|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Biblical interpretation of apparently anti-gay passages
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
.... with no gay physicality prior to 32, ... what then was the sexual physicality before 32? ...
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) You do know there's a sexual act that virgins can do, over and over again, and still stay virgins, right? It starts with an m ...
And fantasies are also "sexual physicality". Perhaps you don't think the brain is a physical part of the body, which might be why your concept of human sexuality is fundamentally flawed. Thoughts and feelings are a huge part of everyone's sexuality, not just heterosexuals'. You seem to agree that one can be attracted to a person of opposite sex prior to having heterosexual sex. It appears that in order to justify denigrating homosexual relationships, you see homosexuality as different - that somehow a person 'becomes' homosexual as a result of experimenting with the wrong slots and tabs, not because they have sexual thoughts and feelings about people of the same sex. That's a valid opinion, but the experiences of real people that contradict your opinion are equally valid, and have the advantage of being factual.
If you just want to follow your version of the Bible's rules, you don't need pseudo-scientific babble about the construction of human sexuality and orientation. And if you want to convince or force other people to follow your version of the Bible's rules, pseudo-scientific babble is probably the least effective way to do it. They're not likely to be convinced by picking and choosing from Biblical "authority" either.
quote:
19 Don't screw dees things up:
No shackin wif teh dog.
No raisin coca AND teh pot in teh same garage.
No pleather.
26 Cooks teh cheezburger all teh way throo. DO NOT WANT RAW.
No crazy voodoo stuffs, kthnx.
27 No mullets or bad sideburns.
28 No emo cutting an no tattoos off teh parlor wall. I IZ CEILING CAT.
30 Still no workin on teh weekends. I IZ CEILING CAT.
Leviticus 19
quote:
8 Do what I, the Ceiling Cat sayz!
13 Dood makes teh secks wif another dood liek a chic, killz both!
22 Do liek I sez, or yu can haz no cookies!
Leviticus 20
Now, AIUI, 21st Century literalists tell me that while I still can't fuck the dog, I can wear pleather. Whether or not I can get a pixie cut and work on the weekend is debatable. Hamburger should always be thoroughly cooked. I don't have to kill teh gayz. So will I still get cookies or not? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
sure, sex acts may not be required for sexuality, but you would agree that sexuality is intrinsically tied to physicality or desire for physicality or a physical relationship, yes?
If I understand what you mean by physicality, yes, but...
quote:
with no gay physicality prior to 32, and with something questionable about virginity prior to that taking place, what then was the sexual physicality before 32? Or was this a case of not sharing physically with others up to that point due to not yet being out?
Thanks.
I didn't say something questionable about virginity took place PRIOR. I thought I was being fairly clear that I had no physical interaction with another male before the age of 32. I was saying exactly when AFTER that I lost my virginity might be debatable.
Plenty of guys do secretly do things before they come out. But I was not one of those guys. My sexual "interaction" with guys prior to the age of 32 consisted of:
thinking about guys lustfully
getting turned on by porn
getting turned on by images of guys that weren't pornographic
feeling weak at the knees in the presence of guys I considered handsome.
The whole reason for bringing this up is because you appear to have been generating a theory based on sexual experiences in youth that I simply didn't have. I never "experimented", I was never molested or abused. I don't recall even being aware I'd ever met a gay person. None of the things that people sometimes claim as potential triggers for "turning me gay" ever happened to me. I just discovered around 14 years of age that I found the bodies of men visually appealing, and that the big breasted women some of my peers were furtively staring at did nothing for me.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
sure, sex acts may not be required for sexuality, but you would agree that sexuality is intrinsically tied to physicality or desire for physicality or a physical relationship, yes?
Nope.
There are people who are asexual, but are drawn to relationships with a particular gender.
Strike 3. And twenty.
Going down this road is just a red herring, it isn't even in the discussion but I'm forced to accept that this is where the derailing effort must ultimately go I guess.
We're talking sexuality, not asexuality. It could be what you mean is merely sexual orientation/sexual preference? Gender is historically tied to the gender-role, but, when you say Gender are you meaning biological gender or gender role? In other words, in this rare situation, do you expect the asexual person to prefer the Gender of the other person based on what that person internally identifies with, or with their birth gender?
I suppose I understand that someone may just "want" to be with one specific gender (I'm assuming biological gender with no role expectations attached) but i also fail to see how physical differences between genders can be discarded, even if roles are.
In this story, the biological differences are rather recklessly discarded
http://usatodayhss.com/2017/connecticut-transgender-sprinter-andraya-yearwood-wins-two-state-titles-amidst-controversy
I will let you look up a conservative rebuttal to the liberal positivity for yourself.
Everything you know about the world, society, socializing, and others, is built on a physical world.
Every person sees the other person physically, sees their form and shape. You can by imagination wash out the idea of the other person's physical form, but in reality your sexual identity and preference is glued to a physical shape (will you go into pansexual polysexual demigender and genderfluid next???? Please don't but start a new thread! I'll join it, but not in Hell) The way a woman moves and walks is different, it's physical. Physical observations of our world create automatic responses in the brain.
It's like I'm here saying, "I like the look of an Oak tree better than a Pine tree", and you're here saying that people "just" like Oak trees better because they identify in their heads for no physical reason that they like Oak trees. Even if I accept that they have no conscious physical analysis of the oak tree, their thoughts on oak trees are created by their physical observations.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Now you're talking about a whole load of other stuff.
The simple fact I've been trying to outline is that some people are attracted to people of the same sex just like many other people are attracted to people of the opposite sex.
You say that's because people want to have sex with the other. And I'm suggesting it is a lot more than that in my experience and in the experience of other people on this thread.
In my experience, human attraction can sometimes be like a magnet. The power is less strong to whatever-it-is that attracts you in general (in my case, it is women), but then it can become intense around a specific person.
This other stuff that you're now introducing into the conversation isn't directly related to that point.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Crap analogies aside, what exactly are you trying to get out of this?
Every time you make an assertion 'The world is like X', someone - someone here which, let's face it, is actually a tiny proportion of the people on the planet - comes back with 'The world isn't like X, and this is my lived experience of X, these are the social and scientific studies on X.' To which you come back with 'The world is like X except I'm going to phrase it slightly differently'.
Okay, we get that you believe that the world is like X, but we also get that reasons you say you hold your beliefs are contrary to the evidence. I have no idea if one day you'll actually stop to listen to gay people, and I mean really actually listen, but on current form, I'm not holding out any hope.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
It's like I'm here saying, "I like the look of an Oak tree better than a Pine tree", and you're here saying that people "just" like Oak trees better because they identify in their heads for no physical reason that they like Oak trees.
No, it really isn't.
It's like you're saying "I like oak trees" and we're saying "that's nice. Some people like pine trees".
You talk about having a hard-wired physical response to the way that a woman's body looks and moves. Can I persuade you that gay men have those same hard-wired physical responses to a man's body?
Can I also persuade you that there exist asexual people who don't have those hard-wired physical responses to anyone's body, don't have any interest in any kind of sexual activity, but nevertheless feel drawn towards an emotional closeness to one sex or the other?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
... Gender is historically tied to the gender-role, but, when you say Gender are you meaning biological gender or gender role? ...
Oh, dear. Sex and gender are often used interchangeably, but in this context, they mean different things. Sex is determined by genetics and anatomy, and isn't as binary as most people think it is. Gender roles are social constructs. Humans also appear to have a spectrum of orientations. Human sexuality is multidimensional, and many, many people won't fit into your Biblical box. What's more important, the box or the people?
quote:
... The way a woman moves and walks is different ...
That's not an argument, that's a song lyric.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
.... with no gay physicality prior to 32, ... what then was the sexual physicality before 32? ...
You do know there's a sexual act that virgins can do, over and over again, and still stay virgins, right? It starts with an m ...
And fantasies are also "sexual physicality". Perhaps you don't think the brain is a physical part of the body, which might be why your concept of human sexuality is fundamentally flawed. Thoughts and feelings are a huge part of everyone's sexuality, not just heterosexuals'. You seem to agree that one can be attracted to a person of opposite sex prior to having heterosexual sex. It appears that in order to justify denigrating homosexual relationships, you see homosexuality as different - that somehow a person 'becomes' homosexual as a result of experimenting with the wrong slots and tabs, not because they have sexual thoughts and feelings about people of the same sex. That's a valid opinion, but the experiences of real people that contradict your opinion are equally valid, and have the advantage of being factual.
If you just want to follow your version of the Bible's rules, you don't need pseudo-scientific babble about the construction of human sexuality and orientation. And if you want to convince or force other people to follow your version of the Bible's rules, pseudo-scientific babble is probably the least effective way to do it. They're not likely to be convinced by picking and choosing from Biblical "authority" either.
quote:
19 Don't screw dees things up:
No shackin wif teh dog.
No raisin coca AND teh pot in teh same garage.
No pleather.
26 Cooks teh cheezburger all teh way throo. DO NOT WANT RAW.
No crazy voodoo stuffs, kthnx.
27 No mullets or bad sideburns.
28 No emo cutting an no tattoos off teh parlor wall. I IZ CEILING CAT.
30 Still no workin on teh weekends. I IZ CEILING CAT.
Leviticus 19
quote:
8 Do what I, the Ceiling Cat sayz!
13 Dood makes teh secks wif another dood liek a chic, killz both!
22 Do liek I sez, or yu can haz no cookies!
Leviticus 20
Now, AIUI, 21st Century literalists tell me that while I still can't fuck the dog, I can wear pleather. Whether or not I can get a pixie cut and work on the weekend is debatable. Hamburger should always be thoroughly cooked. I don't have to kill teh gayz. So will I still get cookies or not?
I would not be productive for me to respond to any of this, but I wanted you to know I read it.
--------------------
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 Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
It's like I'm here saying, "I like the look of an Oak tree better than a Pine tree", and you're here saying that people "just" like Oak trees better because they identify in their heads for no physical reason that they like Oak trees.
No, it really isn't.
It's like you're saying "I like oak trees" and we're saying "that's nice. Some people like pine trees".
You talk about having a hard-wired physical response to the way that a woman's body looks and moves. Can I persuade you that gay men have those same hard-wired physical responses to a man's body?
Can I also persuade you that there exist asexual people who don't have those hard-wired physical responses to anyone's body, don't have any interest in any kind of sexual activity, but nevertheless feel drawn towards an emotional closeness to one sex or the other?
Of course people have different opinions of trees, the question was how did they arrive at their opinions of trees, if not by a physical assessment. One must have seen an Oak tree to have an opinion on it.
Yes, it becomes a hard wired response, but sexuality isn't flipped on with a switch it is influenced by a learning process and by relationships, as well as basic visual stimulation and impressions early in life. How much do those experiences factor, that's the question.
To the last thing, for an asexual in the example, I'm simply asking how one sex was chosen If indeed anatomy doesn't enter into their preference then would they not equally connect with the both sexes as long as the other partner identified psychologically as the gender the asexual desired?
--------------------
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:
We're talking sexuality, not asexuality. It could be what you mean is merely sexual orientation/sexual preference?
Asexuality is sexuality. That you do not appear to understand this is part of the problem. I am trying to demonstrate the flaws in your logic, but if you do not comprehend the basic elements, it is difficult to do.
quote:
It's like I'm here saying, "I like the look of an Oak tree better than a Pine tree", and you're here saying that people "just" like Oak trees better because they identify in their heads for no physical reason that they like Oak trees. Even if I accept that they have no conscious physical analysis of the oak tree, their thoughts on oak trees are created by their physical observations.
This isn't how it works. I do not like seafood. I've had no traumatic experience with seafood, my mum was not scared by a fish whilst pregnant with me; I simply do not like the taste. Some things are inborn, some things are learned. LGBT+ is determined before birth because; science.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
is perhaps what you mean to ask is whether I have ever felt attracted to a woman without it being immediately tied to an urge for sex? The older I have become the answer is the more I have been able to find attraction possible while not imagining sex at the end of my daydream. But as a teen the answer is a little different.
sounds like a very lkow sex-drive
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
We're talking sexuality, not asexuality. It could be what you mean is merely sexual orientation/sexual preference?
Asexuality is sexuality. That you do not appear to understand this is part of the problem. I am trying to demonstrate the flaws in your logic, but if you do not comprehend the basic elements, it is difficult to do.
quote:
It's like I'm here saying, "I like the look of an Oak tree better than a Pine tree", and you're here saying that people "just" like Oak trees better because they identify in their heads for no physical reason that they like Oak trees. Even if I accept that they have no conscious physical analysis of the oak tree, their thoughts on oak trees are created by their physical observations.
This isn't how it works. I do not like seafood. I've had no traumatic experience with seafood, my mum was not scared by a fish whilst pregnant with me; I simply do not like the taste. Some things are inborn, some things are learned. LGBT+ is determined before birth because; science.
sexual and asexual are antonyms "a" meaning "not" sexual. So you should not be suprised you're hard to follow.
Perhaps if you explained how an asexual person can choose one specific anatomical sex, based on criteria that are not physical, I would understand better.
--------------------
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:
sexual and asexual are antonyms "a" meaning "not" sexual. So you should not be suprised you're hard to follow.
Perhaps if you explained how an asexual person can choose one specific anatomical sex, based on criteria that are not physical, I would understand better.
I'm hard to follow? (Wow! the mind boggles.)
There are people who have no desire for sex. But they do have a desire for intimate* companionship. And that desire can be for a specific gender.
*As in closely acquainted; familiar, close, not as a euphamism for sex.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
sexual and asexual are antonyms "a" meaning "not" sexual. So you should not be suprised you're hard to follow.
Perhaps if you explained how an asexual person can choose one specific anatomical sex, based on criteria that are not physical, I would understand better.
I'm hard to follow? (Wow! the mind boggles.)
There are people who have no desire for sex. But they do have a desire for intimate* companionship. And that desire can be for a specific gender.
*As in closely acquainted; familiar, close, not as a euphamism for sex.
Yes, and that makes sense to me. to be specific about either gender is to make distinction between them. How do they choose the gender, on what basis if not a physical one?
Your options as I see them are:
A. They choose based on gender identity (what gender a person believes themselves to be))
B. They choose based on gender biology (physical characteristics)
Companionship I understand, so you tell me, how does the asexual person choose a specific gender?
There are four possibilities (male, female, and 'identifying as' male/female)
If they would pick any of the four, then is that a special title of asexual bisexual? (not trying to be funny, just need you to clarify, you're posts are too brief and never answer my questions)
[ 26. July 2017, 19:34: Message edited by: Aijalon ]
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Companionship I understand, so you tell me, how does the asexual person choose a specific gender?
Smae way any of the rest of us do. It is innate.
quote:
(not trying to be funny, just need you to clarify, you're posts are too brief and never answer my questions)
Honestly dude, your posts are often a chaotic mess. I attempt to find a thread within and address that.
[fixed code]
[ 26. July 2017, 23:54: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
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:
Yes, it becomes a hard wired response, but sexuality isn't flipped on with a switch it is influenced by a learning process and by relationships, as well as basic visual stimulation and impressions early in life. How much do those experiences factor, that's the question.
So as far as I'm aware, we don't actually know what causes some people to be gay and some people to be straight.
But what we do know is that you can raise twin siblings together, and have one of them turn out gay and the other straight. Best friends at school turn out to have different sexual orientations. Raise kids in as similar an environment as you can, and you find some gay ones and some straight ones. So it can't be learned behaviour in the way that you seem to be implying here.
So we can say that whatever causes sexual orientation seems to be largely determined before birth.
quote:
To the last thing, for an asexual in the example, I'm simply asking how one sex was chosen If indeed anatomy doesn't enter into their preference then would they not equally connect with the both sexes as long as the other partner identified psychologically as the gender the asexual desired?
I'm trying to understand what you mean here. Is the "partner identifying psychologically as the gender the asexual desired" a trans person - is that where you're going with this?
Because there are plenty of straight men who fall in love with trans women, and we don't think of them as gay. There are plenty of other straight men for whom a trans woman would not be an acceptable potential partner.
If I understand your question, then I'd guess that a straight asexual man would be very likely to fall into the first group rather than the second, but that's a guess.
[ 26. July 2017, 21:29: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Companionship I understand, so you tell me, how does the asexual person choose a specific gender?
Smae way any of the rest of us do. It is innate.
quote:
(not trying to be funny, just need you to clarify, you're posts are too brief and never answer my questions) [QB]
Honestly dude, your posts are often a chaotic mess. I attempt to find a thread within and address that.
"It's innate" means hardwired to a specific hereditary trait then? How does that trait express itself, how does it tell their brain to select one gender over another? There is a differentiation that must be going on, is it unexplainable?
[code]
[ 26. July 2017, 23:57: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
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
Aijalon - for clarity, in case you don't know:
A trans woman is a person who was born with a male body, but identifies as female. She may or may not have had some operations to alter her body, and may or may not be taking hormones.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
"It's innate" means hardwired to a specific hereditary trait then?
No. It means you're born with it. (Think of root of innate = nat as in nativity.) Some things you're born with are epigenetic. Other things are a result of changes that take place in the womb over the course of gestation and have, as far as we know, no relationship to genes/heredity.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There are people who have no desire for sex. But they do have a desire for intimate* companionship. And that desire can be for a specific gender.
*As in closely acquainted; familiar, close, not as a euphemism for sex.
Or they can just care about who they care about, never mind the gender. Similar for bisexual folks, I would think.
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Soror Magna--
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
30 Still no workin on teh weekends. I IZ CEILING CAT.
Leviticus 19
quote:
8 Do what I, the Ceiling Cat sayz!
Good to know the "LOLcat Bible" is still around. Yay, Ceiling Cat! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
well sure, i've interacted with women based on attraction and with full knowledge there was no sex involved.
Are you saying that if your parents had let you loose to test drive any sex you wanted that you would have ended up as a homosexual?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I had teenage experiences with teenage males and females, it's what decided me that I'm definitely heterosexual.
Both were fun but the blokes touched a spot the girls couldn't - and the spot was emotional, not physical.
[ 27. July 2017, 10:29: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
"It's innate" means hardwired to a specific hereditary trait then?
No. It means you're born with it. (Think of root of innate = nat as in nativity.) Some things you're born with are epigenetic. Other things are a result of changes that take place in the womb over the course of gestation and have, as far as we know, no relationship to genes/heredity.
Freckle patterns and fingerprints are two obvious examples that are both innate and non-hereditary.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
wabale
Shipmate
# 18715
|
Posted
Slight tangent to the above, and to be honest the outcome of a little reading over the last few months, but very much to the OP -
As I understand it scholars cannot agree what Paul meant in Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and 1 Timothy 1 regarding ‘homosexual behaviour’ if I may use the term. But presumably his readers in the 1st Century would have.
‘T(t)raditionally it has apparently been regarded as a very serious sin, and its justification almost more so. By this argument the contrast between pagan behaviour and christian belief in the 1st Century would have been particularly strong, as homosexual behaviour of all shades would have been a feature of life in the not yet christianised Roman world within which the Christian faith was spreading.
Yet the only shade of homosexual behaviour that Christians wrote about were pederasty and prostitution. In 1Clement there is a chapter about the fate of Sodom - a perfect opportunity to rail against homosexuals you would have thought - but Clement uses it as a warning to people to be hospitable, and not to be like Lot’s wife and be double-minded. The Didache contains a couple of quite comprehensive ‘sin-lists’, one of which condemns pederasty but not homosexual behaviour.
Clement and the writer of The Didache seem to have read St Paul rather differently from some of us, perhaps because they understood the vocabulary he was using better than we do.
Posts: 74 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I'm completely convinced by Steve Chalke's derision here at 29:05
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
wabale
Shipmate
# 18715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm completely convinced by Steve Chalke's derision here at 29:05
The misuse of the clobber verses has been duly clobbered. I too was impressed by the derision at 29:05, and indeed found the entire 37 minutes most timely for putting me in the right frame of mind for a planned PCC meeting.
Posts: 74 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm completely convinced by Steve Chalke's derision here at 29:05
It's naïve for Steve Chalke to claim earlier in the Video that biblical interpretation hasn't been approached with sufficient rigour (which is why, presumably, the church has come up with it's approach on homosexuality). Nothing in his approach changes that premise.
It's a view but is it the complete view? Many today would agree, many would not.
We continue to struggle to put ourselves back into the 1st century and therefore understand the full implications/meaning of the NT texts.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
People here know that I am in favour of SSM etc., but I have to largely agree with EM in his critique of Steve Chalke - it's disingenuous of him (Chalke) to suggest that good Biblical scholars haven't wrestled with these passages. He would surely know that people such as the highly-respected Baptist academic Stephen Holmes have ended up concurring with the "traditional" approach - although others have ended up with different conclusions.
However Steve may well be right in hinting that much "popular" evangelical discussion of homosexuality has failed to properly engage with the more complex cultural, etymological and expositional aspects of the NT passages under consideration, instead resorting to simplistic "proof-texting".
By the way, I think that Chalke missed a trick in his discussion about divorce, by not saying more explicitly, "This isn't a summary of Jesus' complete thinking about divorce but merely a response to a specific question, one which in fact was posed deliberately to test his credentials and trick him into apparently advocating one Pharisaic group over another". In other words it's less about divorce and more about working out "whose side Jesus was on". (As usually he cleverly avoids falling into the trap laid for him).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
As usual it's all about what we bring to the party. You can insist on the delusion, the hallucination that the emperor is arrayed in blanket homophobia if you wish, if you are so conditioned. You can't help that. But he's not. You'd be wrong. Intellectually. Scholarship has nothing to do with it as it's never been used by conservative Christians and can't be by definition, except in utter subservience to fear. I'd be intrigued if relatively unbiased postmodern academic scholarship concludes that Paul was a universal homophobe. He almost certainly culturally, helplessly unexaminedly was, but he didn't express it in his epistles.
As Steve demonstrates at 29:05 it is risible to suggest that Paul picked out four love homosexuality - a concept that possibly couldn't have occurred to him, although it could well have, to say the least, occurred to Jesus over the centurion and his Matthian 'pais' - as some great evil. Or any evil at all.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
I do not buy the "only the 1st century church" can really understand position. Merely casting doubt on our modern understanding of the 1st century church isn't enough to reverse church tradition today.
For one, there are things that Paul alludes to that are "self evident".
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,g in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. - Rom 1:19
Quite interestingly, the wants, feelings and desires of mankind in present day are also "self evident".
When one appeals to natural law, or what is self evident, you open up a pandora's box of sorts in cases where the source of what is evident has changed.
Is the source God?
Is the source Culture?
What is the source of revelation we believe in?
In light of divine revelation integrated with Romans, restrictions on homosexuality are not merely based on 1st century contextual situations. Rather, restrictions are universal, and Romans bears out application.
If our modern understanding of the 1st century context is fuzzy, that still does not nullify the self evident view against homosexuality . It is upon that view that Paul draws on in a case for not conforming to the practices of the 1st century (whatever they were).
Not writing against all possible forms of LGBT expression is not evidence of any support for some of it. That is an argument from silence.
Rather, writing against the prevalent temptation toward it, is some evidence of disapproval of all of it, if anything.
Why would Paul need to be exhaustive in writing to his reader on all forms of LGBT in order to be a resource on the morality of it in Christianity?
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Freckle patterns and fingerprints are two obvious examples that are both innate and non-hereditary.
Interesting how this was totally ignored.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Broadly speaking because, absent demonstrable harm (which is present in the vast, vast majority of behaviours we consider sinful) the burden of proof of the sinfulness of a particular act lies with the one accusing. In addition, when the prohibition of particular acts runs against the broad themes presented in scripture it deserves particularly close examination.
[ 09. August 2017, 15:17: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I do not buy the "only the 1st century church" can really understand position. Merely casting doubt on our modern understanding of the 1st century church isn't enough to reverse church tradition today.
For one, there are things that Paul alludes to that are "self evident".
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,g in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. - Rom 1:19
Quite interestingly, the wants, feelings and desires of mankind in present day are also "self evident".
When one appeals to natural law, or what is self evident, you open up a pandora's box of sorts in cases where the source of what is evident has changed.
Is the source God?
Is the source Culture?
What is the source of revelation we believe in?
In light of divine revelation integrated with Romans, restrictions on homosexuality are not merely based on 1st century contextual situations. Rather, restrictions are universal, and Romans bears out application.
If our modern understanding of the 1st century context is fuzzy, that still does not nullify the self evident view against homosexuality . It is upon that view that Paul draws on in a case for not conforming to the practices of the 1st century (whatever they were).
Not writing against all possible forms of LGBT expression is not evidence of any support for some of it. That is an argument from silence.
Rather, writing against the prevalent temptation toward it, is some evidence of disapproval of all of it, if anything.
Why would Paul need to be exhaustive in writing to his reader on all forms of LGBT in order to be a resource on the morality of it in Christianity?
Why pick out homosexuality?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Why pick out homosexuality?
Because they want to wipe the cheeseburger grease from their clean-shaven faces with poly/cotton.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Why pick out homosexuality?
Because they want to wipe the cheeseburger grease from their clean-shaven faces with poly/cotton.
With their second spouse.
--------------------
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:
In light of divine revelation integrated with Romans, restrictions on homosexuality are not merely based on 1st century contextual situations. Rather, restrictions are universal, and Romans bears out application.
But you've already rejected the universal applicability of Romans, specifically the instruction that the state should put wrongdoers to the sword. Or is this one of those cases where only the bits of Romans that you personally like are applicable?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
"Self evident" is only evident to Aijalon's self and his moral priorities.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Why pick out homosexuality?
Because they want to wipe the cheeseburger grease from their clean-shaven faces with poly/cotton.
With their second spouse.
Purchased money they made, in part, by lending money at interest.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
We can do this all day, mt, and they will weasel around it anyway.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
We can do this all day, mt, and they will weasel around it anyway.
Yes, you're right of course. Sigh.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
wabale
Shipmate
# 18715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I do not buy the "only the 1st century church" can really understand position. Merely casting doubt on our modern understanding of the 1st century church isn't enough to reverse church tradition today.
“ ‘Only the 1st century church’ can really understand position” isn’t quite what I said, but it is still, I think, true. It’s unlikely that Paul’s original readers and hearers would have been as divided as modern scholars are now about what he meant then.
I meant to pick this up earlier, but looking after grandchildren, as well as spending time reading this thread (to see if anyone apart from myself had mentioned that early Christians would have been in a better position to understand Paul) has delayed my doing so.
By ‘merely casting doubt on our modern understanding of the 1st century church’, Aijalon, do you mean understanding based on modern histories of the Church such as Diarmaid MacCulloch’s, or what?
No, clearly it ‘isn’t enough to reverse church tradition today’, but I am more convinced than ever it ought to be. I believe our historical understanding of the church’s dealings with homosexuality has been completely changed by the work of John Boswell, R.I.Moore, and other historians. (I wonder, in my own denomination, if our theologians read history books.)
I’ve been doing some more reading of early Church Fathers - ‘The Shepherd of Hermas’, one of those early pieces of Christian literature bundled with the canonical ones in the Codex Sinaiticus. Here was another early Christian writer concerned with adultery and fornication, but not apparently with homosexual behaviour specifically:
‘... 8th commandment: … "What, sir," say I, "are the evil deeds from which we must restrain ourselves?" "Hear," says he: "from adultery and fornication, from unlawful revelling, from wicked luxury, from indulgence in many kinds of food and the extravagance of riches, and from boastfulness, and haughtiness, and insolence, and lies, and backbiting, and hypocrisy, from the remembrance of wrong, and from all slander. These are the deeds that are most wicked in the life of men …
… "Are there, sir," said I, "any other evil deeds?" "There are," says he; "and many of them, too, from which the servant of God must restrain himself--theft, lying, robbery, false witness, overreaching, wicked lust, deceit, vainglory, boastfulness, and all other vices like to these." "Do you not think that these are really wicked?""Exceedingly wicked in the servants of God. . .’
I have a feeling things will hot up when I get to the 3rd Century in my reading (when, among other things, political and social conditions within the Empire took an ugly turn.)
Posts: 74 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I do not buy the "only the 1st century church" can really understand position. Merely casting doubt on our modern understanding of the 1st century church isn't enough to reverse church tradition today.
For one, there are things that Paul alludes to that are "self evident".
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,g in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. - Rom 1:19
Quite interestingly, the wants, feelings and desires of mankind in present day are also "self evident".
When one appeals to natural law, or what is self evident, you open up a pandora's box of sorts in cases where the source of what is evident has changed.
Is the source God?
Is the source Culture?
What is the source of revelation we believe in?
In light of divine revelation integrated with Romans, restrictions on homosexuality are not merely based on 1st century contextual situations. Rather, restrictions are universal, and Romans bears out application.
If our modern understanding of the 1st century context is fuzzy, that still does not nullify the self evident view against homosexuality . It is upon that view that Paul draws on in a case for not conforming to the practices of the 1st century (whatever they were).
Not writing against all possible forms of LGBT expression is not evidence of any support for some of it. That is an argument from silence.
Rather, writing against the prevalent temptation toward it, is some evidence of disapproval of all of it, if anything.
Why would Paul need to be exhaustive in writing to his reader on all forms of LGBT in order to be a resource on the morality of it in Christianity?
Where, how did he do that?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
