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


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Biblical interpretation of apparently anti-gay passages (Page 12)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Biblical interpretation of apparently anti-gay passages
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I was thinking much along the lines lilbuddha has understood in her post above.

OK, then let me address that.
Regarding the impulsive LGBT: straight people have been getting married into bad relationships for bad reasons for as long as there has been marriage. A slightly different bad reason is not a cause for special caution. The takeaway is counseling everyone to properly consider their relationships before making that commitment.
Regarding "confused" straight people, I think there are are two problems here.
One is that whilst a possibility it would be a massive rarity. And gay folk have been in OSM for centuries and people haven't been too bothered about it.
Two is a misunderstanding of the sexual preference spectrum. Most people tend to think of S, L, G or B as if they were detentes on a dial. Even many in the gay community have difficulties with bisexuality and fluid sexuality.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Regarding "confused" straight people, I think there are are two problems here.
One is that whilst a possibility it would be a massive rarity.

No it's not.

Within my prison chaplaincy remit there is a women's prison. While some of the inmates are resolutely homosexual, others are very definitely "gay for the stay". I know people in both categories.

A significant proportion of inmates enter into civil partnerships (which are much easier to arrange in jail here than a marriage, for which the authorities foot-drag whether it's gay or straight).

A significant proportion of those partnerships break up within months of one of the partners being released - and invariably going back to being straight.

You can argue that prison is an extreme environment, but what this evidence tells me is that vulnerable people - wherever they are - can be influenced into a supposed change in sexual orientation by a prospect of emotional stability, with both the change in orientation and the emotional stability being deceptive.

I accept that some gay people similarly enter OSM misguidedly (indeed I think the friend I referred to a while back may well be one such person) but that is hardly a reason to dismiss similar things happening for SSM, and I persist in my notion that as things stand socially at present (at least here), there is a stronger possibility for someone to misguidedly enter SSM than OSM (in terms of confusion relating to orientation).

quote:
Two is a misunderstanding of the sexual preference spectrum. Most people tend to think of S, L, G or B as if they were detentes on a dial. Even many in the gay community have difficulties with bisexuality and fluid sexuality.
If sexual preference is fluid and lifelong faithfulness in a couple is of value, then that's all the more reason to look very carefully before you leap into a long-term commitment.

[ 16. April 2016, 16:16: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Gay people know they're a numerical minority. If you claim that they get married to "erase minority status", that means they think that getting married will either turn themselves straight or turn enough other people gay that they're no longer a minority. Neither of these makes sense or lines up with the motivations of the people of my acquaintance who have entered into legal same-sex unions, so I'm still confused as to how you think they're trying to erase their minority status by marrying. Explanation please?

This is not how I interpreted Eutychus, I see two interpretations.
Either that LGBT people will enter into marriages despite their relationships might not be ideal because they are swept up in the cause or that "confused" straight people will do so for that reason.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I was thinking much along the lines lilbuddha has understood in her post above.

Nope. I still don't really get what's being "erased" by entering into a same-sex marriage that's supposed to change the couple's status from a numerical minority to a majority. Are you arguing that people will be "swept up in the cause" to such a degree that they think their marriage will inspire everyone else to turn gay? [Confused] I really don't get what you're trying to say about how gay people think they won't be a numerical minority any more if they get married. Neither of lilBuddha's explanations seems like they would even theoretically "erase minority status".

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I accept that some gay people similarly enter OSM misguidedly (indeed I think the friend I referred to a while back may well be one such person) but that is hardly a reason to dismiss similar things happening for SSM, and I persist in my notion that as things stand socially at present (at least here), there is a stronger possibility for someone to misguidedly enter SSM than OSM (in terms of confusion relating to orientation).

Not surprisingly I disagree. The amount of social stigma associated with homosexuality (which is still considerable, though less than in previous times) puts a lot more pressure on a gay person to try going straight than for a straight person to mistakenly conclude that they're homosexual. We even had a couple of threads on organizations that claimed to be able to "straighten out" gay people, and they regarded the hallmark of their success as 'formerly' gay people entering in to opposite sex marriages.

It's possible that looking at raw numbers there may be numerically more straight-inclined people who have gotten married to same-sex partners due to confusion about their orientation, but that's likely only an artifact of their numerical majority. On a per capita basis I'm pretty sure the numbers would go the other way. After all, how many people are told their heterosexuality is "just a phase" or that they just haven't met the right same-sex partner yet?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I still don't really get what's being "erased" by entering into a same-sex marriage that's supposed to change the couple's status from a numerical minority to a majority. Are you arguing that people will be "swept up in the cause" to such a degree that they think their marriage will inspire everyone else to turn gay?

No, I'm saying that some people may think that equal marriage will deliver as much social acceptance and fulfilment for them as they may perceive the straight majority to enjoy by virtue of its being a majority. I'm not saying this state of affairs is desirable, but I think it's realistic.

quote:
Not surprisingly I disagree. The amount of social stigma associated with homosexuality (which is still considerable, though less than in previous times) puts a lot more pressure on a gay person to try going straight than for a straight person to mistakenly conclude that they're homosexual.
I think it depends. The pressure you describe is certainly there, but I think for some people with identity issues, a minority sexual identity can look like an answer when it isn't the right one, by virtue of its minority status.
quote:
We even had a couple of threads on organizations that claimed to be able to "straighten out" gay people, and they regarded the hallmark of their success as 'formerly' gay people entering in to opposite sex marriages.
And I have fended off a gay organisation supposedly dedicated to supporting gays in prison, because I think it highly likely that they would overstep that remit and encourage those of uncertain sexuality to go gay at a vulnerable period of their lives. Both sides can exert abusive pressure.

[ 16. April 2016, 19:07: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

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

Within my prison chaplaincy remit there is a women's prison. While some of the inmates are resolutely homosexual, others are very definitely "gay for the stay". I know people in both categories.

A significant proportion of inmates enter into civil partnerships (which are much easier to arrange in jail here than a marriage, for which the authorities foot-drag whether it's gay or straight).

A significant proportion of those partnerships break up within months of one of the partners being released - and invariably going back to being straight.

You can argue that prison is an extreme environment,

Prison IS an extreme environment. Behaviour within =/= behaviour without.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

If sexual preference is fluid and lifelong faithfulness in a couple is of value, then that's all the more reason to look very carefully before you leap into a long-term commitment.

This would be true for everyone in every marriage. ISTM, most people who are "fluid" are not so much straight or gay, but other.* And, hetero-normative behaviour is so ingrained in our society that it is possible for gay people to not consider the possibility that they are gay.
We have at least one lesbian and one bisexual on the Ship who fit this.
If anything, you should be counseling people who think they are straight to do soul searching before committing. Real world examples seem to go more in that direction than the way you posit.

*bisexual or pansexual

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Prison IS an extreme environment. Behaviour within =/= behaviour without.

After plenty of experience, I'd say that for many things, behaviour within essentially magnifies behaviour without.

I think my observation about people in vulnerable situations being deceived into thinking that a change in orientation is the solution to their emotional suffering holds true in general, it's just less pronounced in less confined environments.
quote:
This would be true for everyone in every marriage. ISTM, most people who are "fluid" are not so much straight or gay, but other.
You certainly weren't suggesting a third category earlier.
quote:
And, hetero-normative behaviour is so ingrained in our society that it is possible for gay people to not consider the possibility that they are gay.
Granted, but I think the vexed question here is why hetero-normative behaviour is so ingrained and whether that state of affairs is something to be acknowledged, whilst seeking appropriate accommodation of other behaviours, or overturned altogether as redundant.

Could it not just be that part of the reason for its ingrainedness is that most people have a settled heterosexual orientation and are quite happy that way?
quote:
If anything, you should be counseling people who think they are straight to do soul searching before committing
One of the first things I learned in counselling was the applicability of the Hippocratic Oath: first do no harm. If asked (in the context of a prospective committed relationship), I'd encourage people to do soul-searching for a broad range of reasons, but unless they gave me reason to doubt their orientation, I wouldn't create problems where there didn't appear to be any by suggesting they examine it.

Creating a sense of insecurity where there was none to start with falls into the category of abuse as far as I'm concerned.

(If they did raise the question, I would pursue it, and I would probably be as leery of a avowedly gay person suddenly opting for a committed opposite-sex relationship as of a straight person suddenly opting for a committed same-sex one).

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
After plenty of experience, I'd say that for many things, behaviour within essentially magnifies behaviour without.

So, if behaviour is magnified, then perhaps your "gay for the stay" are actually not as straight as they think? Sarcasm aside, I do not like seafood. However, facing starvation I've no doubt I'd eat it. This does not mean that I like it to any degree.

quote:


I think my observation about people in vulnerable situations being deceived into thinking that a change in orientation is the solution to their emotional suffering holds true in general, it's just less pronounced in less confined environments.

trying not to be rude here, but this is rubbish. More LGBT people will feel the pressure to act straight than the reverse. Gay isn't Goth. And prison gay is often more about power. Much more akin to sexual abuse than anything else and not analogous to all behaviours outside.

quote:
You certainly weren't suggesting a third category earlier.
um, LGBT?

quote:
Granted, but I think the vexed question here is why hetero-normative behaviour is so ingrained and whether that state of affairs is something to be acknowledged,
The majority of the population is straight or close enough. I'm not sure anyone here is challenging this. This is not a sociology lecture, but there are numerous reasons why the majority impinges upon the minority in conscious and unconscious ways.

quote:
One of the first things I learned in counselling was the applicability of the Hippocratic Oath: first do no harm. If asked (in the context of a prospective committed relationship), I'd encourage people to do soul-searching for a broad range of reasons, but unless they gave me reason to doubt their orientation, I wouldn't create problems where there didn't appear to be any by suggesting they examine it.
OK, when I said you should have OSM candidates question whether they were actually hetero, it was to make the point that many more people who are gay do OSM than the opposite.
But how would you know if a person was questioning or suppressing their true nature? Hell, many straight people get into straight marriages that are bad for them, but have no clue or easily apparent signs prior to the commitment.
But I'm not saying that you need to apply the third degree to anyone, but that your position of caution regarding LGBT marriages is unfounded.
In regards to vulnerable people, ISTM you should be treating them as vulnerable regardless of orientation and not applying that standard to the general population.
That vulnerable people will do things against their nature does not justify suppressing the rights of everyone else. And ignores that LGBT will have a higher degree of vulnerability than the general population.

--------------------
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
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870

 - Posted      Profile for Gracie   Email Gracie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And prison gay is often more about power. Much more akin to sexual abuse than anything else and not analogous to all behaviours outside.

That may be the case in men's prison, I don't know, I don't have any experience there. But it certainly isn't the case in women's prisons.

--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine

Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And prison gay is often more about power. Much more akin to sexual abuse than anything else and not analogous to all behaviours outside.

That may be the case in men's prison, I don't know, I don't have any experience there. But it certainly isn't the case in women's prisons.
I've never been sentenced to or an employee of any prison, but what I have heard and read agrees that the overall dynamics are different, at least to an extent. Eutychus is male, so I assumed his experience is in male prison.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Eutychus is male, so I assumed his experience is in male prison.

As I posted above, my remit includes a women's prison, and what I said was based on that and the inmates I know there.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870

 - Posted      Profile for Gracie   Email Gracie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I've never been sentenced to or an employee of any prison, but what I have heard and read agrees that the overall dynamics are different, at least to an extent. Eutychus is male, so I assumed his experience is in male prison.

I work in a women's prison and the overall dynamics of gay relationships are not at all what you described as being about power and sexual abuse.

--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine

Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Eutychus is male, so I assumed his experience is in male prison.

As I posted above, my remit includes a women's prison, and what I said was based on that and the inmates I know there.
Apologies, I missed that. But it still doesn't change that prison behaviour =/= outside behaviour. If you are correct about prison relationships not generally lasting outside of prison, this enforces my point rather than contradicts it. ISTM you are making an unjustified special case against SS relationships.
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
I work in a women's prison and the overall dynamics of gay relationships are not at all what you described as being about power and sexual abuse.

Once again, I made an incorrect assumption that Eutychus was speaking of a male prison.
Regardless, my main contention is that his case for being "cautious" with SS relationships in greater degree than opposite sex relationships is unfounded.

[ 17. April 2016, 08:02: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Apologies, I missed that. But it still doesn't change that prison behaviour =/= outside behaviour. If you are correct about prison relationships not generally lasting outside of prison, this enforces my point rather than contradicts it. ISTM you are making an unjustified special case against SS relationships.

I have drawn the conclusions about people in vulnerable circumstances wherever they are.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I have drawn the conclusions about people in vulnerable circumstances wherever they are.

And I still contend this is a not valid reason to draw a distinction between OSM and SSM.
It is valid and commendable to wish to protect the vulnerable.
However, restricting SSM creates more vulnerability than it prevents.

--------------------
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
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
No, I'm saying that some people may think that equal marriage will deliver as much social acceptance and fulfilment for them as they may perceive the straight majority to enjoy by virtue of its being a majority. I'm not saying this state of affairs is desirable, but I think it's realistic.

It doesn't sound particularly realistic. Most gay people know there's a sizable minority that bears them nothing but ill will and are fairly clear-eyed about the fact that nothing they do is likely to change that. Very few, if any, people would think "I'm sure that the parents who threw me out of the house when I came out to them and left me to fend for myself when I was 15 will come around and welcome me back if I get married to a same-sex partner!" And this is something you consider "realistic"?

How about the notion that same-sex couples get married because they want to live their lives together, not in some ill-considered effort to curry favor with people who bear them a tremendous amount of malicious ill will? I know it's a radical idea, but how about the possibility that not everything gay people do is part of some complicated Machiavellian scheme to manipulate straight people?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

I know it's a radical idea, but how about the possibility that not everything gay people do is part of some complicated Machiavellian scheme to manipulate straight people?

Where did that come from?

--------------------
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
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I know it's a radical idea, but how about the possibility that not everything gay people do is part of some complicated Machiavellian scheme to manipulate straight people?

Where did that come from?
It follows from the idea that "some people may think that equal marriage will deliver as much social acceptance and fulfilment for them as they may perceive the straight majority to enjoy". Put more bluntly, it seems to be a suggestion that same-sex marriage (at least by "some people") is an attempt to trick everyone else into socially accepting them.

Quite frankly, the possibility of using marriage to gain social acceptability is much more likely to be a factor in opposite-sex marriages than in same-sex ones. Suddenly the stigma of unwed parenthood is removed, your friends and family now accept your relationship as "serious", and you start being treated like a grown-up. Same-sex couples, on the other hand, mostly know that the people who disliked/hated them before they got married will almost certainly dislike/hate them just as much (if not more) after they get married. There may be a few starry-eyed exceptions, but I'd expect their number to be vanishingly small.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Put more bluntly, it seems to be a suggestion that same-sex marriage (at least by "some people") is an attempt to trick everyone else into socially accepting them.

no tricks, IMO, just the same mechanism that draws people to Goth, Punk, Cosplay or stamp collecting: a sense of belonging. However, on steroids because it is a cause célèbre.
I find this bit
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus And I have fended off a gay organisation supposedly dedicated to supporting gays in prison, because I think it highly likely that they would overstep that remit and encourage those of uncertain sexuality to go gay at a vulnerable period of their lives. Both sides can exert abusive pressure.
a little more troubling. Especially as the pressure is much more likely to be in the opposite direction.

--------------------
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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The idea that there is some kind of stage (long post birth) during which it's possible to go either way, and just a little nudge can cause you to "go gay," has no place in anything I've ever heard or read about human sexuality. It strikes me as a homophobic fantasy -- oh my god, teh gayz are trying to recruit our children. FFS.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I know it's a radical idea, but how about the possibility that not everything gay people do is part of some complicated Machiavellian scheme to manipulate straight people?

Where did that come from?
It follows from the idea that "some people may think that equal marriage will deliver as much social acceptance and fulfilment for them as they may perceive the straight majority to enjoy". Put more bluntly, it seems to be a suggestion that same-sex marriage (at least by "some people") is an attempt to trick everyone else into socially accepting them.


"It seems to be a suggestion" is reading between the lines again. Rightly or wrongly, I read this as Eutychus' summary of his position, from the end of the post.

quote:
Both sides can exert abusive pressure.
Not sure about the assertion of sides, but it seems quite reasonable to assert that anyone, or any group, can exert abusive pressure on others for whatever reasons satisfy them. And that applies to minorities, whether or not they have been abused. Abuse in retaliation to abuse may be understandable on a kind of "what's sauce for the goose" basis. But that doesn't invalidate a summary that the tendency to abuse is not confined to particular individuals or groups. I suppose we can argue the toss over "who is most likely", but that is probably an argument about who has the most power and influence in any particular situation, rather than being associated with a global majority i.e folks who self-identify as heterosexual. Abuse of power is simply dependent on the potential abusers having some power and influence somewhere.

[ 19. April 2016, 09:05: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
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
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A good friend of mine likes to tell a story about when he worked for an IT company. He needed to fetch something in the basement, and while going down there he hit his head on a wooden beam. He actually spent a couple of days in hospital with a concussion, but he tells me that the moment he hit his head, he realised he was gay.

Granted, he usually tells this story after a couple of beers, but it does make me more careful every time I go down a staircase [Smile]

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Abuse of power is simply dependent on the potential abusers having some power and influence somewhere.

This is true. But this is not the argument Eutychus has been making. Reading only what he has written, his arguments are that SSM might be pushed on straight but vulnerable people and that this should be a caution against SSM in general. And so negatively affecting the actual many for the sake of the potential few.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'll venture back to formulate my position regarding religious blessing of marriages thus.

A common Christian wedding text says
quote:
Marriage is ... not to be entered into lightly, but reverently, soberly and in the fear of God.
That definitely includes OSM and anticipates the notion that people can be wrongly pressured into it.

If one accepts the blessing of SSM, this provision also extends to SSM. SSM's minority status does not call for that provision to be mitigated purely on minority grounds. And at a time when it's early days for SSM, which is certainly the case in my country and even more the case in my country's churches, I think extra care needs to be taken to ensure it is entered into in line with that provision or similar.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'll venture back to formulate my position regarding religious blessing of marriages thus.

A common Christian wedding text says
quote:
Marriage is ... not to be entered into lightly, but reverently, soberly and in the fear of God.
That definitely includes OSM and anticipates the notion that people can be wrongly pressured into it.

If one accepts the blessing of SSM, this provision also extends to SSM. SSM's minority status does not call for that provision to be mitigated purely on minority grounds. And at a time when it's early days for SSM, which is certainly the case in my country and even more the case in my country's churches, I think extra care needs to be taken to ensure it is entered into in line with that provision or similar.

Why? So far all you've offered for this idea that same-sex couples should be subjected to extra scrutiny far beyond what opposite-sex couples are expected to endure is a bare assertion that gay people are predators looking to recruit the vulnerable. Why exactly are you so sure that same-sex couples need to be monitored, assessed, and analyzed far beyond the scrutiny applied to opposite-sex couples? Are gay people really that much more manipulative and predatory than straight people?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why? So far all you've offered for this idea that same-sex couples should be subjected to extra scrutiny far beyond what opposite-sex couples are expected to endure is a bare assertion that gay people are predators looking to recruit the vulnerable.

I said that I had that concern about a particular association. I did not say that I thought that about all gay people and you know it. (I would be just as suspicious of any association coming in seeking to uphold heterosexuality having an agenda to de-gayify gays, and have said as much, too).

I also said nothing about "extra scrutiny" of same-sex couples, I talked in terms of "caution".

I am reasonably confident that out of all the churches I know in my city, the one I lead is the most likely, by quite a wide margin, to be the first to bless a same-sex marriage*. If that happens on my watch, I intend to be able to justify any such decision responsibly and be seen to be acting in good conscience and with integrity, just as I would for any other marriage blessing. Make of that what you will.

quote:
Why exactly are you so sure that same-sex couples need to be monitored, assessed, and analyzed far beyond the scrutiny applied to opposite-sex couples? Are gay people really that much more manipulative and predatory than straight people?
In view of assertions like this, and despite my best efforts, given how smart you obviously are, I cannot escape the conclusion that your incessant misrepresentation of my comments cannot simply be attributed to miscommunication or majoritarian insensitivity on my part, but is rather a deliberate tactic of yours to paint those you perceive to be opposed to your views in as negative and extreme a light as possible.

You may find this not to be a waste of your time, but I'm finding it to be a waste of mine unpicking such responses, and I'm done with it. I'm here looking for dialogue and, on a practical level, ways of reaching accommodation. You're clearly not looking for either, at least not when you post like that.

As far as I'm concerned that approach does your cause far more harm than good, because irrespective of any considerations about sexuality whatsoever, the values it conveys to me are so bereft of goodwill as to be entirely repulsive.

==

*It wouldn't be the first time we have pioneered something controversial, been vilified for it, only to see it become common practice years or decades down the line.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why? So far all you've offered for this idea that same-sex couples should be subjected to extra scrutiny far beyond what opposite-sex couples are expected to endure is a bare assertion that gay people are predators looking to recruit the vulnerable.


I said that I had that concern about a particular association. I did not say that I thought that about all gay people and you know it. (I would be just as suspicious of any association coming in seeking to uphold heterosexuality having an agenda to de-gayify gays, and have said as much, too).

I also said nothing about "extra scrutiny" of same-sex couples, I talked in terms of "caution".

Actually you said you thought "extra care needs to be taken to ensure [same-sex marriage] is entered into in line with [reverence, sobriety, and the fear of God] or similar". How does one make sure the couples' motives are proper without scrutiny? And apparently same-sex couples require a level of care/attention/scrutiny/whatever beyond that which applies to opposite-sex couples. All this was posited in a context "that people can be wrongly pressured into [marriage]". Your suggestion was that opposite-sex couples should be examined for such "wrong pressure" prior to marriage but that same-sex couples required "extra care" to guard against this same "wrong pressure". That would make sense only if you thought people entering into same-sex marriages were either more likely to engage in that sort of behavior or more likely to be successful at it.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I can give what I think is a valid explanation, but I'm not going sit here for hours trying to ensure it's immune to you deconstructing it and turning it into further misrepresentation and/or accusation. As I said, I'm done with that.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
SSM's minority status does not call for that provision to be mitigated purely on minority grounds.

No one here is saying this> I've never heard anyone imply this.
The closest I've heard is the reverse: SSM should be treated differently because it is a minority.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

And at a time when it's early days for SSM, which is certainly the case in my country and even more the case in my country's churches, I think extra care needs to be taken to ensure it is entered into in line with that provision or similar.

What you are protecting is the prejudice of the haves against the well-being of the have-nots with the justification of safeguarding the nearly non-existent. And shoring it up with the contradictory.
You have ventured towards the concrete with one example that most sociologists would classify as misleading at best.

--------------------
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
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Abuse of power is simply dependent on the potential abusers having some power and influence somewhere.

This is true. But this is not the argument Eutychus has been making. Reading only what he has written, his arguments are that SSM might be pushed on straight but vulnerable people and that this should be a caution against SSM in general. And so negatively affecting the actual many for the sake of the potential few.
Actually, I thought it was at least part of the argument he was making. Otherwise why summarise as he did? But I think you and I agree about the danger of extending the findings from the prison into wider and different contexts. I see Eutychus' argument about vulnerability, but it seems to me that special circumstances apply when there is loss of liberty. I've never been a prison chaplain, but I have been a prison visitor and learned a few things about the dangers of "reading across" to circumstances outside. Enough to make me cautious, anyway.

--------------------
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
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The hosts have expressed concerns backstage about the temperature on this thread and ongoing excessively personal exchanges. And, since they have also been participating in recent discussion they have asked for an admin to review things in order to avoid any impression of bias. I have therefore read the last 5 pages of this thread, and have the following comments to make:

  • There has been a lot of failing to properly read what others have said, misunderstanding what is said and reading things between the lines that aren't there. Also probably exacerbated by some posts which could have been clearer.

    I would say that reading posts made in the last few days in the light of what the same person had said years before is definitely part of the reading between the lines, it assumes that people haven't actually changed their views - which is ironic given that the current interest in this thread started with an observation of how people had changed their views.
  • Added to that there has been a strong tendency for people to think they've read something they don't like and shout "You can't say that!", rather than ask "is that really what you're saying?"
  • The overall effect of which is several people getting exasperated with others - both because they've potentially misread what someone has said, and because they've been misread. With some posts very close to, and in a few cases over, the line of what is only acceptable within Hell.
In the light of that I am going to make some suggestions.
  1. take more time to carefully read what people have written, and to question it before jumping to conclusions about what was written,
  2. take more time to carefully write posts to minimise misunderstanding, and
  3. take the frustration to Hell, or at the very least don't put it into posts here.
Don't make me have to read much more of this thread.

Alan
Ship of Fools Admin

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Actually, I thought it was at least part of the argument he was making. Otherwise why summarise as he did?

I believe he is honest in his intent, so it is natural for him to include all vulnerable in his remit. However, his argument does not stop there and its i]effect[/i] is biased and unduly so.
So, it is part of his construct, but the question is how much load does that part bear? In my mind, it is not a pillar as much as a secondary support, at least in regards to this topic.

--------------------
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
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, bias is normal. But I think analysis of ideas can move far too close to character-stripping if we read too much into the words written here. At this point I'm going to stop and reflect on Alan Cresswell's observations. They affect both my postings as a Shipmate and as a 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
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well, bias is normal.

Bias is normal and not, IMO, inherently bad. It is in how we let it affect our reasoning and argument that it takes on positive or negative connotation. This is something I think I shall reflect on in Purg.

--------------------
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
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Posted 29 July, 2016 14:04

by PDA:

Does anybody know why Jesus may have felt it unnecessary to mention homosexuals at all?
Or why any comments he did make about them be considered not relevant enough to make it into the bible ?

I have been having this debate elsewhere and thought it a good topic to raise here.

My response:

Why would He? In provincial and even urban ancient Jewish culture it would have had no visibility at all. It would have been unthinkingly, unexaminably repressed from two millennia before. What Greeks and Romans got up to was their business (Paul got a bit slitty-eyed about it 25 years later): Jesus came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and initiated the trajectory of inclusive universal transcendence from it. We continue in that.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's nicely put Martin.

The other issue, of course, is the idea that we can simply read across concepts from one era to another without any complications. We wouldn't do this with democracy. Every forward schoolboy in England, oh all right, every politics undergraduate in England knows that democracy in ancient Athens meant something quite different to the modern UK or US and, when discussing the criticisms of democracy in the works of Aristotle or Plato need to bear this in mind if they are going to apply it to their own society. We don't have ostracism, we don't have slavery, we do have votes for women, we do have representative rather than direct democracy.

Something similar applies to homosexuality. Homosexual relations in antiquity, generally, fell into one of three categories. A slave owner could take his pleasure with a slave, who had no choice in the matter. Someone could take their pleasure in a brothel, where the 'employees' would, most likely, be slaves. Or there was the relationship between a 'virtuous' older man who had befriended a 'virtuous' and handsome youth. One text from the period suggests that the relationship ought to be cut away with the razor with which the youth shaves his beard for the first time. Now any of these relationships would, if they existed today, result in the interest of the fuzz in the details of what was going on. There were, I imagine, almost certainly gay people who loved one another, as we think of it today but they existed sub rosa they were no more tolerated in the classical tradition than in the Christian. We have probably been ill served by popular culture which has tended to valorise antiquity as a period when homosexuality was respected. The two most famous affairs, that we know happened, during the period were between Alexander and Bagoas and Hadrian and Antinous and social services would have been all over them if they had happened in the 21st century.

Basically, what happens in the 19th Century is that homosexuality, a condition where one is attracted to people of one's own sex, is regarded first as a pathology and then, by the end of the 20th century, increasingly as a natural occurrence. The love between two people of the same sex is increasingly regarded as being no different as the love between two people of different sexes. I think that this is a welcome development. Others may differ. But there isn't, I think, much point adverting to Paul at this point because he has an entirely different aetiology of same-sex relationships which makes sense in his context, but not in ours.

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

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nicer put Callan.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes. Two very helpful posts.

--------------------
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
Doone
Shipmate
# 18470

 - Posted      Profile for Doone   Email Doone   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ditto for me [Smile]
Posts: 2208 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2015  |  IP: Logged
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493

 - Posted      Profile for Joesaphat   Email Joesaphat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
and from me, belatedly

--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.

Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think it was Rowan Williams (in his salad days) who observed that the polemic in Romans 1 is about "unnatural behaviour". Paul was, like all of his time, unaware of the fact that same sex attraction is as natural to homosexuals as opposite sex attraction is to heterosexuals. It simply wasn't in his mental map.

What was undoubtedly in his map was 1st century licentiousness, which he saw as wrong both in terms of Judaism and of Christianity. All homosexual behaviour was classified as licentious, along with fornication and other kinds of casual sex. I think you can see that not just in Romans 1.

So I think it is perfectly sensible to see these passages in those terms. The real target was sexual immorality in the forms we would describe today as objectification, or using people. And the real antidote was faithfulness and unselfish, giving, love in all relationship. Shorn of the cultural sexism, that's the essense of Ephesians 5 for example.

As always, I think you have to get at the underlying principles which motivated the author. Of course anyone is free to argue that I'm reading this stuff from a 21st century perspective. Maybe I am?

Dah, Barnabas62, you said it all 3 comments in nearly a year ago.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
bumping up for housekeeping reasons

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi Louise and thanks for pointing out the thread.

What I have yet to see and I don't know if it is in the thread, perhaps it is, is a clear cut look into the Hebrew or Greek texts in question. There seems to be a lot of blathering and humming about general viewpoints and not a lot of true textual criticism. I can clearly see a lot of background knowledge, but was even one specific text actually analyzed so the community could come to some sort of minimum moral conclusion. Is that useless? Is there not a nugget of concrete moral truth about sexuality to be found? Marriage survives? I mean why marriage? Why not marry two men at the same time? Why can't three men marry? (we all know the answer is just about taxes, it's not a moral question of importance now)

A lot of deep thinkers here, and a lot of real head scrunching in the middle of the pack.

May I inject a little of my version of common sense here? Is it not without merit that God specifically calls for regulations on human behavior because these bags of flesh are his intellectual property?

Some don't seem to think it dignifying to think of themselves as a created being and God as a Creator. But those barbarians of the Bible did seem to think of God in a very awe-inspired way (whether those miracles were real or exaggerated, they did).

Have we totally lost our awe of God as a creator? Why? because so many of the Bible stories are filled with crime? I think we have lost the awe. Just a randomly "guided" evolution of molecules bumping into one another.... of course it ends up in same sex acts if that's all we are, and what could be more right that what feels good at the moment! HOW SHORT SIGHTED. I don't think that anyone actually FEELS the magisterial nature of what it means to be human being in God's image.

If there is ANY objective truth to be found in Genesis, no matter how abstract it might be, I think that structure and order of the human being in a two fold male-female "nuclear" family is a very smart and very GOOD way of making things.

"apparently anti-gay passages"
If we cannot conclude anything out of the Scriptures from what is apparent, then what is there left? Not much.

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Is it not without merit that God specifically calls for regulations on human behavior because these bags of flesh are his intellectual property?

[...]

Have we totally lost our awe of God as a creator? [...] I think we have lost the awe.

I'm not going to concede that I have lost the sense of awe of God as creator, but I will assert that I am ADDING to that awe a respect for God as a moral authority.

By which I mean, that while I do acknowledge an obligation simply to obey God because he is God, I also trust that God is in the right, that he has good and wise reasons for what he commands, and that because he has invited me to relate to him as a son and not merely a servant who does not know his master's business, he expects me not only to obey but also to try to understand.

Hence the dilemma. We know that same-sex relationships can be good in exactly the same ways in which that opposite-sex relationships are good. We also know that there are no ways in which they can be bad that do not apply just as much to opposite-sex relationships. These are facts that are no longer open to serious debate.

My argument is therefore that it is right to ask why same sex relationships are prohibited - and if we cannot see any good reason at all for the prohibition, but still view the bible as authoritative, it is also right to entertain alternative interpretations that might textually be less plausible, but which are morally far superior. After all, believers in God ought to have more confidence that God is good than that we have correctly understood a particular text.

--------------------
"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
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
no longer open to serious debate, are you... serious?

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Entirely.

A man and a woman marry. We celebrate their love and their commitment. And it is obviously true that everything about their relationship that is good and worthy can also enrich a gay relationship, and everything about their relationship that might go tragically or sinfully wrong might also go wrong in a gay relationship. Are you going to suggest that this is in some way open to doubt?

--------------------
"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
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I mean why marriage? Why not marry two men at the same time? Why can't three men marry?

<snip>

If there is ANY objective truth to be found in Genesis, no matter how abstract it might be, I think that structure and order of the human being in a two fold male-female "nuclear" family is a very smart and very GOOD way of making things.

It's been pointed out that there is nothing in the Bible prohibiting plural marriages, and several examples of such unions apparently meeting with God's approval. The reason we don't practice this marital custom today has little to do with the Bible and is largely an artifact of Christianity developing within the Roman Empire.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I mean why marriage? Why not marry two men at the same time? Why can't three men marry?

<snip>

If there is ANY objective truth to be found in Genesis, no matter how abstract it might be, I think that structure and order of the human being in a two fold male-female "nuclear" family is a very smart and very GOOD way of making things.

It's been pointed out that there is nothing in the Bible prohibiting plural marriages, and several examples of such unions apparently meeting with God's approval. The reason we don't practice this marital custom today has little to do with the Bible and is largely an artifact of Christianity developing within the Roman Empire.
I don't think it's possible to discuss plural marriage as a thing without resolving the question of slavery and God's apparent approval of that also.

So we're close to the point where I ask for curiousity sake, where we should go for moral guidance if we hold the Bible as irrelevant.

It seems to me that while 90% of posts here dogmatically accept homosexuality as acceptable to God, there is a great deal of divergence on how to justify that position using the Bible as most of the time the Bible's/God's acceptance of said activities are based on the omission of something and therefore the assumed approval.


So in the end, morally, three men can or could marry, in the Biblical sense God is good with that? Is that what you're saying?

--------------------
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      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I mean why marriage? Why not marry two men at the same time? Why can't three men marry?

<snip>

If there is ANY objective truth to be found in Genesis, no matter how abstract it might be, I think that structure and order of the human being in a two fold male-female "nuclear" family is a very smart and very GOOD way of making things.

It's been pointed out that there is nothing in the Bible prohibiting plural marriages, and several examples of such unions apparently meeting with God's approval. The reason we don't practice this marital custom today has little to do with the Bible and is largely an artifact of Christianity developing within the Roman Empire.
I don't think it's possible to discuss plural marriage as a thing without resolving the question of slavery and God's apparent approval of that also.
Nope, that's a dodge. You can discuss marriage and slavery separately, unless you want to argue that the Biblical form of marriage was a type of slavery. I can see this as a plausible argument if you want to continue in that vein, but it seems a side issue.

But you were the one who cited Genesis as the source of God's ideal family structure, and most of the families portrayed in Genesis don't resemble "a two fold male-female "nuclear" family" at all.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
So in the end, morally, three men can or could marry, in the Biblical sense God is good with that? Is that what you're saying?

Of course not. In the Biblical sense God wants everyone else to form a mob and stone them to death. That's the moral way to do things, Biblically.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Axe murder]
.............moved here from the other thread. And will merger my responses as I can.
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=edit_post;f=7;t=000623;reply_num=000332;u=00000238

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If detesting male homosexuals is wired in to humanity we wouldn't need an instruction book telling us to detest them.

I'm not saying that the wiring part has to do with detesting anything. Wiring-wise, we don't get wired with much at all! We are born little balls of snot and would stay that way if not for mom. The Bible simply shows that we were wired to be like Adam/Eve, we're wired for communicating with God, and to be in a male-female union. The idea here is that the pinnacle of the human form is the marital union of "one flesh". The male and female becoming one flesh is explicitly - a sexual union. THAT is part of the image of God if indeed the male and female TOGETHER make the image of God as I believe the Bible shows. Sex cults are/were of particular importance because they may may be focused on the key to blocking communicating with God. Doing so by by capitalizing on the simple urges of the body, at the expense of our relationship to God. How does it damage our relationship? The reason I believe is that any misplaced sex acts for the sake of lust alone devalue the human being as a display of God's image.

if someone does not believe in God at all, they may not be interested in Glorifying God. Some might find it detestable to view themselves as mere banner bearer of someone elses magnificence. But I would argue that human magnificence gets its source for elsewhere, not from intrinsically inside each of us, but beyond us.

Homosexuality is regarded as an arch-enemy to Christianity in this kind of sense, it is at the core of how to fundamentally rewire a person to serve material lusts, and not honor God's main reason for creating mankind, which is to spread his glory in creation of beautiful creatures like himself.


quote:

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.

I'm not sure, I'll have to think about the monopoly angle a bit more. As far as the national purpose.... The New Testament seems to indicate that whatever government comes along, Christians should in general work with it, that's for starters. Since the Hebrew Government was nullified with its kings all dead.... we no longer need to follow the rules of that government for legal sake. We follow an immortal king now, different rules. Also don't forget that Israel had a few Geopolitical objectives which, in short, deal with fundamental changes to human DNA. The DNA is the intellectual property of God, and I believe it was part of the objective to strictly enforce the integrity of human DNA at a spiritually sustainable level. It mainly started with the flood story, and wiping out the impurity in the geneological record of man. The mission continued under Abraham.


quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
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.

I guess we could parse the verse some more, but I interpret the word there to mean "repugnant/abhorrent/disgusting". It is a viewpoint, not an action. Hence, I would say that without the second statement condoning death, it would be common sense that anything detestable is prohibited, or, undesirable (don't do it).

I don't believe that with the expiration of the Jewish state we can afford to simply behave as if it never existed, didn't happen, and was never said. It wasn't a mission failure, nor was it an excercise in doing things the wrong way. Looking back at these laws I think it is natural and reasonable to see these things as instructive, they are worth consideration and deserve to be explored for the intrinsic things that they represent.

The virtue that prevails, and in light of Jesus and the New Testament, is that the lusts of the flesh are to be controlled (self control being evidence of God's spirit in you). IOW - sexuality is in our human nature and it is a basic human "lust" or "passion" that is to be controlled and regulated in within the confines and natural order of both gender, and


quote:
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.
Ok, weberian state and all that..........tryin to be concise here..... my point of view, the penalties were justifiable on grounds of the necessary socio-cultural order for Israel.
* execution of a mortal person is not necessarily the end of the immortal person, or their "damnation". As his intellectual property, social and sexual order are part of God's intent for man. So yes, God has a weberian monopoly of a sort, if he chooses to implement a material government.



quote:
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.
Strawman angle. As I have been saying, the sexuality of man is tied to the social aspect of man to God in a way that money is not. God's kingdom in heaven doesn't need money to operate, but it does need sexual order to operate. Money is an object that facilitates business, the only way to tie money to spirituality is through greed - another lust. Greed ties money to the object in question - the object being the human body.


quote:
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.

Avoiding sin, that's the principle. I'd like to hear your version of how we should derive and/or enforce if needed, any particular moral imperatives with respect to sexuality. Oral tradition and society of the time framed a lot of that in Bible times that wasn't written down, and I don't act as if we can extract it all from the Bible. It's missing, it's obscure. So in the absence of a reliable written or oral tradition, where do you go for solid moral guidance? Can I frolic with my sister as long as we're careful not to create a child? Or if I regard learning disabilities as just another human challenge, perhaps I should celebrate and advocate brother-sister marriages? I could easily acquire help from the Bible if I chose.....

give me something objective to go by. I just don't think that moral imperatives just popped up from nothing, or that it is practical or reasonable to operate in a sexual-moral vacuum where we can justify any sexual action as long as we can show that science proves it "generally safe" for an individual or couple.

--------------------
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      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Aijalon:

I find it not worth to formulate a polite reply, so please join
this thread, already in progress.

--------------------
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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

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