|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Biblical interpretation of apparently anti-gay passages
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The offset, once grown up from the root of the parent plant, is an independent plant. This works in gardening all the time. My fig tree is not a continuation of its parent plant. It is a separate tree.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
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.
A perfect example of totally missing the point.
Such a crass "implication" as it were, is only plausible if one takes a materialistic view of man's body as merely an object.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Such a crass "implication" as it were, is only plausible if one takes a materialistic view of man's body as merely an object.
But this is exactly what you are doing.
I think. As you've yet to form a coherent argument, it is rather difficult to tell.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
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.
This must be wrong.
Saying that humans come in two sexes is like saying that they come with two arms and two legs - it's mostly true in the general case, but not complete.
Some people are born with missing limbs, or parts of limbs missing. They are not any less in the image of God because of it.
Some people are born with one of the various intersex conditions, and it is not biologically accurate to describe them as either "male" or "female". These people are not any less in the image of God either.
And God knows this, and therefore your interpretation of that passage cannot be accurate.
The only way I can read that passage in the light of the things that we know about human biology is to read "male and female he created them" as something like "God created all people, and they are equal in the sight of God" rather than one sex being subordinate to the other.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
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.
A perfect example of totally missing the point.
Such a crass "implication" as it were, is only plausible if one takes a materialistic view of man's body as merely an object.
In other words, you have no counter-argument. Because if you did, you wouldn't just reply, "oh, you missed the point, that's so materialistic". You're the one that brought in morphology - if that's not materialistic, what is?
Your point is that an individual human of any sex is not a complete image of God and that only the combo of a male and a female "together" (which I can only assume means fucking, since you haven't mentioned e.g. siblings or friends) can form an image of God. I assure you, I have not missed your point; I just think it's ridiculous.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Has Aliajon deserted us? It's been a week since he posted on this thread. Hopefully he's just busy, or on holiday.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
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.
Yes, perfectly true. I think the answer to how the laws are good for people is really only possible to know by exploring the perfect administration of the law, and the effect of the overall restriction of something for its overall benefit to the whole, rather than any one person, couple, family, business, or city. The law only works to benefit everyone if it is enacted as a comprehensive whole. Taken in isolation, many of the laws just seem horrid, I understand that. We're just so far removed from meaningful observation of how the community worked, in favor of the limited observations of our own times, that we just cannot see the good. It takes a lot of effort to see the good in them, and most either shrug off the laws as obscure and meaningless, or else summarily reject the law as an exorcise is doing things horribly wrong.
quote:
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".
Yes, of course.
quote:
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.
sounds like a perfect analogy to many real lives. It also sounds like a conscience issue is built in here. I would argue that homosexuality is built into the human conscience, just as there are other activities also built in. But, I cannot get in between a person's own conscience, and God, it is between them and me. Believing this to be the case, though, should not cause me to stop appealing to that person to check their conscience. I think the scriptures, on a whole, make an appeal to the human conscience that homosexuality is not an intended activity for human beings, and is a sin.
To clarify I think that what you mean by "hurt" you mean that there is no observable damage to anyone in particular, that we can see or measure.
I will put it in perspective. Cursing. In truth, I deal with using foul language and at times this has hurt people who have heard what I have said, even though it was not directed at them. Language is public. We have laws on language. I don't believe it is truly the state's job to regulate language, it is the community's job. Never the less, some specific words are too explicit for radio, etc.... which is all based ultimately on the community's view of language. It is a tradition coded into the law.
Homosexuality could be viewed the same way I think (you tell if you think this fits).
We have had laws against it, just as you have laws against cursing. But no one says you can't curse in private. I feel that homosexuality is the same way. The damage is caused in a public way, and on the public conscience, on children, and on the impressionable, in much the same way that crude language is a public sin, homosexuality is a public sin.
quote:
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.
Now then, cursing in private harms no one - but me. I would not expect the law to speak on the language I use in private. I could (and have) reasoned that if I am at peace with cursing in private, I can do so conscience free. Or can I? If I can merely stop feeling remorse about it, does that make it ok? In this specific case, I konw that cursing in private is still an issue of self control, and in connection with the scriptures that speak against cursing and on self control, I know that the issue is a problem with anger and with self control. I think the same situation applies to sexual urges. Pornography is one example. I have by and large beaten pornography back off, but society is pornographic in general, so the temptation is always there. If I watch porn in private have I harmed myself? Have I harmed anyone else? Have I contributed to the harm in society, and the exploitation of women who have been abused, trapped, or even enslaved into the sex trade?
Those are not clean one to one analogies mind you, but I'm speaking about the conscience, as you seem to be targeting it. If I appease my conscience "somehow", is that all there is to it with eliminating sin?
I propose that, no, it is not that easy to just dismiss sin. Neither do I say that I have the right to demonize someone who has a sin problem in any one area, when they are dealing with it between them and God.
I'm being targeted here as a bigoted hater of homosexuals because I believe that it is a sin, and should be handled conscientiously before God, and preached against by the church (like all sin).
quote:
How would you want to be treated?
If anything I've every said to anyone in real life was hurtful when dealing with suicidal feelings, shame on me - that's first off. I cannot recall ever doing anything like that. It is possible that in my younger years I have said some things around someone that was gay, and hurt them. I can recall an uncomfortable look from a cousin from the west coast who is not a Christian when I said something "ick" about homosexuality, and I look back and I presume it was because she saw me as a backwards and didn't want to call me a bigot to my face. I'm different now thanks to the counter-shaming campaign on Conservative Christians. I tread more carefully, I see human flaws and sins hopefully closer to where Jesus would have seen them.
I don't take internet conversations that way though, and if someone come to a boards like this I think the debate atmosphere should tell you to expect to have your feathers ruffled. So with that said, for the sake of argument, I'm stating my beliefs openly in the wide open almost-anarchy of the internet, and if your feelings are hurt - ok, fine. (but I assume you're talking about real personal relationships)
quote:
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 tend to think that a parent who believes in no-forgiveness and eternal hell for homosexuals would try anything at all, to make a difference. With that said, the residential programs you're talking about are not something I have any real detail on, so I'll take your word for it that they don't work very well. I would assume though, that these are last resort type of tactics, and, FWIW I guess it makes sense that they would be ineffective, and if ineffective, that does look pretty unloving. I'm sure the services of the clinics are oversold, don't most businesses oversell? I'm sure there is a lot of hard hard-headedness, and wrong-headedness that has lead to increased psychological problems. I don't have anything to argue against here, but I hope you realize that I'm not actually trying to defend any of that. Personally, I tend to think that a loving Dad and Mom would tend to exemplify a good heterosexual relationship and should, biologically and emotionally speaking, make the case for following that pattern for their children. Monogamous marriage is an ideal, and I believe that the Bible makes the case for it being part of our worship of God. Of course we are genetically predisposed toward certain tendencies, even sexual, but I also believe that our sexuality is intended to be molded purposefully, and gender roles are good things when followed in a loving and serving family atmosphere. No mansplaining needed.
quote:
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)
haha, as if I'm against compassion? My ideas are hated by what seems a majority. If they hate it, should I just shut up? Is that the loving thing? If I believe what I'm saying is true, if I believe we have a prophetic calling to speak against sin (we all do) then I don't accept the accusation that I have no compassion. I am open to ways of showing compassion, but perhaps you could enlighten me on how I should compassionately treat someone with a sin problem? Do you say homosexuality is a sin? In the face of the Bible and conservative value hating going on on the boards, what do you suggest?
I'm not refusing to be compassionate, but I have not read anyone here that has been mistreated specifically. I also don't think that simply because people in the world are mistreated, that talking about sin equates to hate-speech. But it seems that some here view my speech as pure vile hatred, are you saying that to be the case?
quote:
IMHO, the "air of superiority" is yours.
The air of superiority was already here, perhaps it was not a good idea to posture as if I was in a strong position, good point. My bunker is much smaller, and under manned. Little me VS science and reason.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Has Aliajon deserted us? It's been a week since he posted on this thread. Hopefully he's just busy, or on holiday.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
We have had laws against it, just as you have laws against cursing. But no one says you can't curse in private. I feel that homosexuality is the same way. The damage is caused in a public way, and on the public conscience, on children, and on the impressionable, in much the same way that crude language is a public sin, homosexuality is a public sin.
Cursing is a choice, as is being wilfully ignorant of reality.
Homosexuality is not a choice.
And it is not harmful. Beyond it being prescribed against in a book where you wilfully ignore other prescriptions, how is it?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
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.
Yes, perfectly true. I think the answer to how the laws are good for people is really only possible to know by exploring the perfect administration of the law, and the effect of the overall restriction of something for its overall benefit to the whole, rather than any one person, couple, family, business, or city. The law only works to benefit everyone if it is enacted as a comprehensive whole. Taken in isolation, many of the laws just seem horrid, I understand that.
Sorry, I don't think you can be that glib about this. How exactly do homosexuals benefit from being executed? I think something more than a bunch of handwaving about the big picture and "comprehensive wholes" is in order for a declaration that stark.
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
We're just so far removed from meaningful observation of how the community worked, in favor of the limited observations of our own times, that we just cannot see the good. It takes a lot of effort to see the good in them, and most either shrug off the laws as obscure and meaningless, or else summarily reject the law as an exorcise is doing things horribly wrong.
I think we can count you in that number, since you've shrugged off or rejected the law when it comes to executing homosexuals. Seems like one of those irregular verbs.
I am recontextualizing the Bible for modern society.
You are picking and choosing Bible interpretations to suit your preference.
He/She is shrugging off or rejecting Biblical morality.
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I will put it in perspective. Cursing. In truth, I deal with using foul language and at times this has hurt people who have heard what I have said, even though it was not directed at them. Language is public. We have laws on language. I don't believe it is truly the state's job to regulate language, it is the community's job. Never the less, some specific words are too explicit for radio, etc.... which is all based ultimately on the community's view of language. It is a tradition coded into the law.
In an American context it should be noted that laws against cursing, even cursing in public, have routinely been found unconstitutional. Broadcast standards are a different situation due to the fact that radio frequency bands are considered the common property of the American people and are leased out and administered by the government on their behalf. As such, broadcast decency standards aren't so much a law in the sense of a universal prohibition as much as they are a condition of use attached to a lease. Which is why you can say "fuck" on HBO (a subscription-only cable network) but not on broadcast networks which lease the public airwaves.
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Homosexuality could be viewed the same way I think (you tell if you think this fits).
I don't, largely for the reasons given above.
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
We have had laws against it, just as you have laws against cursing. But no one says you can't curse in private. I feel that homosexuality is the same way. The damage is caused in a public way, and on the public conscience, on children, and on the impressionable, in much the same way that crude language is a public sin, homosexuality is a public sin.
<snip>
I'm being targeted here as a bigoted hater of homosexuals because I believe that it is a sin, and should be handled conscientiously before God, and preached against by the church (like all sin).
Have you considered that might be because of the way you consider homosexuals to be harmfully toxic, especially dangerous to children, and so shameful and dangerous they need to be controlled in a manner similar to network censorship? I'm just saying if you're going to advocate a campaign of public harassment and shaming against an unpopular minority, "bigoted hater" is one of the monikers that's bound to come up.
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I don't take internet conversations that way though, and if someone come to a boards like this I think the debate atmosphere should tell you to expect to have your feathers ruffled.
This would be more convincing if it didn't immediately follow a bunch of boo-hooing about how you always seem to come off as a bigoted hater in online conversation. Or is this another one of those cases where other people should expect to have their feathers ruffled, but you should be treated with deference?
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
So with that said, for the sake of argument, I'm stating my beliefs openly in the wide open almost-anarchy of the internet, and if your feelings are hurt - ok, fine.
Thanks for clarifying that so promptly.
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Personally, I tend to think that a loving Dad and Mom would tend to exemplify a good heterosexual relationship and should, biologically and emotionally speaking, make the case for following that pattern for their children. Monogamous marriage is an ideal, and I believe that the Bible makes the case for it being part of our worship of God.
This seems like an incredibly dubious Biblical interpretation. Some of those portrayed as being closest to God and having special covenants with Him were in polygamous marriages. (e.g. Abraham, Jacob, David, etc.)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
... I feel that homosexuality is the same way. The damage is caused in a public way, and on the public conscience, on children, and on the impressionable ...
Please be specific: what is this "damage" you speak of?
And just to forestall the inevitable: "moral decay" is not specific. "I don't want to see that" isn't harm. Homosexuality is not a communicable disease. Sexual minorities are disproportionately more likely to be VICTIMS of sexualized violence that perpetrators. You will also have to explain away SCOTUS' finding that discrimination against homosexuals HARMS children.
ETA clarity, finish
[ 25. June 2017, 16:12: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Aijalon--
Thanks for your answer. I've been trying to figure out the best way to respond, without taking up several pages to answer in. detail. So I'm going to make some (hopefully pithy) comments.
--You come across as being more interested in the law than in people, and to not be very interested in people's feelings and whether you hurt them.
IME, some people have a hard time relating online the way they would in real life. On some level, they think that normal rules and politeness don't apply. Other people just don't relate very emotionally to people. And some people are just so overwhelmed with whatever's going on in their offline life at the moment they post, that they simply forget to think about how their words may come across.
For whatever reasons, you come across as much more interested in the law than in people. But when you talk to people as if feelings don't matter, as if *people* don't matter...then there's bound to be trouble, and you'll get reactions you neither want nor expect.
Have you seen any of the "Matrix" movies? The scene where Neo meets the Architect keeps coming to mind. (Is that in the last movie??) He's a divine being, the Creator. He's basically in love with his original design and blueprints, and is very nasty and angry about human beings. (Also somewhat like the Auditors in Terry Pratchett's "The Thief Of Time".) In Matrix world, I'd much rather deal with Oracle, the other divine being. She's not perfect, but she cares about people, and works hard to help them.
I don't mean to be mean; but you keep posting in that way, and getting reactions you evidently don't expect. On the Ship, we do tend to remind each other that our topics affect people, and speak up when toes are trodden on. That can be hard to work through, both individually and as a community. But, IMHO, really dealing with ideas and people requires the effort.
We have many LGBT people on the Ship. They matter just as much as anyone else. Please realize that your speculations are about real people, right here on the Ship, right here on the thread. Mercy and compassion are necessary, even if you think a Shipmate is breaking an important law of God. That's why I tried to walk you through what it might be like if *you* were the one whose life was met with stern disapproval.
It helps me to think of LGBT folks as being left-handed. Many people are born that way; some might have been injured; and some might have tried it and liked it.
--Re God's original intention for marriage and the world:
You sound a bit like Rev. Moon, founder of the Unification Church. He believed that Jesus failed his mission, by not marrying and having kids. He also believed that he himself was sent to get it right, this time.
FWIW.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
If reminding people that homosexuality is a sin is "mean" on my part, I guess I stand convicted?
As far as your Matrix analogy and view of God and Law, I suppose that you're right, thus far I'm interested in discussing moral right and wrong (law) and not people specifically. But I'd say that talking about people is even messier and might not be that time just yet for purposes of this thread. I do yet need to read upwards on the initial posters thought to find out maybe. Yet to be done.
I believe in the need and search for objective truth, I believe justification of homosexuality is based on subjective truth. (or, if you like, the "objective" truth of science)
The topic of the moment is biblical interpretation and I intend to keep it on that subject, nobody's personal activity or sins on the table. NO sexual statistics, no crime stories, no love stories, no health stories, no depression stories..... just keep it on the objective truth. There are casualties in any war of ideas.
Comparisons of me to some wack job... are you sure that's nice? I mean, FWIW and all. But nicely and smugly done. I don't have the knack for such clever jabs as that. I'm much more blunt, as you point out.
(no I don't suppose God failed, failure is our part to play)
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I believe in the need and search for objective truth, I believe justification of homosexuality is based on subjective truth. (or, if you like, the "objective" truth of science)
By no stretch of any sane imagination is any religious text objective.
--------------------
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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
If you're going to argue that what is contained within the bible is (to use your preferred word) "objective" truth and that interpretation is therefore "subjective" truth, presumably you would be prepared to argue that movements to outlaw slavery are morally wrong since they too go against biblical custom and teaching?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
If reminding people that homosexuality is a sin is "mean" on my part, I guess I stand convicted?
AIUI, no church teaches that homsexuality is a sin; many teach that homosexual practices are. The hate the sin, love the sinner sort of lin.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
What about those churches that still peddle the line of "conversion therapy" for homosexuals? I don't think they're following any kind of "hate-the-sin love-the-sinner line", otherwise they wouldn't be trying to "cure" people, would they?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
What about those churches that still peddle the line of "conversion therapy" for homosexuals? I don't think they're following any kind of "hate-the-sin love-the-sinner line", otherwise they wouldn't be trying to "cure" people, would they?
It's because they want to cure the sinner that they use their conversion therapy. I don't know of any successful cases so far though.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
If reminding people that homosexuality is a sin is "mean" on my part, I guess I stand convicted?
AIUI, no church teaches that homsexuality is a sin; many teach that homosexual practices are. The hate the sin, love the sinner sort of lin.
I think in any pragmatic sense, homosexuality goes hand in hand with the freedom to practice it. If the urge to do it is not wrong, doing it cannot be wrong either.
In other words, if anyone believes it is not a sin to feel homosexual attraction, then they would naturally come to the conclusion that it isn't a sin to act on one's intrinsic nature. Essentially, God would never make someone feel urges to do anything sinful, if it was natural, would he?
And so, "knowing what we know" based on our observation of present reality, however limited that might be, a homosexual would, naturally, go about molding whatever was around them to fit that reality better. This includes church teachings, of course. It includes spreading the underlying lie, which is that the deepest kind of love is shared sexually. NOT TRUE.
Is it natural for me want to have sex with my neighbor's wife? Sure thing!
Once any set of people get sexually unhappy, and knowing that their urges are not a sin... they will eventually do whatever makes them feel happy again. Knowing that God wants them to be happy, is of course the key thing! It only takes a little prompting from the Devil and we'll be sure that God is really on our side!
My neighbor's wife is so sexy, and my wife hates me, God want's me to be happy! Sex and love, sex and love!
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If you're going to argue that what is contained within the bible is (to use your preferred word) "objective" truth and that interpretation is therefore "subjective" truth, presumably you would be prepared to argue that movements to outlaw slavery are morally wrong since they too go against biblical custom and teaching?
First thing is to simply ask ourselves if we believe that the Bible's writings are objectively true, or not, and then we need to find ways to act on that truth.
The Bible contains stories of slavery, and all sorts of nastiness. I don't read anywhere that slavery is said to be a good thing, but there were allowances for it in Hebrew law.
I think the question of where slavery came from and why it was allowed for could be a good exercise.
So let's take one example.
Hebrews could capture girls in war and they could make them their concubines.
But they had to shave their head and cut their nails and wait 30 days. That's pretty crude stuff. Why bother to wait 30 days for anything? It doesn't say why a lot of things are in the laws.
In what ways does any of that preserve human dignity? It isn't that dignity wasn't lost, of course it was. There was just a war and the girls family was all killed.
In light of the Hebrew people and their laws which made them basically bent on being a master race, and their government a master government, what do we learn about God?
God didn't give every human being inherent rights, nor define human rights. Why?
Or is the Bible no document made on historical objective truth? Have we massively mistaken Jesus as a Hebrew, or have we mistaken him as God. Either mistake is a big one.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
And so, "knowing what we know" based on our observation of present reality, however limited that might be,
More limited for some than others, apparently.
quote:
a homosexual would, naturally, go about molding whatever was around them to fit that reality better. This includes church teachings, of course. It includes spreading the underlying lie, which is that the deepest kind of love is shared sexually. NOT TRUE.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) The old homosexual conversion conspiracy. Can you at least come up with some new bullshit?
Not even combining it with gay is just about sex is original or any less ludicrous.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
First thing is to simply ask ourselves if we believe that the Bible's writings are objectively true, or not, and then we need to find ways to act on that truth.
The Bible is not objectively true by any definition of the word.
So it is stupid to approach it that way.
The rational approach is, if one believes there is a valid message in the Bible, to ascertain what that is. Then burn off the chaff as it distracts from that message.
--------------------
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:
...
God didn't give every human being inherent rights, nor define human rights. Why? ...
Presumably so that at some future date, god's followers could deny human rights to others. Yeah, that must be it.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
It includes spreading the underlying lie, which is that the deepest kind of love is shared sexually. NOT TRUE.
Says the person who thinks the image of God only inheres in the sexual union of man and woman.
--------------------
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
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
I was talking about marriage at large, not merely sex.
--------------------
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:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
First thing is to simply ask ourselves if we believe that the Bible's writings are objectively true, or not, and then we need to find ways to act on that truth.
The Bible is not objectively true by any definition of the word.
So it is stupid to approach it that way.
The rational approach is, if one believes there is a valid message in the Bible, to ascertain what that is. Then burn off the chaff as it distracts from that message.
It's stupid to approach things any way but yours I'm sure.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
First thing is to simply ask ourselves if we believe that the Bible's writings are objectively true, or not, and then we need to find ways to act on that truth.
The Bible is not objectively true by any definition of the word.
So it is stupid to approach it that way.
The rational approach is, if one believes there is a valid message in the Bible, to ascertain what that is. Then burn off the chaff as it distracts from that message.
It's stupid to approach things any way but yours I'm sure.
Cute, but read for context.
Objective. You keep using that word. The dictionary does not think it means what you think it means.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
If reminding people that homosexuality is a sin is "mean" on my part, I guess I stand convicted?
AIUI, no church teaches that homsexuality is a sin; many teach that homosexual practices are. The hate the sin, love the sinner sort of lin.
I think in any pragmatic sense, homosexuality goes hand in hand with the freedom to practice it. If the urge to do it is not wrong, doing it cannot be wrong either.
In other words, if anyone believes it is not a sin to feel homosexual attraction, then they would naturally come to the conclusion that it isn't a sin to act on one's intrinsic nature.
The traditional view is that a person who is tempted to a sinful act but resists is worthy of respect; the greater the temptation and the greater the effort needed for resistance, the greater the respect.
What church teaches that having homosexual attraction is, by itself, a sin?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
a homosexual would, naturally, go about molding whatever was around them to fit that reality better. This includes church teachings, of course. It includes spreading the underlying lie, which is that the deepest kind of love is shared sexually. NOT TRUE.
Can you give us any link to any homosexual or apologist-for-homosexuality who makes this claim? This is your projection of what you THINK homosexuals think. I've never met, nor read, nor heard of, any homosexual who thinks this. It's absurd.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
First thing is to simply ask ourselves if we believe that the Bible's writings are objectively true, or not, and then we need to find ways to act on that truth.
Why would we need to ask ourselves that? The whole point of claiming a truth is "objective" is that it's demonstrably true regardless of whether we believe it or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
The Bible contains stories of slavery, and all sorts of nastiness. I don't read anywhere that slavery is said to be a good thing, but there were allowances for it in Hebrew law.
I think the question of where slavery came from and why it was allowed for could be a good exercise.
Ancestral curse, according to the Bible. One of the first things God's chosen remnant did was decide which which group of survivors would be enslaved by the others. The "objective" truth that certain ethnic groups were fit only for slavery was quite a useful one a couple millennia down the line. The fact that it's enforced by a curse would seem to imply divine approval of enslaving Canaan's descendants.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
First thing is to simply ask ourselves if we believe that the Bible's writings are objectively true, or not, and then we need to find ways to act on that truth.
The Bible is not objectively true by any definition of the word.
So it is stupid to approach it that way.
The rational approach is, if one believes there is a valid message in the Bible, to ascertain what that is. Then burn off the chaff as it distracts from that message.
It's stupid to approach things any way but yours I'm sure.
Aijalon: You need to stop chucking the pearls in front of swine. Almost no one here takes the Bible as God's word. Professing to be wise, they are fools whose hearts are hardened and their understanding is consequently darkened. (Romans 1:21) Most are apostates who should know better but are now on the broad road although there are a few genuinely unenlightened individuals. Lil Buddah's ignorance of spiritual issues is only exceeded by her arrogant assertions about them. She should be in our prayers.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Fair do's, Jamat. First time you have made me actually laugh.
Whilst it is funny, it also appears a simple way out of actually addressing the issues.
--------------------
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
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Almost no one here takes the Bible as God's word.
Bull. Pure bull. That is at best a total failure on your part to understand anything that has been said by anyone who doesn't share your precise view of every jot and tittle in Scripture.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
And once again someone (no names) is telling other people they're going to Hell. Unless the "broad road" leads, say, to Albuquerque?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Gimme Hell every time.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
First thing is to simply ask ourselves if we believe that the Bible's writings are objectively true, or not, and then we need to find ways to act on that truth.
The Bible is not objectively true by any definition of the word.
So it is stupid to approach it that way.
The rational approach is, if one believes there is a valid message in the Bible, to ascertain what that is. Then burn off the chaff as it distracts from that message.
It's stupid to approach things any way but yours I'm sure.
Aijalon: You need to stop chucking the pearls in front of swine. Almost no one here takes the Bible as God's word. Professing to be wise, they are fools whose hearts are hardened and their understanding is consequently darkened. (Romans 1:21) Most are apostates who should know better but are now on the broad road although there are a few genuinely unenlightened individuals. Lil Buddah's ignorance of spiritual issues is only exceeded by her arrogant assertions about them. She should be in our prayers.
My Lord and my Jamat.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Lil Buddah's ignorance of spiritual issues is only exceeded by her arrogant assertions about them. She should be in our prayers.
Er, no. Lil Buddah may not be able (or willing) to quote scripture word and line, but that has nothing to do with awareness of spiritual issues, nor is it arrogant.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The whole point of claiming a truth is "objective" is that it's demonstrably true regardless of whether we believe it or not.
No, it isn't. To say that something is objectively true is to say that its truth is not a function of any property of the person trying to know it. In particular it is true or false irrespective of whether it is demonstrable.
For example, it is objectively true that it's morally permissible for two men to marry each other regardless of whether or not you can demonstrate that to religious conservatives.
(How the concept is misused by philosophically ignorant conservatives or relativists online is another matter.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Unless the "broad road" leads, say, to Albuquerque?
I knew I should have taken that left turn.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I think the question of where slavery came from and why it was allowed for could be a good exercise.
Can you give us your answers as well as some good questions?
My take on the subject (which is in the OP) is that something very like the following seem to me to be true for most modern Christians who take the Bible as authoritative:
1. We know that slavery is a despicable moral evil;
2. The Bible's human authors seem not to have known that slavery is a despicable moral evil;
3. The Bible was inspired by a perfectly good God;
4. Therefore the inspiration we get from the Bible - its message to us - is not to be found in any seeming endorsement of slavery but might be summed up as "even the people whom you are most able to disregard and despise have rights".
I accept that many sceptics might deny that this is a legitimate approach to interpretation, and accuse me of special pleading - but these people would be trying to persuade me to a conclusion that the Bible is not in fact inspired of God - not that I should look more favourably on slavery. That would be a non-starter. But the questions raised in the OP were not intended as an answer to the sceptic's moral argument against scripture, but were framed from the point of view of a Christian who begins with the premise that the Bible is God's word.
If your approach to slavery is similar - that we find God in the passages that reduce, even slightly, the moral outrage of treating people as property - and agree with me that this is a better and truer interpretation than one that says that slavery must be good because the Bible permits it - then what are your reasons for thinking that what is a legitimate approach to apparently pro-slavery passages is not legitimate with apparently anti-gay ones?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Almost no one here takes the Bible as God's word.
Firstly I don't think that's true, but secondly, this thread is about what it means to take the Bible as God's word.
If we do, then it seems to me that when we encounter something in it that looks very wrong, then something has to give - either our interpretation or our ethics. I'm arguing that it is more faithful to stretch our interpretation of the text almost to breaking point, than believe of God what we cannot avoid seeing as evil (if those end up being the only two options).
You might disagree, but the basis of our disagreement is how we engage with the Bible as God's word, not whether we engage with the Bible as God's word.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
An alternative view of slavery is that in those days, the duty of care placed on the masters of slaves was considerable, possibly greater than that now placed on employers.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
@Eliab, I and many here certainly don't take the Bible as God's word in any sense whatsoever. Which means that the homophobia of the Bible from beginning to end is authentic. Human. Cultural. Easily transcended by social evolution.
I subjectively see the divine yearning back at our yearning in the seven hundred year library more so than in any other body of literature. Although Aeschylus looks pretty inspired. I see God yearning back to prepare a milieu for the Word incarnate which I accept without rationalization.
The words describing all of that, for 700 years of edits of tradition and texts twice and three times older, like them, are entirely ours.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The most rational take on the Bible is that it is a mix of myth, history, religion, justification and rationalisation.
Even for those who believe the religious bit is real, the rest needs to be sifted through.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
An alternative view of slavery is that in those days, the duty of care placed on the masters of slaves was considerable, possibly greater than that now placed on employers.
That goes without saying. Masters were responsible for providing their slaves with their meager rations, the few rags of clothes deemed necessary, and relieved them of the burden of choice. That's far more than most employers now provide their employees. Most employers (at least in industrialized nations) aren't even allowed to distribute floggings any more!
I'm not sure "duty of care" adequately covers the relationship between a slaveowner and their human property in what is an inherently violent system.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Bible as God's Word? Not a model I find useful these days. Whether it's true or not, or what it means if it is, is not something I've gained much from pursuing.
It's not a pertinent question.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The most rational take on the Bible is that it is a mix of myth, history, religion, justification and rationalisation.
Even for those who believe the religious bit is real, the rest needs to be sifted through.
This works for me. And calling it, in spite of all this, the "Word of God" also works just fine. Just as long as we understand that by WoG we don't mean that we're meant to adopt a wooden literalism that follows along the lines of some demagogue's interpretation.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Even the phrase "to lie with mankind as a man lies with womankind" (or whatever the exact words in one's favorite translation are) is subject to widely diverging interpretations. What is the way in which a man lies with womankind?
1. He lies down next to her without any sex
2. He lies down on top of her without any sex
3. He lies down and she lies on top of him without any sex
4. He has PIV sex with her, doggy style
5. He has PIV sex with her, missionary style
6. He has PIV sex with her, she mounting him
7. He has oral sex with her, fellatio
8. He has oral sex with her, cunnilingus
9. He has oral sex with her, 69
10. He has anal sex with her
11. Probably some other stuff
Of the ten, one assumes 1-3 are not what is being talked about. 4-6 and 8 are impossible for a man to do with another man. This leaves only 7, 9 (a variant on 7), and 10. Are 7 and 9 likely to be what the writer is referring to? No, probably not.
But is 10 what the writer is referring to? Would the writer acknowledge 10 happens between men and women? We can't know of course.
This is normally interpreted in a certain way, i.e. that two men shouldn't do 10, which is "as" a hetero couple doing one of 4-6 (probably 4-5 actually). Is that what is meant? It's not what was said. The interpretation of "as" here isn't nearly so obvious and unavoidable as the homophobes want to make it out to be. It is likely what the writer meant. But it's not what the writer said, and therefore we're required to interpret it. And once we start interpreting it, we need to start looking at other things about that place and time that could play a part in what it meant at that time and to those people.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Even the phrase "to lie with mankind as a man lies with womankind" (or whatever the exact words in one's favorite translation are) is subject to widely diverging interpretations.
Interestingly enough, both Leviticus 18:22 and its parallel version in Leviticus 20:13 use different words for "lie with" when referring to men and women. For men both verses use "shakab'eth", literally "lie" (shakab) "with" ('eth). For the woman-referring part of the verse the word "mishkab" is used, which literally translates as "bed" (the physical object) rather than "lie" (the action). It's broadly understood as a sexual euphemism but it's a bit problematic for those who get snippy about using "many different words in place of a single Hebrew one", but don't get too concerned about using the same English word to cover multiple Hebrew ones. At any rate, the fact that different words are used for what later interpreters assume are the same general class of actions is interesting.
[ 04. July 2017, 21:43: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Lil Buddah's ignorance of spiritual issues is only exceeded by her arrogant assertions about them. She should be in our prayers.
That's a personal attack, forbidden under the 10 commandments. ADmins being notified.
John Holding
Host in Dead Horses
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
