people" - Christianity does hold the people accountable for their wrong actions and does not just focus on the actions.
So when wrong actions (eg anti-gay ones) are being criticized, it's not exactly outside the bounds of Christianity to hold the people themselves to account for their actions. If you and/or Steve insist on doing things that other people perceive as harmful to gays then it is entirely reasonable for them to criticize and condemn your actions and to hold you accountable for your actions.
If you don't like the fact that other people are getting upset at you, maybe you should consider stopping doing the things that are getting them upset with you. But the defense of "It's unchristian of you to condemn me at all, therefore I should be able to get away with being as mean to gays as I like" isn't going to fly. It's particularly not going to fly with non-Christians.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Doesn't fly with this Christian either.
I start from the Irenaean position. A human being's sexuality is central to their being fully alive. Unless a person has a separate calling to celibacy, expressing their sexuality is essential to their being fully alive. Therefore, the glory of God requires the expression of homosexuality.
speaking personally, my lack of sexual activity seriously hampers my being fully alive. It is therefore deeply painful, and not a little offensive, to find it described as virtue.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Oh. Um... To paraphrase my example above, my religion forbids me to have contempt for other human beings, even (or perhaps especially) my enemies, but... well, there's really no "but," that's just it really.
(I personally suck at loving my enemies. God have mercy...)
I'm not a Christian. That's probably why I have seen a lot of actions by Christians which I see as contempt without appreciating the subtleties.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
[That at times Christians have acted in certain way, or that they have justified those acts using scripture, is not proof that that is what the Church has always taught.
Your faith is a marvellous thing. It is perfect and impregnable.
It is also utterly useless for wrestling with any practical question of ethics whatsoever. Because it is always right, until in hindsight it turns out to be wrong.
And when in hindsight it turns out to be wrong, you will wring your hands and apologise profusely for all the damage that was caused by what was, it turns out after all, wrong, while confidently telling everybody that it's right NOW.
A more self-serving, circular, logic-free, history-rewriting worldview could not possibly be dreamed up. I'm well aware it's a worldview that quite a few Christians have, and why wouldn't they? IT'S ALWAYS RIGHT!
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If the Church cannot be trusted on such matters how can we be sure that what has been handed down to us is actually the Apostolic faith?
I've got a better question - why does that even fucking matter? I'd rather get things right 2000 years after the fact than be forced to perpetuate a falsehood just because the Apostles said it, or because it happened to be the spirit of the age back then.
"Custom without truth is but ancient error." - Cyprian
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Oh. Um... To paraphrase my example above, my religion forbids me to have contempt for other human beings, even (or perhaps especially) my enemies, but... well, there's really no "but," that's just it really.
(I personally suck at loving my enemies. God have mercy...)
I'm not a Christian. That's probably why I have seen a lot of actions by Christians which I see as contempt without appreciating the subtleties.
I was thinking that veiled contempt is a bugger, since one can keep it just beyond the threshold of one's awareness. I think some Christian homophobes have a veiled contempt for gays, but I suppose they can comfort themselves by pretending otherwise. I sometimes wonder if they are just homophobes, and the Christian clobber passages are a useful hook.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Oh. Um... To paraphrase my example above, my religion forbids me to have contempt for other human beings, even (or perhaps especially) my enemies, but... well, there's really no "but," that's just it really.
(I personally suck at loving my enemies. God have mercy...)
I'm not a Christian. That's probably why I have seen a lot of actions by Christians which I see as contempt without appreciating the subtleties.
I was thinking that veiled contempt is a bugger, since one can keep it just beyond the threshold of one's awareness. I think some Christian homophobes have a veiled contempt for gays, but I suppose they can comfort themselves by pretending otherwise. I sometimes wonder if they are just homophobes, and the Christian clobber passages are a useful hook.
Or it could just be that such genuinely consider it something sinful, it being plainly clear from the scriptures and the continuous teaching of the Church. Gordon Bennett! I mean, we can disagree about these things, can't we, without attributing dodgy motives to the other side?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I don't why such motives are dodgy, they are normal human ones.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Should be, 'I don't know why ...'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Dodgey, or however you spell it, but you knew what I meant and decided to dodge the point.
[ 02. August 2014, 09:29: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
You haven't answered my question ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
There is nothing in the bible about my clitoris nor, as far as I know, in any official doctrine of the the church - so what am I supposed to do with it Ad Orientam ? And who is allowed to touch it ?
Does there need to be anything about your clit? I would give the same argument as I did earlier regarding God's intention for man and woman. I would argue that human sexuality as it is meant to be can be understood from that.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
That requires a fairly large layer of interpretation, and I am not convinced as to its origin.
When I asked you about intersexed people you replied that they were explained by the fall of man. You would, I assume, make the same attribution about homosexuality.
Jesus statement about man cleaving to woman, was made *after* the fall of man. But he did not add a caveat, but some of you are born neither man nor woman therefore you should do x. So it is reasonable to hold that he was saying something akin to; the majority of people who are male or female and heterosexual should seek to have a monogamus permanent relationship and within this raise their children.
I don't see why we derives the parallel to this to be - if you don't fall into these categories don't marry.
You would have a strong case for arguing the most likely parallel would be, don't be promiscuous, form a monogamous permanent relationship - you have a duty to raise abandoned orphans who have no family to claim them.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Doublethink;
quote:
Jesus statement about man cleaving to woman, was made *after* the fall of man.
Yes, but it's not Jesus' original statement. He is quoting from a passage in Genesis which does go back before the Fall and his point is that that passage does represent God's original intention which is still valid today.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Oh. Um... To paraphrase my example above, my religion forbids me to have contempt for other human beings, even (or perhaps especially) my enemies, but... well, there's really no "but," that's just it really.
(I personally suck at loving my enemies. God have mercy...)
I'm not a Christian. That's probably why I have seen a lot of actions by Christians which I see as contempt without appreciating the subtleties.
How do you account for actions you don't approve of by persons of other faiths and of no faith whatsoever? After all, there are non-Christian homophobes.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
[crosspost replying to Steve Langton]
It has to relate to after the fall, Adam and Eve did not have parents to leave (yes I know it is an allegory, but by definition the rules arose after the fall.). And anyway Jesus is preaching to people *after* the fall, in a world in which intersexed people already exist. Therefore I don't think your response adequately answers my point.
When he spoke Jesus did not give explicit guidance to non-standard people who existed at that time - therefore we have to infer, and I don't think my suggested inference makes less sense than your inference. Why do you think it does ?
[ 02. August 2014, 12:07: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I think this is being a bit disingenuous, because Christianity doesn't just label the actions that people take as sinful actions, it actually labels the people taking those actions as sinners.
That would be... all of mankind, I believe.
quote:
So it's not about "actions and attitudes... rather than the actual people" - Christianity does hold the people accountable for their wrong actions and does not just focus on the actions.
Of course people are accountable for their wrong actions. But we're still supposed to love and forgive even or especially our enemies. And yes, this is indeed very hard for me.
quote:
So when wrong actions (eg anti-gay ones) are being criticized, it's not exactly outside the bounds of Christianity to hold the people themselves to account for their actions.
Again, please see above re forgiving one's enemies.
quote:
If you and/or Steve insist on doing things that other people perceive as harmful to gays then it is entirely reasonable for them to criticize and condemn your actions and to hold you accountable for your actions.
Huh? ![[Confused]](confused.gif) In my own gay-specific interactions, I definitely try to avoid actual harm--this it where SSC, and establishing limits and boundaries, come in handy. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
If you don't like the fact that other people are getting upset at you, maybe you should consider stopping doing the things that are getting them upset with you.
Who... what... other people don't seem all that upset with me. Well, OK, the old friends who dropped me when I came out were, probably, but they were already going down that sort of "angry conservative" path, and in at least one case it was probably more over politics because I liked Clinton and that friend had gotten really into Rush Limbaugh...
(Now there's someone it's hard for me to try to not hate... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) )
quote:
But the defense of "It's unchristian of you to condemn me at all, therefore I should be able to get away with being as mean to gays as I like" isn't going to fly. It's particularly not going to fly with non-Christians.
Um... how... should I... explain this?
My, I have been away for a while! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Pleased to meet you... ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The idea that we're all fallen, but that God decides to knit some people in the womb so that they're intersex and therefore a little bit more obviously fallen, is repulsive.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'm not a Christian.
Ah.
quote:
That's probably why I have seen a lot of actions by Christians which I see as contempt without appreciating the subtleties.
Alas, there are a lot of Christians who do treat other people with contempt. But I believe we are not supposed to do that.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I sometimes wonder if they are just homophobes, and the Christian clobber passages are a useful hook.
Some people are, I think, though I don't believe all are. I think part of the problem is that when there are a lot of people who are carrying a sort of toxic "church culture" which is genuinely nasty (but with a pious overlay), then someone for whom it really is a matter of theology, held without malice and with charity for all concerned, may get painted with the same brush by association if they don't stand up against the nasty stuff.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Or it could just be that such genuinely consider it something sinful
He did say some, not all.
quote:
Gordon Bennett!
I had to look this guy up. So it's like "good grief!" or a similar expression of astonishment? (Interjections! Show excitement! And emotion! They're generally set apart from a sentence by an exclamation point, or by a comma when they feeling's not as strong...)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea that we're all fallen, but that God decides to knit some people in the womb so that they're intersex and therefore a little bit more obviously fallen, is repulsive.
Well, yes, but I am trying to debate this on Steve and Ad's terms.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea that we're all fallen, but that God decides to knit some people in the womb so that they're intersex and therefore a little bit more obviously fallen, is repulsive.
Well, yes, but I am trying to debate this on Steve and Ad's terms.
So am I. By saying that if that's the kind of God they believe in, then God is randomly vindictive. Although I believe it's only Ad Orientem that has put forward that explanation.
Conservative Christians do tend to struggle with the existence of intersex people, because the reality of them is physically observable and the whole 'choice' line of thinking that's applied to homosexuality clearly doesn't work.
But I'd also query how on earth it fits with Jesus' clear rejection of the association of a disability with sin of any kind. Why was this man born blind?, he is asked.
[ 02. August 2014, 12:42: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea that we're all fallen, but that God decides to knit some people in the womb so that they're intersex and therefore a little bit more obviously fallen, is repulsive.
Has anyone said that?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea that we're all fallen, but that God decides to knit some people in the womb so that they're intersex and therefore a little bit more obviously fallen, is repulsive.
Has anyone said that?
You have, in my view. You've said that it's a result of the Fall. Is not then a sign of the Fall?
Does it not logically follow that most people manage to get bodies that look just like pre-Fall bodies, but a few unlucky souls get bodies that reflect the Fall?
[ 02. August 2014, 12:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I'd assume -- and welcome correction if I am mistaken here -- that the notion of "being born intersex is a result of the Fall" does not carry moral judgement of intersex people themselves -- that it is perceived as some sort of birth defect.
Certainly, there are trans* people who regard themselves as being born in the wrong body, and I would imagine that some trans* Christians would see that as a result of the Fall as well. (Again, not as something sinful, just something that needs to be corrected.) Intersex is actually a bit different than trans*, and much more information can be found here.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea that we're all fallen, but that God decides to knit some people in the womb so that they're intersex and therefore a little bit more obviously fallen, is repulsive.
Has anyone said that?
You have, in my view. You've said that it's a result of the Fall. Is not then a sign of the Fall?
Does it not logically follow that most people manage to get bodies that look just like pre-Fall bodies, but a few unlucky souls get bodies that reflect the Fall?
Why precisely some people are born with both male and female reproductive organs or some are attracted to the same sex, yet others not, we don't. All we know is that such things belong to a fallen world, just as death and decay does as well. We know this because this is not how the world was created according to the scriptures. It's because Adam and Eve sinned that creation went tits up, so to speak.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I'd assume -- and welcome correction if I am mistaken here -- that the notion of "being born intersex is a result of the Fall" does not carry moral judgement of intersex people themselves -- that it is perceived as some sort of birth defect.
I think that's right. It's not meant as a condemnation.
The trouble is that characterising someone's sexual identity or orientation in this way is rather more personal than, for example, pointing out that my bad eyesight, asthma and defective aortic valve are the result of the fall. It's not at all offensive to suggest to me that in the resurrection, my eyes, lungs and heart will work better. I'm not at all confident that telling a gay or inter-sex person that in the resurrection they'll be regularly-gendered and straight will always be received as a neutral observation. There seems to me to be a real risk of appearing to say "if you are ever saved, then you won't be you anymore". That must be an error. When redeemed, we will be more truly ourselves than we are now.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
We know this because this is not how the world was created according to the scriptures.
...so if the Bible had a description of Adam and Eve's skin colour, would other skin colours be 'as the result of the Fall'?
That's where your logic is heading. It's saying that there are 2 archetypal people and any variation from those 2 archetypal people is 'fallen'.
The logic of applying the characteristics of a world with 2 people to every individual in a world of 7 billion people escapes me, not least because God granted us sexual reproduction rather than cloning.
[ 02. August 2014, 14:16: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Adam and Eve were created in unique (non-sexual) manners (Adam from the dirt and Eve from Adam's rib), but the Bible seems very clear that sex and childbirth are themselves a consequence of the fall. (Genesis 3:16) "To the woman God said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children."
I might agree with the assertion that sex itself (and the consequences thereof) are a consequence of our fallen nature, but I don't see anything in scripture that says that homosexuality, per se, is.
[ 02. August 2014, 14:36: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Adam and Eve were created in unique (non-sexual) manners (Adam from the dirt and Eve from Adam's rib), but the Bible seems very clear that sex and childbirth are themselves a consequence of the fall. (Genesis 3:16) "To the woman God said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children."
I don't think you can conclude from that that sex was a result of the fall; this doesn't say anything about the beginnings of sex, only the beginnings of labor pains. And in Genesis 1:28 he tells them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, rather strongly implying sexual reproduction since no other method is suggested and we all know that's how it works.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Though the beginning of sex seems have happened after the Fall.
"Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living." Genesis 3:20
"Adam had sexual relations to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, 'With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.'" Genesis 4:1
We're working with two creation stories so it seems unclear how they relate together. Was God's command to multiply given to humanity while in the Garden or after? I don't know.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Such an interpretation is essentially meaningless, that the Holy Spirit will lead his Church into all truth but in the meanwhile he'll let us wallow in grave error, that is, until this fickle God decides otherwise.
But even the most literal reading of the bible says God takes 4 thousand years to get to the definitive statement. And there is statement and reversal with no theological reasoning. So your consistency isn't. What then would be the logical approach? Start with the falling action* and work backwards.
*Avoid the stuff
after the denouement, it gets a bit weird. God could have used a good editor.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Doublethink;
quote:
Jesus statement about man cleaving to woman, was made *after* the fall of man.
Yes, but it's not Jesus' original statement. He is quoting from a passage in Genesis which does go back before the Fall and his point is that that passage does represent God's original intention which is still valid today.
As came up earlier: Jesus quotes the bit about the man leaving his father and mother in order to cleave to his wife. The leaving father and mother is as much a part of the Bible passage as the bit about a man and a woman. But the 'man and woman' bit is treated as essential to the passage while the leaving father and mother is treated as a bit of poetic elaboration.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Though the beginning of sex seems have happened after the Fall.
"Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living." Genesis 3:20
He named her after the fall? Or before?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Interestingly we're getting a bit of thread convergence here. He named her after the fall, but the bit about leaving your mother and father and cleaving to your wife is from before the fall. So if that verse is about sex, one can't also argue that sex came after the fall. Contrariwise, if sex only came into it after the fall, then that verse can't be about sex.
But that verse clearly says "one flesh" which Paul harps on a bit, and equates it to having sex.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Dafyd;
quote:
But the 'man and woman' bit is treated as essential to the passage while the leaving father and mother is treated as a bit of poetic elaboration.
I believe that in ancient society it was a bit more literal than sometimes in our world; the newly married man would become a 'head of household' in his own right, and be released from much if not all parental authority, even if he continued to live in the proverbial 'ancestral home'. There are those who say a bit more 'leaving' might be helpful in our world....
It doesn't change the essentially heterosexual implications of the situation, or the reasonable assumption that Jesus chose to quote that text because it represented his view of the matter.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
You haven't answered my question Steve.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Dafyd;
quote:
But the 'man and woman' bit is treated as essential to the passage while the leaving father and mother is treated as a bit of poetic elaboration.
I believe that in ancient society it was a bit more literal than sometimes in our world; the newly married man would become a 'head of household' in his own right, and be released from much if not all parental authority, even if he continued to live in the proverbial 'ancestral home'.
So if that bit only literally applies to the ancient world, then presumably the man and wife bit only literally applies to the ancient world too?
quote:
It doesn't change the essentially heterosexual implications of the situation, or the reasonable assumption that Jesus chose to quote that text because it represented his view of the matter.
Jesus chose to quote that text because it represented his view of divorce. As to whether it represented his view of same-sex relationships the record is silent.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Dafyd;
quote:
So if that bit only literally applies to the ancient world, then presumably the man and wife bit only literally applies to the ancient world too?
Not quite what I said. Ancient custom tended to follow that way of thinking, that on marriage a man would 'leave' parents; we don't follow that custom so often. That doesn't invalidate the basic meaning of the original. I'm intrigued by the way that just about any feeble excuse will do to evade what are rather plain meanings. Why does Jesus pick texts about male and female and becoming 'one flesh' except because he means the idea is important?
Which brings me to an answer to this
by Croesos earlier;
quote:
By Croesos;
You just applied special pleading (again!) as to why "[t]here is neither Jew nor Gentile" is something that can be interpreted in a straightforward, literal manner as being against racial divisions but "nor is there male and female" is some kind of super-secret metaphor you need the decoder ring to realize it means the exact opposite of the anti-racist text.
As another shipmate pointed out, what Paul is opposing here (in both cases) is people thinking they are superior (as in the traditional Jewish prayer 'I thank God I was not made a woman') – In Christ people must not think that they matter more to God because they are Jewish, or Greek, or Roman, or whatever, or because they are free rather than a slave, or that they matter more to God because they are male. It's not about the rather obvious and unchanging fact that men and women are different in rather important ways! Of course in terms of racial equality this also implies that, for example, Christians may make interracial marriages; in Christian terms the problem would be a marriage with a non-Christian, which would have potential practical problems. But equal status of male and female is still seen in terms of traditional relationships. He's not saying all differences have been abolished.
Working this out is not about some 'decoder ring' – it's about something called “reading in context”. The Galatians context is about all being equally 'sons of God' (including even the women having what would previously have been the status of males only – a point obscured by fussy gender-neutral translations, by the way).
A further clue that Paul cannot have intended what you suggest is the wider context – Paul's epistles as a whole. It is known that Galatians is one of the earliest of Paul's letters that have come down to us; but it is in the later ones that Paul says all kinds of things affirming the traditional view of marriage, including Romans 1; 26-7 and the other passages clearly disapproving of gay relationships. At least credit the guy with being consistent....
I'd add another point here – Paul is a guy who in Jewish eyes had driven a cart and horses through the OT Law (if not as whole battalion of heavy tanks!); he is the guy who in the 'circumcision' controversy said something on the lines of “If cutting bits off you is so important, why don't they go the whole hog?” As I read it, Paul is the kind of person that if he had meant that 'same-sex-marriage is OK', he would have said it openly, not left it to be dubiously deduced from silence and putting questionable limitations on what he's supposed to have said/meant.
Much the same point applies to Jesus' words – do you really believe that the Jesus who shocked people by saying stuff like “You have heard it was said... but I tell you” would have avoided being clear if he had intended to radically change the existing ideas about marriage to allow it to same-sex-couples? But asked about divorce, yes, again he shocked people by saying “Divorce wasn't really God's ideal; it was a concession made through Moses because of human 'hardness of heart' which means marriages don't always work out”. But still he affirmed that divorce shouldn't happen and called his followers to live out the proper meaning of marriage. And how did he illustrate that? By going back to Genesis and to a passage explicitly saying “God made them male and female and that is the meaning of marriage”.
Again I have to ask – if Jesus, who was so happy to shock conventional thought on so many issues, had intended to change the implications of that text by approving same-sex-marriage, do you really think he wouldn't have said so openly, not left it to weak weaselly words like “It's about divorce so it's not relevant....” or “Jesus didn't say anything (or to quote an earlier post, “Jesus said fuck-all...”) so we can fill in his silence with what we'd like to believe about it”. Instead he chooses a text which could hardly more emphatically confirm the traditional interpretation.....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
How do you account for actions you don't approve of by persons of other faiths and of no faith whatsoever? After all, there are non-Christian homophobes.
Oh I'm an equal opportunity condemner. I haven't had a lot of close up experience with Islamic condemnation for example, but their sincerity and theology don't impress me either. As you mention it's not just the religious; growing up I had several unpleasant experiences with Freudian Psychiatrists. I judge by actions rather than how sincere someone is when they are damaging others. But since I don't believe in the religions, theological explanations are not an acceptable excuse for me.
In this thread, the poster is saying he doesn't want to have government interference with the rights of Gays to live and be married.
He's "not like that" like the other Christians who do want to do that. So he's not going to damage me personally much other than presenting some tired ancient rationales for damaging gay members of his church. I've had a enough friends who were badly damaged by such theological marvels to find them contemptible. If a blind man is leading the blind and shouting "I can see perfectly" he deserves contempt even if he is ever so sincere.
[ 02. August 2014, 19:45: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
*snip*
You still haven't tried to answer my question Steve.
[ 02. August 2014, 20:22: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
