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


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Biblical interpretation of apparently anti-gay passages (Page 15)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  12  13  14  15  16  17 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Biblical interpretation of apparently anti-gay passages
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
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

And this, of course is not?
The cyclops strikes!
quote:
Croesus: 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?



Posts: 2967 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And, questions of Hostly interventions should be directed to the Styx.

Alan
Ship of Fools Admin

Posts: 31970 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Aijalon--

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
If reminding people that homosexuality is a sin is "mean" on my part, I guess I stand convicted?

IMHO, the way you do it is mean and off-putting. And you already said you weren't compassionate, "because no one requested it". Given that, why would any LGBT person believe anything you have to say on the matter?

And, if you want to help people by pointing out "sins", why focus on this particular set of them?

Is it because you think heterosexual marriage is so central?


quote:
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.
But moral law has to apply to people and to real life, IMHO. That's its purpose.


quote:
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.

"Objective truth." Is that God's truth, the Bible's truth, logic...?

quote:
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)

I compared your ideas on marriage to those of Rev. Moon because they sound roughly the same over and over again. I was trying to get you to understand that. Other people have tried other tacks. No jab, insult, or smugness intended.


The Religious Tolerance site has a page on the Unification Church and homosexuality. From the Quotes section:

quote:
In a speech called "God's Will and the Ocean" given by Rev. Sun Myung Moon in Provincetown during 1982, Rev. Moon said:

"Look at Provincetown where so many youth come to use drugs and gay people gather together. They might become the people who lead America. Their lifestyle goes against universal law. Why was man or woman born? Man was born for woman and woman was born for man. Man was not born for man and woman was not born for woman. We are born for each other. Even in the insect world there isn't any mix-up in that standard. Even in the animal kingdom there is no such confusion in their natural setting. No other group in creation has this problem. Just mankind. This indicates to us that the final days are here when mankind must decide between future prosperity or its own destruction. We have to ask, why did Adam need Eve and vice versa? We have to understand clearly that they were made for each other in order to bear children. Children represent the future. They would have produced better people than themselves. Just as a tree produces better fruit, the desire of man and woman is to produce better children than themselves. For the sake of a better future, that is why man and woman need each other."

"...it is shameful for America that so many young people are destroying their bodies with drugs and also destroying their future by indulging in homosexual relationships. They are not the hope of America. History really needs a group which can lead young people into the future. The world needs that group, America needs such a group. Even God himself needs that kind of group." 1

Webmaster's note: Rev. Moon's statement that same-sex behavior does not occur in nature among animals has been shown to be incorrect. Such behavior has been regularly observed among all mammals and among some other species in the wild.



--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17666 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My goodness, GK, that's one of the stupidest chains of logic that I've ever seen on these boards.

1. You've got a belief I don't agree with
2. Some other belief system has superficially similar beliefs
3. I'll leave it to your own imagination what that means *nudge nudge, wink wink*

Daft.

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9830 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nope. Rev. Moon has been in the media a lot, at various points in my life, so I recognized the ideas, and Aijalon kept repeating them. No winking/nudging. My original observation was simply that the ideas were similar. I explained who Moon was, in case A isn't familiar with him.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17666 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Has Aijalon said he/she has anything to do with Moon?

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9830 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, and I'm not saying A has any relation. But A kept stressing an extreme view of marriage, and the main place I've heard that, in those terms, is from Rev. Moon.

If A had sounded like Dick Van Dyke or the Dalai Lama, I would've said that.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17666 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No you've not more than say that, you've repeated in a way to suggest that the shipmate here is a Moonie.

In reality the views are similar to those I've heard from elderly relatives of mine who never ever heard of Moonie. Should I go through my family tree to find out if he/she is related?

Of course not. Superficially similar views to some other idiot does not mean that the two people are connected.

If A is similar to B it doesn't mean A=B. And it is a ridiculous way to behave in a discussion, a straw "man" in a very direct sense.

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9830 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Actually, I really told the truth about my thought processes on this. I examined them at the time, and again yesterday.

Aijalon, if my posts caused you any hurt/harm, I apologize. It wasn't my intent.

I may occasionally check to see if you've posted anything to me and requested a response. Otherwise, I'm bowing out.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17666 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hello again GK.

I have not been on the boards for a bit for a couple of reasons. Lost enthusiasm is a big part, and also the last two weeks have been busy with birthdays, travel, a computer malfunction, a new puppy, working more....

I sense you're a pretty sincere person. But I think we're probably like two people who are talking about a football game over the phone and realizing part way through we're each watching a different game. I accept your apology and your analogy of me to Mr Moon as accidental.


It may have turned out not to be practical, but I never expected anyone LGBT to like or pay attention to anything I'm saying, I assume that LGBT people are going to tune me out. I'm really not talking to them, as if they are all that is in the room. I would welcome an in-person discussion with anyone LGBT and my tone would certainly change. In the world of ideas, I suppose LGBT are more out front, so I guess the boards are full here... no worries, I will figure it out. I wont treat the issue on the whole with special gloves on because people could be offended. If I have stepped on toes of people wearing their heart on their sleeve -ok- there is a clash, it happens.


Yes, moral law has to apply to people in real life. But let's not jump the gun. Why would I get down into the weeds of just one person's life situation, and use that situation as the start point? I see my role as a Christian toward the church (for any Christian) should be to strive to prophesy to the church from a Biblical starting point. The Bible applies axiomatically to you and me, not firstly our situations to it. I sense you and others trying to get me to accept the paradigm reversal. Um, no, I think I'm being clear. I reject the paradigm reversal that so many others are so happy about.




If anyone has taken a vow of faith in Christ, claims to know God, partaken of the New Covenant in his blood, we have entered into a covenant agreement that has long standing human traditions and institutional rules stuck to it. Prophesying means to express to the church how and why we have broken our vows to God using all the known revelation about God and truth we have at our disposal.

1. "eat" the flesh of Christ (believe in the risen Christ and his power to raise you from the dead)

2. "drink" his blood (believe that he lived a mortal and sinless life and his mortal blood was shed on your behalf

It is #2 that the prophet mainly deals with, invoking the sins of the church and asking for mediation of the covenant (friendship) with God. Now I don't believe that the covenant is bilateral in the sense that we can mediate the terms and conditions of the covenant, but we are in a relationship with God which is two way. God mediates the terms, but does so on a basis of how well we know each other. In other words, if we are friends, his blood counts on our behalf.

By saying that, I mean that we as sinning Christians, whether it's illicit sex, drugs, or too much rock and roll - regardless - we need stop looking the other way when sin walks in the door. Worse than looking the other way, we need to stop celebrate sin. I see a thread of the gay pride movement taking over a sizeable portion of the church, and it's concerning. No prophet is ever popular in the church when the general consensus is in favor of the sin. Skilled wordsmiths have created a whole new theology centered on the happy-go-lucky Jesus, and of course LGBT would adopt this type of Jesus. But deep inside all of us is the same thing, a conscience. Instinctively a pricked conscience does what it always does - it shifts the blame.

Homosexuality is corruption just like a lot of other things. There is nothing favorable ever said of it in the Bible, and it has always been a sin. It wasn't even a question. But we're oh so enlightened in these post modern times! We're living in sexual anarchy.

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

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I see my role as a Christian toward the church (for any Christian) should be to strive to prophesy to the church from a Biblical starting point.

<snip>

By saying that, I mean that we as sinning Christians, whether it's illicit sex, drugs, or too much rock and roll - regardless - we need stop looking the other way when sin walks in the door.

This may be a bit of a tangent, but how much rock and roll is "too much", and which parts of the Bible condemn it as a sin? Is there a passage that says "Thou shalt not use a blues rhythm with an accentuated back beat, and a lead guitar is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord"?

Like everything else you've posted, this seems like trying to justify your own personal prejudices with an ill-fitting biblical gloss.

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

Posts: 10340 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
but how much rock and roll is "too much",

If your toe begins to tap, that is a warning sign. If your hips swing, you are lost.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16607 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I'm really not talking to them, as if they are all that is in the room.

Or, really, at all.
quote:

I would welcome an in-person discussion with anyone LGBT and my tone would certainly change.

Why different in person?
quote:

I wont treat the issue on the whole with special gloves on because people could be offended.

Obvi. You do not come across here as a person with merely an opposing position, your style appears dickish. Not saying this is your intent, but it is the fairly obvious result.
quote:
I see a thread of the gay pride movement taking over a sizeable portion of the church, and it's concerning.

Still never have hear a satisfactory explanation as to why.
quote:

No prophet is ever popular in the church

Wow. We have had some fairly large egos on the Ship before, but I cannot recall so bold a statement.
quote:

Homosexuality is corruption just like a lot of other things. There is nothing favorable ever said of it in the Bible, and it has always been a sin. It wasn't even a question. But we're oh so enlightened in these post modern times! We're living in sexual anarchy.

Again, this is so hypocritical; it beggars belief that anyone can state it in a serious, non-baiting, way.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16607 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

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

Homosexuality is corruption just like a lot of other things. There is nothing favorable ever said of it in the Bible, and it has always been a sin. It wasn't even a question. But we're oh so enlightened in these post modern times! We're living in sexual anarchy.

I want to introduce you to a little bit of modern history. I used to have a 24 volume set of Encyclopedia Britannica (1960 version). Within that version, the article on Homosexuality described it as a "pathological sexual condition", which was then the commonly held medical view.

Now here is the article in Encyclopedia Britannica online.

In particular note this comment.

quote:
By the 21st century, many societies had been discussing sexuality and sexual practices with increased candour. Together with a growing acceptance of homosexuality as a common expression of human sexuality, long-standing beliefs about homosexuals had begun to lose credence.
.

For the very good reasons laid out in that article.

I would like to repeat a quotation by a very brave Christian, Desmond Tutu, who has world wide respect for his stance against apartheid. In the 1980s, faced in his church by armed police and representatives of the secret police, for his "temerity" in organising a prayer meeting re the injustices in South Africa, he faced them down with these prophetic words. "You have already lost!".

Aijalon, you have already lost. The long-standing beliefs have lost moral credibility because they are unfair to people who share a relatively common but minority sexuality. And as another matter of fact, Desmond Tutu agrees with that viewpoint as well. He seeks to act justly, love mercy (practice loving kindness), walk humbly before God on this issue as well.

I mean it. You have already lost.

[ 19. July 2017, 23:02: 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: 20858 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
No prophet is ever popular in the church

Neither is shit in the chalice. Before you congratulate yourself on being unpopular, you might want to try to objectively determine which you are.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62953 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

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




1. "eat" the flesh of Christ (believe in the risen Christ and his power to raise you from the dead)

2. "drink" his blood (believe that he lived a mortal and sinless life and his mortal blood was shed on your behalf

I

Interesting interpretation of those two phrases -- certainly not the ordinary or historic understanding of what they mean -- more strictly, I suppose, not one of the various normal or historic understandings that are around. WHere does your particular interpretation come from? Has it any authority? Is it your own idea?

JOhn

Posts: 5905 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Homosexuality is corruption just like a lot of other things. There is nothing favorable ever said of it in the Bible, and it has always been a sin. It wasn't even a question. But we're oh so enlightened in these post modern times! We're living in sexual anarchy.

Coming at it from a slightly different angle, do you mean homosexuality or homosexual practices? What about someone who experiences same sex attraction, but does not engage in sexual activity? Basically, do you belong to the old school of "hate the sin but love the sinner"?

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6622 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:




1. "eat" the flesh of Christ (believe in the risen Christ and his power to raise you from the dead)

2. "drink" his blood (believe that he lived a mortal and sinless life and his mortal blood was shed on your behalf

I

Interesting interpretation of those two phrases -- certainly not the ordinary or historic understanding of what they mean -- more strictly, I suppose, not one of the various normal or historic understandings that are around. WHere does your particular interpretation come from? Has it any authority? Is it your own idea?

JOhn

Boy, talk about playing fast and loose with the text.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62953 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I see my role as a Christian toward the church (for any Christian) should be to strive to prophesy to the church from a Biblical starting point.

<snip>

By saying that, I mean that we as sinning Christians, whether it's illicit sex, drugs, or too much rock and roll - regardless - we need stop looking the other way when sin walks in the door.

This may be a bit of a tangent, but how much rock and roll is "too much", and which parts of the Bible condemn it as a sin? Is there a passage that says "Thou shalt not use a blues rhythm with an accentuated back beat, and a lead guitar is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord"?

Like everything else you've posted, this seems like trying to justify your own personal prejudices with an ill-fitting biblical gloss.

Wow such a quality jab pal, truly nice. Except it isn't. It doesn't work.

You're working much too hard to subdivide what I'm saying to find a chink.

Perhaps I'm forced to indulge you here because others will quickly agree with how well you diced me up?

So have you heard of the phrase "sex drugs and rock and roll"? If not, we can discuss that now. These three have a reputation of going together. So take as your example a rock and roll star. I'm sure you know of a rock and roll star or two that has gone off the rails with partying and drugs, maybe even heard of a few that OD'd on fun.

Rock and roll is a gateway to a culture of self indulgence, have you heard of hook up culture? I sort of thought that went without saying. Making it out to be as if I were standing against a nice beat.... let's just say at the moment I'm muzzled as to giving you feedback on what I think of that.

I listen to plenty of rock and roll on my drive home, so don't worry pal I like a nice beat.

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


Now here is the article in Encyclopedia Britannica online.

..................

I mean it. You have already lost.

Ok, so you have the encyclopedia, I guess, well, super. So this is old news that the Bible and the Encyclopedia are incompatible with each other. If you want to declare a victory based on the encylcopedia... go right ahead. It's as if you win because you have more friends? ok, fine, go right ahead. You have more friends.

[Disappointed]

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

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
When reality and religion collide, it isn't reality that has a problem. BTW, your arguments are comprised solely of chinks, so the difficulty isn't finding one, but picking one.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16607 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
So have you heard of the phrase "sex drugs and rock and roll"? If not, we can discuss that now. These three have a reputation of going together. So take as your example a rock and roll star. I'm sure you know of a rock and roll star or two that has gone off the rails with partying and drugs, maybe even heard of a few that OD'd on fun.

Interestingly, drug use is not described as a sin in the Bible either. The only drug I can think of being mentioned specifically in the Bible is ethanol, and that is usually mentioned positively. It's even the active ingredient in God's special drink. There are a few passages against drunkenness and overindulgence, but that seems to be more in line with general rules against gluttony than anything specific to ethanol abuse.

For someone who claims "to strive to prophesy to the church from a Biblical starting point", you certainly seem to be using a lot of extra-Biblical standards.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Rock and roll is a gateway to a culture of self indulgence, have you heard of hook up culture?

<snip>

I listen to plenty of rock and roll on my drive home, so don't worry pal I like a nice beat.

Still waiting for your explanation of how much rock and roll constitutes "too much", which is sinful, versus "plenty", which is apparently okay. And doesn't it seem a bit hypocritical to indulge in "a culture of self indulgence" yourself while condemning others for doing so?

BTW, as a side note "self indulgence" (and even cultures thereof) pre-date the invention of rock and roll. You see, indulging yourself can be fun, so people will often do so. You don't need to invent mind-controlling hypno-music to explain this behavior.

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

Posts: 10340 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hmmm, I'm not sure you understood the explanation I gave you. I want you to think about a rock and roll star, with a needle in his arm, dead. Think Hollywood celebrity narcissim. That's you're explanation.

If you are expecting me to produce a website that lists safe and unsafe rock and roll, or songs per day quota, you will be waiting a while. That would be rather ridiculous, or is that your only point? To portray anything I say as ridiculous? Well done sir, you are quick on your way to making our chat ridiculous. [Smile]


So we agree that over indulgence isn't a good thing, perhaps that's something.

--------------------
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      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:




1. "eat" the flesh of Christ (believe in the risen Christ and his power to raise you from the dead)

2. "drink" his blood (believe that he lived a mortal and sinless life and his mortal blood was shed on your behalf

I

Interesting interpretation of those two phrases -- certainly not the ordinary or historic understanding of what they mean -- more strictly, I suppose, not one of the various normal or historic understandings that are around. WHere does your particular interpretation come from? Has it any authority? Is it your own idea?

JOhn

Gospel of John Chapter 6, Jesus says he is the bread of life that came from heaven, links it to eternal life. It's not a direct way of saying so, but we learn later, that his body has a two fold meaning, both mortal, and immortal (raised).

By invoking heaven, I think the bread symbolizes his immortality. To be granted immortality, one must have faith in Christ (John 6:35 to 59).

People often construe the unleavened bread to mean merely sinlessness. I believe the analogy between regular and unleavened bread to be linked with the body.

Leavened bread symbolizes what is perishable. Accordingly, Jesus actually was breaking the traditional meal of leavened bread the day before Passover. The day on which the bread would be thrown out or consumed, prior to nightfall.

The Unleavened Bread, then, symbolizes the imperishable. Accordingly, it is a simple association with immortality.

The Exodus account talks about the reason for unleavened bread being as simple as they just would not have time to make food. This to me speaks of simple practicality. They were not going to have a way to make fresh bread on their journey, and it is common sense when going camping and without refrigeration to pack the most imperishable food possible.

--------------------
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      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
No prophet is ever popular in the church

Neither is shit in the chalice. Before you congratulate yourself on being unpopular, you might want to try to objectively determine which you are.
to begin this challeng in objectivity, I present my choices.

A) prophet
B) shit
C) chalice
D) B in C.

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

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
By saying that, I mean that we as sinning Christians, whether it's illicit sex, drugs, or too much rock and roll - regardless - we need stop looking the other way when sin walks in the door. Worse than looking the other way, we need to stop celebrate sin.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Hmmm, I'm not sure you understood the explanation I gave you. I want you to think about a rock and roll star, with a needle in his arm, dead.

Except that's not really a explanation, it's more of an evasion. Fatally overdosing on drugs is not described as a "sin" in the Bible, nor is being a rock star, at least as far as I'm aware. If you're going to claim you're just passing along a Biblically-derived definition of sin then that definition of sin should appear somewhere in the Bible. Quite frankly, trying to pass off your own personal prejudices as the word of God is what's ridiculous

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
If you are expecting me to produce a website that lists safe and unsafe rock and roll, or songs per day quota, you will be waiting a while.

Well, you were the one who called on all Christians to avoid "too much rock and roll" because it is sinful. If that's going to be your standard, the obvious next question is "how much is 'too much'"? The fact that you admit engaging in this sinful behavior yourself implies there's a certain amount that's okay, and your defensiveness about your standards implies that the amount that's sinful is "anything more than what I do", which seems very "self-indulgent", to borrow a phrase.

For those unfamiliar with the broader context, American Christians have a long-standing opposition to rock and roll going back to the era when they referred to it as "race music". That gives you a hint as to what the real objection was. Blogger Fred Clark posted this about his experience as a young Evangelical and the messages he received about rock and roll:

quote:
But the main focus of Sketch’s musical folklore — and the whole point of his Elvis. Aaron. Presley. shtick — wasn’t about fear of Satan. It was about fear of black people. That’s how, for Sketch and the whole “rock music is evil” cottage industry, rock music became “the devil’s music.” It became the devil’s music because they weren’t allowed to talk about “race music” anymore. In retrospect, I think that’s part of what made Sketch’s presentation so weirdly compelling — it was a high-wire act without a net, watching to see if this man could speak for a full hour without explicitly stating the racism roiling just under the surface.

Or sometimes just right there at the surface — as when he inevitably rehearsed the urban legend about the white missionary kid in Africa upsetting the newly converted natives by playing the “demon-summoning drums” (rock and roll) on his magic white cassette player. There really isn’t any non-racist way of pretending that story is true.

Basically, Sketch’s whole argument rested on a euphemistically white-supremacist mirror image of the cultural appropriation critique of Elvis. Rather than arguing that Elvis’ appreciation for and appropriation of black music and black culture constituted a kind of cultural exploitation or theft, Sketch argued that it was contaminating and corrupting white music and white culture.

Sketch wouldn’t have said “white,” of course. He’d have said “Christian.” But what he meant was “white.”

Read the whole thing for further context. It's worth it.

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

Posts: 10340 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Homosexuality is corruption just like a lot of other things. There is nothing favorable ever said of it in the Bible, and it has always been a sin. It wasn't even a question. But we're oh so enlightened in these post modern times! We're living in sexual anarchy.

Coming at it from a slightly different angle, do you mean homosexuality or homosexual practices? What about someone who experiences same sex attraction, but does not engage in sexual activity? Basically, do you belong to the old school of "hate the sin but love the sinner"?
Hopefully the start of something that could be a productive chat, though I don't know that I have anything new to add on this concept. Best for last.

Yes, I suppose I fall into that category, we should certainly love sinners, while not dismissing sin.
In saying this we have all made compromises in our lives, accommodating sin. I have earlier expressed my own sinful tendency toward lusting (past visits with pornography) or my current problem of self control, cursing (typically under my breath). We tend to construct ways to dismiss our own sinful actions so we can even live with ourselves.

In my use of the term homosexuality I mean it in context with someone that acts in accordance with their homosexual desires. In other words, the generally held view of the acceptability of an active homosexual lifestyle with all that involves.

If anyone believes themselves a homosexual, but strives not to act in accordance with those desires, I would say that they are very sober and self controlled person, reigning in the lust of the flesh. This is the same self control for any heterosexual not wanting to lust or act on desires to bang his neighbor's wife.

I would say that anyone who has homosexual attraction who either has successfully stopped all sexual encounters or is working toward that goal, knowing their deeds to be a sin, are in the same boat. Both are sinning in some way or another.

Those who have lost any urge to repent of a sin, but rather celebrate that sin, that is the real issue at hand, and yes, we should love them all the same, while rejecting the sin.

Hope that was not too wordy of a response. All the best.

A

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

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

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




1. "eat" the flesh of Christ (believe in the risen Christ and his power to raise you from the dead)

2. "drink" his blood (believe that he lived a mortal and sinless life and his mortal blood was shed on your behalf

I

Interesting interpretation of those two phrases -- certainly not the ordinary or historic understanding of what they mean -- more strictly, I suppose, not one of the various normal or historic understandings that are around. WHere does your particular interpretation come from? Has it any authority? Is it your own idea?

JOhn

Gospel of John Chapter 6, Jesus says he is the bread of life that came from heaven, links it to eternal life. It's not a direct way of saying so, but we learn later, that his body has a two fold meaning, both mortal, and immortal (raised).

By invoking heaven, I think the bread symbolizes his immortality. To be granted immortality, one must have faith in Christ (John 6:35 to 59).

People often construe the unleavened bread to mean merely sinlessness. I believe the analogy between regular and unleavened bread to be linked with the body.

Leavened bread symbolizes what is perishable. Accordingly, Jesus actually was breaking the traditional meal of leavened bread the day before Passover. The day on which the bread would be thrown out or consumed, prior to nightfall.

The Unleavened Bread, then, symbolizes the imperishable. Accordingly, it is a simple association with immortality.

The Exodus account talks about the reason for unleavened bread being as simple as they just would not have time to make food. This to me speaks of simple practicality. They were not going to have a way to make fresh bread on their journey, and it is common sense when going camping and without refrigeration to pack the most imperishable food possible.

Huh?!

That all makes no sense in terms of the meaning you attach (and actually, it's not a meaning but your interpretation, in a typically medieval fashion) to Jesus' statements that "This is my body" and "this is my blood".

Are you trying to avoid the normal meanings attached to those phrases of Jesus?

John

Posts: 5905 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
By saying that, I mean that we as sinning Christians, whether it's illicit sex, drugs, or too much rock and roll - regardless - we need stop looking the other way when sin walks in the door. Worse than looking the other way, we need to stop celebrate sin.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Hmmm, I'm not sure you understood the explanation I gave you. I want you to think about a rock and roll star, with a needle in his arm, dead.

Except that's not really a explanation, it's more of an evasion. Fatally overdosing on drugs is not described as a "sin" in the Bible, nor is being a rock star, at least as far as I'm aware. If you're going to claim you're just passing along a Biblically-derived definition of sin then that definition of sin should appear somewhere in the Bible. Quite frankly, trying to pass off your own personal prejudices as the word of God is what's ridiculous

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
If you are expecting me to produce a website that lists safe and unsafe rock and roll, or songs per day quota, you will be waiting a while.

Well, you were the one who called on all Christians to avoid "too much rock and roll" because it is sinful. If that's going to be your standard, the obvious next question is "how much is 'too much'"? The fact that you admit engaging in this sinful behavior yourself implies there's a certain amount that's okay, and your defensiveness about your standards implies that the amount that's sinful is "anything more than what I do", which seems very "self-indulgent", to borrow a phrase.

For those unfamiliar with the broader context, American Christians have a long-standing opposition to rock and roll going back to the era when they referred to it as "race music". That gives you a hint as to what the real objection was. Blogger Fred Clark posted this about his experience as a young Evangelical and the messages he received about rock and roll:

quote:
But the main focus of Sketch’s musical folklore — and the whole point of his Elvis. Aaron. Presley. shtick — wasn’t about fear of Satan. It was about fear of black people. That’s how, for Sketch and the whole “rock music is evil” cottage industry, rock music became “the devil’s music.” It became the devil’s music because they weren’t allowed to talk about “race music” anymore. In retrospect, I think that’s part of what made Sketch’s presentation so weirdly compelling — it was a high-wire act without a net, watching to see if this man could speak for a full hour without explicitly stating the racism roiling just under the surface.

Or sometimes just right there at the surface — as when he inevitably rehearsed the urban legend about the white missionary kid in Africa upsetting the newly converted natives by playing the “demon-summoning drums” (rock and roll) on his magic white cassette player. There really isn’t any non-racist way of pretending that story is true.

Basically, Sketch’s whole argument rested on a euphemistically white-supremacist mirror image of the cultural appropriation critique of Elvis. Rather than arguing that Elvis’ appreciation for and appropriation of black music and black culture constituted a kind of cultural exploitation or theft, Sketch argued that it was contaminating and corrupting white music and white culture.

Sketch wouldn’t have said “white,” of course. He’d have said “Christian.” But what he meant was “white.”

Read the whole thing for further context. It's worth it.

There are ample Bible verses against party culture and the lust of the flesh, particularly sexual.

But I think really you are beyond the pale, you just dont get it. By nit picking this you really showing you don't want to talk. It is actually you that is avoiding, not me.

If you cannot see abject stupidity of drug OD caused by lifestyle of pleasure overdose, we just cannot have a conversation. Dude, pleasure overdose is, essentially the sin. There is pleasure, and then there is overdose on sensuality. That's all there is to it.

And lastly, I will not respond to your rather revolting association of this with racism. It seems that all there is to discussion with a certain element around here is portrayal of me as a Westboro Baptist.

Incidentally, I'm on my way to see Jim Gaffigan tonight in Kansas City! I will be indulging in a very fine meal with friends before hand, having an expensive slab of meat, and a nice glass of wine.

The great part is this. I found out that Westboro Baptist Church is protesting the comedy show! Which is sort of comical in itself.

And how about you what will you be doing this evening, how will you indulge?

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

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What intrigues me about this sort of argument is the complete absence from the discussion, either of heterosexual or homosexual relationships, of love, affection, caring, companionship, life-sharing, "when I look up there will you be, when you look up there will I be", appreciation of the other, devotion, fondness, friendship, tenderness for each other, cherishing, delight in each other, worshipping each other, in short, anything positive.

It's all about sex and lust (and, presumably, rock and roll). It's not about people, it's only about bits of bodies.

Do the preachers of abomination not have any of these feelings themselves? Do they not believe, if they do, that others can have the same feelings?

I don't think I would feel comfortable in a relationship with someone who had that attitude, who could look at couples in love and only see forbidden sin.

PS, if you suspect I used a thesaurus, spot on. PS

[ 20. July 2017, 16:30: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posts: 5758 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

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




1. "eat" the flesh of Christ (believe in the risen Christ and his power to raise you from the dead)

2. "drink" his blood (believe that he lived a mortal and sinless life and his mortal blood was shed on your behalf

I

Interesting interpretation of those two phrases -- certainly not the ordinary or historic understanding of what they mean -- more strictly, I suppose, not one of the various normal or historic understandings that are around. WHere does your particular interpretation come from? Has it any authority? Is it your own idea?

JOhn

Gospel of John Chapter 6, Jesus says he is the bread of life that came from heaven, links it to eternal life. It's not a direct way of saying so, but we learn later, that his body has a two fold meaning, both mortal, and immortal (raised).

By invoking heaven, I think the bread symbolizes his immortality. To be granted immortality, one must have faith in Christ (John 6:35 to 59).

People often construe the unleavened bread to mean merely sinlessness. I believe the analogy between regular and unleavened bread to be linked with the body.

Leavened bread symbolizes what is perishable. Accordingly, Jesus actually was breaking the traditional meal of leavened bread the day before Passover. The day on which the bread would be thrown out or consumed, prior to nightfall.

The Unleavened Bread, then, symbolizes the imperishable. Accordingly, it is a simple association with immortality.

The Exodus account talks about the reason for unleavened bread being as simple as they just would not have time to make food. This to me speaks of simple practicality. They were not going to have a way to make fresh bread on their journey, and it is common sense when going camping and without refrigeration to pack the most imperishable food possible.

Huh?!

That all makes no sense in terms of the meaning you attach (and actually, it's not a meaning but your interpretation, in a typically medieval fashion) to Jesus' statements that "This is my body" and "this is my blood".

Are you trying to avoid the normal meanings attached to those phrases of Jesus?

John

Sorry for the tangent, but yes, that's my interpretation.

And no, I would not say I'm avoiding or stripping anything away from the normal interpretation, of course the bread and wine are just as Jesus said, they are a remembrance of his suffering death. But there are other things to remember, more to integrate.

I'm really saying no more than Jesus said of his body in John 6, so I don't understand why this is a "medievil" line of thinking. We have faith in Christ, his power to raise us from the dead, his risen body is the token of this power in which we believe. He calls his body "bread". Nothing crazy here.

--------------------
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      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What intrigues me about this sort of argument is the complete absence from the discussion, either of heterosexual or homosexual relationships, of love, affection, caring, companionship, life-sharing, "when I look up there will you be, when you look up there will I be", appreciation of the other, devotion, fondness, friendship, tenderness for each other, cherishing, delight in each other, worshipping each other, in short, anything positive.

It's all about sex and lust (and, presumably, rock and roll). It's not about people, it's only about bits of bodies.

Do the preachers of abomination not have any of these feelings themselves? Do they not believe, if they do, that others can have the same feelings?

I don't think I would feel comfortable in a relationship with someone who had that attitude, who could look at couples in love and only see forbidden sin.

PS, if you suspect I used a thesaurus, spot on. PS

Hi Penny.

I would say that of course love and caring and life sharing are possible for any two people of any orientation. But none of those things require sex. There seems to be a false association of sexual pleasure as the true ideal to strive for in the building of a loving relationship. Attraction is not love, nor is it the key to finding it.

Sex and arousal are, essentially, exactly as you said, it is bits and bodies, it's mechanical. And oddly, that is precisely how some of the opponents to my posts have expressed things - starkly boiling down sexual activities as mere objects banging on each other.

I've tried to take a position that our bodies are made for more than glorifying us, but rather God, and God-likeness.

So how about you, do you feel that in order to love someone in the most pure selfless fashion of caring for them, that it requires sex with them? Obviously, I would disagree with that, I see love and arousal as independent of one another conceptually, as Love is defined as selfless service. Sex, rather, is rather difficult to separate from self gratification.

What say you?

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

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
If you cannot see abject stupidity of drug OD caused by lifestyle of pleasure overdose, we just cannot have a conversation.

Which is another evasion, moving the goalposts from "sin" to "abject stupidity". A lot of things are abjectly stupid without necessarily being sins. Or to put it another way, abject stupidity is not, in itself, a sin.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Incidentally, I'm on my way to see Jim Gaffigan tonight in Kansas City! I will be indulging in a very fine meal with friends before hand, having an expensive slab of meat, and a nice glass of wine.

So, indulging "lust[s] of the flesh"? I guess it's only a sin when other people do it.

I've always thought this was one of the reasons most people have for concentrating on the condemnation of homosexuality: it's always easier and a lot more comfortable to condemn sins they don't want to commit themselves. Which is how you get people who consider a lifetime of celibacy to be an exact equivalent to avoiding a single sexual encounter.

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What intrigues me about this sort of argument is the complete absence from the discussion, either of heterosexual or homosexual relationships, of love, affection, caring, companionship, life-sharing, "when I look up there will you be, when you look up there will I be", appreciation of the other, devotion, fondness, friendship, tenderness for each other, cherishing, delight in each other, worshipping each other, in short, anything positive.

Well, those aren't, strictly speaking, Biblical requirements for a marriage (or other Biblically-approved romantic relationship like concubinage).

[ 20. July 2017, 16:58: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

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

Posts: 10340 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Sex, rather, is rather difficult to separate from self gratification.

What say you?

I'd say that I'd feel sorry for anyone who has sex with someone who equates sex and self-gratification.
Posts: 4752 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Wow you have understood me perfectly this time, yes yes, It is only a sin when others indulge their desires, never for me though!

Let me spell it out for you.

Too much wine is a sin. Same for many other desires and even blessings from God, such as wine. Homosexual sex is really the byproduct of, or consequence of too much sexualization in society.

sexting
teen pregnancy
party culture
porn
sex eduation
one night stands
gay sex
group sex
sex additiction.

None of those are new, just that none of them are regarded widely as a sinful or destructive anymore.

It's hard to indulge too much on smelling flowers though I guess. But it's a crazy world.

sorry no more time to talk, I have to go write some new passages into my personal Bible about the evil of rock-n-roll. [Big Grin]

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

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Too much wine is a sin. Same for many other desires and even blessings from God, such as wine. Homosexual sex is really the byproduct of, or consequence of too much sexualization in society.

Which, once again, goes back to the question of how much is "too much", in this case "too much sexualization"? What's the right, Biblically-mandated amount of sexualization that's proper for society?

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
sexting
teen pregnancy
party culture
porn
sex edu[c]ation
one night stands
gay sex
group sex
sex additiction.

None of those are new, just that none of them are regarded widely as a sinful or destructive anymore.

The most interesting implication here is that gynecology (which requires an extraordinary amount of sex education) is something we're supposed to regard as sinful and/or destructive. Why, exactly, is ignorance preferable to education, at least when it comes to sex?

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

Posts: 10340 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Hmmm, I'm not sure you understood the explanation I gave you. I want you to think about a rock and roll star, with a needle in his arm, dead. Think Hollywood celebrity narcissim. That's you're explanation.

Because country music, big band, classical, etc. have never produced addicts? Because, wandering into a methadone treatment programme, one only finds musicians?

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
If you cannot see abject stupidity

If everyone here recognised abject stupidity, this conversation wouldn't exist.

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

PS, if you suspect I used a thesaurus, spot on.

Given his lines of reasoning; I suspect he might think all thesaurus' died out just after the Flood along with the rest of the dinosaurs.

[ 20. July 2017, 17:47: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16607 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

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

Too much wine is a sin. Same for many other desires and even blessings from God, such as wine.

Certainly overindulgence in any kind of pleasure can be sinful. I think you'll find plenty of people to agree with that.

quote:
Homosexual sex is really the byproduct of, or consequence of too much sexualization in society.

And this makes no sense at all. What's your logic? That gay people are oversexed and can't find someone of the opposite sex who will have sex with them, so they have to be gay? That they are really people that are called to celibacy, but are misled by a sexual society into thinking that they ought to be getting regular nookie, but for undisclosed reasons don't want it from someone of the opposite sex?

Or perhaps your case is that there is altogether too much sex around for everyone, and that people should fall in romantic love with other people, write each other poetry, go for long walks in the country, and commit to being each other's succour and helpmeet in a strictly pants-on fashion, and that you'll grudgingly allow a monthly fumble for fertile members of the opposite sex in order to provide for the continuance of the species?

'Cause there's no support for any of that anywhere.

So what's your logic? Why is homosexuality a consequence of an oversexualized society? What's the mechanism?

Posts: 4752 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

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

That gay people are oversexed and can't find someone of the opposite sex who will have sex with them, so they have to be gay?

So obsessed that regular, vanilla sex isn't enough! Something more must be added and then more and more depraved! I forget the order, though. I think it is something like promiscuity, then kink, then homosexuality and then animals and or children? My copy of the handbook is a bit dog-eared and stained, so it is difficult to read. I did as for a new one, but since the drive to convert has been stepped up, they are in short supply.
I haven't been though all the steps, myself. No desire for children or animals. Does this mean that I am salvageable or merely that the devil hasn't gotten round yet?

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16607 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

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

It's a case of massive gender role confusion until what happens is men stop understanding women or appreciating them, they can only understand men, and vis/v, women understand women better than they do men, so they fall for women. In other words, they feel like they "belong" with each other.

It is facilitated by already heighten sexuality early in teen or pre teen years where sexual exploration without commitment has already lead to disappointing experiences, and sexual disillusionment. This leads to a new search for sexual meaning, and the a fore mentioned loss of connection to the opposite sex creates a default to seek meaning sexually with the same sex - it's easier.

At play here are a number of mechanisms really which could all be talked about.
...divorce, single parent, absent parent issues, creating latent gender based stress in kids.
...the naturalism in education that we're merely apes acting on impulses....
...encouragement of a lot of open sexuality in kids under the guise of safety at school...
...stressing gender equality when what is in fact meant is equivalency...
...the general cheapness of sexual experiences in high school and college among kids learning to have sex first and find love later
...the cheapness of birth control as tied to the cheapness of sex.
...child sexual abuse

The list could go on.

Society is manufacturing gay kids.

We come out of the womb a blank slate, we're not sexual at first. We learn it. If you like where we're going as a society, fine and good. If you think going backwards in the sexual revolution is an endorsement of bronze age female enslavement like so many others, I'd just say that's nonsense.

Now of course I cannot stop the sexual revolution that started in what, the 60's.... but I have my own kids, and I intend to protect their sexuality until they are ready to behave sexually. Nobody will be teaching my little kid about anal sex or ANY sex. No teen vogue for her!

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

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

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

It's a case of massive gender role confusion until what happens is men stop understanding women or appreciating them,

I rather think that the stereotype is that gay men are better at understanding and appreciating women - it's the straight men who are the Martians. Conversely, there are plenty of straight men who neither understand nor appreciate women; just enjoy having sex with them.
Posts: 4752 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

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


Society is manufacturing gay kids.

Even if that's true (which I don't think it is - but anyway), I think it is hard to show that this is a bad thing.

quote:
Now of course I cannot stop the sexual revolution that started in what, the 60's.... but I have my own kids, and I intend to protect their sexuality until they are ready to behave sexually. Nobody will be teaching my little kid about anal sex or ANY sex. No teen vogue for her!
Well of course you are right to want to protect her innocence for as long as you can, but as one father to another, be careful.

If you refuse to discuss things then she'll get messages from other people.

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9830 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Once upon a time, some scientists did a rather mean experiment with some baby monkeys. It involved providing them with milk from a "mother" made of chicken wire, and alternatively, a milkless soft furry surrogate.

The babies wanted to have the comfort of contact, even with a lifeless soft toy, rather than the food from the wire body.

We are much more than monkeys, but, like them, are made, I'm sure you would agree, not to be alone. Someone said that it wasn't good, didn't they? And not being alone includes having hugs and cuddles and close contact with people important to us. For various reasons, nothing to do with the subject under discussion, I know precisely what it is like to have to endure relationships without contact. And if one is going to avoid sex, all close contact has to be avoided, doesn't it? It might lead, as the old Scottish joke has it, to dancing.

It's bloody hell, and if you think that imposing that on anyone as a higher form of love is some form of good, you are living in some rarified atmosphere beyond reality. Or, possibly, one of those rare mortals who can exist without the usual mammalian social behaviour. If you are, don't assume we all are, and don't impose your own style of existence on others, who do not have your gift. Which is most of us.

Oh, and your comment about sex being hard to separate from self gratification makes absolutely clear why I would not want a relationship with someone who had your attitude. I think it rather sad that you can't see it as hard to separate from gratifying the beloved.

[ 20. July 2017, 21:27: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posts: 5758 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Dude, pleasure overdose is, essentially the sin. There is pleasure, and then there is overdose on sensuality. That's all there is to it.

The logical corollary to this is that gay and straight people should have sex only in moderation. Not that straight people should have sex in moderation and that gay people should abstain from sex altogether.

(Unless you are saying that straight sex is only moderately pleasurable and gay sex is pleasure overload. [Paranoid] )

quote:
I see love and arousal as independent of one another conceptually
Then why is sex, in most cultures, so closely associated with marriage?

Anyway neurochemistry is against you. AIUI orgasm releases oxytocin which favours pair-bonding.

quote:
It's a case of massive gender role confusion until what happens is men stop understanding women or appreciating them, they can only understand men, and vis/v, women understand women better than they do men, so they fall for women. In other words, they feel like they "belong" with each other.
And that is the consensus of biologists and psychologists, is it?

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7105 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Mechanism...
It's a case of massive gender role confusion ...
Society is manufacturing gay kids.

We come out of the womb a blank slate, we're not sexual at first. We learn it. ..

Multiple citations needed.

quote:

Nobody will be teaching my little kid about anal sex or ANY sex. No teen vogue for her!

Good grief. Anal sex again. Is that all straight men ever think about?

--------------------
"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: 5338 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Good grief. Anal sex again. Is that all straight men ever think about?

But surely one would worry less about one's gay daughter having anal sex than about one's straight daughter doing the same (assuming one were to worry about one's relatives having anal sex at all). [Devil]
Posts: 4752 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

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


Now here is the article in Encyclopedia Britannica online.

..................

I mean it. You have already lost.

Ok, so you have the encyclopedia, I guess, well, super. So this is old news that the Bible and the Encyclopedia are incompatible with each other. If you want to declare a victory based on the encylcopedia... go right ahead. It's as if you win because you have more friends? ok, fine, go right ahead. You have more friends.

[Disappointed]

You have already lost because of your inability to follow a moral argument. Do you really believe that Desmond Tutu is ignorant about the content of scripture, does not base his understanding of Christian morality and values on scripture. He has simply come to different conclusions than you about what is of central importance.

In the words of Jesus (Matthew 23)

quote:
23 But you have neglected the more important matters of the law — justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
Do you not recognise the possibility that a brave, good, Christian minister with many years of experience of injustice might not be able to see, more clearly than you, what the "more important matters of the law" are when considering fair treatment of homosexuality.

For if you cannot see even that possibility, then that itself is proof that you have already lost.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 20858 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Aijalon,

In the Styx I advised that you post in a manner that brings light with minimum heat. Your most recent post is a prime example of the exact opposite.

You propose a mechanism, without any supporting evidence for it, that effectively states that LGBT people are the product of teenage sexual experience, that they were slutty teenagers.

Your post adds no light, since there's nothing there of substance to discuss. But, the personal attack on LGBT people creates a lot of heat.

You now have a concrete example of what the Hosts here have been warning you of. A last chance to rethink how you express your views, and learn how to do so without needless offense. The next example will result in a suspension from these boards.

Alan
Ship of Fools Admin

Posts: 31970 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
It's a case of massive gender role confusion until what happens is men stop understanding women or appreciating them, they can only understand men, and vis/v, women understand women better than they do men, so they fall for women. In other words, they feel like they "belong" with each other.
And that is the consensus of biologists and psychologists, is it?
Don't be silly. It's what the Bible says. And given a contradiction between the Bible and science, the scientists must perforce be wrong.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62953 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Where did homosexuals come from before all this massive societal gender confusion? How did people get hooked on laudanum before rock and roll? Why doesn't this massive gender confusion create more than 10% of the population as homosexuals? How does it make homosexuals out of kids that grew up in families where they were completely shielded from knowledge of the mass societal gender confusion? Did Frank Sinatra have too much sex with his screaming teenage groupies, given that he didn't sing rock and roll but a kind of cocktail jazz? Why did jazzmen smoke pot when they weren't playing rock and roll? Why isn't ethanol considered a drug for the purposes of deriding performers for overindulgence?

Inquiring minds want to know.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62953 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged



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

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools