|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Where did the demonisation of homosexuality come from?
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I've read the above three times and still come to the same conclusion: that is that it is only sex outside marriage that you find abhorrent because disallowed by the scriptures. Therefore if a gay couple eschew a physical relationship before marriage it is OK afterwards - you cannot argue that sex is only OK after Christian marriage since the passages that originally prohibit sex outside marriage all come from the pre-Christian era.
When you say "gay sex" (whatever that is) gets a free pass I must ask what you mean? Are you implying that, for example, anal sex is OK within the context of marriage? And what are you referring to as "lots of other sex"???
As for the "Christian message" and whether or not it is perceived as having value, neither mr cheesy nor I have at any time made any statement that would cause you to question whether or not we see the message of Christ as being valuable. Yet again it seems that someone who seeks to prevent a sizeable proportion of the population from being able to have loving, committed, lifelong relationships given affirmation and acceptance is now trying to say that the "Christian message" categorically rejects these people and their sexual orientation - and that is simply not true. At NO point did Jesus Christ condemn homosexuality or homosexual sex: in fact he condemned remarkably little, preferring the line of "let him that is without sin cast the first stone. It is decidedly UN-Christian for a section of believers who purport to be followers of Christ to spend so much of their time condemning and damning fellow human beings and, in some cases, fellow Christians - although, of course, I am aware that there are some so-called Christians who would argue that to be gay is automatically to be outside the prospect of every being a Christian. [/QB]
Firstly at no point have I said I find sex, gay or straight, abhorrent. I believe sex outside marriage to be problematic scripturally and certainly outside the traditions of most mainstream Christian churches. My interest for the purposes of the thread is in how homosexual people square that incompatibility with their Christian practice. I'm genuinely interested and wonder whether I can find any agreement. As a Catholic I don't accept same sex marriage as a "thing" except legally, and as a law abiding citizen I wouldn't attempt to change the law, and would hope the law wouldn't challenge my right to different religious views. My wife is an Anglican and I married in an Anglican church. I don't believe in forcing my religious or political views or sporting allegiances on my children, though I do tell guide them in what I believe is a good life.
I'm not sure what anal sex has to do with anything, the marriage vows as I recall them contained words about mutual comfort and the rearing of children - the first is debatable in that context and the second makes it most unlikely. As I understand it Christians, including married ones, are called to a life of sexual continence, which I interpret as sex as more than a recreational activity.
The debate is whether an intimate homosexual lifestyle is compatible with Christian tradition. I believe homosexual CofE clergy are asked to forswear such intimacy, and if that's true, what the basis of that prohibition is. I'm genuinely interested in having my traditions challenged with science or doctrine, I'm not interested in being branded a caveman because I'm not on message with the C21st. If I've missed anything out I'll get back, the reply box isn't conducive to repeated scanning back.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
One person uses the storyline from the Bible as a basis for health and life and morality, and another person uses a storyline from CNN or BBC as a basis for morality.
I have never heard of anybody using a storyline from CNN or BBC as a basis for morality. Do you have any cites for that?
Most non-Christians I know judge storylines from CNN or BBC according to their already-formed morality. I think you've overspoke your thought.
Ok, let me clarify.
The idea of the thread was not to be theological, never the less, the OP started with telling a story. The stories of the Bible are a basis for theology....
Ok, with that said, CNN is about telling stories, not simply facts. CNN is a work of art in story telling, witch "factualness" as a basic rule. Wile factual, CNN can sway the listener toward a particular feeling, invoking an emotional or even a logical process for the reader/listener. Commentary and editorial pieces moreso than news pieces.
You rightly point out CNN isn't a basis for morality per-se. But in it's own way CNN's commonality and popularity truly do reflect of modern morality. On a historical basis, CNN is a basis for morality. I'm not saying CNN is like the Bible as far as being a system of codes and laws, but as a collection of democratic thought, CNN is like a historian of sorts, collecting the sentiments of many many people, and making history out of it.
Isaiah, though much more targeted in his scope (and his scribe I suppose) doesn't work much differently. The Bible is a collection of historical stories and some believe that the Bible is an application of a moral law from God.
So then, if Bible is a reflection and application of God's moral law, so too CNN is a reflection and application of modern American morality.
@Soror Magna
Morality by the way is simply a methodology for best health and living life... hence, CNN has a health section, and CNN wants you to be happy.... its' really an easy connection, nothing implied by using morality toward CNN and health toward Moses.... eating shellfish is a health issue, abortion is a health issue.... CNN might have a story on either of those.
I suppose though that many people may have a different view of what Morality is. Probably "morality" just refers to obsolete rules that control our natural inclinations for no good reasons. If that is the case, miscommunication is unavoidable.
It may be worth a thread that just backs up the whole train and talk about what morality means.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Gosh, those homophobes suffer so much persecution, don't they? Martyrdom has never looked so dignified.
This kind of sarcasm reinforces my point. Anything less than full approval of homosexuality is viewed as homophobia and demonisation. Thats just the reaction of a very angry and irrational crowd.
Have you considered that other people disagreeing with you doesn't really qualify as "demonization"? Certainly not in the way "homosexuals are all dangerous perverts and unclean in the sight of God" qualifies as such.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by romanesque (responding topost from Mr Cheesy) quote:
I think there's scriptural evidence against sex outside marriage, and the bible is a guide against the infinite fallibility of the human heart. If this is modernity vs. faith we can have that discussion, but I assumed you held the Christian message as of some value. If you do, I'd like to know where gay sex gets a free pass when lots of other sex doesn't, and why you think it should. This isn't about My Prejudice and I refuse to defend my position on that basis.
I'm now very confused.
I've read the above three times and still come to the same conclusion: that is that it is only sex outside marriage that you find abhorrent because disallowed by the scriptures. Therefore if a gay couple eschew a physical relationship before marriage it is OK afterwards - you cannot argue that sex is only OK after Christian marriage since the passages that originally prohibit sex outside marriage all come from the pre-Christian era.
When you say "gay sex" (whatever that is) gets a free pass I must ask what you mean? Are you implying that, for example, anal sex is OK within the context of marriage? And what are you referring to as "lots of other sex"???
As for the "Christian message" and whether or not it is perceived as having value, neither mr cheesy nor I have at any time made any statement that would cause you to question whether or not we see the message of Christ as being valuable. Yet again it seems that someone who seeks to prevent a sizeable proportion of the population from being able to have loving, committed, lifelong relationships given affirmation and acceptance is now trying to say that the "Christian message" categorically rejects these people and their sexual orientation - and that is simply not true. At NO point did Jesus Christ condemn homosexuality or homosexual sex: in fact he condemned remarkably little, preferring the line of "let him that is without sin cast the first stone. It is decidedly UN-Christian for a section of believers who purport to be followers of Christ to spend so much of their time condemning and damning fellow human beings and, in some cases, fellow Christians - although, of course, I am aware that there are some so-called Christians who would argue that to be gay is automatically to be outside the prospect of every being a Christian.
Why the pro-gay-church group always playing coy and suggesting that anyone in disagrement isn't clear about what sex is.
Hello! "gay sex" is a totally sufficient word for the situation. Oddly, its the pro-gay group here that is constantly pretending as if the anti-gay group are morons that don't know what gay people are doing in bedrooms.
Talk about preocupied with sex. The discussion can never move on from sex acts to large questions because this is the problem.
pro-gay arguments boil down all things to merely sexually gratifying acts, for which the details of said acts are not explicitly spoken about in the Bible.
So, for it's lack of explicit detail (as if the Bible needed to be a schoolbook on sex acts) no Christian can use the Bible as a moral code on sex.
It's getting so old... all the flippant "whatever tha is" and "what do you mean by 'gay sex'" and what are you implying by "'same sex attraction'".
Of course sexual attraction applies to heterosexuals! All that is going on is the effort to scrub out distinctions about homosexual relationships so that the issue cannot be talked about.
It would become a non-thing and a non-discussion if homosexuals just stopped commenting. But I guess they feel the need to confuse and crowd out the talk.
You can't just demand that someone who believes in sexual acts as sinful and moral issues to simply declassify homosexual sex to "sex" if you want to have a discussion.
If you don't want to discuss it and believe morality is no longer a Bible question... like others have said, say that.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Many homosexuals don't have sex. Fact.
I'm sure you're right, ditto heterosexuals. Anyone thinking the church is devoid of instinctive homosexuals should check out the Brompton Oratory of a Sunday morning. We're not talking about inclination or orientation to anything as sinful I hope.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Gosh, those homophobes suffer so much persecution, don't they? Martyrdom has never looked so dignified.
This kind of sarcasm reinforces my point. Anything less than full approval of homosexuality is viewed as homophobia and demonisation. Thats just the reaction of a very angry and irrational crowd.
Have you considered that other people disagreeing with you doesn't really qualify as "demonization"? Certainly not in the way "homosexuals are all dangerous perverts and unclean in the sight of God" qualifies as such.
Oh I'm totally open to disagreement not being demonisation. Point is I just detect a lot of disgust and anger.
I think a lot of true Christians are really working hard on their hearts to move away from the dogmas of the past, but ... sadly not suprising that those old dogmas will be held over their heads.
I am willing to forgive a person who is frustrated and angry, no question. But, for an academic discussion my patience is often limited. I may have had too high of hopes for the group on a dead horses boards... which is my fault, but have to explore. Seems that the boards put me in a minority and maybe I just need to accept that and press ahead, not sure.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
I'm genuinely interested in having my traditions challenged with science or doctrine,
This does not appear to be an accurate statement. Google, Bing, Hell even Yahoo will return all the science behind homosexuality is not only natural, but part of many species evolutionary success. Even our species.
Doctrine? Somebody wrote that somebody said that somebody else said some stuff. And then that is interpreted by another group of people. That is doctrine. And that varies by the centuries.
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
If you don't want to discuss it and believe morality is no longer a Bible question... like others have said, say that.
Cute. But ridiculous. Morality is a subjective thing. {i]Especially[/i] in the Bible.
--------------------
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
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Doctrine? Somebody wrote that somebody said that somebody else said some stuff.
That's all religion ever in a nutshell. Do you believe it's the limit of its seriousness?
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
As a Catholic I don't accept same sex marriage as a "thing" except legally, and as a law abiding citizen I wouldn't attempt to change the law, and would hope the law wouldn't challenge my right to different religious views.
This seems interesting to me. To the best of my knowledge the Catholic Church is opposed to same-sex marriage even as a legal concept. I'm curious as to why it's this particular point you're willing to break with your religious tradition, which you otherwise seem to consider dispositive on such matters.
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
You can't just demand that someone who believes in sexual acts as sinful and moral issues to simply declassify homosexual sex to "sex" if you want to have a discussion.
Why not? There's no sex act that homosexuals do that isn't also done by heterosexuals.
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
If you don't want to discuss it and believe morality is no longer a Bible question... like others have said, say that.
You've already declared "morality is no longer a Bible question" back when you denied the morality of executing homosexuals. This is just haggling over the details.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Doctrine? Somebody wrote that somebody said that somebody else said some stuff.
That's all religion ever in a nutshell. Do you believe it's the limit of its seriousness?
What I am saying is that you cannot say "it s doctrine" and expect this to settle anything. The bible can support nearly any prejudice. You need a better case than just "doctrine". Or proof texting.
--------------------
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
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This seems interesting to me. To the best of my knowledge the Catholic Church is opposed to same-sex marriage even as a legal concept. I'm curious as to why it's this particular point you're willing to break with your religious tradition, which you otherwise seem to consider dispositive on such matters.
I live in a country with an established catholic-and-reformed/protestant church (depending who you ask), and abide by its laws as they offer the freedom for me to observe my religious convictions. I don't believe in theocracies, at least outside heaven. This isn't exceptional for Catholics, you won't find us carrying guns outside abortion clinics, though we're big on the right to life. Even the Catholic commentator Bishop Robert Barron conceded there are bigger fish to fry than griping about same sex marriage in a secular society. It's Catholic pragmatism, or the Whore of Babylon writ large, YMMV.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This seems interesting to me. To the best of my knowledge the Catholic Church is opposed to same-sex marriage even as a legal concept. I'm curious as to why it's this particular point you're willing to break with your religious tradition, which you otherwise seem to consider dispositive on such matters.
I live in a country with an established catholic-and-reformed/protestant church (depending who you ask), and abide by its laws as they offer the freedom for me to observe my religious convictions. I don't believe in theocracies, at least outside heaven. This isn't exceptional for Catholics, you won't find us carrying guns outside abortion clinics, though we're big on the right to life. Even the Catholic commentator Bishop Robert Barron conceded there are bigger fish to fry than griping about same sex marriage in a secular society. It's Catholic pragmatism, or the Whore of Babylon writ large, YMMV.
Precious. You gonna make a case or should we take this downstairs?
--------------------
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
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Doctrine? Somebody wrote that somebody said that somebody else said some stuff.
That's all religion ever in a nutshell. Do you believe it's the limit of its seriousness?
What I am saying is that you cannot say "it s doctrine" and expect this to settle anything. The bible can support nearly any prejudice. You need a better case than just "doctrine". Or proof texting.
In my tradition there's scripture, dogma and tradition, and while Anglicanism doesn't adhere to the same boundaries, neither does it apply biblical inerrancy. Some values are doctrinal, a set of beliefs based on but not exclusive to a close reading of scripture. To parody this as "somebody said somebody said" is disingenuous, at least in the context of mainstream Anglicanism. There's clearly a debate within the established church about what denotes doctrine with regard to sexual conduct, and why, and as a (relative) outsider I'm interested in what the cornerstones to that debate, textual or otherwise, are.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
This isn't exceptional for Catholics, you won't find us carrying guns outside abortion clinics, though we're big on the right to life.
If you say so.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
This isn't exceptional for Catholics, you won't find us carrying guns outside abortion clinics, though we're big on the right to life.
If you say so.
Says he was raised Lutheran. Whatever, there's always one
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
To parody this as "somebody said somebody said" is disingenuous, at least in the context of mainstream Anglicanism.
Dismissive, perhaps, but accurate. Certainly not disingenuous.
If you truly want a discussion or debate, it would help if you did not use terms like "Whore of Babylon".
--------------------
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
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
To parody this as "somebody said somebody said" is disingenuous, at least in the context of mainstream Anglicanism.
Dismissive, perhaps, but accurate. Certainly not disingenuous.
If you truly want a discussion or debate, it would help if you did not use terms like "Whore of Babylon".
Why, are we beyond the irony curtain?
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
This isn't exceptional for Catholics, you won't find us carrying guns outside abortion clinics, though we're big on the right to life.
If you say so.
Says he was raised Lutheran. Whatever, there's always one
So, murder is funny is it? The POV you espouse leads to acts like that.
--------------------
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
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, murder is funny is it? The POV you espouse leads to acts like that. [/QB]
How?
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Back on topic please and cut out the sniping. This thread is about the roots of the demonization of homosexuality. It is not about logic-chopping, point-scoring, one-liners.
I also remind you of Louise's Hostly clarification here.
Particularly this.
quote:
If you're not contributing directly to the discussion of where prejudice/demonisation comes from, then please think about which board or which thread your post actually belongs on - because the chances are it's not this thread.
Barnabas62
Dead Horses Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
You can't just demand that someone who believes in sexual acts as sinful and moral issues to simply declassify homosexual sex to "sex" if you want to have a discussion.
Why not? There's no sex act that homosexuals do that isn't also done by heterosexuals.
If the human form being excluded, and if we make no distinction between male and female organs.... that seems to be the issue, are we merely just a coincidental set of similar organs or is there some special meaning about being a man or woman. The Bible points us in the direction of a higher purpose than serving the needs and wants of our sexual organs.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
If you don't want to discuss it and believe morality is no longer a Bible question... like others have said, say that.
You've already declared "morality is no longer a Bible question" back when you denied the morality of executing homosexuals. This is just haggling over the details.
It seems that haggling over details is all you will let it be. It is all trivial to you now. This discussion really wasn't for you then. You are truly a troll at this point.
I had initially thought that ship was mainly an area of Christian thought based on the Bible in even a loose sense. I suppose that may not be a rule or even a norm here.
I am interested in a Biblical discussion. I added that the demonisation issue is colored by a certain Biblical understanding which makes demonisation a very predictable outcome.
By agreeing that killing homosexuals is not right in our time, I did not say I think this makes the Bible void as a moral source.
This is very important.
The penalties for sin in Leviticus were serious for their political nature. It was nation building at all sociocultural levels. Those policies and politics don't apply to us, but the principles of sin still apply. God created a set of rules for which he would strictly enforce in order to govern and administer a Land Grant passed down through Abraham. The enforcement was for the control of rebellion. Small infractions were harshly punished. Homophobia as we call it (a psychological disorder)is perfectly natural for a parent who thought their gay child might be stoned for revealing their identity. Saving a life is powerful motivator eh?
Saying that in our time killing people for small moral infractions is not a concession that the Bible ceases to be a moral guide. God can kill for small moral infractions, doesn't bother me because he doesn't do that anymore. He demonstrated how harsh things can get as history shows.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
You are truly a troll at this point.
Host Hat On
And that gets you a formal warning for a Commandment 3 violation. And a reference to Admin.
For the record, here is the wording of Commandment 3
quote:
3. Attack the issue, not the person
Name-calling and personal insults are only allowed in Hell. Attacks outside of Hell are grounds for suspension or banning.
Barnabas62
Dead Horses Host
Host Hat Off
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
You can't just demand that someone who believes in sexual acts as sinful and moral issues to simply declassify homosexual sex to "sex" if you want to have a discussion.
Why not? There's no sex act that homosexuals do that isn't also done by heterosexuals.
If one makes no distinction between male and female organs.... (all assholes are equal) that seems to be at issue. Are we merely just a set of similar organs or is there some special meaning about being a man or woman?
Secondly, and perhaps more along your line of thinking of sex only as a set of sex acts. I think statistics show that anal penetration is by far not the norm for heterosexual sex. Just as 3 way sex happens doesn't normalize married peoples feelings against that, so too anal sex between a man and woman doesn't normalize it between two men no matter how right it might feel to them at the time.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
If you don't want to discuss it and believe morality is no longer a Bible question... like others have said, say that.
You've already declared "morality is no longer a Bible question" back when you denied the morality of executing homosexuals. This is just haggling over the details.
It seems that haggling over details is all you will let it be. It is all trivial to you now. This discussion really wasn't for you then. Looks like you're just trolling now.
But I suppose that I also may have mistepped in that I see that Louise wants to prohibit discussion of sex as sin in this thread. Using a historical approach is making that difficult.
I had initially thought that on the The Ship I could engage in an area of Christian thought based on the Bible in a decent level of commonality. I suppose that may not be a rule or even a norm here. You'll have to tell me what you think. I'm totally open to discussion outside the basis of the Bible, perhaps the other threads are required, it is too problematic to continue on the track I started...
I am interested in a Biblically-related discussion. I added that the demonisation issue is colored by a certain historical Biblical understanding which makes demonisation a very predictable, and logical outcome.
By agreeing that killing homosexuals is not right -in this age-, I did not say I think this makes the Bible void as a moral source.
This is very important.
The penalties for sin in Leviticus were serious for their political nature. It was nation building at all socio-cultural levels. Those policies and politics don't apply to us, but the principles of sin still apply academically and philosophically. God created a set of rules which he would strictly enforce in order to govern and administer a Land Grant passed down through Abraham. The enforcement was for the control of rebellion, attitudes, diseases, consciences, agriculture, finance.... Small infractions were harshly punished. Homophobia (disorder) as we call it is perfectly natural for a parent who thought their gay child might be stoned for revealing their identity one day. Saving a life is powerful motivator eh?
Society now has very lax penalties for everything. Nowthen, saying it's wrong killing people for small moral infractions these days is not a concession that the Bible ceases to be a moral guide completely. God ordered execution for minor moral infractions that seem harmless to us now, doesn't bother me because he doesn't do that anymore. He demonstrated how harsh things can get as history shows. Israel is an object lesson, a historical lesson for man.
I think understanding, perhaps even forgiving the homophobia nowadays takes some thoughtfulness on the pro-gay side as the enforcements of the past are unfair and unjustifiable in the here and now. Going back in time and parsing what is sin why it is a sin, and what is punishable - that's another thread I guess.
People need to remember that the church is as flawed as any institution could be, and it invites and attracts all kinds of problem children. It is fraught with instability and inconsistency. The OP asked why this issue why now, and not some other one. I think the inconsistency in the institution has risen to a level where without a State sponsorship, people are trusting the state, and distrusting the church. Socially, the scales tipped finally over and the church is outweighed. I would add that it is foretold in prophecy the church would decline.
I will leave you the last word.
[ 06. June 2017, 18:27: Message edited by: Aijalon ]
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I had initially thought that ship was mainly an area of Christian thought based on the Bible in even a loose sense. I suppose that may not be a rule or even a norm here.
I have to agree it's an issue. One would have different expectations of a discussion with Stephen Fry and the Archbishop of Canterbury. I'm unfamiliar with the range of Anglican thought, but some of the responses seem as close to New Atheism as makes no difference, and as people aren't declaring any affiliation I recognise as Christian or otherwise, and are on the immediate defensive, it makes mutual understanding impossible. It isn't a liberal vs conservative thing, it's an engagement vs stonewalling attitude. I don't know enough about your thoughts to concur or not, but I reject any victimisation of homosexuals as un-Christian and expect them to offer me the same generosity. Neither do I expect them to speak for all gay people, I'm more interested in their individual responses to the Christian message. So far the shutters are firmly closed.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I had initially thought that ship was mainly an area of Christian thought based on the Bible in even a loose sense. I suppose that may not be a rule or even a norm here.
I have to agree it's an issue. One would have different expectations of a discussion with Stephen Fry and the Archbishop of Canterbury. I'm unfamiliar with the range of Anglican thought, but some of the responses seem as close to New Atheism as makes no difference, and as people aren't declaring any affiliation I recognise as Christian or otherwise, and are on the immediate defensive, it makes mutual understanding impossible. It isn't a liberal vs conservative thing, it's an engagement vs stonewalling attitude. I don't know enough about your thoughts to concur or not, but I reject any victimisation of homosexuals as un-Christian and expect them to offer me the same generosity. Neither do I expect them to speak for all gay people, I'm more interested in their individual responses to the Christian message. So far the shutters are firmly closed.
I certainly don't want to be the demonising type. I am also not trying to justify the demonisation though perhaps doing a poor job of it. As a person coming from some serious fundamentalism that no longer can have meaningful discussion with my fundy parents... I am truly open to engagement with others. I suppose I understand the mockery of Christian traditions, and yes, I even must "pick and choose" certain things out of the mix to make sense.
Again, historically, allegorically, and anecdotally, I look at the world from the past forward. I want to see ourselves here and now from the perspective of ancient people's hoping for better, rather than what I see others doing...
looking into our past through a lens about as old as their sexual prime years.
[ 06. June 2017, 18:37: Message edited by: Aijalon ]
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
The books of the Bible need to be treated with the same lens any historian would apply to historical documents. They are products of the times they were written in and reflect the biases of their times and authors.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Looks like you're just trolling now.
Host Hat On
Formal warning number 2. Two categories
1. A repeat Commandment 3 Offence.
2. Wording referred to Admin for consideration under Commandment 6.
Barnabas62
Dead Horses Host
Host Hat Off
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
The books of the Bible need to be treated with the same lens any historian would apply to historical documents. They are products of the times they were written in and reflect the biases of their times and authors.
I agree, but that doesn't answer whether they are explicitly or implicitly the word of God. In other words a hotline to the numinous and truth.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I am interested in a Biblical discussion. I added that the demonisation issue is colored by a certain Biblical understanding which makes demonisation a very predictable outcome.
By agreeing that killing homosexuals is not right in our time, I did not say I think this makes the Bible void as a moral source.
This seems to be problematic, since you advocate adhering to "the Code of Moses", yet you also want to truncate and edit it on non-Biblical grounds. As far as I'm aware there's no place in the Torah that distinguishes between "moral" and "political" teachings or that conveniently labels each as such. I'd argue that "moral" and "political" were not seen as distinct categories by whoever wrote the Five Books. And it seems like a real stretch to argue that the first sentence of Leviticus 20:13 is a moral teaching, but the second sentence is a political one.
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
God created a set of rules for which he would strictly enforce in order to govern and administer a Land Grant passed down through Abraham.
That's not quite true. God didn't strictly enforce the ban on homosexuality, He ordered His followers to do it.
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Saying that in our time killing people for small moral infractions is not a concession that the Bible ceases to be a moral guide.
Actually it is, at least when coupled with the assertion that killing people for homosexuality used to be moral. If you're going to claim that God changed His mind on the morality of dishing out the death penalty to homosexuals, doesn't that imply at least the possibility that He's changed His mind on other stuff as well? In short, do you have any kind of consistent hermeneutic for deciding which things God changed his mind about other than your own personal preferences?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
Stopping point to say: I posted twice in a row and didn't realize I did that. I may have hit a reply button when I had thought I hit a preview button.... Or tried editing.... Different board than what I'm used to. Anyways totally botched on my part. I didn't even realize I was mod hatted in the first one.
more to come
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
you advocate adhering to "the Code of Moses", yet you also want to truncate and edit it on non-Biblical grounds.
Its not that simple. I'm saying that the Code of Moses has specific and literal application then, and it has continued application today for the principles it shows itself to be based on. Those principles are demonstrated in Genesis. In other words, as a matter of design and biological wiring - humanity has a purpose and focus.
When Moses comes along, the Law comes into play to give not just human purpose in the very loose "God gloryifying" sense, but national purpose. The national purpose part is the part that is truncated/ended/terminated.
What the Law leaves behind in it's wake, is evidence of human purpose and magnificence. The administration and enforcement of the Law no longer exist because it was intended for Israel.
That said, it seems that you regard the Old testament as illegitimate at about every level. So I'm not sure I need to go on from there.
quote:
As far as I'm aware there's no place in the Torah that distinguishes between "moral" and "political" teachings or that conveniently labels each as such. I'd argue that "moral" and "political" were not seen as distinct categories by whoever wrote the Five Books. And it seems like a real stretch to argue that the first sentence of Leviticus 20:13 is a moral teaching, but the second sentence is a political one.
I get where you're going. The law is punctuated by context, topic, and some title and heading differences, etc... but you may not care about that. Try this on.....the verse you cited is pretty easy, one statement is a description of how Israel was to feel-about or otherwise regard the concept of male-male sex, the other is how they were to deal with it. Dealing the execution required various layers of priesthood, elders, and other parts of Hebrew society all working - the administrators.
When the administrators all died off and national sovereignty revoked by God, what remains for us to consider is the underlying reasons behind that law. n those verses was God telling man that he was personally repulsed? I don't think that was the intent. Are we to think he desires humans to avoid this activity. Yes, I think that was the intent.
Some think of the Old Covenant and all that God ever said within it as revoked or cancelled, like a full building demolition. I think it was more of an eviction from the building, not a demolition. The building still stands, but it looks much nicer, the church lives there (still a poorly run building at this point too though). The Law contained a litany of curses for failure, those curses are NOW in force. Only in that regard is the law actually still in force. Seems to me most Christians don't realize it is in force as a set of curses on Israel.
quote:
That's not quite true. God didn't strictly enforce the ban on homosexuality, He ordered His followers to do it.
For his part God didn't act as a bystander, he did state that he would "cut off" the sinners from their people and so forth. He quite certainly stated he was taking action.
quote:
In short, do you have any kind of consistent hermeneutic for deciding which things God changed his mind about other than your own personal preferences?
Israel was freed from Egypt and given the option to continue as God's people IF they followed the law.
1) The blessings and cursings under the law were conditional
2) There were some geopolitical objectives in play that Israel had to accomplish
a. Wipe out impure bloodlines
b. set the stage for the birth of Christ
without going into a longer post.... those higher objectives being accomplished, the administration system of the law was no longer needed. The sin issue was resolved in Christ, and as I said before, in the wake of the law we see imperatives from God about how to operate as human beings. It is very much up to us to administer all that for ourselves. God isn't upstairs counting sins or measuring blood sacrifices. That doesn't mean that we haven't had revealed good principles to live by.
Killing sinners wasn't a principle to live by. It was an ordinance for them, not us.
Even "detesting" homosexuality is not a rule to live by. But avoiding homosexuality is a pretty safe assumption.
With that said, the Bible didn't leave behind in any explicit explanations other than an abstract appeal to order and design, that we should avoid homosexual sex, unmarried sex, animal sex, etc......Christians do this for faith and conscience sake.
If you wish you may disregard the Bible I guess. But you go further and seem to insist there are no good reasons to continue basing any moral beliefs on the Old Testament.
And still, you haven't addressed the issue of how the legacy of the Old Testament History creates a very powerful and 'predictable' landscape for demonizing homosexuality, especially in light of so many Christians misunderstanding the narrow application of the Law of Moses as for National Israel.
I think the Old Testament and Christian political history from there forward create a pretty easy backdrop for understanding the demonization, don't you?
[ 07. June 2017, 21:41: Message edited by: Aijalon ]
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Its not that simple. I'm saying that the Code of Moses has specific and literal application then, and it has continued application today for the principles it shows itself to be based on. Those principles are demonstrated in Genesis. In other words, as a matter of design and biological wiring - humanity has a purpose and focus.
I'm not sure I buy that. If detesting male homosexuals is wired in to humanity we wouldn't need an instruction book telling us to detest them.
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
When Moses comes along, the Law comes into play to give not just human purpose in the very loose "God gloryifying" sense, but national purpose. The national purpose part is the part that is truncated/ended/terminated.
What the Law leaves behind in it's wake, is evidence of human purpose and magnificence. The administration and enforcement of the Law no longer exist because it was intended for Israel.
That's a non-Biblical standard, but at least it's a standard. As near as I can tell you're claiming that anything associated with what we'd call the Weberian state doesn't count anymore. Feel free to correct me if I'm interpreting you wrong. What I'm curious about is how you arrived at that conclusion. As far as I'm aware there's nowhere in the Bible where that standard is laid out.
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As far as I'm aware there's no place in the Torah that distinguishes between "moral" and "political" teachings or that conveniently labels each as such. I'd argue that "moral" and "political" were not seen as distinct categories by whoever wrote the Five Books. And it seems like a real stretch to argue that the first sentence of Leviticus 20:13 is a moral teaching, but the second sentence is a political one.
I get where you're going. The law is punctuated by context, topic, and some title and heading differences, etc... but you may not care about that. Try this on.....the verse you cited is pretty easy, one statement is a description of how Israel was to feel-about or otherwise regard the concept of male-male sex, the other is how they were to deal with it.
I'm not sure I buy that interpretation. Both sections deal with human actions, not feelings. The first sentence was your typical Biblical 'thou shalt not . . . ', something that deals with behavior, and the second was a 'thou shalt . . . ', also behavior.
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
In those verses was God telling man that he was personally repulsed? I don't think that was the intent. Are we to think he desires humans to avoid this activity. Yes, I think that was the intent.
Well, avoid the activity and kill anyone found engaging in it.
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Some think of the Old Covenant and all that God ever said within it as revoked or cancelled, like a full building demolition. I think it was more of an eviction from the building, not a demolition.
Yeah, I get that. Your standard seems to be that only the bits that deal with the state got revoked. So executing homosexuals or non-believers is no longer moral, but you still have to detest both groups and avoid things like mixed-fiber garments. Your grounds seem a little arbitrary for making this distinction and leaves open some marginal cases. For example most modern states still regulate weights and measures. Given your argument about capital punishment for male homosexuality it would be expected (at least in terms of consistency) for you to argue that using fair weights and measures is no longer a moral imperative and shouldn't be enforced by the government, but I seriously doubt you'd actually advance that argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Killing sinners wasn't a principle to live by. It was an ordinance for them, not us.
Even "detesting" homosexuality is not a rule to live by. But avoiding homosexuality is a pretty safe assumption.
I'm always suspicious when someone tells me that God just coincidentally happens to detest all the same people they do. Especially if it's justified by some highly selective parsing of a religious text that (again, completely by coincidence) just happens to accept the parts they like and excludes the parts they don't.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
in one of the two threads we have going I will try to respond soon. A.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Aijalon quote:
I think understanding, perhaps even forgiving the homophobia nowadays takes some thoughtfulness on the pro-gay side as the enforcements of the past are unfair and unjustifiable in the here and now.
So you think that what you term the "pro-gay side" needs to be magnanimous and just suck-up the abuse, name calling, discrimination and unprovoked violence which is meted out - frequently by people who give themselves the label "Christian"? And you think this should happen because, if I read you correctly, the "enforcements of the past" - I take it you mean imprisonment and other punishments up to and including death - are no longer acceptable in a modern western society? REALLY???
quote:
The OP asked why this issue why now, and not some other one. I think the inconsistency in the institution has risen to a level where without a State sponsorship, people are trusting the state, and distrusting the church. Socially, the scales tipped finally over and the church is outweighed. I would add that it is foretold in prophecy the church would decline.
First, in speaking of the church you fail to acknowledge there are many churches; further that there are profound differences in attitude towards many issues, not least homosexuality and same-sex relationships, between the major strands of christian allegiance.
Second, if "the church" is "outweighed" could it be due to something as simple as independent thought and rational argument? There are many, many Christians who see the attitudes of some churches towards homosexuality - a gender preference which is innate, not a life-style choice - as incompatible with the command of Christ that we should love one another. If "the church" is in decline it needs to ask itself whether it is the author of its own misfortune.
Third, there are far too many instances of "the church" behaving in ways wholly incompatible with its own teachings for any rational person to question why growing numbers of people prefer to trust to "the state" rather than institutions that have manifestly failed in so many areas - I'm thinking financial scandals, abuse of power over the vulnerable, the protection of paedophiles from justice by deliberate acts of aiding fugitives and stymieing criminal investigations, the demonisation of young women pregnant outside marriage, the callous treatment of "fallen" girls, the stealing of babies and enforced adoptions, the scandalously high infant mortality rates in church orphanages and childrens' homes.
You wonder that modern society doesn't jump to "the church"'s defence over issues like SSM???
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
So you think that what you term the "pro-gay side" needs to be magnanimous and just suck-up the abuse, name calling, discrimination and unprovoked violence which is meted out - frequently by people who give themselves the label "Christian"?
Hating isn't in the kingdom of God. The disapproval of homosexuality need not be tied to hating it (or, not any longer).
IOW - feeling disaproved of will always inspire hate with someone who is holding hate inside.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Hating isn't in the kingdom of God.
But it was? Or is killing someone for something that doesn't harm anyone an act of love?
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Hating isn't in the kingdom of God. The disapproval of homosexuality need not be tied to hating it (or, not any longer).
IOW - feeling disaproved of will always inspire hate with someone who is holding hate inside.
The problem is that many Christians I am aware of seem singularly unable to process living in a secular society where people have different ideas and are blind to how they, personally, are helped by this.
If Christians could both say that they thought theologically that gay marriage was a sin but also supported it as something that was good for society there would be less of an issue.
In reality many actually use their naff theology to justify limiting the freedom of other people.
So whilst it might or might not be true that gay people are actually hated (I've not come to a firm conclusion about whether people who oppose gay marriage actually hate gay people), the net effect of opposing freedom for gay people and of continually downplaying their full humanity is hatred.
[ 14. June 2017, 07:37: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Aijalon quote:
Hating isn't in the kingdom of God.
And you know this because?
If you read the Bible you'll find there's plenty of hate there, often of whited sepulchres who set themselves up as a arbiter of righteousness and probity in others.
quote:
The disapproval of homosexuality need not be tied to hating it (or, not any longer).
Goody! I'm so relieved to get your ruling on that, which you're qualified to give because ???
Read your own posts: they bristle with hostility and hatred towards the non-heterosexual.
quote:
IOW - feeling disaproved of will always inspire hate with someone who is holding hate inside.
Any more of these folksy nostrums? God, you make Patience Strong seem like Heidegger. (BTW get a dictionary and check the spelling of disapproved for yourself.)
In the meantime, are you going to address yourself to the rest of my post, or do you feel unable to answer ? Just curious.
[ 14. June 2017, 17:21: Message edited by: L'organist ]
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Hating isn't in the kingdom of God. The disapproval of homosexuality need not be tied to hating it (or, not any longer).
IOW - feeling disaproved of will always inspire hate with someone who is holding hate inside.
The problem is that many Christians I am aware of seem singularly unable to process living in a secular society where people have different ideas and are blind to how they, personally, are helped by this.
I think the way I was raised would fall into the category you're describing, but I am not 100% clear what you mean by "helped"?
quote:
If Christians could both say that they thought theologically that gay marriage was a sin but also supported it as something that was good for society there would be less of an issue.
Not sure that it would be possible to resolve the disconnect there. A sin cannot be "good" in any sense.
In reality many actually use their naff theology to justify limiting the freedom of other people.[/quote]
I think the thing that gets hairy is not really the issue about what 2 people do privately, but about the public and cultural effect. Sexuality of the species comes with a set of public protocols (or did). For example, we wear clothes and have laws about exposing sex organs in public, laws about a lot of other things. Biblical morality is predicated on a lot of those things being interconnected, and seeks to preserve and conserve a lot of the moral codes for the net effect on society. I see the big ball of interconnected sexual man as much more than a mere set of private sex acts. But the cat is way out of the bag now, tring to repair one string at a time isn't working, and restricting any one sex act really has no use now. There are justifications to be made, but in part I agree. In the face of the narratives of so many gay lovers out there... I agree, take the rules away. Calling anything and everything good and blessed, that's another question.
quote:
So whilst it might or might not be true that gay people are actually hated (I've not come to a firm conclusion about whether people who oppose gay marriage actually hate gay people), the net effect of opposing freedom for gay people and of continually downplaying their full humanity is hatred.
I here you on that one.
Pastor recently preached on outreach at church (note this isn't a church I attend for theological reasons, it's just close by) and urged people not to view homosexuals and islamists as "the enemy" but rather the mission field.
This is due to the arch enemy mentality in the conservative church, and even accidentally by trying to be loving, I get now how there is hate in the "net effect". I would have recommended not comparing murdering islamists to homosexuals had I been able to edit the sermon.... ![[Smile]](smile.gif) Never the less, that is the state of things in many Bible belt churches. Hate the sin and love the sinner - that's one oft used catch phrase. I'm not sure that's even a useful phrase anymore.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Aijalon quote:
Hating isn't in the kingdom of God.
And you know this because?
If you read the Bible you'll find there's plenty of hate there, often of whited sepulchres who set themselves up as a arbiter of righteousness and probity in others.
quote:
The disapproval of homosexuality need not be tied to hating it (or, not any longer).
Goody! I'm so relieved to get your ruling on that, which you're qualified to give because ???
Read your own posts: they bristle with hostility and hatred towards the non-heterosexual.
quote:
IOW - feeling disaproved of will always inspire hate with someone who is holding hate inside.
Any more of these folksy nostrums? God, you make Patience Strong seem like Heidegger. (BTW get a dictionary and check the spelling of disapproved for yourself.)
In the meantime, are you going to address yourself to the rest of my post, or do you feel unable to answer ? Just curious.
If you wish waste time critiquing my misspelling and mistyping I think the opportunity for conversation is lost, or should we just focus on every negative thing about a Christian or a church you can think of.....?
Perhaps you would like to bactrack and talk about prophecy or scripture?
We could, rather, just talk about you.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
If you wish waste time critiquing my misspelling and mistyping I think the opportunity for conversation is lost, or should we just focus on every negative thing about a Christian or a church you can think of.....?
Perhaps you would like to bactrack and talk about prophecy or scripture?
We could, rather, just talk about you.
You could address L'organist's points, rather than dismissing them wholesale because she took one swipe at your spelling. She gave no indication whatever that she wanted to talk about herself, but addressed the points you yourself raised. This is a dodge.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
While I'm not so fond of Mousethief's intervening, he does have a point when it comes to how you, Aijalon, have reacted to L'oganiste.
You are cruising very close to the line at which the Hosts start muttering backstage about people who attack the person rather than enter into discussion. I'm sure you don't want to cross that line and upset the Hosts.
John Holding
Host in Dead Horses
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
@ last two posts.
In my own defense I really don't believe that critique of my post, brief as it was, is right or fair for the simple reason that it's just jumping the gun. I was not prepared, regrettably, to offer a longer response right then. I merely need more time to respond and I intend to do so. I do see that perhaps a short response is taken on these boards to be a trite dismissive response as a rule. Which I have seen a lot of those.
My remark about "talk about you" was merely a reflection of the offense that is apparently taken by L'Organist at my earlier posts. To read between the lines there, I actually honestly did want to talk about the nature of the offense that is clearly taken by L'organist, at me, and sincerely would welcome them to talk about them - with the discussion being apparently personal.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
So you think that what you term the "pro-gay side" needs to be magnanimous and just suck-up the abuse, name calling, discrimination and unprovoked violence which is meted out - frequently by people who give themselves the label "Christian"?
I don't think you have heard me correctly. I am not saying to accept unprovoked violence. I am talking about bland old Christiani homophobia, the kind that says gay people are creepy, not the kind that says "I have to murder you know".
I'm really only saying that vitriol is against Christians for holding their views and speaking up for their beliefs is wrong. It's hate speech against Christians who really have never done anything wrong to a gay person, ever. Saying homosexuality is immoral is not hateful. Do you say it is? I believe it is, but I'm not a homophone as I was raised to be. I didn't flush the Bible down the toilet when I realized the interpretations I was spoon fed were wrong.
quote:
And you think this should happen because, if I read you correctly, the "enforcements of the past" - I take it you mean imprisonment and other punishments up to and including death - are no longer acceptable in a modern western society? REALLY???
I don't know a lot of detail about how the various church or state laws have been enforced, so enforcement might have been the wrong word. Laws prohibiting sexual activity are not he same thing as calling for executions - that's a penal code question (or maybe sociopathic serial killing??). I'm really not talking about medieval forms of torture here, I'm concentrating on a definition of demonization as it has been expressed religiously in the West, in the Modern/Post-Modern era within living memory[/qb]. Why people might have the audacity to oppose it ideologically, philosophically, morally, spiritually, medically, or any reason at all.
About rest of your anti-church post. You think I "fail to acknowledge" .... no no, I'm well aware the church is fractured. Shall we go on a church bashing expedition now, I could lend you a hand!
If you don't mind (and this is to anyone) is perhaps my abrasive signature part of the reason for the negative reactions to certain things I've said? Is mentioning repentance, or hell bothering a bunch of people?
[ 20. June 2017, 22:12: Message edited by: Aijalon ]
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
@ last two posts.
In my own defense I really don't believe that critique of my post, brief as it was, is right or fair for the simple reason that it's just jumping the gun. I was not prepared, regrettably, to offer a longer response right then. I merely need more time to respond and I intend to do so. I do see that perhaps a short response is taken on these boards to be a trite dismissive response as a rule. Which I have seen a lot of those.
My remark about "talk about you" was merely a reflection of the offense that is apparently taken by L'Organist at my earlier posts. To read between the lines there, I actually honestly did want to talk about the nature of the offense that is clearly taken by L'organist, at me, and sincerely would welcome them to talk about them - with the discussion being apparently personal.
If you wish to explain, or challenge comments by a Host,the place to do so is the Styx.
John Holding
Host in Dead Horses.
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Tangent
{H/As--Hope this is permissible. Sorry, if not.}
Aijalon--
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
If you don't mind (and this is to anyone) is perhaps my abrasive signature part of the reason for the negative reactions to certain things I've said? Is mentioning repentance, or hell bothering a bunch of people?
On that topic, would you please
address my post over on the "Biblical Interpretation" DH thread? Unless I missed something, you never answered it.
Thanks.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
I will try to do so today. Have not had the time to continue the too many discussions, been very busy. Thanks GK. Peace.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
Also noted my misspellings above, lol at me and these gnarly old fingers. Maybe I'll sig myself on that one! haha.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
So you think that what you term the "pro-gay side" needs to be magnanimous and just suck-up the abuse, name calling, discrimination and unprovoked violence which is meted out - frequently by people who give themselves the label "Christian"?
I don't think you have heard me correctly. I am not saying to accept unprovoked violence. I am talking about bland old Christiani homophobia, the kind that says gay people are creepy, not the kind that says "I have to murder you know".
First off, most gay-bashers don't consider gay bashing "unprovoked". Homosexuality is itself considered a provocation, and they've got the Biblical verses to back them up.
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I'm really only saying that vitriol is against Christians for holding their views and speaking up for their beliefs is wrong. It's hate speech against Christians who really have never done anything wrong to a gay person, ever. Saying homosexuality is immoral is not hateful.
How about saying homosexuality is "detestable"? That's a pretty close synonym to hate.
I also don't think I can accept your premise that trying to reduce someone to second-class citizenship or have them imprisoned doesn't count as "do[ing] anything wrong" to gay people. Those are both causes embraced by Christians, citing their Christian duty mess with homosexuals, within living memory in the West.
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Do you say it is? I believe it is, but I'm not a homophone as I was raised to be. I didn't flush the Bible down the toilet when I realized the interpretations I was spoon fed were wrong.
No, you just took a razor to it so you could selectively cut out the bits you don't feel comfortable with anymore.
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
And you think this should happen because, if I read you correctly, the "enforcements of the past" - I take it you mean imprisonment and other punishments up to and including death - are no longer acceptable in a modern western society? REALLY???
I don't know a lot of detail about how the various church or state laws have been enforced, so enforcement might have been the wrong word. Laws prohibiting sexual activity are not he same thing as calling for executions - that's a penal code question (or maybe sociopathic serial killing??).
Executions are "a penal code question" as are laws punishing sexual activity with imprisonment. In fact, legal sanction is the main distinction between execution and murder. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here, other than trying to signal that you're okay with imprisoning people for homosexuality but not with executing them for it.
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I'm really not talking about medieval forms of torture here, I'm concentrating on a definition of demonization as it has been expressed religiously in the West, in the Modern/Post-Modern era within living memory. Why people might have the audacity to oppose it ideologically, philosophically, morally, spiritually, medically, or any reason at all.
As I mentioned above the criminalization of homosexuality was only ruled unconstitutional in the U.S. in 2003. American families headed by same-sex couples were only granted legal parity with opposite-sex headed families in 2014. That would seem to fit your concentration on "the Modern/Post-Modern era within living memory". In both cases opposition to basic justice was cast in terms of upholding Christian virtue. Quite frankly it comes across as incredibly tone-deaf and self-aggrandizing for you to argue that these are in no way unjust and constitute some form of 'audacity'. Though I suppose it could be considered audacious to deliberately work to deny someone the equal protection of the law and claim they're not doing it out of hate.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
