|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Biblical interpretation of apparently anti-gay passages
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
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.
To clarify, to some Christians homosexuality is seen as an arch-enemy. For most of us, if we think of an arch enemy at all, we'd look elsewhere - to a personified Satan, or the oppressive economic and political structures that keep billions in abject poverty, the pride that says we can do what we like with what we have been entrusted with.
Yes, there are issues with material lusts - but, the Gospels only tell us of the dangers of men looking at women with lust. And, if procreation is central to the Christian life then many would be failing - unable to have children, or having chosen a celibate life.
It would be appreciated if you didn't take your narrow understanding as universal.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
[qb]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.
To clarify, to some Christians homosexuality is seen as an arch-enemy. For most of us, if we think of an arch enemy at all, we'd look elsewhere - to a personified Satan, or the oppressive economic and political structures that keep billions in abject poverty, the pride that says we can do what we like with what we have been entrusted with.
Lust of the eye and pride of life are equal enemies. I'm not saying we should pick an "arch" enemy, but as this come over from the other thread on demonization, the thrust of what I'm saying is that sexuality is really at the core of who we are, so it's very important.
Making "arch enemies" out of people for the sake of the issue is not what I'm advocating. I was simply explaining the rational, and importance of, defending conservative sexual morality as a backdrop for how people have made arch enemies out of this issue in general.
It's worth arguing about.
quote:
Yes, there are issues with material lusts - but, the Gospels only tell us of the dangers of men looking at women with lust.
That's not a defense of men lusting for men. In the simplest sense the arousal of a man for a woman is intended for the marriage relationship, and nothing else.
quote:
And, if procreation is central to the Christian life then many would be failing - unable to have children, or having chosen a celibate life.
Yes, it's a central issue. It's not just failing to procreate but desiring to procreate.... that's the heart of it. Being infertile is red herring here. That's a disease. Being sick is certainly a failure of the human form, it is a malfunction. God desires to heal the sick.
Some Christians feel being homosexual is like a mental disorder. I do not feel that way, though of course there are sexual-mental disorders....
quote:
It would be appreciated if you didn't take your narrow understanding as universal.
never was universal, just generalizing about Christians who hold different values than you do. There is no monopoly on the views of "Christians"
[ 12. June 2017, 20:33: 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
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Aijalon:
I find it not worth to formulate a polite reply, so please join
this thread, already in progress.
You are such a gem, oh you little sweetheart.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
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.
Wait - is God creating us because we're beautiful creatures like God or is the beauty of no intrinisic importance unless we create more of ourselves who also have no intrinsic importance.
Either someone has an intrinsic reason to exist regardless of whether they make more of themselves or there is no value in making more of them.
In any case, Jesus said that some people are eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. So I don't think he agreed with you that the highest point of human existence is procreation. He says there will be no marriage in the afterlife. You might think there will still be procreation even if there's no marriage?
By the way, how do you know homosexuality is merely a matter of material lusts, more than heterosexuality is? Do you know a lot of homosexual couples? Surely you wouldn't make such a sweeping condemnation of other people's relationships without knowing what you're talking about.
quote:
If we cannot conclude anything out of the Scriptures from what is apparent, then what is there left? Not much.
You are elsewhere on these boards maintaining that we cannot conclude that Jesus wasn't the Father from what is apparent. So you're happy to abandon the apparent meaning of the Bible in favour of a less apparent meaning when you think the evidence warrants it.
quote:
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.
How about we read the Bible in the light of Jesus? It seems to me that Jesus' ethical principles are summarised as love not as self-control.
It seems to me that Jesus is rather hard on people who stick to the letter of the law in order to condemn other people.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
the thrust of what I'm saying is that sexuality is really at the core of who we are, so it's very important.
Yes, you're right. Sexuality is at the core of who we are. We agree on that.
But, that seems to be the big inconsistency of your argument. I don't see how anyone could accept that and then describe people as "wired to serve material lusts", and not honouring God (to choose just two of the phrases you have used to describe other people, and not the worst). Which is it? Sexuality the core of who we are, or something that is an expression of material lusts?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
Coming late to this, erm, discussion (because I've been hoping for the last decade or two -- apparently in vain -- that this set of issues might dwindle into the background noise of simple societal acceptance), I find myself puzzled about Aijilon's sig.
"All free wills go to hell."
Since that pesky "all" appears, that seems to include the "free wills" who, er, freely choose to "obey Jesus."
Or am I missing something here?
And btw, are you, Aijilon, suggesting that sexual orientation is a choice, that is, an expression of free will?
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Aijalon--
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Some Christians feel being homosexual is like a mental disorder. I do not feel that way, though of course there are sexual-mental disorders....
And *some* of those Christians are working from a place of compassion, whether or not they're right about it being a disorder. (I don't think it is.)
Yet *you*, Aijalon, show no compassion whatsoever.
What's up with that?
--------------------
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
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
... * execution of a mortal person is not necessarily the end of the immortal person, or their "damnation". ...
I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the executee.
quote:
... 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. ...
Baloney. Money is a symbol of interactions between human beings. How we use / earn / save / waste money demonstrates the quality of our relationships with our fellow humans. Money is most definitely a social aspect of man - each of us has financial relationships with tens of thousands of people we've never even met. Money connects us to many, many more people than sex does. I'm happy to concede that there's no money in heaven, but how much sex is going on up there? (And why was nothing said before?!)
quote:
... 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. ... 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.
Every society has sexual mores, and just because you don't like them doesn't mean that society is a moral vacuum. People who disagree with your morals are not necessarily immoral; they just have different morals.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
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".
So you're saying that the only proper Biblical relationship is between a man and his double-X clone? That seems a little limiting. On the other hand it could also be argued that Adam and Eve were in a sexual relationship with every other person in the world.
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
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.
I'm pretty sure that deoxyribonucleic acid is mentioned exactly zero times in the Bible. Can you explain your theory of Biblical eugenics a little more clearly? I mean, if God is omnipotent where do these mutations come from that he feels obliged to correct via genocide? Why not just "strictly enforce the integrity of human DNA" by simply not permitting the mutations He finds objectionable.
Historical note: the descendants of Abraham have typically not fared particularly well under programs obsessed with genetic purity.
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon: 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".
Which word out of "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman" do you interpret that way? It seems to be a pretty clear "thou shalt not".
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
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.
Apparently I wasn't giving you enough credit for consistency. It's a fairly unique position to claim that God is really upset about (male) homosexuality but doesn't really care about people cheating each other, given that the former is out in the wilderness of Leviticus and the former is given a prominent place in the Ten Commandments. Kudos for that, at least.
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I could easily acquire help from the Bible.....
give me something objective to go by.
I'm pretty sure that ship sailed when you claimed it was okay for Christians to cheat people with crooked weights. Yes, you "could easily acquire help from the Bible", but you've decided to abandon that standard. At least selectively.
[ 13. June 2017, 03:24: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
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.
Let's play Find the Biblical Quote! Which of these sayings is in the Bible?
A. It is very difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
B. It is very difficult for a man who lies with another man as with a woman to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
C. The love of money is the root of every evil.
D. Men lying with other men as a man lies with a woman is the root of all evil.
If you picked B and D, you are a fucking moron!
[ 13. June 2017, 05:20: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
wabale
Shipmate
# 18715
|
Posted
Originally posted by Aijalon:
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.
Biblical interpretation of apparently anti-gay passages is complicated by the fact that the Greek text itself is not crystal clear. While Paul gives the impression of knowing exactly what he is writing about, it is disputed by experts, leaving the rest of us to get highly creative. It occured to me that it would be very interesting if we could find out how people nearer to the time and to the nuances of language interpreted these passages. If homosexuality was regarded as the “arch-enemy” I would expect it to be represented in any writings by Church Fathers in the 1st century, and especially in any literature designed for the education of new Christians, if such things existed. It turns out, I have discovered, that there are two documents which most (?) scholars think are 1st century, and can be described in the way indicated above, namely 1 Clement and the Didache.
So Aijalon - and this may be a trick question - what do you think, judging from these two documents, the first generation after the apostles thought about ‘homosexuality’?
Posts: 74 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you picked B and D, you are a fucking moron!
(Sigh)
You know you can't, mousethief. If you'd replaced "you are a fucking moron" with "you would be making a fucking moronic choice", you'd have stayed the right side of the Commandment 3 line i.e. that statement is stupid (OK), you are stupid (not OK).
You are free to make use of the Hell thread, but not here again
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Aijalon
For the time being only, I am giving you some benefit of the doubt; you seem to me to be posting provocatively, but this may be inexperience, rather than deliberate. I am alerting Admin to the contents of this threat and asking them to monitor that issue.
Meanwhile, I urge you to read the earlier posts in this thread within which many different viewpoints are argued respectfully and without provocation. There have been many serious and well thought out contributions to this thread that have been expressed respectfully and without provocation. You may learn something from them, both in terms of content and means of expression. One of our Commandments, Commandment 5, has a wise title. "Don't offend easily, don't be easily offended."
That is a part of getting to know other Shipmates. There can be a fine line between acceptable unrest on the one hand, and provocation just for the sake of it. Watch it.
Barnabas62
Dead Horses Host
[ 13. June 2017, 11:01: 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
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
Links make some people apoplectic, but for those who don't swallow their own tongue at the prospect of losing a few minutes they'll never get back, here's an exposition of one Christian perspective in a discussion between a gay TV presenter and a Catholic bishop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYWBNMOCrlo
Spoiler warning: no cups were thrown.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
Links make some people apoplectic
My personal rules on links:
Textual links are ok. I can skim those until I get to the important bit, and then I can quickly assess whether it's as important as the poster thinks it is. Also, if I want to take issue with it with the original poster I can copy and paste the passage in the thread.
I never follow links to videos, because I can't assess it quickly and I can't copy and paste.
Another problem with all links is that this is a discussion and debate board. It's not a listing of resources board. If you post a link, I can't debate with the person on the other side of the link: I can only debate with you. Fairly often we see someone post a link, and then when challenged on some of the material in the link, they say that it doesn't reflect their opinion, they were only posting it as an example of an opinion. That doesn't help debate.
If you post a link you should make clear to what extent you're prepared to own the contents.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
Links make some people apoplectic
My personal rules on links:
Textual links are ok. I can skim those until I get to the important bit, and then I can quickly assess whether it's as important as the poster thinks it is. Also, if I want to take issue with it with the original poster I can copy and paste the passage in the thread.
I never follow links to videos, because I can't assess it quickly and I can't copy and paste.
Another problem with all links is that this is a discussion and debate board. It's not a listing of resources board. If you post a link, I can't debate with the person on the other side of the link: I can only debate with you. Fairly often we see someone post a link, and then when challenged on some of the material in the link, they say that it doesn't reflect their opinion, they were only posting it as an example of an opinion. That doesn't help debate.
If you post a link you should make clear to what extent you're prepared to own the contents.
I made the content explicit. The issue here is people can evade each others position almost indefinitely by calling them apostates, heretics, pinheads, medievalists and moral delinquents, without ever once engaging in what the other person is saying. This link is worth a look IMO, because it explores hot button topics between two people who should have nothing to say to one another according to popular opinion, but who air their differences without once showing any desire to kill one another.
You can agree with the terms of the debate or call it Jesuitical bullshit, but it may be a lightning conductor away from knee jerk fear and loathing. You'll only know by looking.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
Links make some people apoplectic, but for those who don't swallow their own tongue at the prospect of losing a few minutes they'll never get back, here's an exposition of one Christian perspective in a discussion between a gay TV presenter and a Catholic bishop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYWBNMOCrlo
Spoiler warning: no cups were thrown.
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
I made the content explicit.
Saying something represents "one Christian perspective" isn't "explicit", it's vague and clickbaitish. It seems a bit off to expect multiple other people to take a half an hour out of their day to watch a video you aren't willing to take five minutes out of yours to summarize what you think are the key points. If you think the arguments are convincing, state them! Maybe even with time indexed references to your video if you feel the need to cite your sources.
--------------------
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:
Links make some people apoplectic, but for those who don't swallow their own tongue at the prospect of losing a few minutes they'll never get back, here's an exposition of one Christian perspective in a discussion between a gay TV presenter and a Catholic bishop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYWBNMOCrlo
Spoiler warning: no cups were thrown.
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
I made the content explicit.
Saying something represents "one Christian perspective" isn't "explicit", it's vague and clickbaitish. It seems a bit off to expect multiple other people to take a half an hour out of their day to watch a video you aren't willing to take five minutes out of yours to summarize what you think are the key points. If you think the arguments are convincing, state them! Maybe even with time indexed references to your video if you feel the need to cite your sources.
Seriously, I can't be fucked. If people need time fucking indexing as bait to watch video between a gay guy and a bishop, no sweeteners from me will tempt them. Absolutely no fucking way to that. Ever. But thanks for asking.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
Seriously, I can't be fucked. If people need time fucking indexing as bait to watch video between a gay guy and a bishop, no sweeteners from me will tempt them. Absolutely no fucking way to that. Ever. But thanks for asking.
Way to go. Impressive bit of missing the point.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
Seriously, I can't be fucked. If people need time fucking indexing as bait to watch video between a gay guy and a bishop, no sweeteners from me will tempt them. Absolutely no fucking way to that. Ever. But thanks for asking.
Way to go. Impressive bit of missing the point.
A stalker. Cute.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
A stalker. Cute.
Excuse me?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
A stalker. Cute.
Excuse me?
Two identical accusations of missing the point on two different threads without the slightest justification for either suggests obsession. I'm flattered.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
Two identical accusations of missing the point on two different threads without the slightest justification for either suggests obsession. I'm flattered.
It is quite easy to understand the culture here: we don't post links to videos unless we explain the context of why they're important.
Because anyone can post links to things.
Why are you any different? Nobody is saying you can't post the link, all that is being asked is that you have the manners to explain why it should be considered relevant.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
Two identical accusations of missing the point on two different threads without the slightest justification for either suggests obsession. I'm flattered.
It is quite easy to understand the culture here: we don't post links to videos unless we explain the context of why they're important.
Because anyone can post links to things.
Why are you any different? Nobody is saying you can't post the link, all that is being asked is that you have the manners to explain why it should be considered relevant.
The thread is called Biblical interpretation of apparently anti-gay passages in the bible. I post a link I made clear is a discussion between a gay man and a bishop on hot button topics. If people think the content of the link has nothing to do with the thread title, or demand it's served in bite sized chunks on a baby spoon with choo-choo noises or they'll spit it right back out and squeal like a stuck pig at the offence, they can bollocks. That isn't forum parsimony, it's control freakery and politicking.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
The thread is called Biblical interpretation of apparently anti-gay passages in the bible. I post a link I made clear is a discussion between a gay man and a bishop on hot button topics. If people think the content of the link has nothing to do with the thread title, or demand it's served in bite sized chunks on a baby spoon with choo-choo noises or they'll spit it right back out and squeal like a stuck pig at the offence, they can bollocks. That isn't forum parsimony, it's control freakery and politicking.
No it isn't. Do you realise how many relevant videos there are on youtube? Are you saying that you're going to watch the entirety of a video that everyone else posts?
It's about manners and laziness. You're basically saying "look, this is the last word on the subject, watch and learn."
If you had actually said "Father x made a good point about this and said blahdidblah in this video about 5 minutes in" then we could have a discussion about it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
OK, I'm going to step in here. This is in my official capacity as an Admin
1. Discussion of when and how to post links is not relevant to this thread, and belongs in the Styx. In fact, I'm going to go and start just such a thread.
2. Calling someone a stalker is a personal comment, and inappropriate outside of Hell. So, cut that sort of stuff out as well or take it to Hell.
Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
the thrust of what I'm saying is that sexuality is really at the core of who we are, so it's very important.
Yes, you're right. Sexuality is at the core of who we are. We agree on that.
But, that seems to be the big inconsistency of your argument. I don't see how anyone could accept that and then describe people as "wired to serve material lusts", and not honouring God (to choose just two of the phrases you have used to describe other people, and not the worst). Which is it? Sexuality the core of who we are, or something that is an expression of material lusts?
Biblical heterosexuality is an impingement on basic instinctual lust for pleasure - limits pleasure into an orientation, which I have explained is directed toward a God glorifying objective.
Arousal is a material lust. Yes, gay or straight we all have said lust. I think you may have not quite connected the dots I made from the earlier thread where I have made the case that it is not simply sexual urges, but a unity between a man and woman that actually express the image of God in design, function, purpose, and magnificence.
In other words, God just wants it that way, and that's expressed pretty clearly.
Man and wife >> one flesh >> image of God >> god likeness
It really isn't that homosexual sex doesn't serve our natural instincts - it does! But that's all it does. It so happens that the instinct for sexual pleasure has a principal regulation as heterosexual only, it has a target. Love on the other hand is unrelated. You may love who you wish, and hopefully you love your wife, but sex doesn't equate to love as homosexuals often stress. Men may love, and sex is unrelated. Love is self LESS ness, simply.
to hit some other reponses at a glance....
There are of course discontinuities in the world that may cause us to be "eunichs" (celibate) for the kingdom sake, just as Jesus was celibate.
marriage and child raising is a common place concern and drain on a family.
Not having a family allows for more effective mission AGAINST the world mindset for lust.
So ... to address several posts together..
Exceptions found in the Bible that don't align to simple mongomous marriage.... might be a variety of things, none of which remove marriage as holy objective.
There is this mission God set out on called redemption, and sometimes even the plain old material procreation has to take a back seat....
--------------------
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
Jesus didn't say celibacy was an alternative. He said it was preferable. This hardly jibes with your interpretation of sex being a reflection of God. Wait! Sex is the image of God...Is Pornhub a place of worship, then?
Does give a whole new meaning to exclaiming "Oh, my God, I'm coming".
[ 13. June 2017, 20:58: 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
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Coming late to this, erm, discussion (because I've been hoping for the last decade or two -- apparently in vain -- that this set of issues might dwindle into the background noise of simple societal acceptance), I find myself puzzled about Aijilon's sig.
"All free wills go to hell."
Since that pesky "all" appears, that seems to include the "free wills" who, er, freely choose to "obey Jesus."
Or am I missing something here?
And btw, are you, Aijilon, suggesting that sexual orientation is a choice, that is, an expression of free will?
I probably could be more clear with the sig, but honestly it irks people, so I have left it. Love the question.
The notion there is not free will alone, but really "independent-free-will". Independence from God is really what most people seem to mean by free will these days, accordingly, this independence might cost them eternal life. I believe God's mission is to, in a sense, domesticate mankind to suit his especially lofty plans, whatever those might be.
I don't pretend that the Bible does't have God essentially saying this to Creation: "World - I own you".
My sig isn't intended to be related to any one topic especially, but yes, of course our sexual activity is a choice. Our orientation, instinctual urge to freek ....possibly influenced in ways that are beyond a choice, sure. I happen to believe that the social fabric of society, within a sexual laissez-faire social framework, gravitates itself to a primitive instinctual lust built in to us. I think that urge was intended to work within a guided, godly, family social framework.... etc. (presently mocked as a conservative, antiquated, or, "bigoted" framework... also refer to last post).
--------------------
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 lilBuddha:
Jesus didn't say celibacy was an alternative. He said it was preferable. This hardly jibes with your interpretation of sex being a reflection of God. Wait! Sex is the image of God...Is Pornhub a place of worship, then?
preferable with a certain mission in mind. Context context context.
--------------------
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
Some Christians conveniently ignore some bits and not others with very little evidence as to why. Or rather, with a particular logic which they then deny as valid when it supports POV with which they disagree.
I'll be back in a while to post more of a response.
--------------------
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
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Aijalon
For the time being only, I am giving you some benefit of the doubt; you seem to me to be posting provocatively, but this may be inexperience, rather than deliberate. I am alerting Admin to the contents of this threat and asking them to monitor that issue.
Meanwhile, I urge you to read the earlier posts in this thread within which many different viewpoints are argued respectfully and without provocation. There have been many serious and well thought out contributions to this thread that have been expressed respectfully and without provocation. You may learn something from them, both in terms of content and means of expression. One of our Commandments, Commandment 5, has a wise title. "Don't offend easily, don't be easily offended."
That is a part of getting to know other Shipmates. There can be a fine line between acceptable unrest on the one hand, and provocation just for the sake of it. Watch it.
Barnabas62
Dead Horses Host
Just now catching up, and... noted. I am mincing words, but not much, provocative is probably accurate, I expect heat I guess.
Inexperienced? Maybe so!
--------------------
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 wabale:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
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.
Biblical interpretation of apparently anti-gay passages is complicated by the fact that the Greek text itself is not crystal clear. While Paul gives the impression of knowing exactly what he is writing about, it is disputed by experts, leaving the rest of us to get highly creative. It occured to me that it would be very interesting if we could find out how people nearer to the time and to the nuances of language interpreted these passages. If homosexuality was regarded as the “arch-enemy” I would expect it to be represented in any writings by Church Fathers in the 1st century, and especially in any literature designed for the education of new Christians, if such things existed. It turns out, I have discovered, that there are two documents which most (?) scholars think are 1st century, and can be described in the way indicated above, namely 1 Clement and the Didache.
So Aijalon - and this may be a trick question - what do you think, judging from these two documents, the first generation after the apostles thought about ‘homosexuality’?
I was only talking about more recent conservative Christians, in so much as their reaction in many cases to the gay pride movement and various roll backs of church and state disapproval of homosexuality has triggered a more recent "arch enemy" political danger sense.
I will have to refrain from a more full response to your post for the sake of time and ability, but not a lack of desire. It might be soon that out of a lack of capacity I will have to stop trying to resurrect a dead horse!
But this is a dead horse discussion, so I took it as useless at the outset!
All the best with fingers flying.
A.
--------------------
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 Golden Key:
Aijalon--
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Some Christians feel being homosexual is like a mental disorder. I do not feel that way, though of course there are sexual-mental disorders....
And *some* of those Christians are working from a place of compassion, whether or not they're right about it being a disorder. (I don't think it is.)
Yet *you*, Aijalon, show no compassion whatsoever.
What's up with that?
want to address you there. I have not shown any compassion yet, as no one has asked for any, rather I am currently addressing the incompatibility of "gay pride" with Christianity. There is air of superiority, and a sort of "case closed" mentality by quite a few.
yes, yes, it's a dead horse. But it's more about how offended people are.
I think the titles of both threads I jumped into reflect a certain "sensitivity" to gay pride in that they say "apparently" anti gay, and in how posters say "Paul 'seemed' to oppose homosexuality".
It really is pretty simple to me, the Bible is certainly opposed, and while we don't see a perfectly clear picture of how we should deal with homosexuality, I see many arguments about various passages as dishonest.
Compassion is interesting, and certainly a higher calling. But the thread was about the interpretation of anti gay passages.
For the sake of time can you direct me to a thread [here] in which those who are still opposed to homeosexuality as disorder {it is but it isn't mental] might explore ways to be compassionate.
It would be much better, really, and probably it isn't a dead horse ![[Smile]](smile.gif) If there isn't one, we can start one.
--------------------
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 mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
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.
Let's play Find the Biblical Quote! Which of these sayings is in the Bible?
A. It is very difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
B. It is very difficult for a man who lies with another man as with a woman to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
C. The love of money is the root of every evil.
D. Men lying with other men as a man lies with a woman is the root of all evil.
If you picked B and D, you are a fucking moron!
You missed the point. Lets get real simple.
Money is an evil necessity, is NOT good, is in no way helpful for you to get closer to God.
Sex is GOOD, designed by God, and helps us connect to God.
If you feel so mad ignore my post, reread yours.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I have made the case that it is not simply sexual urges, but a unity between a man and woman that actually express the image of God in design, function, purpose, and magnificence.
I do not think is supportable from the text.
If you take the image of God passage from Genesis there are at least two other readings which are equally likely:
Each person, whether male or female, is in the image of God;
All of humanity collectively is in the image of God.
Both of those readings are compatible with seeing Jesus as the first of the new humanity, as the image of the invisible God.
Your reading in which it is a single man and woman who are in the image of God is not compatible with seeing Jesus as the new unsullied image.
Your reading seems to imply a general moral duty to marry and have children if one can, which is nowhere stated explicitly in the Bible. (Children are presented in the Bible as a blessing not as a duty.)
I will note that as far as I know the 'image of God' has never been given the meaning that you're giving it. I can't help thinking that you're reading it that way because you already think homosexuality is bad, rather than thinking homosexuality is bad because you read that passage this way.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Aijalon--
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Some Christians feel being homosexual is like a mental disorder. I do not feel that way, though of course there are sexual-mental disorders....
And *some* of those Christians are working from a place of compassion, whether or not they're right about it being a disorder. (I don't think it is.)
Yet *you*, Aijalon, show no compassion whatsoever.
What's up with that?
want to address you there. I have not shown any compassion yet, as no one has asked for any, rather I am currently addressing the incompatibility of "gay pride" with Christianity. There is air of superiority, and a sort of "case closed" mentality by quite a few.
yes, yes, it's a dead horse. But it's more about how offended people are.
I think the titles of both threads I jumped into reflect a certain "sensitivity" to gay pride in that they say "apparently" anti gay, and in how posters say "Paul 'seemed' to oppose homosexuality".
It really is pretty simple to me, the Bible is certainly opposed, and while we don't see a perfectly clear picture of how we should deal with homosexuality, I see many arguments about various passages as dishonest.
Compassion is interesting, and certainly a higher calling. But the thread was about the interpretation of anti gay passages.
For the sake of time can you direct me to a thread [here] in which those who are still opposed to homeosexuality as disorder {it is but it isn't mental] might explore ways to be compassionate.
It would be much better, really, and probably it isn't a dead horse If there isn't one, we can start one.
Aijalon, a couple of points.
a) Compassion
I think it's reasonable to say that compassion should be present whether asked for or not. When discussing what is clearly an emotive and deeply personal subject, particularly for those who are gay, then it behoves one to demonstrate compassion in how that discussion is undertaken. Regardless of the some-time bile of one's interlocutors.
b) the clarity of Scripture
A great many learned and scholarly people have written many hundreds of thousands of words on many aspects of "what the Bible says". Not just regarding homosexuality, but other topics. However, even within the topic of homosexuality it is, er, clear, that the Bible is not clear on the subject, given the number of differing, well-argued, 'Biblical' positions on the matter.
If you're genuinely interested in understanding how a number of well-regarded people (not on the Ship, in Real Life(TM)) come to a conclusion different to yours then I'm sure plenty of people will be willing to give you pointers to books, articles and resources. You may read them and not be persuaded, but you will at least be better informed.
I don't know whether you're interested in understanding the underpinnings of alternative readings and interpretations of the Bible regarding homosexuality, or whether you're just interested in strongly bolstering the "traditional" view against all-comers. Either way, a bit of a literature review and dialogue might not go amiss, whatever your goal/desire.
(And yes, some correspondents on the Ship can be quite spikey on this subject. Not surprising, really, given that for some it's not just an intellectual exercise, it speaks to the very core of themselves and also the weight others press onto them in their assumptions and assertions. Sometimes when people are being spikey it's because they're arseholes. But sometimes it's because the person being spiked has been unintentionally crass, and a bit of self-reflection doesn't hurt).
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
You missed the point.
Uh-huh. I doubt it very much.
quote:
Money is an evil necessity, is NOT good, is in no way helpful for you to get closer to God.
Sex is GOOD, designed by God, and helps us connect to God.
Then why are A&C in the Bible but not B&D?
Don't presume to tell me what my emotions are.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
wabale
Shipmate
# 18715
|
Posted
Originally posted by Aijalon: quote:
I have made the case that it is not simply sexual urges, but a unity between a man and woman that actually express the image of God in design, function, purpose, and magnificence.
Originally posted by Dafyd: quote:
I will note that as far as I know the 'image of God' has never been given the meaning that you're giving it. I can't help thinking that you're reading it that way because you already think homosexuality is bad, rather than thinking homosexuality is bad because you read that passage this way.
To be fair, I have come across this idea, in Robert Gagnon’s ‘The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics’: "Male and female he created them" probably intimates that the fullness of God's "image" comes together in the union of male and female in marriage (not, one could infer, from same-sex unions).” But I can’t help thinking Gagnon reads it that way because he already thinks homosexuality is bad!
[ 14. June 2017, 13:59: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posts: 74 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
[qb] I have made the case that it is not simply sexual urges, but a unity between a man and woman that actually express the image of God in design, function, purpose, and magnificence.
I do not think is supportable from the text.
I believe it is. Saying otherwise is not quite overthinking it, it's twisting it.
Gen 1:26-27 make it clear that the image of God is two fold in "them", male and female. Obviously the morphology of male and female sharing so many similarities they each have unique aspects of the image of God - if they did not then the two together could not complete the image of God.
quote:
If you take the image of God passage from Genesis there are at least two other readings which are equally likely:
Each person, whether male or female, is in the image of God;
All of humanity collectively is in the image of God.
The first statement is true, but again, neither male or female is the full picture.
The second statement holds more plausibility, but that isn't found in Genesis as the creation account in Gen 1 for instance, is about species creation and the image of man as far as biological creature. The second statement depends on a definition of man as a social creature (or socio-cultural collective). The collective has regulations upon it, just as the biological has regulations upon it.
quote:
Both of those readings are compatible with seeing Jesus as the first of the new humanity, as the image of the invisible God.
Your reading in which it is a single man and woman who are in the image of God is not compatible with seeing Jesus as the new unsullied image.
Each of the statements has some of the truth to it. Jesus though, for his part, expressed that he was celibate because he was on a mission for the Gospel, he came to correct a dysfunction in man's ability to talk to God, it is part of the apostolic mantle.
Secondly, and partly about the second statement - Jesus as God is in a relationship to all creation (all of us) collectively, therefore as a matter of his essence and divinity, he has no need for material marraige, when marriage and sex are a reflection of the committment and covenant of God with his creation. (the woman crowned with stars)
In short, using Jesus as a pattern of humans that is AGAINST the direct evidence in the Genesis account for male female marriage as an ideal is unscrupulous.
quote:
Your reading seems to imply a general moral duty to marry and have children if one can, which is nowhere stated explicitly in the Bible. (Children are presented in the Bible as a blessing not as a duty.)
It was a moral duty for Adam and Eve, a dominion mandate. It continues to be a mandate, though perhaps not always to be considered personal to each of us. Never the less, anyone that has children is fulfilling that mandate and should take it as a matter of duty and honor and reverence to God as creator.
quote:
I will note that as far as I know the 'image of God' has never been given the meaning that you're giving it. I can't help thinking that you're reading it that way because you already think homosexuality is bad, rather than thinking homosexuality is bad because you read that passage this way.
True, you cannot get a picture of homosexuality as bad in Genesis, but there was only one man. Neither could I make a case that masturbation is or isn't bad for Adam. I can only rely on what I see as common sense as to the intent of God in the biological design of mankind in dual format. This would direct us to the discussion of the designed use of an anus - a topic the bible doesn't really cover.
I acknowledged that there it is not always clear how we are to deal with sex because so little is said about it in the Bible and often in a limited context. I see that you take the stance that there is really "nothing to deal with". I believe that the oral history of man passed down from Noah to the Hebrews left behind just a few nuggets demonstrating that homosexuality is simply put - forbidden.
I hear what you're saying, and it is true that I come from an approach that starts out with the perspective that it is forbidden. I have departed from many things due to relearning interpretative skills and doing so for myself, but doesn't mean I deleted everything I learned.
It was said above that many smart people have carefully laid out different interpretations I should listen to, I shall do so as time permits, and perhaps you are one of those smart people. I will only say that I think humanity is often too smart for its own good, and human reason is merely razzle dazzle at times. I think homosexual urges as strong as they are, and even biological as they are, have found ways to razzle dazzle the text as a means of self-justification.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
I think homosexual urges as strong as they are, and even biological as they are, have found ways to razzle dazzle the text as a means of self-justification.
Utter, utter nonsense. When the text begins to mean more to you than people it's time to ditch the text.
If the text were telling you to ignore or deny your sexuality you'd soon drop it like a hot pan. We don't need to tie ourselves in knots using texts to justify our prejudices - if you need a good example of how to refrain from this, see Jesus.
[ 14. June 2017, 15:49: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I have made the case that it is not simply sexual urges, but a unity between a man and woman that actually express the image of God in design, function, purpose, and magnificence.
I do not think is supportable from the text.
Gen 1:26-27 make it clear that the image of God is two fold in "them", male and female. Obviously the morphology of male and female sharing so many similarities they each have unique aspects of the image of God - if they did not then the two together could not complete the image of God.
I do not see that it supports your argument let alone makes it clear. The best that can be said for it is that you can interpret it that way.
You have to take it that 'male and female he created them' is an exact restatement of 'in the image of God he created them'. But it is equally natural to take it that it's a clarification that both male and female equally bear the image of God (that God is not gendered).
The rest of your paragraph seems to assume the truth of your interpretation rather than argue for it.
quote:
quote:
If you take the image of God passage from Genesis there are at least two other readings which are equally likely:
Each person, whether male or female, is in the image of God;
All of humanity collectively is in the image of God.
The first statement is true, but again, neither male or female is the full picture.
The second statement holds more plausibility, but that isn't found in Genesis as the creation account in Gen 1 for instance, is about species creation and the image of man as far as biological creature. The second statement depends on a definition of man as a social creature (or socio-cultural collective). The collective has regulations upon it, just as the biological has regulations upon it.
If the first statement is true, then your argument about the image inhering solely in the male-female couple falls apart.
I do not see quite where you think your argument about the second statement is going. The Genesis text does not make the distinction you're foisting on it about biological vs social. (I don't think the distinction holds given that being social is part of the human biological nature.)
quote:
quote:
Both of those readings are compatible with seeing Jesus as the first of the new humanity, as the image of the invisible God.
Your reading in which it is a single man and woman who are in the image of God is not compatible with seeing Jesus as the new unsullied image.
Each of the statements has some of the truth to it. Jesus though, for his part, expressed that he was celibate because he was on a mission for the Gospel, he came to correct a dysfunction in man's ability to talk to God, it is part of the apostolic mantle.
This doesn't affect the point. If the image of God is only inherent in those who are married to a person of the biological opposite sex then it doesn't matter whether marriage is avoided for good reasons or bad; the image does not inhere in someone who wasn't married.
quote:
Secondly, and partly about the second statement - Jesus as God is in a relationship to all creation (all of us) collectively, therefore as a matter of his essence and divinity, he has no need for material marraige, when marriage and sex are a reflection of the committment and covenant of God with his creation. (the woman crowned with stars)
If that counts as a marriage it is therefore follows that being biologically male and female is not required for marriage.
quote:
In short, using Jesus as a pattern of humans that is AGAINST the direct evidence in the Genesis account for male female marriage as an ideal is unscrupulous.
'Unscrupulous' implies dishonesty. The only reason you've given for thinking its 'unscrupulous' is that you don't agree with the conclusion.
quote:
quote:
Your reading seems to imply a general moral duty to marry and have children if one can, which is nowhere stated explicitly in the Bible. (Children are presented in the Bible as a blessing not as a duty.)
It was a moral duty for Adam and Eve, a dominion mandate. It continues to be a mandate, though perhaps not always to be considered personal to each of us.
And if it's not always personal to each of us then your entire line of argument collapses.
quote:
quote:
I will note that as far as I know the 'image of God' has never been given the meaning that you're giving it. I can't help thinking that you're reading it that way because you already think homosexuality is bad, rather than thinking homosexuality is bad because you read that passage this way.
True, you cannot get a picture of homosexuality as bad in Genesis, but there was only one man.
Well, I agree you can't. I'll note that you've just changed the subject from the argument you're ostensibly responding to, which is whether or not anyone else has come up with your reading of the image of God.
quote:
This would direct us to the discussion of the designed use of an anus - a topic the bible doesn't really cover.
I laughed. The minds of people who argue against homosexuality predictably gravitate towards the anus.
People on the Ship have referred to studies showing that a higher proportion of heterosexual couples have anal sex than homosexual couples do. Condemnation of anal sex is orthogonal to condemnation of homosexuality.
In any case I'm told that there are a lot of pleasure receptors round the anus. If the anus is designed then what are the pleasure receptors there for? The penis is equally used for getting rid of waste, you know. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be used in sex.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Gen 1:26-27 make it clear that the image of God is two fold in "them", male and female. Obviously the morphology of male and female sharing so many similarities they each have unique aspects of the image of God - if they did not then the two together could not complete the image of God.
So...God is a hermaphrodite? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
[qb] I have made the case that it is not simply sexual urges, but a unity between a man and woman that actually express the image of God in design, function, purpose, and magnificence.
I do not think is supportable from the text.
I believe it is. Saying otherwise is not quite overthinking it, it's twisting it.
Gen 1:26-27 make it clear that the image of God is two fold in "them", male and female. Obviously the morphology of male and female sharing so many similarities they each have unique aspects of the image of God - if they did not then the two together could not complete the image of God.
quote:
If you take the image of God passage from Genesis there are at least two other readings which are equally likely:
Each person, whether male or female, is in the image of God;
All of humanity collectively is in the image of God.
The first statement is true, but again, neither male or female is the full picture.
It's nice to know that, as a single woman without children, I am "not the full picture". ![[Frown]](frown.gif) Indeed, the image of God is not complete in me, and I have failed in "design, function, purpose, and magnificence". Oh well.
Men and women are not two halves of a whole (that's pagan thinking), but entire in themselves. I promise you that I don't need a husband to "complete" me.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Cottontail:
A woman cannot be expected to understand without a man to explain things to her. This is why God the Father created Adam first. I bet the serpent's sin was convincing Eve she didn't need mansplaining.
--------------------
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
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
...
Gen 1:26-27 make it clear that the image of God is two fold in "them", male and female. Obviously the morphology of male and female sharing so many similarities they each have unique aspects of the image of God - if they did not then the two together could not complete the image of God.
... The first statement is true, but again, neither male or female is the full picture...
As has been pointed out, this implies that a single person alone is an incomplete image of God. If we can only become the image of God while fucking P-I-V, you are essentially telling us that God's image is the beast with two backs.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
You are using logic. I can find nothing in his arguments that do the same.
It may be the single most bizarre example of reasoning that I have ever seen.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
[qb] I have made the case that it is not simply sexual urges, but a unity between a man and woman that actually express the image of God in design, function, purpose, and magnificence.
I do not think is supportable from the text.
I believe it is. Saying otherwise is not quite overthinking it, it's twisting it.
Ah, the old "if you don't agree with me you're twisting scripture" argument. That argument, I'm sure, has convinced very few people in the history of Biblical interpretation debate.
quote:
Jesus though, for his part, expressed that he was celibate because he was on a mission for the Gospel, he came to correct a dysfunction in man's ability to talk to God, it is part of the apostolic mantle.
Where did he say that?
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
If we can only become the image of God while fucking P-I-V, you are essentially telling us that God's image is the beast with two backs.
So, if Aaron's golden bull had been astride a golden heifer, it wouldn't have been idolotry!!!
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I bet the serpent's sin was convincing Eve she didn't need mansplaining.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
This made my day. Thank you.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Aijalon--
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
want to address you there. I have not shown any compassion yet, as no one has asked for any, rather I am currently addressing the incompatibility of "gay pride" with Christianity. There is air of superiority, and a sort of "case closed" mentality by quite a few.
yes, yes, it's a dead horse. But it's more about how offended people are.
But you're missing the central point: these laws, whatever you think of them, are about **people**, if they're from a good and loving God.
The rules were made for people, not the other way around.
Like everyone else who's ever lived, you've sinned, made mistakes, committed moral and behavioral errors, messed up (whatever term you prefer). You probably have, did have, or will have some sort of "besetting sin".
Now, let's say your particular problem was as controversial in Christianity as homosexuality. Some people thought you were bound for eternal fire; others thought you shouldn't be around "decent people"; and others thought "ew, ick!".
Meanwhile, you've struggled to figure out what's going on, and what you should do about it. And there's hope that maybe--just maybe--the "problem" really isn't one, isn't a sin, after all. Maybe the rules reflect society 2000+ years ago, and don't apply now. Maybe what you're doing truly doesn't hurt anyone. Maybe the rules on your problem were mistakes.
You hope so, because you've fought hard to not think "ew, ick" about yourself, to let go of the way you've been treated, and to get past suicidal feelings.
How would you want to be treated?
A strict, hard-as-granite interpretation of the rules, without any regard for you as a fellow human being? Sent off to a residential program that promises to "cure" you (though it really doesn't)? Shunned?
Or treated as a human being, with compassion?
I Corinthians 13. Especially verse 13.
I don't know anything about you, Aijalon, but your arguments and behavior on the Ship are more in the clanging cymbal department. The quote from you at the beginning of this post is a good example. No compassion, because no one's asked for it????
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
IMHO, the "air of superiority" is yours.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
