Thread: Dear Steve Langton, Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005664
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
What I wanted to say to you in Dead Horses has cooled somewhat over the last half hour or so. So let's just stick with the cooled down version.
You are a loathsome, spineless turd and a Pharisee to go with it. Who the fuck made you Judge of Theology? I hope you contract leprosy.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I fear you are wasting your breath. Mr Langton thinks he is of a superior intellect and that any disagreements on logic are down to his lack of communication skills in explaining the obvious to those of lower intellect.
In this, of course, he is completely wrong. He fails to appreciate that many here have higher degrees, have been thinking and studying the bible for a long time and have simply come up with different conclusions.
In reality, SL is a textbook case of the Dunning–Kruger effect; he simply cannot process the fact that he lacks competence in any area that he has spent time thinking about.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I fear you are wasting your breath.
This part here isn't aiming for a response, or a change of heart. When the response to my 1st complaint was to double the insult (now I'm not just ignoring the Bible, I'm ignoring Jesus as well), it became clear that there wouldn't be the slightest good grace coming my way.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
His arguments are not based on logic, they are based on his feelings - which I doubt he'll ever change they are so entrenched.
I'd keep well away from him, he's toxic.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I tend to feel sorry for Langton, as he seems to be so far up a cul de sac of his own making. No point in engaging with him.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
Power attracts the corruptible. Suspect any who seek it.
Frank Herbert.
Pyx_e's guide to becoming a religion scholar
1/ The Bible is THE WORD OF GOD
2/ If I do what it says the I get THE POWER OF GOD (not unlike the power of castle Grayskull I imagine)
3/ Power is always defined by "the right" and "the wrong." Find "the wrong" in you then find people to give it to (poors , poofs and peculiars always a good start). Pour out your hate for yourself on them and use THE POWER OF GOD to justify it.
4/ Sit pretty.
There. Easy. Good job I never do any of that shit.
Pyx_e
Mt 20.26 : It will not be so among you, but whoever desires to become great among you must be your servant. dammit
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
Power attracts the corruptible. Suspect any who seek it.
Frank Herbert.
Pyx_e's guide to becoming a religion scholar
1/ The Bible is THE WORD OF GOD
2/ If I do what it says the I get THE POWER OF GOD (not unlike the power of castle Grayskull I imagine)
3/ Power is always defined by "the right" and "the wrong." Find "the wrong" in you then find people to give it to (poors , poofs and peculiars always a good start). Pour out your hate for yourself on them and use THE POWER OF GOD to justify it.
4/ Sit pretty.
There. Easy. Good job I never do any of that shit.
Pyx_e
Mt 20.26 : It will not be so among you, but whoever desires to become great among you must be your servant. dammit
Quotes file. Wanders off to the Circus to make it so!
That is genius. And so accurate. Unfortunately.
Tubbs
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by orfeo;
quote:
Who the fuck made you Judge of Theology?
NOBODY made me 'Judge of Theology', and I don't think of myself that way. I'm simply putting out my conclusions and some idea how I reached those conclusions for others to discuss. If I've got it wrong I actually want to know so I can change; and I really appreciate people who actually do discuss.
I find it a lot harder to appreciate people who just throw at me stuff like the above instead of discussing what I write. Or people who vaguely spout about how "there may be other interpretations" - look, a voracious reader like myself is well aware that there are other opinions around and I'll have checked out a lot of them too.
And I find it hard to take seriously one mr cheesy since the day he actually asked "What is the relevance of 'state Islam' to IS?"
I mean, isn't it rather obvious that when an organisation calls itself "ISLAMIC STATE", then 'State Islam' is likely to be a useful part of discussion of that organisation?
After nearly 70 years of living with AS, I'm pretty well aware of my limitations; but also of my strengths. I don't claim anything like perfection; but again, you won't convince me just by insulting rhetorical questions....
You will find back on the main thread a clarification of why (unusually) I did accuse orfeo of taking neither the Bible nor Jesus seriously. And I still think that while he was making a particular assertion my response was thoroughly justified....
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Bollocks was it. The accusation is that you took a couple of quotes about the divorce of heterosexual marrieds to mean something about gays.
Which, apparently, you're still doing.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You will find back on the main thread a clarification of why (unusually) I did accuse orfeo of taking neither the Bible nor Jesus seriously.
Who the fuck made you judge of theology?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You will find back on the main thread a clarification of why (unusually) I did accuse orfeo of taking neither the Bible nor Jesus seriously.
There is nothing unusual about it, and it's still as insulting as all hell.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Oh, and quit blaming your AS. One of the most beautiful, sensitive posters I've encountered on the forum is also on the spectrum, and shows no signs of treating other people in the way that you do.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh, and quit blaming your AS. One of the most beautiful, sensitive posters I've encountered on the forum is also on the spectrum, and shows no signs of treating other people in the way that you do.
SL, stfu re AS. TY.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You will find back on the main thread a clarification of why (unusually) I did accuse orfeo of taking neither the Bible nor Jesus seriously. And I still think that while he was making a particular assertion my response was thoroughly justified....
Did it not occur to you that the issue of same-sex relationships, and what the Bible has to say about them, is likely to be something that a gay Christian like orfeo will think deeply and seriously about? Even if you haven't read his descriptions of how his views have developed (you might not have, I suppose, though it would slightly surprise me) it was at the very least a discourtesy to accuse him of the opposite.
As I've said on the DH thread, your interpretation of what orfeo was saying looked obviously wrong to me. I don't know what he could have said to make it more clear that he was disagreeing with YOUR interpretation that "male and female is the meaning of marriage" not with the fact that Jesus had cited two separate OT verses when responding to a question about divorce. But even if he had temporarily forgotten that Jesus had done this, I still can't see how the accusation was justified.
Why don't you do a search for orfeo's posts in Dead Horses and see what he's said there about how seriously he takes the Bible, and how carefully he has considered the issues before arriving at his present views?
If you do that, and then fail to conclude that you owe him an apology for your ill-judged remark, I don't think that anyone else is going to be able to help you, because that will mean that you don't recognise sincerity, faith and intelligence when it is staring you in the face.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You will find back on the main thread a clarification of why (unusually) I did accuse orfeo of taking neither the Bible nor Jesus seriously.
There is nothing unusual about it, and it's still as insulting as all hell.
It is hard to see your beef. You want Jesus to approve of a gay lifestyle? Suck it up, he doesn't and he isn't changing. Show one serious interpreter that can turn black into even a mouldy gray by mixing the colours and I'll eat these words. Steve is perfectly correct, the Bible does not equivocate on this issue. I have a gay sibling, a gay cousin and a gay niece. Believe me, if it was possible I'd buy it. Homosexual sex is sinful just like adultery,fornication,beastiality and every other predilection that is not between man and wife. You are obviously used to people peeing in your pocket over this, particularly on this website so you throw a tantrum and homophobia accusations at everyone who dares to say God opposes this. God is not homophobic, he loves you like you are but he is not into leaving us in our sin issues with a big tick. I suggest you grow up and stop playing religious games. If you want to be a Christian you cannot be an active homosexual. If you want to be an active homosexual, you cannot be a genuine Christian. Nobody here made the rules. On the other side of eternity where we are all heading after a small soujourn in this life there will be no hiding from the truth and no place where most people agree with you. Sorry, I wish it were different...but it ain't, and it ain't love to say it is, and deep down, you know it. And as for the rest of you, just don't bother, there's no point.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Bestiality? really? There is a lot of stuff in the bible that Christians don't think is right to do and you stupid bastards have to dance an epileptic tarantella just to work around them, and you have the balls to criticise a reasonable interpretation based on God being both competent and loving?
Fuck the Hell off, you brain damaged Australopithecus.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You will find back on the main thread a clarification of why (unusually) I did accuse orfeo of taking neither the Bible nor Jesus seriously.
There is nothing unusual about it, and it's still as insulting as all hell.
It is hard to see your beef. You want Jesus to approve of a gay lifestyle? Suck it up, he doesn't and he isn't changing. Show one serious interpreter that can turn black into even a mouldy gray by mixing the colours and I'll eat these words.
And where does He condemn it, which is the real point. Nowhere does He approve any particular form of sexual behaviour and the oft-quoted passages by Paul are extremely ambiguous.
You talk of a gay lifestyle - just what do you mean by that please?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You will find back on the main thread a clarification of why (unusually) I did accuse orfeo of taking neither the Bible nor Jesus seriously.
There is nothing unusual about it, and it's still as insulting as all hell.
I'm sorry, I'm not homophobic but it's God, you see. He hates poofs.
There. Summarised it for you. Don't thank me.
[ 11. February 2017, 06:30: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If you want to be a Christian you cannot be an active homosexual. If you want to be an active homosexual, you cannot be a genuine Christian. Nobody here made the rules. On the other side of eternity where we are all heading after a small soujourn in this life there will be no hiding from the truth and no place where most people agree with you. Sorry, I wish it were different...but it ain't, and it ain't love to say it is, and deep down, you know it. And as for the rest of you, just don't bother, there's no point.
Poor Jamat, so full of bogus rules. If you accept the evidence of evolution you can't be a Christian. If you are a Christian you can't accept that the Garden of Eden is a cross between a metaphor and a fairy tale.
Sure makes me happy I'm not a Jamat style genuine Christian and have to hold all those lies in my head and pretend they are true.
My sympathies to your gay relatives. I hope they managed to make it out of the brainwashing without too much damage.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If you want to be an active homosexual, you cannot be a genuine Christian.
But bottoms and versatiles are ok, right?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Sorry, Jamat. Real Christians know how to split up their homophobic diatribes into paragraphs.
But you'll only discover that for yourself when you stand before the Judgement Throne.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Sorry, Jamat. Real Christians know how to split up their homophobic diatribes into paragraphs.
But you'll only discover that for yourself when you stand before the Judgement Throne.
A special Hell for those who cannot effectively communicate their bigotry? I do not remember that in Dante.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Dante probably just assumed his readers knew that.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If you want to be an active homosexual, you cannot be a genuine Christian.
The rest of the arguments? Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, still can't arrive at a fully settled position (stop snickering in the back row there).
But this? This makes every other difference of opinion pale into insignificance in its judgmentalism.
I think you're a misguided, legalistic, dispensationalist homophobe. But I don't call your salvation into question as a result. That is between you and the Lord, just as it is for everyone else.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's interesting how bigots often say, 'deep down you know it', (Jamat above), as if they are clairvoyant. I suppose a different point of view isn't just difficult for them, but implausible or impossible. I have even heard someone say to an atheist, 'you do believe in God, but you have to deny it'. Yikes, save me from monolithic, well, monoliths. .
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
I've often wondered about the reasoning behind this. Presumably also if you are committing any sin at all no matter how large or small, then at that very moment you commit it or decide to do it, then you are not a Christian. So, for instance, if I decide to tell a lie and then tell it and never correct it, for the entire period that this lasts, I am not a Christian. To me that seems a rather precarious existence in the freedom of the Christian life and I could die at any point and find myself on the wrong side of the road, so to speak. It also seems to me to be a complete denial of the belief in the power of sin shattered; or perhaps the power of sin is absolute and the power of God is intensely fragile and weak?
I suspect thought that it is none of these things, but rather that through certain acts of gymnastic prowess Jamat genuinely believes that only these sins matter for salvation.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
How do people get through life with this degree of precariousness? I mean always falling into sin and so on. I suppose they say that Christ's blood streams in the firmament, which saves me.
It's a bit like a horror film to me. 'Gymnastic prowess' is good.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How do people get through life with this degree of precariousness? I mean always falling into sin and so on.
Easy. It's the others who fall into sin.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Sorry, Jamat. Real Christians know how to split up their homophobic diatribes into paragraphs.
But you'll only discover that for yourself when you stand before the Judgement Throne.
A special Hell for those who cannot effectively communicate their bigotry? I do not remember that in Dante.
I think Jamat communicates his uncaring, unChristian bigotry very well - even without line breaks.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Dear me, who should I listen to? The righteous arse who thinks such things about several members of his own family on account of what "God said", or the God who spoke directly to me in 2007 and then threw in another word of knowledge when I wavered?
Who do I follow? Jamat or Jesus?
It's such a tough choice. On the one hand there's some bloke who thinks reading a text from a different time, culture and language is a walk in the park, and on the other hand there's a profound moment that caused me to reexamine everything I thought I knew about the Bible.
It's so DIFFICULT to decide who I'm more persuaded by.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
The bit where I'm used to people... peeing in my pocket? I think that's supposed to be a claim that I'm used to everyone being just fine with homosexuality.
Now THAT was funny. Totally delusional.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How do people get through life with this degree of precariousness? I mean always falling into sin and so on.
Easy. It's the others who fall into sin.
Y'all are in error, because you do not recognise the power of the living Word.
The "Word" in this case is "lifestyle". People like Jamat can certainly sin - they can be hateful, dishonest, judgmental and unfair, and, indeed, they frequently are all of those things - but all that is covered by the blood of Christ because they don't have a hateful, dishonest, judgmental or unfair lifestyle. They make bad decisions, but what they don't do is wake up each morning and decide that today they are going to live in a way displeasing to God yet again.
Whereas gay people do actually decide to be gay every day. It's not like they make the occasional bad decision - they almost seem to have decided that being gay is who they are. They've chosen a sinful lifestyle, which is really utterly and completely different to all the selfish and immoral shit that normal people like Jamat do, and it's that that means that they can't be proper Christians, but the rest of us can.
That's why, even though anyone using the phrase "gay lifestyle" here gets relentlessly mocked for saying something which to the unenlightened appears to be so meaningless and stupid, they keep on and on saying it. It's an indispensable concept to the homophobe - not just an antidote to empathy, but the one thing in their armoury that is greater than the grace of God to sinners.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Sorry, I wish it were different...but it ain't
That's an odd comment, because I can't imagine saying it about anything that I believed to be a sin.
I don't, for example, wish that the rule against adultery were different, and that's because I think I understand why adultery is wrong, why its better not to commit adultery, and why the world would be worse if more people did. I suppose that I could, in moments of temptation, go so far as to wish that I had a special and personal dispensation from the general rule, but because I believe that there are good reasons why adultery is wrong, I can't also wish that God were OK with it.
If I did say that I wished the rule were different, not just for me but for everyone, I think it would be fair to conclude that I didn't understand why the rule is what it is, and that I hadn't seen or understood why adultery was wrong.
If you genuinely believe that God has forbidden gay sex, but wish he hadn't, does it not follow that you don't know why God did so? That's where a lot of us started off thinking about this. We were told the rule, but not the reasons, and at some point we began to feel uncomfortable not knowing, and wishing that the rule were different.
I think it's legitimate for someone starting from their to ask what the rule really is, whether the texts really mean what they are said to mean, whether there is an alternative interpretation that is as faithful but more comprehensible. I'm not saying that you need to start by looking for justifications for ignoring the rule - just to ask if you (or anyone) can articulate an ethically convincing case that a loving and committed same-sex relationship is a wicked thing rightfully condemned, and try to understand the contrary point of view.
I wish I could tell you that if you start that line of enquiry you will find a revisionist interpretation that satisfies you, but I can't - many of us can't get from where you appear to be to comfortable and whole-hearted affirmation. What I think I can promise is that the more you think seriously about it the more you will appreciate that there are people genuinely and sincerely trying to follow Jesus with a range of honestly held opinions on this issue.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
That's why, even though anyone using the phrase "gay lifestyle" here gets relentlessly mocked for saying something which to the unenlightened appears to be so meaningless and stupid, they keep on and on saying it. It's an indispensable concept to the homophobe - not just an antidote to empathy, but the one thing in their armoury that is greater than the grace of God to sinners.
Thanks for that Eliab - I hadn't thought about it that way. So, in their mind - gay people, even those who are married, who choose non-celibacy are choosing to be constantly 'in sin' much as co-habiting unmarried heterosexuals used to be seen?
'Living in sin' without the option to marry?
<eta code>
[ 11. February 2017, 16:15: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by anne (# 73) on
:
I am currently wrestling with my sermon for tomorrow (so obviously I'm on the Ship!) on Matthew 5:21-37. As it stands at the moment, a reasonable precis would be:
"Never trust a two eyed fundamentalist"
anne
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
Jamat....
As someone who raised a clutch of children and for over 40 years has worked in childcare, could i be allowed to point out one very obvious failing in your deliberations so far?
What you are hearing is NOT a tantrum.
Tantrums...in case you are not up to speed with toddlers....involve much flaying around and a total inability to either process thought or convey those thoughts in anything resembling coherent speech.
Your choice of words is inept.
(imho)
[ 12. February 2017, 12:21: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You will find back on the main thread a clarification of why (unusually) I did accuse orfeo of taking neither the Bible nor Jesus seriously.
There is nothing unusual about it, and it's still as insulting as all hell.
It is hard to see your beef. You want Jesus to approve of a gay lifestyle? Suck it up, he doesn't and he isn't changing. Show one serious interpreter that can turn black into even a mouldy gray by mixing the colours and I'll eat these words. Steve is perfectly correct, the Bible does not equivocate on this issue. I have a gay sibling, a gay cousin and a gay niece. Believe me, if it was possible I'd buy it. Homosexual sex is sinful just like adultery,fornication,beastiality and every other predilection that is not between man and wife. You are obviously used to people peeing in your pocket over this, particularly on this website so you throw a tantrum and homophobia accusations at everyone who dares to say God opposes this. God is not homophobic, he loves you like you are but he is not into leaving us in our sin issues with a big tick. I suggest you grow up and stop playing religious games. If you want to be a Christian you cannot be an active homosexual. If you want to be an active homosexual, you cannot be a genuine Christian. Nobody here made the rules. On the other side of eternity where we are all heading after a small soujourn in this life there will be no hiding from the truth and no place where most people agree with you. Sorry, I wish it were different...but it ain't, and it ain't love to say it is, and deep down, you know it. And as for the rest of you, just don't bother, there's no point.
What a pile of pharisaic bullshit. Idolatrous, heretical pharisaic bullshit at that.
Human sexuality is a gift of God in creation. Our job is to live it out lovingly and creatively not look a loving creator in the mouth just for the self-righteous kicks, or to make a judgmental deity in our own image and to the same end.
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I've often wondered about the reasoning behind this. Presumably also if you are committing any sin at all no matter how large or small, then at that very moment you commit it or decide to do it, then you are not a Christian. So, for instance, if I decide to tell a lie and then tell it and never correct it, for the entire period that this lasts, I am not a Christian. To me that seems a rather precarious existence in the freedom of the Christian life and I could die at any point and find myself on the wrong side of the road, so to speak. It also seems to me to be a complete denial of the belief in the power of sin shattered; or perhaps the power of sin is absolute and the power of God is intensely fragile and weak?.
This ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
After nearly 70 years of living with AS, I'm pretty well aware of my limitations; but also of my strengths. I don't claim anything like perfection; but again, you won't convince me just by insulting rhetorical questions....
Which did you mean by AS? Asperger's syndrome or autistic spectrum? In either case it includes me.
I am used to being patronised by neuro-typical types, I let them off, they dont understand. But I feel patronised by someone claiming to be living with AS. This is a first, congratulations.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... After nearly 70 years of living with AS, I'm pretty well aware of my limitations; but also of my strengths. I don't claim anything like perfection; but again, you won't convince me just by insulting rhetorical questions. ....
So you've been unrepentantly living the Aspie lifestyle your entire life. Even if God did make you an Aspie, you don't have to practice your aspieness. Behaviour is a choice, after all.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
No matter how big the park, that is definitely beyond the perimeter fence.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... After nearly 70 years of living with AS, I'm pretty well aware of my limitations; but also of my strengths. I don't claim anything like perfection; but again, you won't convince me just by insulting rhetorical questions. ....
So you've been unrepentantly living the Aspie lifestyle your entire life. Even if God did make you an Aspie, you don't have to practice your aspieness. Behaviour is a choice, after all.
Not always.
But where AS may make you react badly in a face to face context (happens to me occasionally) on internet fora you can write a response, pause, calm down, review it and then post. There is no excuse here. [junior hosting, sorry]
To then not only then stand by your abusive posting and use AS as an excuse is not down to having AS, it is down to being a dick.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Not always.
I'm not sure she's speaking in her own voice here. Irony meter calibrations £30.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Irony calibration is in $ only as Americans are the ones that cannot detect it naturally. But SM is Canadian if IIRC. As they are half British and half American,* do they do irony?
*Ecept those that are also half French.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Seeing as her comments were on this thread, I'd say SM's comments were definitely ironic.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Irony calibration is in $ only as Americans are the ones that cannot detect it naturally. But SM is Canadian if IIRC. As they are half British and half American,* do they do irony?
*Ecept those that are also half French.
That's just it. We Americans don't even HAVE irony meters because for us it just doesn't exist. Nothing to calibrate. But the one who needs calibrating is not SM but Balaam, who is I believe British.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Still doesn't answer my question about Canadians.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I generally don't do irony myself. Either it's wrinkles or wear a cardigan on top of the shirt. I actually think it's a generational thing, not a national thing. If you understand what I didn't mean.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Still doesn't answer my question about Canadians.
I don't dare speak about Canadians. I'm hoping they'll take me in if this Trump shit gets too bad. I don't want to offend any of them who might have friends in the immigration service.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... After nearly 70 years of living with AS, I'm pretty well aware of my limitations; but also of my strengths. I don't claim anything like perfection; but again, you won't convince me just by insulting rhetorical questions. ....
So you've been unrepentantly living the Aspie lifestyle your entire life. Even if God did make you an Aspie, you don't have to practice your aspieness. Behaviour is a choice, after all.
Isn't "living the Aspie lifestyle" a modern description of what the Bible called "being possessed by Demons"? Or was that only non-prophetic schizophrenia that got described that way?
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Whereas gay people do actually decide to be gay every day. It's not like they make the occasional bad decision - they almost seem to have decided that being gay is who they are. They've chosen a sinful lifestyle, which is really utterly and completely different to all the selfish and immoral shit that normal people like Jamat do, and it's that that means that they can't be proper Christians, but the rest of us can.
Thanks Eliab, I've always wondered why gays have a lifestyle ( according to those who are homophobic) while the rest of us have to be content with just having lives.
Jamat, your family get togethers must be a load of fun. I know which part of the room I would be in.
Huia
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I generally don't do irony myself. Either it's wrinkles or wear a cardigan on top of the shirt. I actually think it's a generational thing, not a national thing. If you understand what I didn't mean.
That's the kind of thing that would induce me to throw a piece of irony at your head, if I wasn't leading a sissy lifestyle that has caused me to lose all my strength and talk with a lisp.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
... We Americans don't even HAVE irony meters because for us it just doesn't exist. Nothing to calibrate. ...
Just look at all the USA folk who said they were glad Lady Gaga wasn't "political" at the Super Bowl.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Oh, yeah, and this:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
.... non-prophetic schizophrenia ...
Genius. I'll use that the next time some idiot Christian recommends faith over anti-psychotics. "She's been diagnosed with non-prophetic schizophrenia, so she should seek proper medical treatment."
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Not always.
I'm not sure she's speaking in her own voice here. Irony meter calibrations £30.
Sorry, I tend to take things literally.
Hence the shoplifting convictions.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I've been too busy ironying to incompletely unravel this thread, but has the Stevey been told to stop choosing to live a Asperger and/or Austism Spectrum lifestyle yet? It's a choice!
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on
:
I was thinking of becoming gay for a day or two. Do I get the limp handshake, the handsome friends and the lisp straightaway, or will I need to work on it?
I expect I'll revert to straightness next week, and become a genuine Christian again. Luckily Amazon has a 30 day return policy for Julie Andrews movies.
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
I was thinking of becoming gay for a day or two. Do I get the limp handshake, the handsome friends and the lisp straightaway, or will I need to work on it?
I expect I'll revert to straightness next week, and become a genuine Christian again. Luckily Amazon has a 30 day return policy for Julie Andrews movies.
The last time I looked at this thread I was so depressed by it that I wasn't going to look again but now you (and those above) have made it beautiful. My faith in humanity is restored.
If I decide to go gay for a few days do you think I can get rental on the dungarees and DMs and how soon will the crew cut grow out?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
... We Americans don't even HAVE irony meters because for us it just doesn't exist. Nothing to calibrate. ...
Just look at all the USA folk who said they were glad Lady Gaga wasn't "political" at the Super Bowl.
Is that irony or just stupidity?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
fletcher christian--
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I've often wondered about the reasoning behind this. Presumably also if you are committing any sin at all no matter how large or small, then at that very moment you commit it or decide to do it, then you are not a Christian. So, for instance, if I decide to tell a lie and then tell it and never correct it, for the entire period that this lasts, I am not a Christian. To me that seems a rather precarious existence in the freedom of the Christian life and I could die at any point and find myself on the wrong side of the road, so to speak. It also seems to me to be a complete denial of the belief in the power of sin shattered; or perhaps the power of sin is absolute and the power of God is intensely fragile and weak?
This is one reason some fundamentalists go with "once saved, always saved" (OSAS). Because if you can lose your salvation, worrying about that can take over and warp your life. Fortunately, my childhood church went with OSAS.
But then there's the question of whether you're really saved, whether you really meant your decision for Jesus. Worse, if you simply grew up in church and never made a conscious decision.
**Jamat**: Wow, you really mean all that? My initial thought was that you were doing a parody of something you didn't believe.
[ 14. February 2017, 04:08: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
... We Americans don't even HAVE irony meters because for us it just doesn't exist. Nothing to calibrate. ...
Just look at all the USA folk who said they were glad Lady Gaga wasn't "political" at the Super Bowl.
Is that irony or just stupidity?
Americans excel at producing irony ...
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
I was thinking of becoming gay for a day or two.
A day or two? I'm just planning to have a gay lunch.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If you want to be an active homosexual, you cannot be a genuine Christian.
The rest of the arguments? Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, still can't arrive at a fully settled position (stop snickering in the back row there).
But this? This makes every other difference of opinion pale into insignificance in its judgmentalism.
I think you're a misguided, legalistic, dispensationalist homophobe. But I don't call your salvation into question as a result. That is between you and the Lord, just as it is for everyone else.
Thank you for that. There are two reasons I posted that knowing that it would draw genuine hate. I pick this post to reply to as typical.
The first is that the opinions, questions and interpretation expressed by Steve Langton are common and popularly supported and to see him pilloried by vicious comments seemed pusillanimous. Who made him the judge of theology? No judgement is involved IMV. If someone comes to a different view of what the Bible says about this issue than the majority here, this does NOT make them homophobic or legitimate targets for the hate expressed here over quite a long time. I regard that as unchristian behaviour given most expressing these views consider themselves Christians of a more enlightened view having left behind the 'God of judgement.'
The second is that I care. When I sin I am aware of it. There have been times when I desperately wanted something to be true that I came to realise after a long time was not true and I realised I was in denial about it. I have seen the effects of putting things in a cupboard and closing the door, of desperately resisting what time, experience and hardship in the end, forced me to realise was wrong, or not God's will,or just plain sin. Whether most here view this as stupid or dishonest, I hate the idea of anyone waking up on the wrong side of eternity. You may disagree with my convictions about what the Bible says, but My motive is to warn. I realise some see it as judgemental. I cannot help that.
Of course I realise that this is a huge issue. The site below is not the only view but it is,more or less mine
Summary
However I realise others differ for lots of reasons and take a softer line. Like This one
In the end we are all flawed sinners. I do not think that seeing the scripture through the lens of a particular issue in order to minimise a particular sin, makes any sense, but it is what anyone who desperately wrestles with an issue does at times. If I fall into an affair for instance, I desperately tell myself a justifying story, but God sits above my self deception in the end.
[ 14. February 2017, 14:33: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Oh look, another comparison of being gay with being an adulterer. I've never heard that insulting comparison before. Going to try for paedophilia or bestiality next?
And no, it's not hate. It anger, that people who should know better are deliberately harming people I care about, and doing it in the name of my faith. It harms gay people and it harms the Gospel by making it out to be about inexplicable rules that force people to choose between faith and love, when nothing could be further from the truth.
And, like it or not, when you condemn gay people and demand continued discrimination against them YOU ARE homophobic. You may think your homophobia is justified, but it's still homophobia.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
There are two reasons I posted that knowing that it would draw genuine hate.
You missed out the third, is that you were deliberately trolling.
I don't know who Matt Slick is, and less do I care. If he wants to come on here and debate, then fine. He's not here. You are.
If you want to claim your God-given right to be homophobic, knock yourself out. If your version of Christianity is homophobic, own it. Be proud of it. Proclaim it from the rooftops that God hates Fags. Be that bringer of Good News. It's the truth, after all. Just don't deny that you are that homophobe though.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
There are two reasons I posted that knowing that it would draw genuine hate. I pick this post to reply to as typical.
I don't generally do hate, requires too much energy and you are definitely not worth the effort.
You are fun to revile, though, so points there!
You should have posted on Russ' thread as you are both genuine trolls. Steve might not be. Fucked up, wrong and bigoted, but maybe not a troll.
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
My motive is to warn. I realise some see it as judgemental. I cannot help that.
I don't agree with Jamat's position but I don't see any point in getting into that as I doubt either of us is going to change the other's mind.
However, I think there's room for more productive dialogue in the bit I've quoted. If you want to stop someone doing something, warning them is one way to do it. However, it's not the only way and it may not be the most effective. Example NOT implying moral equivalence: most countries warn their citizens that if they commit crime they will go to prison. This warning does not seem to stop everyone committing crime.
Persuasion, empathy, sympathy, putting forward positive alternatives are also options. I wonder if it would be possible for those who honestly believe that homosexuality is a sin to attempt to dissuade those they see as sinners from committing sin in some slightly less upsetting way? That way they would be more likely to get a positive result.
I repeat, I'm not agreeing that homosexuality is a sin - I don't think anyone gets damned for the way they're born. What I'm trying to suggest is a way to make the discussion less hurtful and hate-filled for all concerned.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
There have been times when I desperately wanted something to be true that I came to realise after a long time was not true and I realised I was in denial about it. I have seen the effects of putting things in a cupboard and closing the door, of desperately resisting what time, experience and hardship in the end, forced me to realise was wrong, or not God's will,or just plain sin.
Oh, Jamat, Jamat. The tragic irony of it all, and you just can't see it!
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Thank you for that. There are two reasons I posted that knowing that it would draw genuine hate. I pick this post to reply to as typical.
Well since Doc Tor has come out and said it so will I: you admit trolling.
And I don't hate you. I do find your attitude despicable though, all the more so because you think it's ok to come trolling on issues which people literally kill themselves over having agonised about them.
Shame on you.
quote:
I regard that as unchristian behaviour given most expressing these views consider themselves Christians of a more enlightened view having left behind the 'God of judgement.'
What you seem to miss is that you appear to be leaving him behind too.
By deciding who is and who isn't a christian you are setting yourself up as God and judge.
quote:
The second is that I care. When I sin I am aware of it.
I know I get flamed for coming across as self-righteousness from time to time but this really takes the biscuit. Your insinuation is that nobody who disagrees with you could possibly care. Isn't pride one of the deadly sins?
[ 14. February 2017, 16:36: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Slick's website has info. from discredited studies which suggest that gays have poorer healtrh than straights.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
He also doesn't believe that Roman Catholics are Christians.
Fruitcake.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
you missed out the third, is that you were deliberately trolling.
That, I deny. Also, that I hate gays. I do not think the fact that one is gay is a sin or wrong. The issue for me is about Biblical truth. However, I think that is it from me.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Jamat - scrupulousity.
""groundless fear of sinning that arises from 'erroneous ideas'"
(Alphonsus Liguori, founder of the Redemptorists)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
you missed out the third, is that you were deliberately trolling.
That, I deny. Also, that I hate gays. I do not think the fact that one is gay is a sin or wrong. The issue for me is about Biblical truth. However, I think that is it from me.
Whoa there. You don't get to do your cowardly hit-and-run tactics around here. You have to explain yourself and defend yourself, or that label I gave you sticks.
'Biblical truth' (shouldn't you be spelling that with a capital T?) is nothing more than a fig-leaf for your own prejudices and intolerances. I'm compassionate because God is compassionate. I'm generous because God is generous. I'm forgiving because God is forgiving. If you want to add 'I'm homophobic because God is homophobic', then you claim that honestly.
Your God is homophobic. Say it, Jamat. Say it.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
A great worry for me is that Jamat is a teacher! How do the pupils end up with teaching from someone with the opinions expressed on this topic and on Creationism?
Then the line about people chooing to be active gays! None chooses, all simply are, just as others of us are straight, etc. No choice, just are.
But don't go so easy on the divorced. That reading last Sunday is very strong. Can we expect similar condemnation from Steve Langton, Jamat and Russ as they give of gays?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Or the tattooed, or those who wear mixed fibres.
Isn't that the Biblical truth?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
There have been times when I desperately wanted something to be true that I came to realise after a long time was not true and I realised I was in denial about it. I have seen the effects of putting things in a cupboard and closing the door, of desperately resisting what time, experience and hardship in the end, forced me to realise was wrong, or not God's will,or just plain sin.
Oh, Jamat, Jamat. The tragic irony of it all, and you just can't see it!
Indeed. This was amazing.
Jamat, as a person who spent... over 15 years doing exactly this, I couldn't agree with you more.
But you're not saying what you think you're saying.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
I was thinking of becoming gay for a day or two.
A day or two? I'm just planning to have a gay lunch.
I had a gay dinner last night. There were 4 of us experienced homosexual eaters, chomping away on ravioli and meatballs. And every single one of us chose soft drinks over alcohol. I don't know how the other customers coped.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Or the tattooed, or those who wear mixed fibres.
Isn't that the Biblical truth?
That's often what the words in our modern bibles say using our modern language. Quite what is meant in two-thousand year old Greek, which often doesn't correspond to English we don't know, hence the need for concordances, and even they don't agree.
Remember folks, we need to understand the Word of God, not the words.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
your cowardly hit-and-run tactics
I'm totally over you Mate. If I was a coward I would have avoided posting here. I am quite happy to continue if there was a point. All I can see though is that to voice a contrary view to the liberal left wing agenda is the unforgiveable sin. Unbelievable anger is reserved for the ones who dare disagree. Possibly that is what Trump's white house is like.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
All I can see though is that to voice a contrary view to the liberal left wing agenda is the unforgiveable sin. Unbelievable anger is reserved for the ones who dare disagree
Complete and utter bullshit.
Argue a case for homosexuality intelligently, with empathy and with respect, and I will listen to you (Orfeo who I am proud to own as a brother in Christ tops my list in that respect). Pepper it with snide remarks and judgmentalism and I will listen less.
(Infuse it with emotion and I will be upset, but as has been rightly pointed out to me, people tend to get upset about this stuff because of the kind of judgmental shit they have to put up with. Some of them kill themselves, while others have the benefit of professing Christians doing the job for them).
Exactly the same applies to those arguing against. But I have to say that the numbers of people capable of arguing against homosexuality intelligently and with respect appear to be vanishingly small.
I am calling you on this thread not for your views on homosexuality, but for decreeing that an entire category of people are not Christians, as though it were up to you to decide, and for deciding that your arrogance and judgmentalism are somehow forgiveable sins and that homosexual behaviour is (in your view) an unforgiveable one.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Hear hear Eutychus.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
I am calling you on this thread not for your views on homosexuality, but for decreeing that an entire category of people are not Christians,
And I am calling the lot of you for your Biblical interpretation as Steve Langton had the temerity to do and was pilloried. Who belongs to the Lord is not certainly my call. Kindly spare me your self righteousness.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Even as an American I can feel the irony in that one.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Who belongs to the Lord is not certainly my call. Kindly spare me your self righteousness.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If you want to be an active homosexual, you cannot be a genuine Christian
Oh come on. At least get your story straight. Or are you trying to channel the Trump administration who you so clearly admire?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
I am calling you on this thread not for your views on homosexuality, but for decreeing that an entire category of people are not Christians,
And I am calling the lot of you for your Biblical interpretation as Steve Langton had the temerity to do and was pilloried. Who belongs to the Lord is not certainly my call. Kindly spare me your self righteousness.
What you are doing, both of you, is flatly pronouncing that a particular Bublical interpretation is the correct one and that anyone who says otherwise ain't Christian.
Meanwhile, I bet you're one of the vast majority of people who take the Bible passage about women wearing hats in church, and use context to explain why it doesn't mean women have to wear hats in church. I did encounter one website that said women did have to wear hats and lamented how so many had been led astray by false teaching. I had to give the guy credit, at least he was consistent.
But no, the vast majority of people like you who want to tell me I can't use context or nuance re homosexuality will use EXACTLY the same techniques when it comes to women wearing hats, or to slavery. You should have seen the frantic contextualising when a former Australian PM explained his Christian, pro-SSM stance to someone who referred to the Bible, by commenting on what the a Bible said about slavery. All the conservative Christians set out to explain why the Bible didn't support slavery, utterly missing the point the PM was making about interpretation.
[ 14. February 2017, 23:54: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Who belongs to the Lord is not certainly my call. Kindly spare me your self righteousness.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If you want to be an active homosexual, you cannot be a genuine Christian
Oh come on. At least get your story straight. Or are you trying to channel the Trump administration who you so clearly admire?
Judging who is individually 'saved', not my call. But stating the basic terms of being saved, without any necessary personal reference, that's just faithfully passing on God's position in his word.
If - and note the 'if' - in any area you want to openly defy what God has said is right, you are at least making it difficult for you to be regarded as a genuine Christian. I wouldn't want to preempt God's own call - but on the face of it I have a clear duty of care to warn of the risk you run....
For orfeo I'm actually more worried about what he said in the OP of the thread about hoping I catch leprosy; that hope seems decidedly incompatible with his being a 'genuine Christian', and tells me that at least orfeo's judgement in matters of biblical interpretation is likely to be way, way off beam. I'm not sure, in light of that OP remark, that I can agree with Eutychus on this;
quote:
Argue a case for homosexuality intelligently, with empathy and with respect, and I will listen to you (Orfeo who I am proud to own as a brother in Christ tops my list in that respect)
I've a few things to say about some items earlier - particularly the baiting about 'Aspie lifestyle'; not sure right now when I next get chance. Also I think in the end I'll need to start a thread to attempt a rational discussion of 'gay' issues. But again, not sure when I'll have time to do it properly....
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Here in Hell I'm not debating homosexuality because you had made it clear that the debate was pointless, hence outside the scope of what Eutychus was talking about.
Also I think my curse was thoroughly Biblical.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Who belongs to the Lord is not certainly my call. Kindly spare me your self righteousness.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If you want to be an active homosexual, you cannot be a genuine Christian
Oh come on. At least get your story straight. Or are you trying to channel the Trump administration who you so clearly admire?
It is definitely what I think the Bible says. It is not my personal judgement. Arrogant thought police is the thing that comes to mind. You condemn those who differ with you far more than I do anyone.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Who belongs to the Lord is not certainly my call. Kindly spare me your self righteousness.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If you want to be an active homosexual, you cannot be a genuine Christian
Oh come on. At least get your story straight. Or are you trying to channel the Trump administration who you so clearly admire?
It is definitely what I think the Bible says. It is not my personal judgement. Arrogant thought police is the thing that comes to mind. You condemn those who differ with you far more than I do anyone.
You're condemning people to Hell. When did Doc Tor condemn anybody? Or do you think anybody disagreeing with you is "condemning" you? We already know you don't understand "logically inconsistent." Could it be you also don't understand what "condemn" means?
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Here in Hell I'm not debating homosexuality because you had made it clear that the debate was pointless, hence outside the scope of what Eutychus was talking about.
Also I think my curse was thoroughly Biblical.
Sorry, I must have dodged that curse. never mind there are plenty of others. Just for the record, I do not personally judge you. I do grasp something of your battle from observations of my own family. There seems to me no actual room for discussion in your stance or in that in anyone else here. The attitude is 'disagree with me and you're a homophobe.' 'I am who I am, God made me like this so I'm OK.' Is that really giving the opposition any chance at all?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If - and note the 'if' - in any area you want to openly defy what God has said is right, you are at least making it difficult for you to be regarded as a genuine Christian. I wouldn't want to preempt God's own call - but on the face of it I have a clear duty of care to warn of the risk you run....
Do you? Do you really?
Leaving aside the little point you overlook that this is your interpretation of what God says, and not straight from the Big Guy's mouth, let me ask you this (not that you answered the last several questions I put to you but I'm nothing if not relentless):
Do you really, can you possibly, believe that orfeo hasn't already heard everything you have to say to him about homosexuality? To the point that you think that he is so unlikely to have heard it that it is incumbent upon you to tell him, just in case nobody else has, which is so unlikely, for whatever reason?
Can you possibly believe that? Really? In your heart of hearts?
If you believe that then, (1) you haven't read what he's said about his own struggle, and (2) you really don't understand the 21st century.
If you realize he's heard it all before then why say it? Does it give you warm fuzzies to condemn people to Hell? Why not just assume that he's heard it and stfu about it? One can only assume you're some kind of sick fuck.
So which is it?
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
You're condemning people to Hell
If that's the way you see it so be it. I do not and would not condemn anyone to hell. This issue though is very divisive obviously and only one possible outcome is accepted by you lot.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Nice dodge. Downright artful.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
And clearly only one outcome is possible for you: "God hates fags, and if you keep on being a fag, you're going to Hell. I'm sorry, and I wish it weren't this way, but there it is."
You paint this like you're the patient, flexible one and orfeo & co. are all completely inflexible and unreasonable. Do you own a mirror?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I've a few things to say about some items earlier - particularly the baiting about 'Aspie lifestyle'; not sure right now when I next get chance. Also I think in the end I'll need to start a thread to attempt a rational discussion of 'gay' issues. But again, not sure when I'll have time to do it properly....
It's not baiting Steve. It's a real comparison. Asperger's is a set of characteristics which appear to be inherited and then expressed with life. Those who have Asperger's generally feel that they are who they are and they cannot really change to become some other person. This is the lived experience of people who are gay and lesbian.
I didn't start out my life with this understanding. It developed after I met some gay friends. They talked and I listened. I didn't accept and didn't understand at all. It seemed so odd to my experience. But the local community here did some education, and shared with our church. And we put together a study group for us ignorant of it. I became what some call "convicted" of the truth. I went from a ignorer and passively tolerant of rejection, to realizing that (1) it really hurt people to be rejected for being who they authentically are, (2) that Christianity was foremost all about love, (3) that I had been terribly wrong.
The story concludes with me becoming an advocate of "more love" (not less), with moving a motion, getting it passed, working with the diocese etc. But you wouldn't care about that. Your heart is stone.
Fact is Steve, I'm worried about your salvation. Rejecting love means rejecting Jesus, rejecting God, and accepting its opposite. Which is hate. But I'm probably just blowing snow about this for you.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And clearly only one outcome is possible for you: "God hates fags, and if you keep on being a fag, you're going to Hell."
Downright crass. I refuse to treat this seriously
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And clearly only one outcome is possible for you: "God hates fags, and if you keep on being a fag, you're going to Hell."
Downright crass. I refuse to treat this seriously
And he dodges again, ladies and gentleman! The man will do anything to keep from engaging with someone. Anything at all.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
If we dress up crass thoughts in polite language they're still crass.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Here in Hell I'm not debating homosexuality because you had made it clear that the debate was pointless, hence outside the scope of what Eutychus was talking about.
Also I think my curse was thoroughly Biblical.
Sorry, I must have dodged that curse. never mind there are plenty of others. Just for the record, I do not personally judge you. I do grasp something of your battle from observations of my own family. There seems to me no actual room for discussion in your stance or in that in anyone else here. The attitude is 'disagree with me and you're a homophobe.' 'I am who I am, God made me like this so I'm OK.' Is that really giving the opposition any chance at all?
You really do not seem to have read what I've actually said, or quite possibly are conflating it with things other people have said.
The second part, that God made me this way, is an accurate reflection of my views. The first part is not an accurate description of my views.
I am perfectly happy for other people to interpret the Bible differently. What I am not happy with is when they tell me that, because my interpretation is different from theirs, I am not a Christian, I am sinning against God etc etc.
Contrast that to someone like Tony Campolo who, at one time at least, was speaking publically alongside his wife and acknowledging that they had different views on this. He considered loving homosexual relationships incompatible with the Bible. His wife did not. His response to this was NOT to condemn her as a heretic.
I mean, where the Hell did this view develop that this theological question defined your Christianity? There are a myriad of theological questions that Christians differ on. Why did being homosexual get slipped into some people's version of Romans 10:9?
That's what makes someone a homophobe to me: someone who refuses to accept that maybe my own study of the Bible and consideration of the issues has led me to conclude honestly and sincerely that the Bible's condemnation of abusive and idolatrous homosexual practices is not a general condemnation of homosexual relationships. Or my study has made me realise what nonsense it is to think Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality, to the point where it contradicts the Bible's own statements. Heck, even Tony Campolo agrees with me there.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Here in Hell I'm not debating homosexuality because you had made it clear that the debate was pointless, hence outside the scope of what Eutychus was talking about.
Also I think my curse was thoroughly Biblical.
Sorry, I must have dodged that curse. never mind there are plenty of others. Just for the record, I do not personally judge you. I do grasp something of your battle from observations of my own family. There seems to me no actual room for discussion in your stance or in that in anyone else here. The attitude is 'disagree with me and you're a homophobe.' 'I am who I am, God made me like this so I'm OK.' Is that really giving the opposition any chance at all?
You really do not seem to have read what I've actually said, or quite possibly are conflating it with things other people have said.
The second part, that God made me this way, is an accurate reflection of my views. The first part is not an accurate description of my views.
I am perfectly happy for other people to interpret the Bible differently. What I am not happy with is when they tell me that, because my interpretation is different from theirs, I am not a Christian, I am sinning against God etc etc.
Contrast that to someone like Tony Campolo who, at one time at least, was speaking publically alongside his wife and acknowledging that they had different views on this. He considered loving homosexual relationships incompatible with the Bible. His wife did not. His response to this was NOT to condemn her as a heretic.
I mean, where the Hell did this view develop that this theological question defined your Christianity? There are a myriad of theological questions that Christians differ on. Why did being homosexual get slipped into some people's version of Romans 10:9?
That's what makes someone a homophobe to me: someone who refuses to accept that maybe my own study of the Bible and consideration of the issues has led me to conclude honestly and sincerely that the Bible's condemnation of abusive and idolatrous homosexual practices is not a general condemnation of homosexual relationships. Or my study has made me realise what nonsense it is to think Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality, to the point where it contradicts the Bible's own statements. Heck, even Tony Campolo agrees with me there.
So where is the room for discussion? Any questioning of the view outlined here is perceived as threatening and triggers the red light, 'attention,incoming! homophobe alert!' If I tell you I think Tony is wrong in his interpretation does that automatically put you on the defensive? As far as going to hell rhetoric is concerned, BTW, I don't know who has a ticket but I do believe anyone who ends up there does not have to. I do believe all are on the bus and while we are alive the journey has not ended.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If we dress up crass thoughts in polite language they're still crass.
You want to dress the discussion in Westboro hate speech? That is bottom feeder stuff.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Dodges again. Form over substance. Form over substance.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Delayed addendum to my last post:
The other thing that shits me is the way people treat the Bible completely in the abstract, divorced from checking whether that interpretation gels with the real world.
Because it's no different from arguing the Bible says the world is flat, or that the sun revolves around the Earth, and refusing to take into account any external information that might be inconsistent with that interpretation and hence suggest an alternative interpretation.
So people just refuse to consider any information about how sexuality develops, or about intersex people. They won't use that information to inform their reading of the Bible.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Jamat, I don't think I can be any clearer. For me the trigger is not "I don't agree with your interpretation". The trigger is "A Christian can't have that interpretation, so you're not a Christian".
And the really interesting thing is that STRAIGHT people who share my beliefs never seem to get told they're not Christian. No, it's only the homosexuals who get told this, for daring to apply the interpretation to their own lives.
Presumably, men who don't think women have to wear hats in church are fine. God will only come after the women who believed headwear wasn't required.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And the really interesting thing is that STRAIGHT people who share my beliefs never seem to get told they're not Christian. No, it's only the homosexuals who get told this, for daring to apply the interpretation to their own lives.
I have been told this. Someone who'd been a close friend for many years told me this because I was joyfully attending a wedding of two men.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Jamat, I don't think I can be any clearer. For me the trigger is not "I don't agree with your interpretation". The trigger is "A Christian can't have that interpretation, so you're not a Christian".
That's definitely why I got involved on this thread.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And the really interesting thing is that STRAIGHT people who share my beliefs never seem to get told they're not Christian. No, it's only the homosexuals who get told this, for daring to apply the interpretation to their own lives.
I have been told this. Someone who'd been a close friend for many years told me this because I was joyfully attending a wedding of two men.
I stand corrected. Welcome to the company of the allegedly unsaved.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If we dress up crass thoughts in polite language they're still crass.
You want to dress the discussion in Westboro hate speech? That is bottom feeder stuff.
If it can be dressed in "Westboro hate speech" then it probably is "Westboro hate speech", albeit in politer language. A whitened sepulchre.
How about giving up on the hate speech altogether? Except of course you can't, because in your theology, however nasty the Phelps clan (what's left of them that is who haven't defected) are to the queers, God's going to be a whole lot nastier, isn't he?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Delayed addendum to my last post:
The other thing that shits me is the way people treat the Bible completely in the abstract, divorced from checking whether that interpretation gels with the real world.
Because it's no different from arguing the Bible says the world is flat, or that the sun revolves around the Earth, and refusing to take into account any external information that might be inconsistent with that interpretation and hence suggest an alternative interpretation.
So people just refuse to consider any information about how sexuality develops, or about intersex people. They won't use that information to inform their reading of the Bible.
This. And it goes for so many other things as well. Anywhere you can't actually prove, definitively, in a "look, grass isn't fucking blue, it's green for fuck's sake!" manner, and it's straight to the most literal interpretation, and hang the consequences.
There's sometimes confusion between the fallacy of Appeal to Consequences, and the valid Reductio ad absurdum.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And clearly only one outcome is possible for you: "God hates fags, and if you keep on being a fag, you're going to Hell."
Downright crass. I refuse to treat this seriously
It might pain you to realise, but there's not a cigarette paper between your views and those of Westboro Baptist.
That's it. That's where you are. Admit it, own it, rejoice in it. That's what's missing from your journey.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Delayed addendum to my last post:
The other thing that shits me is the way people treat the Bible completely in the abstract, divorced from checking whether that interpretation gels with the real world.
This. And it goes for so many other things as well.
This. In buckets. I mean, it should do our heads in to have to reconcile the fact that Jesus, who was completely a 1st century Jewish man must have believed the Genesis story, to be true with the fact that Jesus - wholly divine, eternal, the Knowing of God, perfect Wisdom - must know that we evolved.
Faith can get me past this, but all the while makes it clear that any idea of God that I can "understand" must fall well short of the reality.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by orfeo
quote:
Or my study has made me realise what nonsense it is to think Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality,
Close analysis shows that
1) Sodom was destroyed for a whole raft of reasons of which that last night was just the culmination.
2) Strictly speaking what happened on that last night was not 'homosexuality' as you understand it, but a situation where 'straight' men proposed to humiliate other 'straight' men by treating them as women and slave women at that. Similar cases are found in historical accounts and have also been reported in recent times where male people evidently proud to be 'straight' have raped gays or paedophiles and have not considered it to compromise their 'straightness' because in their eyes the victims "weren't really men".
Sodom is not per se an 'anti-gay' account; but it's not exactly 'pro-gay' either.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I noticed that Jamat said 'when I sin I am aware of it', which intrigued me. Is this a standard idea in Christianity? It strikes me as naive, as awareness is limited in most people, and especially with regard to our own shortcomings. We are more likely to be aware of others' as a way of masking our own. Or, projection, if you like. Hang on, Jesus talks about this!
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Quetzalcoatl;
Not a topic for this thread, methinks - and if you've been around the 'Rapture' thread you'll know I don't always agree with Jamat.
You might also be interested in a post I've just put on the "Moral Influence Atonement Theory" thread.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by orfeo
quote:
Or my study has made me realise what nonsense it is to think Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality,
Close analysis shows that
1) Sodom was destroyed for a whole raft of reasons of which that last night was just the culmination.
2) Strictly speaking what happened on that last night was not 'homosexuality' as you understand it, but a situation where 'straight' men proposed to humiliate other 'straight' men by treating them as women and slave women at that. Similar cases are found in historical accounts and have also been reported in recent times where male people evidently proud to be 'straight' have raped gays or paedophiles and have not considered it to compromise their 'straightness' because in their eyes the victims "weren't really men".
Sodom is not per se an 'anti-gay' account; but it's not exactly 'pro-gay' either.
I never claimed it was 'pro-gay'. But it's regularly used by some people as 'anti-gay', and the 'anti-gay' is total nonsense, for exactly the reasons you've just outlined. And further amplified by Ezekiel 16:49 together with Luke 10:8-12 and parallel passages.
If I could erase one word from the English language, it would be "sodomy".
[ 15. February 2017, 11:07: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Quetzalcoatl;
Not a topic for this thread, methinks - and if you've been around the 'Rapture' thread you'll know I don't always agree with Jamat.
You might also be interested in a post I've just put on the "Moral Influence Atonement Theory" thread.
I generally feel quite kindly towards you, God knows why, but please fuck off with telling me what status my posts have, and where they belong.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by orfeo (in the OP of the thread);
quote:
I hope you contract leprosy
And later;
quote:
Also I think my curse was thoroughly Biblical.
And you wonder why I don't take your biblical interpretation seriously??
And I feel that it's actually you by such statements, rather than me, who is casting doubt on your Christian status.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by orfeo (in the OP of the thread);
quote:
I hope you contract leprosy
And later;
quote:
Also I think my curse was thoroughly Biblical.
And you wonder why I don't take your biblical interpretation seriously??
Do you really want me to leaf through the Bible outlining the curses? Or can I just mention Ananias and Sapphira and be done with it?
Honestly, it's quite bemusing to watch you suggesting that Christians have to be goody two-shoes, when the whole reason this thread exists is because of your readiness to pronounce eternal damnation on people. You declare an opinion about the fate of my soul, I in return merely refer to a bacterial infection and I'm the nasty person?
[ 15. February 2017, 11:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
2 Kings 5:27 springs to mind as a biblical precedent.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
2 Kings 5:27 springs to mind as a biblical precedent.
In fact it's exactly the precedent that sprung to my mind. But hey, we all know my knowledge of the Bible is inherently defective. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Would you like to come to our Bible study tonight? It's on Romans 1 (seriously) ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Would you like to come to our Bible study tonight? It's on Romans 1 (seriously)
It's a big commute... just remind them that chapter numbering did not exist in the original text and they may well miss a huge part of Paul's point if they don't read Romans 2.
There is pretty good evidence that Paul is repeating standard, stereotypical Jewish views about Gentiles, designed to make Jews think of themselves as superior, right before he turns around and says "you Jews aren't so hot either".
Somewhere buried in Dead Horses is a post (not mine) that sets out the evidence Paul is actually quoting an earlier Jewish text - not necessarily because he agrees with it, but because he knows his audience will recognise it and agree with it right up to the point he turns on them.
[ 15. February 2017, 11:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I don't understand why so few people seem to be concerned that (i) the inhabitants of Sodom wanted to sexually abuse Lot's guests and (ii) Lot tried to give them his daughters to abuse instead.
Nothing to do with sodomy, everything to do with the fact that there weren't 10 good men in the whole blasted town. Including Lot, the creep.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Would you like to come to our Bible study tonight? It's on Romans 1 (seriously)
It's a big commute... just remind them that chapter numbering did not exist in the original text and they may well miss a huge part of Paul's point if they don't read Romans 2.
There is pretty good evidence that Paul is repeating standard, stereotypical Jewish views about Gentiles, designed to make Jews think of themselves as superior, right before he turns around and says "you Jews aren't so hot either".
Don't worry, I've got that far in my thinking ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm not leading this bible study though, and a recently-arrived gay believer fleeing a homophobic church is likely to be there. Fun times ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't understand why so few people seem to be concerned that (i) the inhabitants of Sodom wanted to sexually abuse Lot's guests and (ii) Lot tried to give them his daughters to abuse instead.
Also (iii) how is it possible that all the men of the town would be gay, and (iv) how is it possible the town would SURVIVE more than one generation if all of the men were gay.
But, you know, when you're expressing the view that gay sex is such a bad sin it overrides the Nicene Creed in importance, you don't want little things like logic and the text of the Bible to get in your way.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
a recently-arrived gay believer fleeing a homophobic church is likely to be there.
Say hi from me. We all know each other, there's a contact list that we get when we sign the Gay Agenda.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
I will, I will. I do make sure to greet him with a brotherly kiss.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
But no tongues. That'd be inappropriate.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Quetzalcoatl;
Not a topic for this thread, methinks - and if you've been around the 'Rapture' thread you'll know I don't always agree with Jamat.
You might also be interested in a post I've just put on the "Moral Influence Atonement Theory" thread.
Just thinking this over, and I think my point about 'when I sin I am aware of it' (Jamat), is germane to this thread. Both you and Jamat are being criticized for pointing out other people's flaws, aren't you? But it's often the case that people doing this, are hiding their own. Specks/planks? So you could say that when I sin, I am often not aware of it, contra Jamat.
Well, of course, this puts us all in an uncomfortable position, since how do we know that our perceptions of others are accurate, and not just conformable to confirmation bias?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I noticed that Jamat said 'when I sin I am aware of it', which intrigued me. Is this a standard idea in Christianity? It strikes me as naive, as awareness is limited in most people, and especially with regard to our own shortcomings. We are more likely to be aware of others' as a way of masking our own. Or, projection, if you like. Hang on, Jesus talks about this!
Orthodoxen pray for forgiveness of theirs sins, both known and unknown, both intentional and unintentional.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I noticed that Jamat said 'when I sin I am aware of it', which intrigued me. Is this a standard idea in Christianity? It strikes me as naive, as awareness is limited in most people, and especially with regard to our own shortcomings. We are more likely to be aware of others' as a way of masking our own. Or, projection, if you like. Hang on, Jesus talks about this!
Orthodoxen pray for forgiveness of theirs sins, both known and unknown, both intentional and unintentional.
That's more like it. I was thinking of the idea that lack of awareness is a major source of sin. It obviously includes failure of empathy and sympathy, which might be laid at the door of homophobes.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
2) Strictly speaking what happened on that last night was not 'homosexuality' as you understand it, but a situation where 'straight' men proposed to humiliate other 'straight' men by treating them as women and slave women at that.
So the misogyny was worse than the rape? Misogyny isn't so hot, but rape is worse, no matter the gender combination.[i]adds misogyny to the list of reasons to be less than fond of Steve Langton. Or is it already on? hard to keep track)
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Quetzalcoatl;
Not a topic for this thread, methinks - and if you've been around the 'Rapture' thread you'll know I don't always agree with Jamat.
You might also be interested in a post I've just put on the "Moral Influence Atonement Theory" thread.
I generally feel quite kindly towards you,
Really? All the vile rubbish he's posted and his junior hosting sets you off? Not that I am telling you what you may or may not be offended by, but dude...
[ 15. February 2017, 15:18: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
But you're gonna tell me anyway!
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But you're gonna tell me anyway!
Nope, just indicating surprise. I haven't even told Steve, "gays are the worst" Langton what he should believe, just how fucked up his views are.
Truth is, if he weren't so hateful in his expression, I might feel less disdain. But he is, so I do not.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
the evidence Paul is actually quoting an earlier Jewish text - not necessarily because he agrees with it, but because he knows his audience will recognise it and agree with it right up to the point he turns on them.
See also 2/3rds down re- the use of the book of Wisdom in Romans 1
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Also I think in the end I'll need to start a thread to attempt a rational discussion of 'gay' issues. But again, not sure when I'll have time to do it properly....
Such a thread already exists. So you can just read through it and add your comments, no need to start a new one.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Also I think in the end I'll need to start a thread to attempt a rational discussion of 'gay' issues. But again, not sure when I'll have time to do it properly....
Such a thread already exists. So you can just read through it and add your comments, no need to start a new one.
I was kind of thinking of a thread where people would be able to read my views and not be confusing them with other people's views. Like a bit of a fresh start on the subject.
I looked into that modern interpretation of Romans 1 on the other thread. In a PM exchange with an advocate of it I pointed out that as far as I could see, all the necessary 'connectives' ('therefores' and so on) were exactly where they should be for the traditional interpretation whereby Paul is expressing his own view. He was apparently not able to answer that as such - but instead was insistent that the text would of course be carried by a messenger who would be 'primed' to read it in such a way as to bring out this other meaning....
If I were to use such a suggestion to support an unpopular view, I suspect the Ship would be near sinking from all the posts of and similar; and your laughter would be heard in the next galaxy. But in favour of the gay case, such nonsense is not so much acceptable as apparently compulsory.
The priority seems to be not to interpret the actual words, but just that the pro-gay case must win regardless.
Also that view essentially completely disrupts and disorganises what is a basically coherent argument.
I was and remain unimpressed....
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I was and remain unimpressed....
You were and remain a hateful bigot that Jesus would bring to task for your POV.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I looked into that modern interpretation of Romans 1 on the other thread. In a PM exchange with an advocate of it I pointed out that as far as I could see, all the necessary 'connectives' ('therefores' and so on) were exactly where they should be for the traditional interpretation whereby Paul is expressing his own view.
The 'therefores' do not make the point you seem to think they make. They are all steps in an argument Paul is using to get his hearers on his side (as they think). Once he has them all agreeing (as they think) with him about how evil all these people are, in 2.1 he turns the tables and points out they are no better.
Saying the argument is one Paul himself owns because of the therefores is like saying that Mark Antony really believed Brutus was an honourable man.
We had a fun time with Romans 1 in bible study this evening but decided the last part needed closer attention in two weeks' time.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I was kind of thinking of a thread where people would be able to read my views and not be confusing them with other people's views. Like a bit of a fresh start on the subject.
I can't speak for my colleague hosts in DH, but I beseech you in the bowels of God that you are mistaken on this specific matter.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Okay, so I was having a think (inexplicably, the thought came to me in the middle of a concert, but hey).
Part of the thing that Steve Langton and Jamat need to realise is this: I - and many others of our age cohort - arrived at our view of homosexuality not as a product of 'group think' or being infected with a 'liberal worldview', but quietly, almost secretly, and individually.
I was convinced that homosexuality and Christianity were incompatible. I took an entirely orthodox-at-the-time view, well into my twenties, and only started to have doubts as I approached thirty, because I found I actually knew some gay men who were subsequently treated abominably by my church.
It's been a long, difficult giving up of my earlier position. Decades to break me down and repent. And I suspect that a very great number of regular, orthodox Christians of my age are exactly in the same boat - or rather, their own boats - who have slowly changed course on this particular subject over their lifetimes. Decisions that have been made pretty much independent of church doctrine and leadership, in ones and twos and tiny groups.
The idea that it's some sort of group think is not just preposterous. It's not true. That we now find ourselves agreeing with each other is not a matter of infection by the spirit of the age, but conviction by the Holy Spirit.
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on
:
Thanks, Doc Tor.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
Thanks, Doc Tor.
Ditto. Well done, Doc Tor.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I was kind of thinking of a thread where people would be able to read my views and not be confusing them with other people's views. Like a bit of a fresh start on the subject.
Sounds like a good topic for a post on your own blog.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I was kind of thinking of a thread where people would be able to read my views and not be confusing them with other people's views. Like a bit of a fresh start on the subject.
A thread which only Steve Langton posts to, and only Steve Langton reads, does sounds like an improvement. It could have even longer posts.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Doc Tor's right; I am another now pro-gay liberal who was brought up with a traditional view of homosexuality. I suspect my parents are still of that view - they led much drawing away of skirts from the two gay couples who moved to the village where we lived.
That traditional view was reinforced by much of the publicity around the AIDs crisis - those stupid tombstone adverts. What helped was a very camp gay co-worker who was HIV positive. In amongst the flouncing and posturing, he let slip that someone else I'd worked with previously was gay, and HIV positive. Which meant the stories of gay men who could not visit their partners' bedsides in hospital, couldn't stay in their homes when their partner died, couldn't attend their funerals became more personal.
That period when so many gay men died of AIDs changed many minds because we saw such injustice.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
And another checking in, as if you didn't know.
This is what I'm talking about with the whole Reductio ad absurum/Argument from adverse consequences confusion above.
Steve, Jamat et al. think the thought process is this:
"Bible apparently says gay is bad. But I don't want to believe that because that's not cool any more, so I'll find another way to interpret things so I don't have to believe gay is bad." - Argument from adverse outcome.
However, the thought process (in my case) is actually something like this:
"Bible apparently says gay is bad. But if gay is bad and God is, as it were, the Supreme Homophobe, then the following conclusions follow:
1. God is cool with the emotional suffering gay people experience, either because they've also adopted the "gay is bad" theology and are afflicted with self-loathing and hopelessness, or because the "gay is bad" Church is gunning for them;
2. Whatever the Church, society and even the queer-bashing bigots might do, it's nothing compared to what God is going to do to them - whether ultimately we see perdition as conscious torment, "separation from God" (whatever that mean, or non-existence. God also, therefore, becomes the supreme Queer basher.
3. God makes arbitrary rules, where Oranges are the Only Fruit, where he puts up one model (heterosexual marriage) and expects us to fit to it even if the way we are made makes it completely inappropriate and unsuitable for us. At best, Celibacy becomes no-longer an option but a mandated path, and one without hope of change.
These three consequences (I'm sure others also spring to mind) conflict with other ideas about God - his love, his concern, his desire for us to experience life in all its abundance (Gospel of John, yes?). It means that God can only have a life of sorrow and disappointment for anyone who's not straight, without there being any obvious reason why this should be so. To me, that is absurd. And so, having seen the negative and even absurd conclusions of the Langton-Jamat reading of the Bible, I'm forced to find an alternative reading.
Or I could just ignore it, which I might as well do, seeing as that's what they'll accuse me of anyway.
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Doc Tor's right; I am another now pro-gay liberal who was brought up with a traditional view of homosexuality. I suspect my parents are still of that view - they led much drawing away of skirts from the two gay couples who moved to the village where we lived.
Me too, and I really don't think it had very much, if anything, to do with either the cultural milieu I moved in, or with wanting to fit in with the prevailing worldview, or some notion of general convenience. I had several years of severe cognitive dissonance over the whole thing, the culmination of which was not wholly unlike C S Lewis's description of his conversion experience, though perhaps more gradual. Also, just to put it out there, I'm really sorry for how I used to be, if it's worth anything, to anyone.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
And you can essentially add me to the list.
The fact that this was about myself, rather than about a sibling or a cousin or a friend or a co-worker, really doesn't alter the thought process much. All it really did was drive home how badly the conservative viewpoint mismatched reality.
Because the conservative viewpoint would have you believe that I sinned so badly, without realising it, before the age of about 13 or 14 that God decided to hand me over to unnatural lusts. Me, a good Christian boy who tried hard to do the right thing, worked hard in school, went to church and Sunday School diligently, who had never hung around gay people... supposedly I was Romans 1 material.
That worried me no end. But the simpler explanation is that that belief is total bullshit. It's generated by people looking at full grown adults and pronouncing judgement and Deciding that because homosexuality is connected with sex it's all about adults having sex.
I'm not who I am because of some great irredeemable sin I committed as a pre-teen, and a Biblical interpretation that claims I am needs serious reexamination. It took me close to 20 years to finally reexamine it.
[ 16. February 2017, 08:49: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
Add me to the list - I used to rely on the traditional RC position that sex outwith marriage is a sin, and two people of the same sex cannot be married to each other therefore...
Coming to know loving, faithful same sex couples who were in my view better spouses to each other than I am wife to my husband led me to believe that faithful committed relationships are a good thing, whether straight or gay.
But I still clung to the view that they could be "equal but different". Then during one of many debates on these boards, I finally realised what it must be like to be constantly being told that you are not quite the same as, as good as, whatever is considered "normal".
The analogy that came to me was with adoptive parenting. If I were the adoptive mother of my children, it would be soul-destroying if people insisted on referring to me as the "adoptive mother of..." or them as my "adopted children". I think it must be the same to be in a faithful committed marriage and have it constantly referred to as a "same-sex marriage", or be told that really it is a civil partnership, because it just isn't the real thing.
I think you can believe that the natural order is important, but believe that faith, hope and love are even more important.
I hope the Church will be led to that position by the Spirit. In the meantime, I'm pretty sure that most faithful Catholics don't really believe that everyone living in what the Church considers to be irregular relationships are really damned for eternity. Or almost all of us are in trouble.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Another one here. Doc Tor nailed it. I've been in mostly conservative churches all my life, so the idea that there was any groupthink or liberal influence is crazy. My change of opinion was over a decade or so, also from my 20s through to my 30s. And not even that much from knowing many gay people (I've only actually ever been friends with a few gay people - so far as I know). It was more developing a more nuanced understanding of theology, and comparing with interpretations that were applied to other issues in the bible. For example: women in authority; slavery; usury; eating meat sacrificed to idols; eating food with blood in; divorce; baptism for the dead; women wearing head coverings... and so on. The way conservatives approach these kinds of issues hermenuetically is with massive double standards compared to LGBT issues.
Steve, I've known a lot more people with the same views as you in my life than I've known LGBT people, and that's still the case. Like you say, your views are still probably the majority in evangelical churches. However, you would probably be surprised how many people in those same churches have gradually changed their opinion on this issue. Not because of peer pressure, but in secret contemplation. And it won't be long before we're the majority. I don't think you're despicable; just wrong. But I do think you've got a massive cognitive dissonance with regards to the character of the God that you follow and your opinion on this issue. Look at all those theological issues I listed above. Look at the standards that are applied to them when they're interpreted. Look at what just gets dismissed as 'cultural' or irrelevant in modern times. Look at what the New Testament actually says on those issues, and what Christians say now.
You think you're being objective and rational and consistent (and your AS condition probably hinders you there), but your opinions are much more a product of your time and culture than you're ever likely to admit.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
That very much parallels my own process.
[ 16. February 2017, 10:40: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I am the screaming liberal Steve Langton thinks characterises everyone who disagrees with him. But, I'd say that my position was arrived at with a lot of work and reading and thought as I retreated from my previous positions (which oddly has almost nothing to say about sexuality, it rarely came up at all). Saying that I arrived at it out of groupthink is ridiculous, I arrived at it whilst searching for something which was worth believing in.
Also, I'd add, after experiencing my own brokenness and then realising that I was in no position to throw stones at people who lived differently to me but otherwise seemed to be doing little particularly harmful to themselves or society.
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on
:
*Raises hand* . And another one here... My views have changed very significantly over the course of about a decade despite being in evangelical churches and in the world of international mission, both of which are pretty strongly for the 'traditional' viewpoint.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I looked into that modern interpretation of Romans 1 on the other thread. In a PM exchange with an advocate of it I pointed out that as far as I could see, all the necessary 'connectives' ('therefores' and so on) were exactly where they should be for the traditional interpretation whereby Paul is expressing his own view.
The 'therefores' do not make the point you seem to think they make. They are all steps in an argument Paul is using to get his hearers on his side (as they think). Once he has them all agreeing (as they think) with him about how evil all these people are, in 2.1 he turns the tables and points out they are no better.
Saying the argument is one Paul himself owns because of the therefores is like saying that Mark Antony really believed Brutus was an honourable man.
We had a fun time with Romans 1 in bible study this evening but decided the last part needed closer attention in two weeks' time.
You omit the next point I made - that;
quote:
He was apparently not able to answer that as such - but instead was insistent that the text would of course be carried by a messenger who would be 'primed' to read it in such a way as to bring out this other meaning....
There is simply not the slightest proof that Paul takes the view you suggest. It's an unsupported assertion. The text makes good sense as it stands, is massively realistic, indeed Shipmates on this very thread have been working really hard at proving it very VERY VERY true.
Yes, the interpretation suits the modern thinking; but saying it's a true interpretation requires the kind of nonsense I found from that other Shipmate with his idea of Paul 'priming' a messenger to read the text contrary to its actual words. It is nonsense and essentially makes Paul incoherent. If you don't want to accept Paul, just reject him; don't do that kind of dishonest - yes I said dishonest - twisting.
A simple point -
People are meant to love people as people, irrespective of sex/gender.
Humans are physical as well as spiritual, and God regards the physical creation as good, and so that love is meant to include physical attraction, and physical displays of affection.
David about Jonathan "Your love for me was wonderful, passing the love of women".
I'm NOT arguing with that.
God has designed sexual intercourse as a thing for those he has equipped appropriately to do it - that is, males with females. Therefore males with males and females with females should not attempt it.
Marriage - in God's terms, whatever the secular world may say - is for those who can naturally do sexual intercourse, and not for those who can't; though there is nothing stopping other legal arrangements of companionship. As a piece of perspective, the biblical position is not simplistically "straight sex good, gay sex bad". The biblical position is that even 'straight' sex is intended for the married - all other sex is in varying degrees wrong. And marriage is for male with female.
If you really think it honours and respects sexuality that men do sex by shoving their penises up other men's shitholes or down other men's throats (or, BTW, that men do oral and/or anal sex with women) - or that women do what is needed to parody sex when they simply aren't naturally equipped for it - then face it that you've got a beef with the Christian God, and be honest that you are rejecting him and telling him you know better.
You talk your heads off about 'love' - the reality is that you really, really hate;
by orfeo;
quote:
I hope you contract leprosy
QED.....
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean he hates you - but "I hope you contract leprosy" definitely means you hate, and don't pretend otherwise.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Steve - do you believe that every act of sexual intimacy should end in conception?
Because if you don't, your entire argument collapses.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It was more developing a more nuanced understanding of theology, and comparing with interpretations that were applied to other issues in the bible. For example: women in authority; slavery; usury; eating meat sacrificed to idols; eating food with blood in; divorce; baptism for the dead; women wearing head coverings... and so on. The way conservatives approach these kinds of issues hermenuetically is with massive double standards compared to LGBT issues.
Not to mention all the stuff about wealth. Pick the most hardline literal-Bible conservative you know and give him a million bucks, and he'll interpret that camel through the needle's eye before supper.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
There is simply not the slightest proof that Paul takes the view you suggest. It's an unsupported assertion. The text makes good sense as it stands, is massively realistic, indeed Shipmates on this very thread have been working really hard at proving it very VERY VERY true.
Well there is more than a slight proof;
διο appears in both 1:24 and 2:1 suggesting that the two thoughts are supposed to be read in parallel. It'd be kinda odd to say that "these people are too terrible to be in the kingdom of God" and then straight afterwards say "oh, but don't judge!"
Second we have clear evidence that those who "are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice." are indeed welcomed by God. Not only did Jesus hang about with the wicked and the unrighteous, he ate with them and was friends with them.
Third we have evidence from the epistles themselves. Whatever bloodcurdling warnings we hear from Paul (and/or whoever the epistle writer to the Corinthians were), there is never any suggestion that those engaged in sexual sins are not in Christ. Indeed, the only indication of a church that is being expelled from the presence of the Lord is the one in Revelation which is being expelled for being neither hot-nor-cold. Isn't that a wonder? Why wasn't the Corinthian church expelled for being sexually permissive?
--
But y'know - we get it. The thing is obvious inside your own mind and therefore there is nothing else to be said.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
[quote]There is simply not the slightest proof that Paul takes the view you suggest. It's an unsupported assertion. The text makes good sense as it stands
If you read it in the context of chapter 2 it makes perfect sense to see it as Paul setting up a straw man - in a list which includes a whole load of "wrong behaviour" in which homosexuality, to the exclusion of all the other items listed, has somehow gained a special focus of late. No special reading required.
quote:
Yes, the interpretation suits the modern thinking; but saying it's a true interpretation requires the kind of nonsense
I for my part don't recall using the word "true". But I would go so far as legitimate.
One of the things that's changed my mind on these issues is the way so many "killer texts" turn out either to revolve around hapax lagomena - which seems an awfully slim justification on which to condemn entire categories of our fellow humans as inferior, or even damned - or support equally legitimate alternative readings.
I have come to not a few texts thinking "there's no way round this" only to discover, to my discomfort, that if I set my prejudices to one side there were in fact other legitimate interpretations. Romans 1 is one of them.
quote:
dishonest - yes I said dishonest - twisting.
In my experience this kind of adjective gets thrown around in place of actual argument. Usually followed by "but you're impugning the Trinity" or some such nuclear threat.
quote:
Marriage - in God's terms, whatever the secular world may say - is for those who can naturally do sexual intercourse, and not for those who can't
I'd like to see the chapter and verse for that, and know what you make of marriages in which sex is, for various medical reasons, a physical impossibility.
On closer inspection I've discovered that such arguments collapse into dust unless you believe the sole legitimate purpose of marriage is procreation, which would come as a surprise to me.
quote:
If you really think it honours and respects sexuality that men do sex by shoving their penises up other men's shitholes or down other men's throats (or, BTW, that men do oral and/or anal sex with women)
It amazes me that you can't seem to deal with this topic without descending into playground language. It also amazes me how you have veered off the topic of gay sex to discuss sexual practices between straight couples. Those are two different topics. quote:
then face it that you've got a beef with the Christian God
Please show me where the Christian God says oral and/or anal sex (irrespective of the sex of the people involved) is wrong.
I know a gay guy looking for a life partner. I also know that he is physically impotent. How does he fit into your morality?
Well before my thinking started shifting on gay issues I concluded that it was simply wrong, as a pastor, to develop an inordinate interest in peoples' sex lives. Do you really think pastoral assessment of holiness and the healthiness of a relationship should revolve around who is sticking what where in the privacy of their bedroom? Because that is where your views seem to be taking you.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Marriage - in God's terms, whatever the secular world may say - is for those who can naturally do sexual intercourse, and not for those who can't; though there is nothing stopping other legal arrangements of companionship. As a piece of perspective, the biblical position is not simplistically "straight sex good, gay sex bad". The biblical position is that even 'straight' sex is intended for the married - all other sex is in varying degrees wrong. And marriage is for male with female.
On this part, I'd say that the bible is rather a lot less clear about monogomous marriage than we'd all like. The other day we were reading the (horrific, actually) story of Jacob, Leah and Rachel. That family is a mess and that Jacob spent a lot of time putting his penis where he shouldn't have.
And yet God graciously redeemed that messy, horrible, stupid family situation.
In fact, there are almost no Old Testament characters that I can think of who closely matched the man-woman marriage that we're supposed to believe is the Normal Christian state. So where does this idea come from?
Even the Adam and Eve story doesn't work. They had two sons, do the maths.
quote:
If you really think it honours and respects sexuality that men do sex by shoving their penises up other men's shitholes or down other men's throats (or, BTW, that men do oral and/or anal sex with women) - or that women do what is needed to parody sex when they simply aren't naturally equipped for it - then face it that you've got a beef with the Christian God, and be honest that you are rejecting him and telling him you know better.
I admit that I find the mechanics of sexual acts pretty uncomfortable and I don't really think that they honor or respect anything very much.
But I'm not sure that my squeamishness really cuts a lot of ice. Who cares what I think? Are these acts really any less honoring than the married couple who are sterilised and regularly have heterosexual sex?
My view is that I'd love to be Gandhi and denounce sex that is not procreative - but (i) I'm not (ii) Gandhi was a total hypocrite on this point and (iii) who cares what Gandhi said anyway?
Frankly if the sex is non-procreative, it is quite hard to see what damage it is doing in-and-of-itself. Of course there are various emotional issues tied into sex, but that's a different thing.
quote:
You talk your heads off about 'love' - the reality is that you really, really hate;
Unfortunately you need to address the hatred seen in the bible if you think this is hatred. In fact you are posting in a place where people throw flamboyant insults around. Nobody actually wants you to get leprosy, they just dislike your terrible attitude. Instead of attacking the annoying fire-alarm, try putting out the fire.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
And, in contrast, I can say that I know of several gay couples whose honouring and nurturing of their relationship is a testament to the importance that they place on it and the good things they get from it.
It would indeed be lovely if all gay relationships were trainwrecks, all heterosexual relationships were perfect and that we could easily see the benefits of the one over the other.
It ain't like that. Committed, strong, supportive human relationships are rare. And are found in places we least expect.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Steve: quote:
...women do what is needed to parody sex when they simply aren't naturally equipped for it...
This is beyond offensive. If you really can't see how offensive this remark is - to all women, not just lesbians - then there is no point in trying to communicate with you.
I think sex is awkward and weird and sometimes icky too. I take it as evidence that God has a sense of humour.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
'Naturally equipped' is an interesting phrase, used by SL, I think about women who can't do intercourse. This phrase seems to have a whole ton of philosophical background, probably adjacent to natural law, and that whole rigmarole about 'perversion of natural faculties'.
It just sounds circular to me. True, women don't have a penis, and if you define sex as properly consisting of penis/vagina, then two women are 'unnatural' if they have some kind of sex.
Do people really buy into this today? As others have said, it must mean that sex is for reproduction, end of story. That is mechanical and soulless. The homophobes are the ones who are perverted, and see sex as dirty.
[ 16. February 2017, 12:15: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Steve: quote:
...women do what is needed to parody sex when they simply aren't naturally equipped for it...
This is beyond offensive. If you really can't see how offensive this remark is - to all women, not just lesbians - then there is no point in trying to communicate with you.
It is offensive, but at the same time, I found his little tirade uproariously funny. Though hateful, it was also very pathetic and that impotent vitriol made me laugh.
The little fool will go one worshiping his incompetent, inconsistent, petty, hateful god; you loving Christians continue worshiping Jesus.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Steve, isn't just offensive to others, he also has a massive 'ick' button.
He is very unlikely to have ever shared an orgasm with a woman - p i v sex very rarely achieves this.
Ho hum - just be grateful you are not married to him, divorce or sex toys in private would be your only choice
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
.If you really think it honours and respects sexuality that men do sex by shoving their penises up other men's shitholes or down other men's throats (or, BTW, that men do oral and/or anal sex with women) - or that women do what is needed to parody sex when they simply aren't naturally equipped for it - then face it that you've got a beef with the Christian God, and be honest that you are rejecting him and telling him you know better.
This is interesting. Why should gay people get all the opprobrium rather than the (no doubt millions more) straight people who practise oral sex?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
This whole kind of thing sounds like sour grapes from someone who is just sure that other people are having more fun in bed than they are.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
He is very unlikely to have ever shared an orgasm with a woman - p i v sex very rarely achieves this.
Sigh, was that really necessary? Can he not be an officious prick that has satisfactory (huh, what a great word that is in this context) sex?
It is very easy to dismiss SL as an inadequate 14 year old, rather more difficult to imagine him as a loving husband and father. But try harder, please.
[ 16. February 2017, 12:44: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This whole kind of thing sounds like sour grapes from someone who is just sure that other people are having more fun in bed than they are.
Looking at his attitudes I'm sure they are!
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Really. If we're going to be making judgments about sexual performance based on opinions typed on an internet bulletin board, then I'm out.
I have no idea about Steve's family or sexual life, nor really want to know. But let's have a little more respect than to simply speculate.
We're better than he is. We don't have to judge him based on his type and limited information.
[ 16. February 2017, 12:47: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
He is very unlikely to have ever shared an orgasm with a woman - p i v sex very rarely achieves this.
Sigh, was that really necessary? Can he not be an officious prick that has satisfactory (huh, what a great word that is in this context) sex?
It is very easy to dismiss SL as an inadequate 14 year old, rather more difficult to imagine him as a loving husband and father. But try harder, please.
A loving husband at least makes some effort to discover how the clitoris works.
I imagine he sees himself as the most loving person - but his words about sexuality deny this I'm sorry to say.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
A loving husband at least makes some effort to discover how the clitoris works.
I imagine he sees himself as the most loving person - but his words about sexuality deny this I'm sorry to say.
I'm done. You carry on making up shit about someone else if you want. I'll lend you a mirror and then you can watch yourself turning into Steve Langton.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
A loving husband at least makes some effort to discover how the clitoris works.
I imagine he sees himself as the most loving person - but his words about sexuality deny this I'm sorry to say.
I'm done. You carry on making up shit about someone else if you want. I'll lend you a mirror and then you can watch yourself turning into Steve Langton.
I think you've misunderstood Boogie. I don't read her as saying to Steve L "You're an odious person, therefore probably not getting any", which would be simple abuse, but rather "If you think that sex is all about putting a penis into a vagina you're unlikely to see the vagina-equipped partner orgasm, because that's not usually how it works", which is simply true.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
I fail to see what the mechanics of sex have to do with anything at all, SL. That you find anything but PIV sex distasteful is your opinion, not shared by the majority of people in the world.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
A loving husband at least makes some effort to discover how the clitoris works.
I imagine he sees himself as the most loving person - but his words about sexuality deny this I'm sorry to say.
I'm done. You carry on making up shit about someone else if you want. I'll lend you a mirror and then you can watch yourself turning into Steve Langton.
My point (badly made I see) is that understanding sexuality is important in any relationship, heterosexual, homosexual, whatever.
Words matter, language matters - as your strong reaction to my pretty mild speculation shows.
When Steve L says "If you really think it honours and respects sexuality that men do sex by shoving their penises up other men's shitholes or down other men's throats (or, BTW, that men do oral and/or anal sex with women) - or that women do what is needed to parody sex when they simply aren't naturally equipped for it - then face it that you've got a beef with the Christian God, and be honest that you are rejecting him." He's showing such deeply ingrained ignorance of things sexual that I think my speculation about his ignorance - 'tho hellish, is not unexpected.
Much homophobia is misogyny with a large helping of ignorance.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, it reminds me of early Freud, women don't have a dick, poor (non-)fuckers.
Something should also be said here about patriarchal attitudes, in which of course, men who love men, and women without penises, are patronized, vilified, and punished.
[ 16. February 2017, 14:53: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
A loving husband at least makes some effort to discover how the clitoris works.
I imagine he sees himself as the most loving person - but his words about sexuality deny this I'm sorry to say.
I'm done. You carry on making up shit about someone else if you want. I'll lend you a mirror and then you can watch yourself turning into Steve Langton.
As Boogie clarified, SL's own words seem to indicate little regard for female pleasure. And this deserves censure in itself.
From my view, his hateful and vile words removes any need for courtesy extended towards him. Does this make me less? Probably. Does this mean I'm turning into something like him? No.
Posted by DaleMaily (# 18725) on
:
I come to this from a different perspective. I've been a Christian for all of 6 months (I don't count the 10 years at the local Methodist Sunday School), so as far as I was concerned (along with my predominantly white, middle class friends, none of whom, coincidentally, are gay), I thought I had already resolved this issue at a personal level: essentially pro-equality (so pro-gay marriage and feminist).
I then had to decide whether becoming a Christian required me to revisit these views, which for me were instinctive and arrived at as a matter of conscience, since I had no personal emotional experiences to help me on my way. This actually turned out to be one of the biggest barriers to becoming a Christian: how can a God who supposedly created and loves us infinitely outlaw gay people from loving each other and instruct his followers to be homophobic at the same time? Because if I believed that, then I wouldn't want him to be my God, whether I believed he existed or not. Fortunately I don't, largely because I didn't see Jesus say anything against it, which in hindsight was hardly surprising.
When I was on the outside looking in (often a good viewpoint), I observed the following of the "traditional" Christian opinion on sex, homosexuality and gay marriage:
"God says you should only have sex if you are married" [still trying to work that one out...]
and...
"God says that marriage can only be between a man and a woman"
THEREFORE
"Gay sex is sin. Sorry, but we didn't make the rules, God did [or more specifically Paul did, along with what women can and can't do]. Don't worry, though, we still love you and God will forgive you if you repent of your sin."
For me, this just looked like an excuse for homophobes to get their own way: they don't like gays, so they make it as hard as possible to stop gays from loving each other. Conveniently, they generally don't like to talk about gays loving each other, rather they talk about a "lifestyle", which I can only assume to be a euphemism for the "gay scene", which is apparently full of orgies and BDSM. My positioned has softened slightly since becoming a Christian and encountering people who seem genuinely conflicted on the issue (especially those who are part of evangelical churches who are anti-gay and also anti-women in leadership), a view which I initially thought was thinly veiled homophobia.
I've always been pro-marriage: I think that a professing life-long commitment and monogamy to one's partner (especially in front of God) is one of the greatest acts of love you can do. If we as Christians generally accept this, surely MORE marriage is what we want, not telling people that it's for us only.
There concludes my probably incoherent stream of consciousness.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:
For me, this just looked like an excuse for homophobes to get their own way: they don't like gays, so they make it as hard as possible to stop gays from loving each other. Conveniently, they generally don't like to talk about gays loving each other, rather they talk about a "lifestyle", which I can only assume to be a euphemism for the "gay scene", which is apparently full of orgies and BDSM. My positioned has softened slightly since becoming a Christian and encountering people who seem genuinely conflicted on the issue (especially those who are part of evangelical churches who are anti-gay and also anti-women in leadership), a view which I initially thought was thinly veiled homophobia.
Conflicted, but caring people do not deserve the condemnation often directed towards them. They still need to be corrected, but more gently. Russ, Jamat and Steve Langton do not fit this catagory. They have demonstrated a lack of caring. Now, perhaps mr cheesy is correct and we should still not be mean, but they have not earned respectful treatment.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Only 2 brief things to say about SL's latest outburst:
1. I think it's hilarious that he's saying an alternative interpretation hasn't been PROVED. He still thinks that this is all about PROVING one single interpretation that wipes out all others and prevents debate.
2. No one, but no one jumps up and down and protests about impotent heterosexual couples getting married. The nature of sex only gets raised in this way when attempting to explain why homosexual couples can't do it right.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:
I think that a professing life-long commitment and monogamy to one's partner (especially in front of God) is one of the greatest acts of love you can do.
it would be nice if straight married couples were monogamous, but in lot of cases they aren't. They are still married though.
My partner and I of 39 years are monogamous, but we have no wish to be called "married" as long as we have the same legal protection as married straights.
To do so gives into the idea that we have been second rate up to now and that marriage is the only possible Christian ideal. Which history and the gospels clearly show it isn't.
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If you really think it honours and respects sexuality that men do sex by shoving their penises up other men's shitholes or down other men's throats (or, BTW, that men do oral and/or anal sex with women) - or that women do what is needed to parody sex when they simply aren't naturally equipped for it - then face it that you've got a beef with the Christian God, and be honest that you are rejecting him and telling him you know better.
I know there has been a lot of comment about this particular paragraph already, but, hey, there are a lot of problems with it - and from my p.o.v., as a mere female (but a heterosexual one, so I think I might get points for that), there is a point which hasn't yet been addressed by commenters:-
Namely, that it seems, in Steve Langton's world, that sex is something only men 'do'. Men 'do' sex either with other men, which is icky, or they 'do' sex with women, which may potentially be icky, depending on what exactly it is they are doing. Women don't 'do' sex, though if their desires are perverted, they may be tragically left with no option but to attempt a 'parody' of the act.
So, even in heterosexual relations, men 'do' sex, and women have it done to them. Men are always agents as far as sex is concerned, and women are always recipients. Now, on the whole I agree with Mr Cheesy that there's no particular need to be speculating on the specifics of SL's own private life, but this sort of thing does honestly make you wonder. As an example, I very much think of fellatio as something a man receives, rather than 'does'. The party giving (see that? giving/receiving) the blowjob is the active one, the one who's doing the 'doing'. And a lot of the time, that's a woman, but really, in any relationship, over time, as it grows and blossoms, and ebbs and flows, and cycles around, and whatever, whatever, there's going to be fluidity in the way the desires and the roles work out. What does it matter who initiates, who assents, who inserts, who envelops, who gives, who receives? Is it ultimately even possible to tease them apart? Should it be?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Steve--
You said:
quote:
Marriage - in God's terms, whatever the secular world may say - is for those who can naturally do sexual intercourse, and not for those who can't; though there is nothing stopping other legal arrangements of companionship.
Are you saying that straight people whose bodies can't manage intercourse shouldn't marry?
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:
I come to this from a different perspective. I've been a Christian for all of 6 months (I don't count the 10 years at the local Methodist Sunday School), so as far as I was concerned (along with my predominantly white, middle class friends, none of whom, coincidentally, are gay), I thought I had already resolved this issue at a personal level: essentially pro-equality (so pro-gay marriage and feminist).
I then had to decide whether becoming a Christian required me to revisit these views, which for me were instinctive and arrived at as a matter of conscience, since I had no personal emotional experiences to help me on my way. This actually turned out to be one of the biggest barriers to becoming a Christian: how can a God who supposedly created and loves us infinitely outlaw gay people from loving each other and instruct his followers to be homophobic at the same time? Because if I believed that, then I wouldn't want him to be my God, whether I believed he existed or not. Fortunately I don't, largely because I didn't see Jesus say anything against it, which in hindsight was hardly surprising.
This is really interesting AND really important for mission. How did you resolve that problem, which I assume you have given you've said you are now christian?
Forgive me if you've explained this already - I read a bit further back in the thread but it became some kind of Fred Phelps version of the Lack of Joy of Sex so I gave up.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Steve--
You said:
quote:
Marriage - in God's terms, whatever the secular world may say - is for those who can naturally do sexual intercourse, and not for those who can't; though there is nothing stopping other legal arrangements of companionship.
Are you saying that straight people whose bodies can't manage intercourse shouldn't marry?
Well that's what his words say, taken literally. But there are other interpretations.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Mousethief wins the thread.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
mt--
Yes, I understand the LGBT meaning. But it seemed the other was implied, also. We know Steve's opinions on the first.
Are there other potential interpretations?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
If he doesn't mean the other, then he has overshot and needs to refine his conditions.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
And I think we've seen where something like that leads with ingoB. You end up getting such absurdities as a woman without a womb being "open" to getting pregnant. Although I think someone on this or one of the other threads said that an impotent man, according to Catholic doctrine, has no business getting married at all. Which may well be.
If that's true it certainly is hard to come away with any other conclusion but that PIV sex is what marriage is all about -- even more than procreation since it's okay for post-menopausal or wombless women to marry.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
mt--
"PIV" = ?
Thx.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Wasn't there an RCC rule that priests had to have whole and functioning private parts?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
mt--
"PIV" = ?
Thx.
Never mind. Figured it out.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Wasn't there an RCC rule that priests had to have whole and functioning private parts?
I believe that's correct, yes. Leading one to surmise the Catholic position is:
Men: Everything in full working order, or you're not a man.
Women: Meh. Whatever.
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
...Leading one to surmise [that] the Catholic position is:
Men: Everything in full working order, or you're not a man.
Women: Meh. Whatever.
I know you are joking, but I'm also pretty sure you're not far wrong. The tendency to view women not in terms of what they are, or have, but in terms of what they are not, or lack, is a widespread one. Men are an actual defined category, women are [not-men].
This book was a real eye-opener in that respect, especially (for me) the discovery of the extent to which a male standard pervades and informs even scientific research which is intended to provide answers about aspects of women's lives or functioning.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
I know you are joking, but I'm also pretty sure you're not far wrong. The tendency to view women not in terms of what they are, or have, but in terms of what they are not, or lack, is a widespread one. Men are an actual defined category, women are [not-men].
In this case I think it goes even further: not really viewing women at all. Viewing them as inconsequential.
Posted by Goldfish Stew (# 5512) on
:
Dear Steve Langton
I disagree with you. That happens.
However I don't savagely dismiss your views as I do those of a certain other cretinous being on that dead horse discussion, who I believe is trolling or hateful.
I have a bit more sympathy with you as I see your views as not overly different from mine about 15 years ago. I tried to walk that line between what I clearly saw the bible stating about certain activities, between what I clearly saw the bible saying about love, humility and *universal* fallenness (that is, me included.)
I genuinely strived for a "because we love, these things matter" approach. And genuinely thought I could communicate that.
So I write you this as someone who may have been in a similar position to you. I have changed my view - I believe I was wrong then. Maybe you believe I am wrong now. That's how it works.
The fundamental thing that got me we was the realisation that however hard I tried, I was seen as hateful, hurtful, excluding and judgemental. And compared with the Jesus of the gospels, I gradually realised that this was precisely the opposite of the "risk management matrix" he applied. He was not accused of being holier than though, too pedantic or judgemental. His contemporaries scoffed and said "friend of sinners", "eating with the wrong people" and shit like that.
Read that again. Compare the reception you get with your contemporaries with that that the big JC got from his.
The second realisation was an honest appraisal of how many biblical passages we happily relegate to "culture of the time" or "contextual." Honestly, count 'em up. I put a link in DH to a book I read at the time about black pudding. Because it makes an interesting point. Black pudding, rare steak, shellfish - these things are all also "abominations" (and the first two are covered in the NT as well.) And that just scratches the surface. Do you check a woman hasn't got her period before shaking hands? Best you do.
Then there's those words of the J-meister himself, with "love God, love your neighbour. Do that, and you have it sorted" or words to that effect. A summation of the law like that makes sense - even came from the words of the man himself. Theft. Adultery. Rape. Murder. These things are not easy to do while properly showing love you your fellow human beings. Worshiping false gods. Not particularly respectful of any true ones out there. But loving relationship with someone who happens to have the same plumbing as you? A bit difficult to capture within that summation that came from the bearded one himself, without some mental gymnastics or layers of improbability.
And finally, I realised that even if I was to take a view that said those 6 or 7 verses that could be pegged to same-sex sexual activity were still pertinent and valid, they were also somebody else's mail to sort through and I still had about 2389 verses applying to me that I really needed to work on before snooping on messages addressed to other people, no more flawed than I.
I say these things because if we weren't so different in our start points, then maybe you could reflect on what I saw in your own time. Weigh it up and decide.
Granted, my thinking has moved significantly further since then, and I'm rather atheistic for your liking. You may, therefore, consider my words dire warning rather than shining example. Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to
But I make this most unhellish of responses because I see a little bit of me from 15 years ago in you. And I don't know which of us that should scare more.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
anoesis: quote:
Namely, that it seems, in Steve Langton's world, that sex is something only men 'do'. Men 'do' sex either with other men, which is icky, or they 'do' sex with women, which may potentially be icky, depending on what exactly it is they are doing. Women don't 'do' sex, though if their desires are perverted, they may be tragically left with no option but to attempt a 'parody' of the act. So, even in heterosexual relations, men 'do' sex, and women have it done to them. Men are always agents as far as sex is concerned, and women are always recipients.
Yes, this is what offended me so much about Steve's post, but put far more eloquently than I did. Thank you.
It's a very old-fashioned view (I had hoped our view of sexuality had progressed beyond Aristotle, it being the 21st century and all) but this is only to be expected of someone who is still obsessing about where the Church went wrong in the fourth century AD.
[ 17. February 2017, 08:49: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
I know you are joking, but I'm also pretty sure you're not far wrong. The tendency to view women not in terms of what they are, or have, but in terms of what they are not, or lack, is a widespread one. Men are an actual defined category, women are [not-men].
In this case I think it goes even further: not really viewing women at all. Viewing them as inconsequential.
My working definition of feminism is "the belief that women are people too".
And really, any notion that sex is something that men "do" and women just have done to them (as referred to earlier by anoesis) is perilously close to the idea that a wife or girlfriend is in some sense a possession, a living breathing appliance for the purpose of sexual pleasure. And all the horrible things that flow from that.
I might add that the gay world is not completely immune from such thinking and power imbalances. It's just based on other characteristics instead of gender.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And really, any notion that sex is something that men "do" and women just have done to them (as referred to earlier by anoesis) is perilously close to the idea that a wife or girlfriend is in some sense a possession, a living breathing appliance for the purpose of sexual pleasure. And all the horrible things that flow from that.
Horrible things have been flowing from that since the dawn of civilisation.
However, we have entered an age now when, in theory, the heterosexual might have something to learn from the homosexual so as to stem the hetero on hetero horribleness.
Not that all this squabbling about marriage is necessarily going to take us to utopia, the age of Aquarius, or wherever for the simple reason of marriage being an institution based on the very idea of possession.
Posted by DaleMaily (# 18725) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:
I come to this from a different perspective. I've been a Christian for all of 6 months (I don't count the 10 years at the local Methodist Sunday School), so as far as I was concerned (along with my predominantly white, middle class friends, none of whom, coincidentally, are gay), I thought I had already resolved this issue at a personal level: essentially pro-equality (so pro-gay marriage and feminist).
I then had to decide whether becoming a Christian required me to revisit these views, which for me were instinctive and arrived at as a matter of conscience, since I had no personal emotional experiences to help me on my way. This actually turned out to be one of the biggest barriers to becoming a Christian: how can a God who supposedly created and loves us infinitely outlaw gay people from loving each other and instruct his followers to be homophobic at the same time? Because if I believed that, then I wouldn't want him to be my God, whether I believed he existed or not. Fortunately I don't, largely because I didn't see Jesus say anything against it, which in hindsight was hardly surprising.
This is really interesting AND really important for mission. How did you resolve that problem, which I assume you have given you've said you are now christian?
Forgive me if you've explained this already - I read a bit further back in the thread but it became some kind of Fred Phelps version of the Lack of Joy of Sex so I gave up.
I would say it mainly came from my approach to the Bible. Now, I freely admit that I my knowledge of the Bible didn't (and still doesn't, really - working on it!) extend much further than Genesis, Moses and Joshua (excluding the genocide/ethnic cleansing) and the Gospels. However, as a translator, I am acutely aware of hermeneutics and fully subscribe to the view that texts and translations are products of a particular culture and time. That is not to say the texts as a whole are irrelevant, rather that our understanding and interpretation of them will evolve, just as Jesus showed on with the sermon on the mount (right?), and just like Jesus, it's not about throwing out the baby with the bathwater ('not doing away with scripture, but fulfilling it'), but it is about getting as deep an understanding as possible, rather than a more superficial one that I believe comes from strict literalism (that's not meant to be an insult).
As a result, after reading the various debates over interpretation of the "gay verses" and taking a look myself with my text analysis hat on, I couldn't come to accept that there was sufficient evidence (for want of a better word) to conclude that God wants us to stop gay people loving each other. The fact that this supported my general "gut feeling" only served to reinforce my beliefs, unless my conscience is a manifestation of the evil one, which just fucks with my head. I won't detail my arguments as this thread probably isn't the right place for it, but essentially I found that an anti-gay interpretation of these verses essentially treats homosexual acts as promiscuity and adultery, which is understandable, given that our "liberal" society has only recently begun to accept that homosexuals can love in the same way as heterosexuals (again, texts are products of time and culture). Why Jesus didn't speak up for gays, I don't know, but he also didn't seem to lead a movement to abolish slavery, so I'll have to accept that I'll find out when I die.
Posted by DaleMaily (# 18725) on
:
Sorry for double posting, but I should also say that I understand (though sometimes forget!) that depending on one's background, some issues are more easily resolved than others. For me, I was more at ease with sexual and gender equality that perhaps it made it easier for me to reconcile them with Christianity, but I found it SO difficult to get to grips with miracles and the resurrection. I suspect the reverse may be true for people who have spent their whole lives as Christians.
[ 17. February 2017, 10:37: Message edited by: DaleMaily ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:
Sorry for double posting, but I should also say that I understand (though sometimes forget!) that depending on one's background, some issues are more easily resolved than others. For me, I was more at ease with sexual and gender equality that perhaps it made it easier for me to reconcile them with Christianity, but I found it SO difficult to get to grips with miracles and the resurrection. I suspect the reverse may be true for people who have spent their whole lives as Christians.
Heh, I suspect you're 100% right there.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:
However, as a translator, I am acutely aware of hermeneutics and fully subscribe to the view that texts and translations are products of a particular culture and time. That is not to say the texts as a whole are irrelevant, rather that our understanding and interpretation of them will evolve, just as Jesus showed on with the sermon on the mount (right?), and just like Jesus, it's not about throwing out the baby with the bathwater ('not doing away with scripture, but fulfilling it'), but it is about getting as deep an understanding as possible, rather than a more superficial one that I believe comes from strict literalism (that's not meant to be an insult).
As a result, after reading the various debates over interpretation of the "gay verses" and taking a look myself with my text analysis hat on, I couldn't come to accept that there was sufficient evidence (for want of a better word) to conclude that God wants us to stop gay people loving each other.
Brilliant. Thank you. With all sincerity, thank you. It feels like the essence of what I've been trying to get across to people for... about a decade.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And really, any notion that sex is something that men "do" and women just have done to them (as referred to earlier by anoesis) is perilously close to the idea that a wife or girlfriend is in some sense a possession, a living breathing appliance for the purpose of sexual pleasure. And all the horrible things that flow from that.
Horrible things have been flowing from that since the dawn of civilisation.
However, we have entered an age now when, in theory, the heterosexual might have something to learn from the homosexual so as to stem the hetero on hetero horribleness.
Not that all this squabbling about marriage is necessarily going to take us to utopia, the age of Aquarius, or wherever for the simple reason of marriage being an institution based on the very idea of possession.
But I don't think marriage is based on the idea of possession anymore, for a considerable number of people it's based on chosen partnership.
Which is exactly how same-sex marriage began to make sense as a concept. Once you start treating marriage as two equal people coming together, the gender of the two people starts losing its importance.
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:
Sorry for double posting, but I should also say that I understand (though sometimes forget!) that depending on one's background, some issues are more easily resolved than others. For me, I was more at ease with sexual and gender equality that perhaps it made it easier for me to reconcile them with Christianity, but I found it SO difficult to get to grips with miracles and the resurrection. I suspect the reverse may be true for people who have spent their whole lives as Christians.
I've struggled with both those. When I started becoming a Christian I just believed what people told me because I knew squat and that made me think that probably the whole gay thing was sub optimal because if it wasn't the church wouldn't criticise gay people. I date back to an era that had a similar thought process about women priests - if the church thinks it's not OK it's not, now the church thinks it is OK, it is. I'm so easily led me, or else lacking confidence in my own ability to make judgements.
As I got more confident, I concluded that the church changes its position on a ton of stuff through the years and so will probably catch up with the rest of the world on equality for gay people at some point. I waver on how much it matters that the church is behind the times. Sometimes I think it's good to wait until most people are ready to come with, sometimes I think the church should lead. I hate how my friends J&E and my cousins D&C have been treated by the church (and by society) for being who they are.
On the miracles, I know quite a bit of science and it bothers the heck out of me that miracles don't seem to work in the scientific universe with which I am familiar but I guess I've learned not to think about it too much. The only miracle that REALLY matters is the resurrection and I buy that, so if I can't really believe that the sun stopped moving in the sky for Joshua or Balaam's ass was chatty, I guess I'll cope.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
(following on from orfeo above). Yes, it seems that we are part of a massive move out of patriarchal and hierarchical attitudes towards things like marriage. It is slow and painful, and with many regressive moves back, by people who want to hang on. I suppose religions have been prime incubators of hierarchical values, and it is particularly painful for them to democratize.
[ 17. February 2017, 11:33: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't think marriage is based on the idea of possession anymore, for a considerable number of people it's based on chosen partnership.
Which is exactly how same-sex marriage began to make sense as a concept. Once you start treating marriage as two equal people coming together, the gender of the two people starts losing its importance.
And because male and female still seem hell bent on gender stereotypes the seeds of destruction are often sown long before they even embark on marriage. A bottomless Pandora's box is that one.
Suppose I was thinking of modern day 'possession' in terms of the whole *to have and to hold* ceremony, various entitlements to the other one's estate and so on rather than man regarding a wife as his property. Although we have to accept that such a view is still alive and well in many spheres and cultures.
[ 17. February 2017, 14:15: Message edited by: rolyn ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Jane R;
quote:
this is only to be expected of someone who is still obsessing about where the Church went wrong in the fourth century AD.
First, "Where the Church went wrong in the fourth century AD" was directly responsible for the tragic wrongness of 'gay' people being persecuted by supposedly 'Christian' states in the name of Jesus. I get the distinct impression that when that mistake was made by Constantine, Theodosius, and the Orthodox Church in one of its worst "We know better than the Bible" moments, they thought they were being very 'up to date'. It would have been better if they'd remained 'old-fashioned'....
Second, that may have happened in the 300s AD - but it's not yesterday's news. Very much today's news - didn't you notice the recent events in the 'Constantinian/established' Anglican state church - events which would be significantly different if only they could be persuaded to give up being 'established'.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Constantine was responsible for gay sex, global warming and the illuminati! Aaaahhhhhhhhh!
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Constantine was responsible for gay sex, global warming and the illuminati! Aaaahhhhhhhhh!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Don't remember saying any of that.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
My bad, I don't respect you enough to read your shite thoroughly.
Should have been
Constantine was responsible for repression of gay sex, global warming and the illuminati! Aaaahhhhhhhhh!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Hey! Constantine is a saint in the Orthodox Church, you know! You just strike "the Illuminati" off that list! But I think you can add "strained beetroot" in there.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Constantine was responsible for gay sex, global warming and the illuminati! Aaaahhhhhhhhh!
Don't remember saying any of that.
No worries. Mind staying clear of Constantine and answering some of the questions about what you actually did say, such as mine here?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
No worries. Mind staying clear of Constantine and answering some of the questions about what you actually did say, such as mine here?
Given I was responding to someone going on about my supposed obsession with a certain Roman Emperor, and that my reply was very much thread topic relevant - shouldn't be a problem. This is 'Hell' anyway....
Be careful what you wish for - the response to about a quarter of your 'mine here' has reached about 4 pages and is awaiting me being up to transferring it from my word processor to the Ship's weird UBB stuff; and then there'll be the other three quarters to respond to....
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
has reached about 4 pages
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Though I am going to add: this is a Discussion board. If you think you need 4 pages to answer a couple of points, imagine this happening down the pub and how likely your listeners would be to wander off after five minutes to find something more interesting to do.
If you need 4 pages, you're doing it wrong, you haven't understood the questions and you won't be giving any answer that anyone will be able follow. You will literally be wasting your time, and ours.
This is the polite version of saying, "Don't".
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
And when I shorten my answers and don't give the reasons behind them, the likes of orfeo queue up to scream that I'm just making unsupported assertions.
Unfortunately Eutychus has gone into an area where what we're discussing is long even by my standards (it needed to be to obscure how nonsensical it was) - I'm afraid right now my view is "He asked for it!" and then asked again in that recent post....
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Let me help you boil it down.
(1)
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Marriage - in God's terms, whatever the secular world may say - is for those who can naturally do sexual intercourse, and not for those who can't
I'd like to see the chapter and verse for that,
A bible reference - not four pages - should suffice
(2)
quote:
and know what you make of marriages in which sex is, for various medical reasons, a physical impossibility.
quote:
I know a gay guy looking for a life partner. I also know that he is physically impotent. How does he fit into your morality?
(these are related questions so we can take them as one)
(3)
quote:
Please show me where the Christian God says oral and/or anal sex (irrespective of the sex of the people involved) is wrong.
Again, a bible reference will do just fine.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
No one has asked for a 4 page screed that only one person - me - will read. To repeat, this is a discussion board: this is not a place to post your academic treatise, and Hell is particularly unsuited for that, because the Hellions don't actually care. If you could genuinely argue your case, you'd do so on the dedicated Dead Horse thread. But you can't, and every time you think you can you just dig yourself deeper and deeper into utterly offensive territory.
You were called here for your antediluvian views on gays. Since then, you've insulted every woman of whatever sexuality and almost every straight man. You've cheapened marriage and disparaged the childless.
Seriously. Shut the fuck up. Before or after an apology, I don't mind which.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And when I shorten my answers and don't give the reasons behind them, the likes of orfeo queue up to scream that I'm just making unsupported assertions.
Unfortunately Eutychus has gone into an area where what we're discussing is long even by my standards (it needed to be to obscure how nonsensical it was) - I'm afraid right now my view is "He asked for it!" and then asked again in that recent post....
If you cannot make your case in considerably less than 4 pages, you are even more an idiot than I had thought. And that is quite a feat.
ETA:From the Styx thread, even the software is beginning to reject your posts.
[ 17. February 2017, 21:19: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ETA:From the Styx thread, even the software is beginning to reject your posts.
Reminds me of the post box ejecting Snoopy's manuscript as soon as he puts it in.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ETA:From the Styx thread, even the software is beginning to reject your posts.
Reminds me of the post box ejecting Snoopy's manuscript as soon as he puts it in.
And Snoopy was only occasionally a jerk.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Dear God, anyone who thinks that 4 pages is required for a quarter of their response has no understanding of how the internet works.
EDIT: Or indeed, how the vast majority of life works.
[ 18. February 2017, 00:38: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
God has designed sexual intercourse as a thing for those he has equipped appropriately to do it - that is, males with females. Therefore males with males and females with females should not attempt it.
[...]
The biblical position is that even 'straight' sex is intended for the married
I'm conservative on the "sex is for marriage" issue, but your reasoning from that position is all arse-backwards.
Sex is not the meaning and purpose of marriage. God didn't invent the idea of sex and then think to himself "Great! Now what can I do to make it more difficult and costly to get some ... ah yes! Marriage!". That's just mental.
The more sensible conservative position is that the meaning of marriage is love and commitment and sexual intimacy strengthens, serves and symbolises that relationship. The relationship comes first. The relationship - the commitment, the promise, the shared life together - is what makes the intimacy of sex appropriate on a defensible conservative view. Not just compatible plumbing.
And because you've got the importance of sex and marriage all wrong, your conclusion that "God has designed sexual intercourse as a thing for those he has equipped appropriately to do it - that is, males with females" is stupid. As soon as you introduce the concept of marriage as a relationship it becomes manifestly and obviously the case that a gay man is not "appropriately equipped" for marriage to a woman. He is not so made as to relate to women that way - and that is clearly more important to a sensible conservative ethic of married sexuality than observing that even though he'll never fall in love (in the sexual/romantic sense) with a woman, he must be "appropriately equipped" because he does at least have a cock.
But gay men are "appropriately equipped" for gay relationships - and the fact that despite tremendous social pressure against them, many gay relationships are as loving and strong as the best straight ones proves that. You can have an opinion on what sort of sexual expression (if any) is appropriate within those relationships, (if you consider it any of your business, that is) but unless you acknowledge that we are talking principally about relationships and only peripherally about fucking, your views, whatever they are, will be absurd, unrealistic, and (unfortunately) damaging.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Well put, Eliab.
But all you needed was this bit
quote:
That's just mental.
and this bit
quote:
stupid
and then you've both succinctly addressed his argument and exceed his capacity to comprehend.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Dear God, anyone who thinks that 4 pages is required for a quarter of their response has no understanding of how the internet works.
EDIT: Or indeed, how the vast majority of life works.
Who among the Hosts is looking after this thread?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Perhaps you missed my earlier (non-hostly tagged) posts?
And the last thing this thread needs - next to last thing, because the last thing is a 4 page post - is Junior Hosting.
DT
HH
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Dear God, anyone who thinks that 4 pages is required for a quarter of their response has no understanding of how the internet works.
EDIT: Or indeed, how the vast majority of life works.
He doesn't say what size font he's using. I'm going to guess 36 point and all in shouty capitals.
[ 18. February 2017, 19:05: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Anglican't;
quote:
He doesn't say what size font he's using. I'm going to guess 36 point and all in shouty capitals
Just to get this out of the way, if responding to Ship stuff it generally ends up in the font size that transferred to my WP from/with anything I copied off the Ship - slightly larger than I use for personal docs, and quite a bit larger than it actually appears on the Ship itself; as in, four pages on my WP won't look like four pages worth here - I'm fairly sure I've seen longer posts that nobody's actually objected to....
Four pages strictly speaking included both a response to Eutychus AND a (related topic) response to mr cheesy in one post. I'll probably have to post Eutychus' bit at some point - we'll see....
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Are you reading any of my posts, Steve? Are you reading them and parsing them for comprehension?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm fairly sure I've seen longer posts that nobody's actually objected to...
Not in Hell you haven't.
I don't know what clearer direction I can give you.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Eutychus asked above for a response in one text terms;
Well the answer is, I guess, obvious – Mark 10; 1-9
quote:
2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied. 4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." 5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Mark 10:2-9 (NIV)
I've been thinking hard about that one, and it seems to me that it still means what it obviously means. As in, Jesus is asked a question about divorce and he answers by setting divorce in the context of marriage. And to do that he goes 'back to the beginning', to the creation, and his word on marriage starts with, “God made them male and female”.
And this is actually rather emphatic – if the message were only about divorce in general, he could have just used the second text he quotes, from 'for this reason....'. He goes out of his way to combine two texts, and that has to be significant. He thus really emphatically states that marriage – and therefore sex - in his eyes, is for male with female. And ipso facto, NOT for male with male or female with female.
And at least in Christian terms, this is not just any old bloke going out of his way to identify marriage as between male and female – this is God Incarnate, the guy who devised and created marriage for us, going out of his way to make the point. So basically, if you're wanting to call yourself a Christian, believe Jesus/God on this – or be frank that you're not believing, not trusting, choosing darkness and NOT being Christian. Simples!
“The World” - those outside God's holy nation the Church – doesn't have to believe this and can make other arrangements if it wants. And it's not the job of Christians to set up 'kingdoms of this world' to impose this Christian understanding. We trust God/Jesus and make his way work, and preach it as part of the message to others.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Oh for fuck's sake, anyone who uses the word "Simples!" At the same time as wanting to spend 4 pages explaining something hasn't a fucking clue.
It's not "Simples!", my life is not "Simples!" and the whole reason you got called to Hell and cursed is because over and over again you think you can waltz in and close off a complex theological debate, WHICH HAS ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING RELEVANCE TO YOUR OWN FUCKNG LIFE, in a neat tidy package.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I've been thinking hard about that one, and it seems to me that it still means what it obviously means. As in, Jesus is asked a question about divorce and he answers by setting divorce in the context of marriage.
I suppose it could mean that. But "setting divorce in the context of marriage" is so mindbogglingly unnecessary I'm not sure why he, or anyone else, would bother. You don't need to set divorce in the context of marriage. Divorce is all about marriage. Marriage is the context of divorce. It doesn't need setting. It's already set. Any other context it might have (societal, familial, whatever), it is still firmly in the context of marriage. The answer to "Well if you want to talk about divorce you have to realize it's go to do with marriage" can only be "No shit, Sherlock. Tell me something I don't know."
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh for fuck's sake, anyone who uses the word "Simples!" At the same time as wanting to spend 4 pages explaining something hasn't a fucking clue.
It's not "Simples!", my life is not "Simples!" and the whole reason you got called to Hell and cursed is because over and over again you think you can waltz in and close off a complex theological debate, WHICH HAS ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING RELEVANCE TO YOUR OWN FUCKNG LIFE, in a neat tidy package.
Get off. It's all about dicks up ducts. Nothing else.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh for fuck's sake, anyone who uses the word "Simples!" At the same time as wanting to spend 4 pages explaining something hasn't a fucking clue.
No, no, orfeo. I think he was offering descriptive name by which he can be referred to as.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Eutychus asked above for a response in one text terms;
Well the answer is, I guess, obvious – Mark 10; 1-9
It must be the time of year.
Back in February 2016 I tried using that passage precisely as you do here, and essentially failed in the attempt. You can read the exchange here. The point at which I realised I was being inconsistent was when Dafyd said "yes, largely", at the end of this post here.
I still think things aren't the same as they were "in the beginning", and I still think that it's important that there are male and female in the world, but I cannot unequivocally make the case from Scripture that Jesus' response to the question on divorce proves that hetero marriage is the only option God had in mind. I thought I could, but I can't.
(And even if it was the only option he had in mind, things are not now as they were then. We have a world full of LBGQT people, not a few of whom are believers and wracked with anguish over issues such as identity, rejection, guilt, and faith. Can the Church really do no better than simply try and degayify them all? This passage demonstrates above all that God has the good sense to make accommodation for when things don't work out as we might have liked, not start looking around for stones to throw).
But that's not what I asked you - you are careful to conceal that in your answer.
I was challenging you on this specific statement of yours:
quote:
Marriage - in God's terms, whatever the secular world may say - is for those who can naturally do sexual intercourse, and not for those who can't
It is simply impossible to make the case against homosexuality on this basis unless you also argue that sex is the defining criteria of biblical marriage such that all marriages that do not include sex are void.
Similarly, you fail utterly to find any support for your suggestion that the "Christian God" condemns either oral or anal sex.
And your apparent obsession with defining sin in terms of various forms of penetration and nothing else means you cannot make any moral distinction between straight couples incapable of sex and married couples incapable of sex.
This insistence on specific sexual acts and the violent and crass vocabulary you use (and I quote: "men do sex by shoving their penises up other men's shitholes or down other men's throats") leads me to suspect that your hermeneutic is more influenced by your natural repulsion for people with differing sexual preferences to yours than it is by what the Bible actually says.
[ 18. February 2017, 21:22: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm fairly sure I've seen longer posts that nobody's actually objected to....
That may be because many people ignore posts that long.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This insistence on specific sexual acts and the violent and crass vocabulary you use (and I quote: "men do sex by shoving their penises up other men's shitholes or down other men's throats") leads me to suspect that your hermeneutic is more influenced by your natural repulsion for people with differing sexual preferences to yours than it is by what the Bible actually says.
Theology by ick factor. The primary hermeneutic of the average homophobe world over.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
SL:
Marriage - in God's terms, whatever the secular world may say - is for those who can naturally do sexual intercourse, and not for those who can't
Eutychus;
It is simply impossible to make the case against homosexuality on this basis unless you also argue that sex is the defining criteria of biblical marriage such that all marriages that do not include sex are void.
Actually I think it's very "simply" possible, and you are making your argument too complex (and too modern?). I'm essentially saying that the original design/concept of marriage is that it's for partners with the different but complementary male and female parts. Not the capacity of any individual couple, but simply that general point of the kind of people it's designed for.
It is true that later societies would develop all kinds of elaborate customs around sex and marriage, reflecting also differing religious views. And in many of these cases there is much stress on dynastic and continuity of the family and so on fertility and on consummation; so a young person with obvious physical defects would be unlikely to get near being married, for example. And while I couldn't give a date, non-consummation was grounds for marriage annulment quite recently in the UK. Infertility less so but Henry VIII notoriously found a way round it when Catherine of Aragon couldn't come up with a son....
At the same time, I doubt if it would be actually forbidden that for example an elderly couple, no longer fertile and possibly no longer capable, could form an attachment for companionship when fertility was no longer a necessary consideration.
And as I would see it, with 'pagans' involved in all kinds of practices, why wouldn't God reinstate in his people Israel the original creation intention - even if not always perfect...?
After the complaints about long posts I'll leave this one for now. Some of my answers about the 'anal/oral sex' business would depend on whether we go for the traditional interpretation of Romans 1 or that (to my mind weird) modern version, which is why I initially left it out at this stage....
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Back in February 2016 I tried using that passage precisely as you do here, and essentially failed in the attempt. You can read the exchange here. The point at which I realised I was being inconsistent was when Dafyd said "yes, largely", at the end of this post here.
Damn, but it's nice to be reminded of what a proper intelligent argument looks like.
Though I see that SL managed to intrude into that, in exactly the same "this is what CHRISTIANS believe" tone that got him called to Hell this time.
[ 18. February 2017, 22:28: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm fairly sure I've seen longer posts that nobody's actually objected to....
That may be because many people ignore posts that long.
The Shipmate who comes to mind when speaking of long posts is both derided and ignored for saying in a thousand words what could be said in ten. And he is not generally spewing an excuse to hate when doing so.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Actually I think it's very "simply" possible, and you are making your argument too complex (and too modern?). I'm essentially saying that the original design/concept of marriage is that it's for partners with the different but complementary male and female parts. Not the capacity of any individual couple, but simply that general point of the kind of people it's designed for.
I'm having a hard time moving from "X is designed for Y" to "X should always, ever, and only be used by Y."
Bath chairs were designed for aged invalids. Now wheelchairs are used by young people who have lost limbs. A wrong use? Of course you will say, "No no, they were designed for people who can't walk."
To which I can respond, "No, no, marriage is designed for people who wish to live together in harmony and grow in love and holiness through one another's love and care." (something close to the Orthodox understanding of the purpose of marriage fwiw)
You can redefine intended populations. I can redefine intended populations. Stalemate.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm essentially saying that the original design/concept of marriage is that it's for partners with the different but complementary male and female parts. Not the capacity of any individual couple, but simply that general point of the kind of people it's designed for.
And you are essentially wrong. Marriage is a legal contract about property, first and foremost. Women as property is part of that.
Marriage wasn't designed by any god, nor was sex. BTW, the universe is slightly more than 6 thousand years and Adam and Eve are as real as the tooth fairy.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Mousethief;
quote:
I'm having a hard time moving from "X is designed for Y" to "X should always, ever, and only be used by Y."
Given some of the things I do in my hobby by way of recycling things originally intended for other uses, or generally adapting and bodging, I do in fact have more than a bit of sympathy for that point. I recently made a model Ivor the Engine's funnel from part of a device sold as a 'face massager' but which I've heard others use as a 'vibrator' in other contexts....
But I'm not exactly messing around with what Jesus seems to have stated is a rather fundamental aspect of the creation of humans....
But at this time of night I'll come back to that tomorrow (or possibly even Monday given my expected schedule).
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Tomorrow never comes.
Please.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Marriage is a legal contract about property, first and foremost. Women as property is part of that.
No. Not any more. This is committing the same fallacy with institutions that is committed with words when someone equates a word with its etymology.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But I'm not exactly messing around with what Jesus seems to have stated is a rather fundamental aspect of the creation of humans....
Again, as designed, as built, but not as modified. The world is a different place than when humans were created. We need to apply principles based on that creation to the current situation. You seem stuck in the past here --- the world is not the same world it was in 33 AD, let alone 800 BCE. How do we apply those principles to today's world? Simply giving their origin isn't enough to answer that question. We all agree on their origin. But not what it is about what they meant in that context that can be applied to our context.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
To continue: to you, Steve, clearly the relevant aspect, the thing that applies both then and now, is plumbing. The mechanical aspect. Things of the body.
To others, it's relationship. The spiritual aspect. Things of the soul.
And given everything we know about what Jesus did and taught, I'd have to say the latter is more in line with the entirety of his teaching.
[ 18. February 2017, 23:10: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Marriage is a legal contract about property, first and foremost. Women as property is part of that.
No. Not any more. This is committing the same fallacy with institutions that is committed with words when someone equates a word with its etymology.
Maybe it is my cold, maybe it is the lack of sleep, but could you explain?
I would grant that marriage has become more than about property in responsibility towards children and that it is symbolic of commitment. And in regards to equal marriage it has become about rights.
Did you mean something other than those?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Perhaps you missed my earlier (non-hostly tagged) posts?
And the last thing this thread needs - next to last thing, because the last thing is a 4 page post - is Junior Hosting.
DT
HH
If this means that you are hosting, then my sympathies when 4 pages comes rolling in.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Marriage is a legal contract about property, first and foremost. Women as property is part of that.
No. Not any more. This is committing the same fallacy with institutions that is committed with words when someone equates a word with its etymology.
Maybe it is my cold, maybe it is the lack of sleep, but could you explain?
I would grant that marriage has become more than about property in responsibility towards children and that it is symbolic of commitment. And in regards to equal marriage it has become about rights.
Did you mean something other than those?
This is a Bill Clinton argument. It depends on what "is" means. When you say "marriage is X" you mean NOW. If you say "it has become X" you mean the same thing as "it is X but it didn't used to be."
But in either case, what is it NOW? If you say "it is Y" but it no longer is, then you are not speaking the truth.
When you say "marriage IS primarily about property" you are wrong because it's not about that NOW, and "is" means NOW.
[ 18. February 2017, 23:31: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Seriously? Marriage began as a statement of property. It has evolved into including responsibility and as a statement of equality. For some, it is also a symbol of commitment. It was not designed by any god.
Does that work for you?
[ 18. February 2017, 23:36: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Seriously?
Is the difference between something's origins and its current form that difficult a concept? Seriously?
quote:
Marriage began as a statement of property. It has evolved into including responsibility and as a statement of equality. For some, it is also a symbol of commitment. It was not designed by any god.
Does that work for you?
All those are true. One wonders if it's necessary to drag them out every time one discusses marriage. There are probably fifty other things that are true about marriage. Usually one only drags out aspects that apply directly to the current context. And if one knows what one is doing, one doesn't make tense errors.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
The basic point was that Steve Langton's claims on what marriage is and was are bullshit special pleading to be allowed to discriminate.
The million meanings that marriage might have to individuals is irrelevant. The legal definition is paramount. It is the concrete tie across personal meanings.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Certainly marriage was defined and regulated as deemed best by society, where by "society" I mean the ruling males of the society. For any given society.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
That, by itself, doesn't conflict with what I said.
Do I sense you would apply additional definition to marriage?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That, by itself, doesn't conflict with what I said.
Indeed. I was agreeing with you. Hence the lack of conflict.
quote:
Do I sense you would apply additional definition to marriage?
I wouldn't define marriage. Beyond my remit. My bugbear re. marriage is that it is two different things that are only marginally related: one in civil society / law, and one in religion(s). And all sorts of headache and heartache accrue when the two are conflated.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I think Germany has the best solution.
The legal marriage is strictly civil. If you wish to have a religious ceremony as well, go for it.
The mix we have in the U.K. and US is problematic as it gives weight to prejudice.
ETA: I do not like that religions enforce their predjudices, but it is their right to do so internally. People who disagree are free to leave, but that sucks for believers.
[ 19. February 2017, 01:25: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think Germany has the best solution.
The legal marriage is strictly civil. If you wish to have a religious ceremony as well, go for it.
The mix we have in the U.K. and US is problematic as it gives weight to prejudice.
ETA: I do not like that religions enforce their predjudices, but it is their right to do so internally. People who disagree are free to leave, but that sucks for believers.
Agree with all of this and probably for the same reasons.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I looked into that modern interpretation of Romans 1 on the other thread. In a PM exchange with an advocate of it I pointed out that as far as I could see, all the necessary 'connectives' ('therefores' and so on) were exactly where they should be for the traditional interpretation whereby Paul is expressing his own view.
The 'therefores' do not make the point you seem to think they make. They are all steps in an argument Paul is using to get his hearers on his side (as they think). Once he has them all agreeing (as they think) with him about how evil all these people are, in 2.1 he turns the tables and points out they are no better.
Saying the argument is one Paul himself owns because of the therefores is like saying that Mark Antony really believed Brutus was an honourable man.
In Romans 1, after the greeting, Paul extols the power of the gospel to save then in v18-32 calls mankind on sin and then proceeds with the list of sins after saying that God has 'given over' mankind to such things as a judgement for idolatry. His point is that no matter what we have fallen into, God can save us out of it.
In Romans 2, he is emphasising that no one CAN keep the Jewish law as being pretty self evident and pointing out the hypocrisy of preaching the law while being a breaker of the law.. In v12 of Ch 2 we see that he is commenting on sin in relation to law keeping which suggests he has a contrast between Judaism and the gospel in mind. That context is evident as he continues through ch 2.
While what you say about it above is fair enough, that does not prove anything with relation to justifying any of the things he lists as sins in vs 18-32 of ch 1. As a hermeneutical exercise it is at best pissing in the wind to try and infer you can do it. The best you can do is suggest that the sin described and condemned by Paul here does not include the kind of sexual behaviour you want to justify. That, is what simply does not fly.
In the end you have to let human compassion trump the Bible. If someone in all conscience does not agree then the hate speech kicks in, that person is necessarily homophobic. But that is NOT necessarily the case. The person can love and tolerate, they simply cannot concede that God thinks it is all fine.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In the end you have to let human compassion trump the Bible. If someone in all conscience does not agree then the hate speech kicks in, that person is necessarily homophobic. But that is NOT necessarily the case. The person can love and tolerate, they simply cannot concede that God thinks it is all fine.
If they truly love and tolerate, then they do not try to hide behind their religion and impose it upon others. Otherwise it is effectively the same as the hate. And they do not troll message boards with inflammatory speech.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Jamat--
...except posts by Shipmates who believe that homosexuality and/or homosexual behavior are sinful often show anything but love and compassion. You did a post, maybe a few pages back and to which I responded, where you sounded furious and out of control. That's why I said that I first thought you were doing a parody.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
At the same time, I doubt if it would be actually forbidden that for example an elderly couple, no longer fertile and possibly no longer capable, could form an attachment for companionship when fertility was no longer a necessary consideration.
Do you? It seems to be what you want. You said explicitly that marriage was not for those who can't "naturally" do sexual intercourse. Do you want to retract that?
quote:
After the complaints about long posts I'll leave this one for now. Some of my answers about the 'anal/oral sex' business would depend on whether we go for the traditional interpretation of Romans 1
Whichever option "we" go for, I look forward to seeing how you get God's disapproval of anal or oral sex between partners of different sexes out of it.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
While what you say about it above is fair enough, that does not prove anything with relation to justifying any of the things he lists as sins in vs 18-32 of ch 1. As a hermeneutical exercise it is at best pissing in the wind to try and infer you can do it.
a) If you accept, as you seem to, that Paul was listing things Jews would find reprehensible for the purposes of going on to say that they were no better, what matters is that they, not Paul, saw those things as evil, a caricature of "all the nasty stuff those Gentiles do".
b) even if one assumes they were also seen as evil by Paul, there is still the problem of precisely what he means by arseonkoitai. As I said, I'm increasingly suspicious of hermeneutics that rely on obscure Greek words to enforce a power structure. (For more on the hermeneutic issues see this post which I have literally cut out and kept).
c) if one assumes this to be a definitive list of evil things as listed by Paul, the question arises as to why the Church is generally so quick to put up with some of the other things on that list (covetousness, malice, envy, strife, deceit, craftiness, the gossips, the slanderers, the haughty, the boastful, the heartless and the ruthless) and focus (obsess?) on this one.
quote:
In the end you have to let human compassion trump the Bible.
The bible says God is slow to anger and abounding in love.
I think Adrian Plass was on the right lines when he said that like the sabbath, the Bible was made for man, not the other way arounnd.
quote:
If someone in all conscience does not agree then the hate speech kicks in, that person is necessarily homophobic. But that is NOT necessarily the case. The person can love and tolerate, they simply cannot concede that God thinks it is all fine.
But you expressed neither love nor tolerance. You decreed an entire category of people could not possibly be Christians.
If that's not haughty (see above) I don't know what is.
Why is that OK for you when gay sex isn't?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Talk about proof again. It's interesting that those who declare one true interpretation won't allow space for more than one interpretation. There can Only Be One, and so therefore everything becomes whether a more gay-friendly interpretation can somehow wipe out the opposing interpretation.
Which of course it can't. Not with mere text, anyway.
I always thought that the creeds were supposed to mark out the essentials. The things on which you couldn't differ. I really wish I could remember which creed it was that said you couldn't be a Christian if you believed homosexuals were part of God's creation.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Here is a thought (probably unhelpful): even if one thought that various prohibitions really were dictats from the deity in the past we dont consider them to be now.
So even if one accepted that black pudding and shellfish was once of-the-devil, we don't assume that someone consuming such foods is today too sinful to be of God.
Similarly, even if we accepted that it was once godly that only men were rulers and judges - and by extension police and prime ministers - we don't have evidence today of the sky falling in by having them today. I've never heard of anyone claiming that a sign of the ungodlyness of society was that we have women police outside of the Taliban.
So if we accept that those things are no longer indications of an unbreakable wall between us and God, then why would there be a different category for men who have sex with men?
On some level, however much one might want to claim to be acting "biblically", a choice is being made as to what is or isn't unacceptable. And in this case the choice is being made in the most unpleasant way possible.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
I'm currently chacking in on the thread to see where it's going. After a long day, probably won't manage any lengthy answer till tomorrow. But I can maybe throw some light on this where I recently learned something I'd not known before.
by Eutychus;
quote:
b) even if one assumes they were also seen as evil by Paul, there is still the problem of precisely what he means by arsenokoitai.
Apparently this is related to words used in the LXX in one of the Levitical passages. And there it's part of the description of men lying with men as with women. It's an old word for (male) man combined with one that I gather basically means 'bedding'. Paul presumably knew the LXX and uses this 'portmanteau word' combining two words of the original text to effectively refer to the LXX command. Presumably the implication is that Paul means by 'arsenokoitai' the activity referred to in the LXX where the similar word is used.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Yes, there is at least some evidence of a Levitical reference which can be handy because once it's shown that the Levitical reference is to a purity code rather than to a deep moral wrong, the objection to homosexuality falls into the same category as a whole lot of other Jewush purity codes that Christians no longer concern themselves with.
Tell me Steve, how do you feel about women who are having their period?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Paul presumably knew the LXX and uses this 'portmanteau word' combining two words of the original text to effectively refer to the LXX command. Presumably the implication is that Paul means by 'arsenokoitai' the activity referred to in the LXX where the similar word is used.
I see. So Paul must have agreed with you, because you just said so. That's a very interesting argument, Steve - very impressive.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
mr cheesy
All I've done there is to report some research into the origins of a word Paul used. The sources I googled say that related words were used in an LXX text on the same topic. In the LXX the phrasing is as two separate words; it appears that Paul knew the text - the LXX is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, a text Paul often quotes in all kinds of contexts.
It appears highly likely that Paul used this combined version of the words - whether he coined it himself or whether he was just the first person whose use was both written down and survived to today - to relate his later comment to the earlier text.
If that is correct, then it is also highly likely that his use of the word means the same kind of thing as the earlier text meant.
In response to a query from Eutychus I offered this suggestion for his consideration - look how often I used tentative words like 'apparently' or 'presumably'. I'm a lot more interested in Eutychus' opinion of this suggestion than I am in your sneering which doesn't helpfully advance the argument one bit....
[ 19. February 2017, 20:57: Message edited by: Steve Langton ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I'm a lot more interested in your answers to my straightforward questions above first.
[ETA: for the avoidance of doubt: these ones]
[ 19. February 2017, 20:59: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Eutychus, I just clicked on your 'these ones' and it connected me to a post in which you're asking Jamat questions about something he posted and for which I am not personally responsible and don't necessarily agree with Jamat.
So I won't be answering 'those ones' as they're nothing to do with me. But I think I know which questions you did mean and answers are on the way - just, like I said, not tonight....
Was my hint on 'arsenokoitai' any use??
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm a lot more interested in Eutychus' opinion of this suggestion than I am in your sneering which doesn't helpfully advance the argument one bit....
Oh I'm far beyond sneering.
Your argument is shit, Steve. Just because you say or think something doesn't make it an argument.
Only one person in this thread thinks what you are doing is presenting an argument. Guess who, bozo.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
mr cheesy at this particular point I was, as I said, not 'putting an argument' but just trying to help Eutychus by reporting something I'd discovered. That even that attracts your sneering (or even more worrying, 'way beyond'...) - what is wrong with you?????
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
What's wrong with me? What's wrong with me? Mmm let's see, might it be that you wouldn't know an argument if it bit you on the arse? Might it be that you excel at avoiding any actual thought on anything? Might it be that you are expressing yourself in the most offensive way possible?
I dunno, Steve, what is wrong with me, but I suspect it was the point where you boldly stated that those who disagree with you are disagreeing with God. That's the point where you tipped over from being a bit of an are to being a truly offensive dick.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Only one person in this thread thinks what you are doing is presenting an argument. Guess who, bozo.
I'm guessing it's you, Mr Cheesy. Much as I dislike SL's arguments, right now he actually was doing what he said he was doing.
Until you came along with a massive pile of projection, that is.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Nope, saying that he knows what Paul read his not an argument. Saying that one can't be gay and Christian but can be a black pudding eater and a Christian is not an argument.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Eutychus, I just clicked on your 'these ones' and it connected me to a post in which you're asking Jamat questions about something he posted and for which I am not personally responsible and don't necessarily agree with Jamat.
The link worked fine. In two different browsers.
You're welcome.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Nope, saying that he knows what Paul read his not an argument. Saying that one can't be gay and Christian but can be a black pudding eater and a Christian is not an argument.
By all means, feel free to continue to miss the point and bring in what SL said in earlier posts and project it into what SL said in the the post you decided to attack.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
yes, came right just now trying again; not sure what happened first time. Perhaps combination of dyspraxia and tiredness. Still I wasn't going to answer the questions tonight, and won't have too much time tomorrow either.
Orfeo and mr cheesy, the answers about which bits of the OT remain valid in the NT really can't be dealt with in the kind of space available in this discussion thread. But there are principles which we use for it and they are coherent. But Hosts are very unlikely to take a post that detailed here, or even in Keryg where it really belongs.
What is clear is that there are both things in the OT which are changed because of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, and things which remain true over and through that.
One of the more obvious principles we use is when the validity of the OT in 'moral rule' terms rather than just 'purity rules' is or at least appears to be confirmed by commentary by Jesus himself, or by the apostles interpreting with their understanding of Jesus and the implications of his coming.
Another is the reasons given in the original text - as in, if it says it's something other than a mere purity rule, it probably is something other.
The Genesis example is 'antediluvian' - indeed 'back to the beginning' - but it is also very much confirmed by Jesus. The one about 'arsenokoitai' is simultaneously Levitical but confirmed as a moral rule by Paul who didn't have much time for the merely 'purity rules'.
That's enough for tonight; other things to do now or an already busy tomorrow may be even worse....
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Orfeo and mr cheesy, the answers about which bits of the OT remain valid in the NT really can't be dealt with in the kind of space available in this discussion thread. But there are principles which we use for it and they are coherent. But Hosts are very unlikely to take a post that detailed here, or even in Keryg where it really belongs.
What is clear is that there are both things in the OT which are changed because of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, and things which remain true over and through that.
And then those that can be dropped or enhanced depending on your own very idiosyncratic interpretation of the New Testament.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
the answers about which bits of the OT remain valid in the NT really can't be dealt with in the kind of space available in this discussion thread.
The fuck it can't. If you need to write a thesis, you are not on solid ground.
quote:
But there are principles which we use for it and they are coherent.
That last word you used, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
What is clear is that there are both things in the OT which are changed because of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, and things which remain true over and through that.
One of the more obvious principles we use is when the validity of the OT in 'moral rule' terms rather than just 'purity rules' is or at least appears to be confirmed by commentary by Jesus himself, or by the apostles interpreting with their understanding of Jesus and the implications of his coming.
Even if the first para is true, you've supplied no reasoning to show why this issue is in the latter category.
quote:
Another is the reasons given in the original text - as in, if it says it's something other than a mere purity rule, it probably is something other.
And what reasoning is given in the "original text" that cannot be explained by purity rules - such as no non-male, non-Jew, non-Levite should enter the holy-of-holies to sacrifice anything other than a splotless, flawless animal victim?
quote:
The Genesis example is 'antediluvian' - indeed 'back to the beginning' - but it is also very much confirmed by Jesus. The one about 'arsenokoitai' is simultaneously Levitical but confirmed as a moral rule by Paul who didn't have much time for the merely 'purity rules'.
Just an assertion. This is that, because I say so.
[ 20. February 2017, 04:27: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
yes, came right just now trying again; not sure what happened first time. Perhaps combination of dyspraxia and tiredness. Still I wasn't going to answer the questions tonight, and won't have too much time tomorrow either.
That is, frankly, lame. You've managed to post enough other verbiage since on the same evening.
These are straightforward questions which should be much simpler to answer than questions about the etymology of Greek words.
If your next post here isn't an attempt at an answer, it will be hard not to see your lack of one as evasiveness and nothing more.
For the avoidance of doubt, again, the link to my (already boiled-down) questions is here, I've checked it (just as I did the first time) and it works.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
In my insomnia I was also thinking about something else - the OT says some things about capital punishment and war. Those aren't specifically purity laws* and yet, Steve, you've elevated your anti-statism and Anabaptist pacifism to a religious bottom line.
The point being that the purity rules are mixed into a whole lot of other stuff in the OT to the extent that trying to suggest it is a simple task to divide it all into "purity laws" and "moral laws" is bullshit. We only have classes that individuals decide and those are open to debate, particularly when the gospels say nothing about it.
Personally, I think the anabaptist peace position makes a lot of sense. But arguing that it is something which is obvious and arrived at without a novel understanding of the OT is bunk.
* at least to the extent that we can think of reasons why capital punishment and war might be justified outwith of simple "do this because this is what God said we must do in these circumstances".
[ 20. February 2017, 05:19: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Eutychus, I've heard others who take the line that heterosexuals can always marry because "God-willing" miracles can happen relating to child birth. Even if one or both are sterile or old. According to them, that's never going to happen for homosexuals.
Oddly, these often seem to be the same people who most strongly fight for theology of the virgin birth of Christ.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Are you trying to give SL an excuse to say "well, I don't need to bother to answer that now, because mr cheesy has said pretty much everything I wanted to"?
He has been evading the questions for some time now, as can be seen from here and the post thereafter, in which neither tiredness nor dyspraxia were invoked. I'm not letting him off the hook. I want to know what he thinks.
Besides, aspects not covered by your answer raised by my questions include:
What his view of physically impotent gay guys in or seeking a relationship;
Where in the Bible God condemns either oral or anal sexual practice irrespective of the sex of the people involved.
[ 20. February 2017, 05:33: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Fair enough. I think you're dreaming if you think he is going to offer anything beyond that.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Fair enough. I think you're dreaming if you think he is going to offer anything beyond that.
Well let's give him a chance shall we?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I think you have. Several times.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Fair enough. I think you're dreaming if you think he is going to offer anything beyond that.
Well let's give him a chance shall we?
Strange echoes of a Trump supporter here... ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Fair enough. I think you're dreaming if you think he is going to offer anything beyond that.
Well let's give him a chance shall we?
Strange echoes of a Trump supporter here...
That would be funny if it weren't so sad/frightening.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm currently chacking in on the thread to see where it's going. After a long day, probably won't manage any lengthy answer till tomorrow. But I can maybe throw some light on this where I recently learned something I'd not known before.
by Eutychus;
quote:
b) even if one assumes they were also seen as evil by Paul, there is still the problem of precisely what he means by arsenokoitai.
Apparently this is related to words used in the LXX in one of the Levitical passages. And there it's part of the description of men lying with men as with women. It's an old word for (male) man combined with one that I gather basically means 'bedding'. Paul presumably knew the LXX and uses this 'portmanteau word' combining two words of the original text to effectively refer to the LXX command. Presumably the implication is that Paul means by 'arsenokoitai' the activity referred to in the LXX where the similar word is used.
The Hebrew of the Leviticus tet is obscure and may refer to a man having sex with his mother, in her bed.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
While what you say about it above is fair enough, that does not prove anything with relation to justifying any of the things he lists as sins in vs 18-32 of ch 1. As a hermeneutical exercise it is at best pissing in the wind to try and infer you can do it.
a) If you accept, as you seem to, that Paul was listing things Jews would find reprehensible for the purposes of going on to say that they were no better, what matters is that they, not Paul, saw those things as evil, a caricature of "all the nasty stuff those Gentiles do".
b) even if one assumes they were also seen as evil by Paul, there is still the problem of precisely what he means by arseonkoitai. As I said, I'm increasingly suspicious of hermeneutics that rely on obscure Greek words to enforce a power structure. (For more on the hermeneutic issues see this post which I have literally cut out and kept).
c) if one assumes this to be a definitive list of evil things as listed by Paul, the question arises as to why the Church is generally so quick to put up with some of the other things on that list (covetousness, malice, envy, strife, deceit, craftiness, the gossips, the slanderers, the haughty, the boastful, the heartless and the ruthless) and focus (obsess?) on this one.
quote:
In the end you have to let human compassion trump the Bible.
The bible says God is slow to anger and abounding in love.
I think Adrian Plass was on the right lines when he said that like the sabbath, the Bible was made for man, not the other way arounnd.
quote:
If someone in all conscience does not agree then the hate speech kicks in, that person is necessarily homophobic. But that is NOT necessarily the case. The person can love and tolerate, they simply cannot concede that God thinks it is all fine.
But you expressed neither love nor tolerance. You decreed an entire category of people could not possibly be Christians.
If that's not haughty (see above) I don't know what is.
Why is that OK for you when gay sex isn't?
Despite this, ie whether the writer’s intention is to suggest these evil things listed are in fact his own opinion, the fact remains that this IS a list of commonly accepted evil activities and with most of them, no discussion regarding this is needed. It is soley because you so desperately wish to justify one particular thing on that list that there is a discussion. The provenance of the Greek word used to denote homosexuality, is clearly linked to the Levitical description which anathematises it, so that too, is very clear as to what is meant. It is simply nonsense to try and say Paul may not have meant to include ‘loving same sex relationships.’ To him, ‘same sex sex,’ is condemned out of hand and he is an apostle, a conduit of God’s opinion on the matter.
This is not to condemn anyone for being tempted. It is rather to urge saints to resist temptation to do all that stuff. There is simply no hermeneutical microscope that can change the statements made.
As to the church putting up with other things on the list, this obviously is intended not as a list the church can use to anathematise anyone as a corporate entity, but as a warning to individuals. I think Paul is doing what he did in 1Cor 6:9-11 as well, warn individual Christians not to get re entangled in sinful practices if they want to inherit the kingdom of God. In any case, it is very dodgy reasoning that says ‘I won’t condemn a bad thing because the church puts up with other bad things.’
Regarding love and tolerance, I am certainly not wishing to ostracise or deny human rights and agree with you that the church has not treated gays with tolerance and also that this is an ongoing problem. But what love is it to leave someone in deception, someone that thinks ‘God is cool with that, I’ll certainly go to heaven’ when it is not the case.. when they are deceived? If you lead people to stumble than you share the guilt.
Remember Ezekiel’s picture of the watchman? (Eze 33:14-19) If you warn someone they may change, if you warn them and they do not, you have delivered yourself. I, frankly, have no concern that you think that is judgemental. Of course it is; it is a necessary part of seeing things that way. But I do deny it is haughty. You could say that also about pretty well all the prophets who called sin what it was and were seriously unpopular for doing so. The motive though was always one of love, to stop the ultimate judgement from happening, to stop people being eternally lost.
I too read the post you linked to. I am not convinced by that. Compassion trumps scripture again..and hermeneutically, it is just wishful thinking.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Scripture is inconsistent, both with itself and with the message of Jesus. So, unless one is a complete moron or looking for an excuse to hate, one reads for fucking comprehension.
Hold the book to your mouth; your head is so far up your own arse, you can probably peek out through your teeth.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It is soley because you so desperately wish to justify one particular thing on that list that there is a discussion.
In my case it's because so many other aspects of the discussion have caused me to re-examine how I read this passage. It's that old "understand the difficult parts in the light of the easier parts" hermeneutic that we fell out about re: dispensationalism, and I stand by it. quote:
The provenance of the Greek word used to denote homosexuality, is clearly linked to the Levitical description which anathematises it, so that too, is very clear as to what is meant.
Cue Dead Horse discussions about purity laws and wearing two types of fabric. quote:
It is simply nonsense to try and say Paul may not have meant to include ‘loving same sex relationships.’
To my mind it is no more nonsense than a particular enthusiasm to go after homosexuals in preference to slanderers, the haughty, etc. This disparity in the meting out of "justice" is one of the things that gives me pause. quote:
To him, ‘same sex sex,’ is condemned out of hand and he is an apostle, a conduit of God’s opinion on the matter.
I presume you also insist on women wearing head coverings and having a full head of hair, and think sinning individuals should be handed over to Satan for the destruction of their flesh during church meetings (presumably some time between the notices and the offering)?
The number of people who don't contextualise Paul's "conduit of God's opinion" at some point or other is vanishingly small. quote:
In any case, it is very dodgy reasoning that says ‘I won’t condemn a bad thing because the church puts up with other bad things.’
I think it's very dodgy reasoning that jumps to condemn one of them (to anathema, no less) and is far less hasty to do so for the others. quote:
what love is it to leave someone in deception, someone that thinks ‘God is cool with that, I’ll certainly go to heaven’ when it is not the case.. when they are deceived? If you lead people to stumble than you share the guilt.
Has it entered your mind that you might be at least partly deceived?
If not, I refer you back to my charge of "haughty".
If so, then I would not be so quick to be sure you can go around leading people out of deception and not lead them to stumble yourself.
What do you make of the innumerable testimonies of people who christians have sought to "degayify" who have ended up killing themselves and/or abandoning the faith altogether? How have they been kept from stumbling? I find it hard to think of a better way of setting up a stumbling-block for someone sincere (even if deceived and sincere) than saying to them "there is no way you can be a Christian because of this behaviour". Which you did.
quote:
Remember Ezekiel’s picture of the watchman? (Eze 33:14-19) If you warn someone they may change, if you warn them and they do not, you have delivered yourself.
The last time I looked I wasn't an Old Testament prophet sent by God to address a particular constituency. From this and your comment on stumbling above it sounds like your judgementalism is motivated by a fear of guilt. I think there is no place for that in the New Covenant. quote:
You could say that also about pretty well all the prophets who called sin what it was and were seriously unpopular for doing so. The motive though was always one of love, to stop the ultimate judgement from happening, to stop people being eternally lost.
Are you sure you're not deceived? Casting oneself as some modern-day equivalent of Ezekiel, arguing that unpopularity simply proves you're right, insisting your motivation is one of love when what comes across is overwhelmingly a fear of losing your own salvation by sharing the guilt of the accused sounds like a sure-fire recipe for self-deception to me: when people object to your diatribes, it simply proves they're true!
quote:
I too read the post you linked to. I am not convinced by that. Compassion trumps scripture again..and hermeneutically, it is just wishful thinking.
You make it sound as though one can reach a definitive understanding of Scripture. I am pretty sure that believing one has achieved this will indeed erode one's compassion pretty fast.
For the rest of us, I think our understanding of complicated parts of Scripture, especially ones that we take as grounds for sweeping judgements of categories of people within which we ourselves do not fall, should indeed be tempered by compassion, or at least justice, mercy, and faithfulness.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Scripture is inconsistent, both with itself and with the message of Jesus. So, unless one is a complete moron or looking for an excuse to hate, one reads for fucking comprehension.
Hold the book to your mouth; your head is so far up your own arse, you can probably peek out through your teeth.
It's ok you don't need the hate speech mate, breathe...breathe... there..feel better? When you regain control, document the inconsistency. I realise this is hell and you want to vent so whatever. I'm kind of over your abusiveness though.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
has it entered your mind that you might be at least partly deceived?
Yes, it is always possible, no doubt about it at all. I would actually like it if you could prove me wrong.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Eutychus:
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
What do you make of the innumerable testimonies of people who christians have sought to "degayify" who have ended up killing themselves and/or abandoning the faith altogether
I totally agree with you on this. It is absolutely tragic. It is not relevant to the interpretive issues though. The church has not answered or handled this at all and perhaps it is a different discussion altogether.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
What do you make of the innumerable testimonies of people who christians have sought to "degayify" who have ended up killing themselves and/or abandoning the faith altogether
I totally agree with you on this. It is absolutely tragic. It is not relevant to the interpretive issues though. The church has not answered or handled this at all and perhaps it is a different discussion altogether.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
but this is what often happens when such people are "counselled" by people sharing not only your views on homosexuality, but your views on their eternal destination and on Christians' imperious responsibility to set them right, over and above the slanderers, the haughty, etc.
It depends directly on interpretive issues.
[ 22. February 2017, 06:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
What do you make of the innumerable testimonies of people who christians have sought to "degayify" who have ended up killing themselves and/or abandoning the faith altogether
I totally agree with you on this. It is absolutely tragic. It is not relevant to the interpretive issues though. The church has not answered or handled this at all and perhaps it is a different discussion altogether.
but this is what often happens when such people are "counselled" by people sharing not only your views on homosexuality, but your views on their eternal destination and on Christians' imperious responsibility to set them right, over and above the slanderers, the haughty, etc.
It depends directly on interpretive issues.
Can we know an interpretation by its fruits? If so, I know where that leads me. But does it work for other interpretive issues?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
That sounds like a discussion for Purgatory.
In brief, I am by temperament a pragmatist. At the end of the day I think Paul was one too, and that this is closely related to his understanding of grace.
In 30 years of pastoral ministry in a variety of church and other settings I have certainly rejected certain interpretations on a range of issues, at least initially on the basis of their fruit.
(I should perhaps say that it tends to be quite specific interpretations, not an entire theological position. For instance, the idea that sins are of the intellect only, or that immorality is above all about what, physically, goes on in bed).
It seems to me that in the passage I quoted earlier, a lot of this is about getting priorities right. Heart trumps appearance and conscience trumps conformity to an external standard.
To quote Adrian Plass again, I love the bit in The Visit where Jesus spends almost all his "pastoral interview" with a gay guy discussing snooker (it's in the same chapter as his commment that the Bible is made for man and not the other way round).
[ 22. February 2017, 10:26: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
What do you make of the innumerable testimonies of people who christians have sought to "degayify" who have ended up killing themselves and/or abandoning the faith altogether
I totally agree with you on this. It is absolutely tragic. It is not relevant to the interpretive issues though. The church has not answered or handled this at all and perhaps it is a different discussion altogether.
Not at all; it's a natural outworking of the theology. Considering what God is going to do with unrepentant queers, just about anything is justified to turn them straight.
And this is the root of the problem, Jamat. You portray God as the ultimate homophobic queer-basher. You can provide no actual rationale for why homosexuality is wrong which actually holds water, so you are left with "God hates it" - i.e. is a homophobe, and by calling it sin, you invoke Hell and all that, which is queer-bashing taken to a whole new level. The human thugs just beat people, although I am well aware deaths have also occurred. God on the other hand is going to cast you into eternal fire for it. Makes ISIL and their throwing people off buildings look quite tame, doesn't it?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It's ok you don't need the hate speech mate, breathe...breathe... there..feel better?
It is not hate speech, but anger. Hate speech is more the rubbish you've been spouting. That you cannot tell the difference might mean that I owe you an apology as it is not equitable to hold those of diminished capacity accountable for their delusional utterances.
quote:
When you regain control, document the inconsistency.
It has been documented many times down in DH. So either you are jumping into the conversation without having read the material or the assessment of your mental ability is accurate. Probably both.
quote:
I realise this is hell and you want to vent so whatever. I'm kind of over your abusiveness though.
Awe, this is almost cute! I don't abuse you for your sake, but my pleasure.
[ 22. February 2017, 12:00: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Yes, it is always possible, no doubt about it at all. I would actually like it if you could prove me wrong.
I challenged you on a similar comment at the start of this thread, which you then ignored.
Why would you like to be proved wrong?
It seems to me that the only rational and ethical basis for wishing that something (X) which is forbidden instead be permitted is that one does not know of any good reason for thinking X to be immoral.
Suppose God forbids homosexuality as a moral issue (not as part of an abrogated purity code).
He must have a reason.
As he is God, that reason must be a sound one.
If you knew and understood that reason, precisely because it would be an excellent one, you would not then be able (morally) to wish that homosexuality were not forbidden. You would know why it was forbidden, and why it was good that it was forbidden.
As you clearly don't know that, on what possible basis can you fairly say that those people who can't accept a moral rule, which you are quite unable to defend on the merits, cannot be "genuine Christians"?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I would actually like it if you could prove me wrong.
I would actually like it if you grasped, at SOME point, that "proof" is not the required standard here.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
In other "totally unrelated" news, seeing as we are talking about fruits and practical outcomes, new research indicates that legalising same-sex marriage significantly reduces the teenage suicide rate.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I saw that too, but opted not to open that can of worms.
The book Freakonomics offers quite compelling evidence that legalising abortion has significantly reduced crime rates in the US by effectively preventing future gang members from coming into the world.
We could have a Dead Horse stampede on our hands.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Neigh.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I thought that God's reason for queer-bashing was that straight marriage was the best way to make sprogs, and generally be an upright citizen? One problem with this is that it seems socially determined, so that an apparent top-down instruction looks more and more like a bottom-up phenomenon. In general, as patriarchal values are being challenged, stuff like misogyny and homophobia, valorized in some religions, are being dismantled. This then clashes with the top-down stuff, and upsets conservatives, who presumably still want to bash queers and keep women under the cosh, or should I say, pace Lacan, the phallus. It's a phallocracy, but not as we know it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
looks more and more like a bottom-up phenomenon.
Now you're starting to sound like Steve.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
the answers about which bits of the OT remain valid in the NT really can't be dealt with in the kind of space available in this discussion thread. But there are principles which we use for it and they are coherent.
This is where I fundamentally disagree with you, and I refer you back to the (non-exhaustive) list of theological issues that I posted earlier. I'm very happy if you want to start a new thread on this topic, but here are some questions for you. I'm not asking for you to immediately ask them exhaustively, but to really think about them, and whether the coherent principles that you think exist are really that coherent.
Women in authority in the church - if this is something you accept, then how do you "explain away" the passages that seem to prohibit it? If you don't, how do you deal with the fact that women like Junia and Priscilla are named as leaders in the church?
Slavery - A couple of centuries ago, the same conservative principles you mention were used to defend slavery. It's there, regulated in the Jewish Scriptures. Jesus encountered slavery all around him and never condemned it - in fact, he praised the slave-owning centurion's faith. Paul specifically told the runaway slave Onesimus to return to his master Philemon, thus endorsing slavery. Slavery was clearly and coherently defended from scripture. Do you oppose slavery?
Usury - the charging of any interest within God's people was specifically forbidden in Deuteronomy. This was not recinded in the by Jesus or any of the Apostles - in fact, in Luke, Jesus specifically says "Lend, expecting nothing in return". Universal church teaching interpreted this as forbidding any charging of interest, denying communion to those who did (usurers are in Dante's Seventh Circle of Hell). Although the meaning of the word has changed now to refer to excessive interest, it's clear that the Church forbade any charging of interest up until very recently. Do you have a mortgage or a credit card? A loan?
Eating eating meat sacrificed to idols - this was a massive divisive theological issue in the early church. Paul allows it (1 Cor 8), but John rejects it (Rev 2:20). Who was right? How do you decide on the correct interpretation, given that they disagree? It doesn't matter that it's no longer a divisive, issue, but how do the principles of interpretation work?
Eating food with blood in - explicitly forbidden in the Jewish Scriptures (Genesis, Leviticus) and in the Christian Scriptures for Jews and Gentiles alike (Acts 15). Do you have steak rare? Eat black pudding? Do you condemn a brother that does? Why should we decide that this, a clear principle in scripture, is a culturally irrelevant issue?
Divorce & remarriage - despite Jesus' strong words on this topic, most Christians don't condemn divorced brothers and sisters. I'm divorced, and I'm getting married in a month's time. Do you condemn me?
Baptism for the dead - a single, hard to interpret passage on a cultural issue that we don't understand. Most Christians (not the Mormons though) just ignore it. Hmmm. There's just one single verse that appears to forbid lesbianism - the Romans 1 passage in current discussion. Is that single verse enough to condemn all lesbians? (let's forget about male homosexuals for now...)
Women wearing head coverings in church - Paul's clear that they should (1 Cor 11). But very few churches practice it nowadays. Why should we ignore Paul on this issue?
and so on... that's ignoring other previously contentious issues such as heliocentrism... To me, it's clear, especially given on things like the history of theological defence of slavery, that these "coherent set of principles" are nothing but a smokescreen. They have a plethora of exceptions and refinements so that they fit the theological disposition of the reader. They choose what they choose to choose and reject what they choose to reject.
It's those so-called coherent principles that should be rejected, for a higher hermeneutic of Love; an acknowledgement that the bible is Hard To Interpret; and that we should hold tight to the clear themes of scripture - love for our God and our neighbour, forgiveness, peace, faith, hope... (and so on); but hold lightly to the complicated and nuanced details and outworkings.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Hey! There's a queue!
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I'm very happy if you want to start a new thread on this topic
I would be very happy too. Just as long as it's not in Hell.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
S'cool. I'm in no rush ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Do you have steak rare?
Well-done steaks have no more or less blood than rare ones. Cooking doesn't make blood evaporate.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
I stand corrected! Thanks, MT.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
pedantic note/
There is little blood in any meat you eat unless you are carving it from the animal directly. The red you see is a protein called myoglobin./pedantic note
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Thanks LB. I knew that at one time, I think. But the ol' havarti cortex ain't what it used to be.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Do you two mind? I see new posts here and look forward to seeing the bigots being torn a new arsehole only to find banter.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do you two mind? I see new posts here and look forward to seeing the bigots being torn a new arsehole only to find banter.
Do you mind? I see new posts here and only find a kind of junior hosting that wastes my time.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do you two mind? I see new posts here and look forward to seeing the bigots being torn a new arsehole only to find banter.
Don't mind at all, but thank you for your concern.
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Do you have steak rare?
Well-done steaks have no more or less blood than rare ones. Cooking doesn't make blood evaporate.
2 ways to cook a steak:
1) Rare
2) Ruined.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
mt--
So you have a cheese brain??
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Do you have steak rare?
Well-done steaks have no more or less blood than rare ones. Cooking doesn't make blood evaporate.
2 ways to cook a steak:
1) Rare
2) Ruined.
Oh God don't you fucking start. As I've managed to teach my 8 year old, but apparently not certain steak snobs - "Different people like different things".
Now fuck off.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do you two mind? I see new posts here and look forward to seeing the bigots being torn a new arsehole only to find banter.
Do you mind? I see new posts here and only find a kind of junior hosting that wastes my time.
Well, you try to turn the heat back up again and what do you get?
No fucking gratitude, that's the problem around here.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Indeed, the gratitude for the actual pilots is sorely lacking, instead some of the passengers are trying to take over the steering.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
All of this would be solved if the figurehead would simply show up and do some answering.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Feel free to talk amongst yourselves while you're waiting...
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
Thought that's what we were doing?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Your irony meter is broken.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Do you have steak rare?
Well-done steaks have no more or less blood than rare ones. Cooking doesn't make blood evaporate.
2 ways to cook a steak:
1) Rare
2) Ruined.
Oh God don't you fucking start. As I've managed to teach my 8 year old, but apparently not certain steak snobs - "Different people like different things".
Subjective taste based on personal ick factor passed off as a hard-and-fast rule? I just assumed it was an ironic meta-commentary on the thread.
Otherwise then yeah,
quote:
Now fuck off.
is the right response.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Do you have steak rare?
Well-done steaks have no more or less blood than rare ones. Cooking doesn't make blood evaporate.
2 ways to cook a steak:
1) Rare
2) Ruined.
Oh God don't you fucking start. As I've managed to teach my 8 year old, but apparently not certain steak snobs - "Different people like different things".
Subjective taste based on personal ick factor passed off as a hard-and-fast rule? I just assumed it was an ironic meta-commentary on the thread.
.
In Hell? Well it could be I suppose, but I wouldn't be looking for it here.
Anyway, the thread's improved at least.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do you two mind? I see new posts here and look forward to seeing the bigots being torn a new arsehole only to find banter.
How long have you been here? And you're still this naive?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do you two mind? I see new posts here and look forward to seeing the bigots being torn a new arsehole only to find banter.
How long have you been here? And you're still this naive?
Well, I'd prefer cheerfully optimistic, but we both know that would be a lie.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
As would, apparently, the whinging about conversation...
😜
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
You get sucked in.
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You get sucked in.
And that's exactly the sort of thing that the Bible warns us about. Probably.
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Do you have steak rare?
Well-done steaks have no more or less blood than rare ones. Cooking doesn't make blood evaporate.
This is one hundred percent accurate.
Both have zero blood in them.
Just a little morning pedantry for you all.
Given the thread, Note I said pedantry, not pederasty.*
From a conversational point of view, It is a beautiful morning here.
And I have just decided to forego my morning run which brings me and the aesthetically minded walkers great joy.
But I do have to go work and and I remain on call for another 48 hours.
*Yes I know. I am not equating the two...<sigh>
I'm one of the those converted liberophobes.
Not so much conversion therapy as conclusion therapy.
I reached the conclusion Grace trumps** all.
**Just reappropriating the word.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You get sucked in.
And that's exactly the sort of thing that the Bible warns us about. Probably.
Beware of vacuum cleaners. And vegetarians.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well, you try to turn the heat back up again and what do you get?
No fucking gratitude, that's the problem around here.
Whining is heat?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
It generated some, didn't it?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
So does a fart.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
At the same time, I doubt if it would be actually forbidden that for example an elderly couple, no longer fertile and possibly no longer capable, could form an attachment for companionship when fertility was no longer a necessary consideration.
Do you? It seems to be what you want. You said explicitly that marriage was not for those who can't "naturally" do sexual intercourse. Do you want to retract that?
quote:
After the complaints about long posts I'll leave this one for now. Some of my answers about the 'anal/oral sex' business would depend on whether we go for the traditional interpretation of Romans 1
Whichever option "we" go for, I look forward to seeing how you get God's disapproval of anal or oral sex between partners of different sexes out of it.
Right; on your first point you appear not to be comparing like with like. In the Christian world, where Jesus - God Incarnate - is Lord, marriage and sex are as he said in Mark 10. God made them male and female and sex and marriage are for male and female using the complementary parts God designed for the purpose. Since neither male-with-male nor female-with-female can actually do sex as designed, 'gay sex' is a non-starter.
Yes in a sin-spoiled world there can be some practical problems for heterosexual practice - but none of those can actually affect the big point that sex and marriage are not designed for same-sex relations. It's simply not the same question.
On further checking the supposed new interpretation of Romans 1 turns out not to be relevant to the current questions.
On oral sex in heterosexual relations - I'll take another look. Because of Mark 10 I think it would still be out in 'gay sex' terms.
Anal sex - look, whatever language you use about it, polite, 'playground', or fudge/obscure, excrement is simply not nice stuff and sexuality - in God's world anyway - deserves more respect and honour than that. I also note that it is an aspect where a lot of gay people - even activists like Stephen Fry - seem to have reservations, to put it mildly....
People of other worldviews are free to disagree, of course; whether they're entitled to force everyone else to agree with them is a decidedly different issue.
Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on
:
Langton, you are a complete troll who loves the sound of his own voice so much that you dredge up a quiescent thread to reiterate your same old arguments.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Yes in a sin-spoiled world there can be some practical problems for heterosexual practice - but none of those can actually affect the big point that sex and marriage are not designed for same-sex relations. It's simply not the same question.
BWA HA HA HA HA!
First there's the hilarity of imaging a divine creator explaining their design specifications to Steve unclefucking Langton. And Steve smeg-gargling Langton only.
Second, there's the complexity of "heterosexual practice" itself, which leads one to suspect that Steve dutch-rudder Langton knows extremely little about the subject. It seems painfully obvious that his comprehension begins and ends with reproduction, and has exactly zero comprehension of intimacy or shared experience. It makes one feel very sad for Steve fuckdribbling Langton - and every single sexual parter he has ever fucked.
Third, and perhaps most flabbergasting, is the painful truth that there are more than just two sexes. There are several types that are commonly found:
X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people
XX – Most common form of female
XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people
XY – Most common form of male
XYY – Roughly 1 out of 1,000 people
How the everliving fuck is Steve fuckmuppet Langton's oversimplified concept of "design" apply to real humans? Other than by ignoring reality and making assumption-reinforcing assertions, I mean.
Hilarious stupidity. Eat shit and die, Steve #shitforbrains Langton.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Anal sex - look, whatever language you use about it, polite, 'playground', or fudge/obscure, excrement is simply not nice stuff and sexuality - in God's world anyway - deserves more respect and honour than that. I also note that it is an aspect where a lot of gay people - even activists like Stephen Fry - seem to have reservations, to put it mildly....
Folks this is SHOW-STOPPING here. Steve Langton has admitted here, for the first time ever in his entire life, that anal sex and male homosexuality are not coterminous! And that there are gay males who don't engage in anal sex!
THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING. A lot of what he has said over the past several years about homosexuality will have to be reinterpreted in the light of this striking revelation.
Watch this space for further developments!
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
Langton, you are a complete troll who loves the sound of his own voice so much that you dredge up a quiescent thread to reiterate your same old arguments.
I'm sorry, that was my fault, because I called him on Purg on his failure to answer my post despite promising to do so (he seemed to think that lying low for a couple of months would do).
The original statement of Steve's I challenged him to uphold or retract was this one: quote:
Marriage - in God's terms, whatever the secular world may say - is for those who can naturally do sexual intercourse, and not for those who can't
Steve, you haven't answered this challenge, so I assume the assertion stands. No more marriage for impotent and/or disabled straight couples it shall be.
In the absence of any retraction, I therefore agree with RooK that your comprehension of both marriage and sex begins and ends with reproduction.
As RooK has also pointed out, the words in your post that aren't in the Bible are "sex as designed".
Anyone who thinks penis-in-vagina sex is the design limit on sexual intimacy has less creative imagination than even secular law (which usually revolves around notions of penetration), and anyone who thinks God restricted sex to that hasn't read Song of Songs very closely.
The fact is, the Bible has precisely nothing to say condemning particular sexual practices between heterosexual partners apart from condemning rape (i.e. lack of consent) (presumably you also think that provided p-i-v sex hasn't happened, no rape has occurred?).
You are confusing your personal ick factor with what the Bible actually says (or doesn't say).
By the way, has it ever occurred to you that p-i-v sex involves inserting the urine-excreting bit of a man's body into the woman's baby-making bits?
(To help you out, I think the conservative way of avoiding this ick factor - which I don't expect you, as a man, to have ever considered - is to talk prudishly in terms of a "wonderful economy of design").
[ 15. May 2017, 05:22: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Heh heh heh. He said fudge. Heh heh heh.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
What about the sexual intimacy of walking hand in hand along the beach late on a summer afternoon? Why can't 2 men engage in that?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
Langton, you are a complete troll who loves the sound of his own voice so much that you dredge up a quiescent thread to reiterate your same old arguments.
Actually I didn't 'dredge up the quiescent thread' on my own initiative. This is, as you can see from my post, a response to Eutychus. I also thought initially that since the thread had effectively died, it would be more appropriate to answer him via PM - he rejected that and insisted I should answer in the thread where he asked the question. I've done as he asked and my apologies for annoyance that has caused other Shipmates....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Anal sex - look, whatever language you use about it, polite, 'playground', or fudge/obscure, excrement is simply not nice stuff and sexuality - in God's world anyway - deserves more respect and honour than that. I also note that it is an aspect where a lot of gay people - even activists like Stephen Fry - seem to have reservations, to put it mildly....
Folks this is SHOW-STOPPING here. Steve Langton has admitted here, for the first time ever in his entire life, that anal sex and male homosexuality are not coterminous! And that there are gay males who don't engage in anal sex!
THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING. A lot of what he has said over the past several years about homosexuality will have to be reinterpreted in the light of this striking revelation.
Watch this space for further developments!
MT, it's not a 'striking revelation'; you just haven't been reading my posts closely enough but I suppose assuming I'm the standard so-called 'homophobe'. I will of course be delighted if you reinterpret my previous posts in the light of your realisation that I wasn't doing what you assumed I was doing - though I hope this time you actually get it right.....
It is a key part of my actual position to want to give the fullest possible weight - consistent with other biblical teaching - to texts like David's words in his lament on his friend Jonathan, that "Your love for me was greater than the love of women". And I haven't kept quiet about that side of my views....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
What about the sexual intimacy of walking hand in hand along the beach late on a summer afternoon? Why can't 2 men engage in that?
Or indeed arm in arm embracing? AIUI that would have been considered quite normal in the UK till the late Victorian era and particularly the disruption of attitudes caused by the Wilde scandal after which public physical expressions of male affection seem to have been massively restrained. I might regard your use of the word 'sexual' as redundant....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Eutychus, I will get back on your points - for now I've got other things to do for quite a while....
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
What about the sexual intimacy of walking hand in hand along the beach late on a summer afternoon? Why can't 2 men engage in that?
Or indeed arm in arm embracing? AIUI that would have been considered quite normal in the UK till the late Victorian era and particularly the disruption of attitudes caused by the Wilde scandal after which public physical expressions of male affection seem to have been massively restrained. I might regard your use of the word 'sexual' as redundant....
Perhaps the intimacy flows from the love that they have one for the other, just as Madame and I walk like that.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Anal sex - look, whatever language you use about it, polite, 'playground', or fudge/obscure, excrement is simply not nice stuff and sexuality - in God's world anyway - deserves more respect and honour than that. I also note that it is an aspect where a lot of gay people - even activists like Stephen Fry - seem to have reservations, to put it mildly....
I do hope someone has already pointed out that far more straight people practise anal intercourse than gay. Many gay men don't find it a turn on (including Fry, which is different from having "reservations"), and I don't imagine many lesbians indulge. If I were diligent I'd read back through this thread to check, but life is too short.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
MT, it's not a 'striking revelation'; you just haven't been reading my posts closely enough but I suppose assuming I'm the standard so-called 'homophobe'. I will of course be delighted if you reinterpret my previous posts in the light of your realisation that I wasn't doing what you assumed I was doing - though I hope this time you actually get it right.....
Bullshit. You have been equating male homosexuality with anal sex all throughout this argument, and people have been calling you on it all throughout this argument. At least own your own actions.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Eutychus, I will get back on your points - for now I've got other things to do for quite a while....
Again? This is basically the excuse you offered two months ago.
Your strategy seems to be:
1) claim you can't find the link 2) prevaricate 3) hide until you think everyone's forgotten 4) make lengthy posts that don't answer the question 5) go to 1.
I think you can't get back to me, not because you're overwhelmingly busy, but because you don't have an answer.
You can't demonstrate from the Bible that only penis-in-vagina sex is acceptable, you won't defend your outrageous claim that marriage "in God's terms" is only for "those who can naturally do sexual intercourse", and you utterly fail to distinguish between your own personal revulsions and what the Bible actually says.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Your strategy seems to be:
1) claim you can't find the link 2) prevaricate 3) hide until you think everyone's forgotten 4) make lengthy posts that don't answer the question 5) go to 1.
I know we're not supposed to "out" Shipmates, but I suspect that Steve Langton might be... Donald Trump.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I know we're not supposed to "out" Shipmates, but I suspect that Steve Langton might be... Donald Trump.
That's a little bit unfair. I don't think SL really shows many of the most unpleasant features of the POTUS.
He (SL) just can't appreciate nuance and can't accept complexity. He needs things to be orderly and placed into simple categories of "right behaviour" and "wrong behaviour" because anything else is disruptive.
Bless.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I will say this in defence of SL.
The basic underlayment of his arguments is not unique to him, but used by many Christians. Including, not infrequently, on this site.
Argument from Silence
- It isn't listed as OK in the bible, you cannot do it.
- It isn't listed as bad in the bible, you can do it.
Interpretive v. Literal
- The bible says it is a no, no; you cannot do it because there is no argument/interpretation with what the bible says.
- The bible says it is a no, no; but you can do it, because interpretation/equivocation.
He is a prime example of why those time-honoured methods are rubbish.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Note that Steve characterizes Anal Sex as disgusting. Apparently penis in vagina sex is a delightful expression of God's will. and yet, I rarely see an image of it in a church or scripture to exalt it in the way Steve does.
As for his conceit that he's a very special kind of homophobe if only you read his endless nonsensical spew; his homophobia isn't particularly different then the garden variety, only more verbose. It's amusing to note he doesn't want to be associated with the ordinary kind any more.
[ 23. May 2017, 04:37: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Mostly busy on another thread at the moment. But I do note that there is a Shipmate who has repeatedly chosen to insult me with the phrase that I am 'full of shite'. That and other common English usages, and those in other languages too, suggest that I'm not at all alone in finding 'shit' disgusting....
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Wrong. I don't think shit is disgusting. Given a choice between pearls and pigshit, I'd take the shit every time.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Wrong. I don't think shit is disgusting. Given a choice between pearls and pigshit, I'd take the shit every time.
Oh dear, I've obviously misunderstood. And there I was thinking you were insulting me, and you were actually saying I'm more valuable to you than pearls....
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I think piss is disgusting too but I still stick my dick in my wife.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm not at all alone in finding 'shit' disgusting....
What most humans do is an amazing thing called "washing".
And, frankly, if you think shit is gross, that's nothing compared to watching a larval human emerge. Such horrors can be avoided by using a pleasantly cleansed and lubed alternate orifice.
The stereotypic completeness of your homophobia is extremely boring. Please stop trying to lie to yourself about it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Wrong. I don't think shit is disgusting. Given a choice between pearls and pigshit, I'd take the shit every time.
Oh dear, I've obviously misunderstood. And there I was thinking you were insulting me, and you were actually saying I'm more valuable to you than pearls....
You've yet to demonstrate you posses any value.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Oh dear, I've obviously misunderstood. And there I was thinking you were insulting me, and you were actually saying I'm more valuable to you than pearls....
No, it is a figure of speech. If I call you a moron, it isn't because I think you are a carrot*, it is largely because the image is so evocative.
Like saying you think your ideas are diamonds when they're actually glass, or gems when they're paste.
I could just as easily have said that that you're full of sawdust, baked beans, maggots.
Actually, if I'd said maggots, that'd be pretty disgusting - I find rotting things more disgusting than shit.
And you are right, you have as much value to me as pearls: absolutely nothing.
*welsh/cymraeg
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
On the general point, one person finding something gross is hardly a great measure as to the wrongness of the action.
I find those ear extenders gross, I am pretty squeamish about tattoos, I'm not very good around blood or vomit.
And of course one has to take certain precautions with all of those things - but they're hardly radioactive, so there is no reason to suppose that people who have ear extenders or tattoos are somehow morally inferior or that those who work in hospitals are somehow contaminated.
Moreover, I don't think there is any reason to think that these things are so terrible that they can't be done safely.
I can understand that you don't like anal sex. But I don't think there is any evidence that there is something so physically dangerous about it that it can't be done safely. The fact that it is somehow associated with shit doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to that.
So basically you're just linking your physical reaction to something with a moral hazard, to something so sinful that it can't ever be good.
Which I suppose you're entitled to do, but don't come here thinking that this is some kind of logical argument.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Can I ask you to do a bit of thinking on one point?
Physician, heal thyself.
I've been asking you to do a bit of thinking on one point for months now.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Can I ask you to do a bit of thinking on one point?
Physician, heal thyself.
I've been asking you to do a bit of thinking on one point for months now.
Steve, Eutychus has thought about it an he's come to a different conclusion based on the same evidence. That is all. Happens every day.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I find those ear extenders gross...
Ear extenders?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus
quote:
I've been asking you to do a bit of thinking on one point for months now.
Done the thinking, already answered it - weren't you paying attention?
I assume you're still talking about your word-games over the use of 'naturally'.
Look, Jesus in Mark 10, God made them male and female designed to become one flesh both by the physical union with the complementary body parts naturally designed for the purpose and also one flesh in another way by creating a new mingled life in their child(ren). Great BIG 'NATURALLY', and also clearly designed whather or not the word is in the text. Only male-with-female can EVER do that NATURALLY.
Male-with-male and female-with-female can absolutely NEVER do that NATURALLY. Effectively, yes, you can get sexual stimulation all kinds of ways, but the nearest you can get to the NATURAL sex as God designed is pretty much a parody.
Playing wordgames about how male-with-female can occasionally have 'natural' difficulties due to age/infirmity/illness/injury/etc is just that - playing wordgames.
Let's be clear - men loving men, women loving women, NO PROBLEM. see David and Jonathan. Physical attraction and physical display of afffection to a very great extent, no problem. In our world some kind of civil partnership no problem. Sex as if male with female - or rather the parody which is as near as can be achieved, problem. Not a problem in non-Christian worldviews, but for Christians definitely.
Jesus, Mark 10, "MALE AND FEMALE", what God incarnate tells us marriage is about. You Christian, you trust Jesus; you not trust Jesus, you not Christian.
I've now come across at least two (and possibly more) cases when pro-gay people have been challenged by this. Initially lots of bluster about how there must be 'other interpretations' - but those other interpretations are never offered. Instead the answer eventually comes back "Jesus was mistaken". And to explain how God Incarnate can be so mistaken, a decidedly alternative version of the Incarnation in which apparently the God of the whole Universe can't manage his own incarnation so that he can teach reliably about something so important.
Which of course effectively destroys Christianity as a religion worth believing. Who in their right mind believes in a God so incompetent, a teacher so mistaken? Clearly those offering this have realised they've no credible alternative interpretation of Jesus' words there; but their attempt to get round that is totally destructive.
Also bizarrely, in one of these cases I was initially sneered at for 'claiming to know more than Jesus' just for offering a very 'ordinary language' kind of interpretation which the person concerned clearly in the end had to accept (otherwise why would there be a need to say Jesus was mistaken?). But surely "Jesus was mistaken" is very much a claim by that person that THEY know better than Jesus. And one must ask both what kind of 'faith' in Jesus is shown by that approach, and well, if they believe Jesus to be that mistaken why do they want to be Christian? The whole thing is a mess and I'm definitely NOT going down that route.
I get that 'gays' have been persecuted about this; and from my standpoint that should never have happened. In a plural society, if you have a worldview in which 'gay sex' is permitted, you are and should be legally free to do it. And in a plural society all the potential different varieties of 'marriage' are not the state's business to judge - just provide a civil partnership framework which can be used for marriage and for other purposes.
But "I have an urge to do sex up the shithole" is NOT something people 'ARE' in the way that they 'ARE' of another race or disabled, and cannot be entitled to the same kind of legal protection as race or disability. Such CONDUCT cannot in a plural society be beyond criticism and even able to basically persecute those who do question it.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I get that 'gays' have been persecuted about this; and from my standpoint that should never have happened. In a plural society, if you have a worldview in which 'gay sex' is permitted, you are and should be legally free to do it. And in a plural society all the potential different varieties of 'marriage' are not the state's business to judge - just provide a civil partnership framework which can be used for marriage and for other purposes.
Actually, that's a pretty impressive step you've made there, I'm glad you felt able to say that. You've allowed that people should be able to do something you find offensive and that they should be free and have the same rights as everyone else.
quote:
But "I have an urge to do sex up the shithole" is NOT something people 'ARE' in the way that they 'ARE' of another race or disabled, and cannot be entitled to the same kind of legal protection as race or disability. Such CONDUCT cannot in a plural society be beyond criticism and even able to basically persecute those who do question it.
But who is actually saying that you can't question acts? If what you've said above is what you feel, I can't see that anyone can possibly have a problem with it.
"I believe gay people should be treated equally under the law in terms of marriage, I just don't think that anal sex is a good thing."
That's fine, it seems to me. Just like someone saying that they don't like singing, don't think people should work in a zoo, don't believe that sociology should be a subject available in a university.
The rest of us can just shrug our shoulders, say "meh, there goes Steve talking about his weird views about zoos again", but you're not actively stopping gay people from having full freedom - so no biggie.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy
quote:
Actually, that's a pretty impressive step you've made there, I'm glad you felt able to say that. You've allowed that people should be able to do something you find offensive and that they should be free and have the same rights as everyone else.
As part of my Anabaptist views I made that step back in the 1960s and saying it is no great effort and never has been. And actually in a politically liberal family was basically in support of the decriminalisation of 'gays' from when I was old enough to know what it meant. I've mentioned the point in the past on the Ship too - it's just not easy to get it noticed while being massively scatologically dumped on by incoherent pro-gay posters who aren't bothering to read what I actually write.
Ideally this should be in the same category of things where people don't wilfully go into a Jewish restaurant and order bacon. That is, people disagree about this and when the two disagreeing parties come into contact there's a bit of a rub. And also the competing worldviews involved should ideally have free speech to persuade about the rights and wrongs. Right now I do feel that the gay party are actually expecting a bit more than just equality....
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
OK, that's fine.
So in the same way you'll have absolutely no problem with parts of the Christian church who say different things to you about gay marriage for Christians.
You'll find some friends, huddle into a group where you agree and avoid making any statement that sounds like, or provokes, any kind of discrimination of gays. Right?
You're entitled to your theological views, but you also understand that nobody cares what you think and so you'll keep them to yourself.
[ 25. May 2017, 21:42: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy
quote:
So in the same way you'll have absolutely no problem with parts of the Christian church who say different things to you about gay marriage for Christians.
I think I'd have more than a bit of a problem with the kind of view I outlined above which says "Jesus was mistaken" in a way which pretty much destroys the credibility of Christianity and puts the person doing the interpretation in a position of "I know better than Jesus"!
I'd have a further problem which is that much of the stock 'pro-gay' position is based on rather mechanistic and ultimately amoral ideas of how humans work, which would not be acceptable in Christian terms.
I'll try for tomorrow to come up with some more detailed ideas on how this works....
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Look, Jesus in Mark 10, God made them male and female designed to become one flesh both by the physical union with the complementary body parts naturally designed for the purpose and also one flesh in another way by creating a new mingled life in their child(ren). Great BIG 'NATURALLY', and also clearly designed whather or not the word is in the text. Only male-with-female can EVER do that NATURALLY.
I've been there and thought that and as far as I can see, pursuing that line of argument means that the only valid reason for sex and marriage for all time is procreation.
If you want to argue that, fine, but if you are going to do so with intellectual honesty you should be decrying any marriage, or sexual relationship, whether gay or straight, that is incapable of producing children.
That is about far more than playing wordgames. You're going to have to explain how nobody makes straight couples pass a fertility test, quizzes them about their intentions of having children, or asks on a regular basis whether they are indulging in anything other than p-i-v sex. quote:
Jesus, Mark 10, "MALE AND FEMALE", what God incarnate tells us marriage is about. You Christian, you trust Jesus; you not trust Jesus, you not Christian.
No, he says that's how it was in the beginning, and the point he is addressing is divorce, not same-sex relationships (hat tip to orfeo).
quote:
I've now come across at least two (and possibly more) cases when pro-gay people have been challenged by this.
Wow. What about all the others who get enjoined by church leaders to essentially deny their own identity and what they deeply feel to be "natural", failing which they are told (in brotherly love of course) that they can't really be proper Christians?
quote:
one must ask both what kind of 'faith' in Jesus is shown by that approach, and well, if they believe Jesus to be that mistaken why do they want to be Christian? The whole thing is a mess and I'm definitely NOT going down that route.
I've never claimed "Jesus was mistaken". However, it seems to me that simply banishing as "mistaken" (or indeed, damned) whole swathes of people who have apparently in all good faith wrestled with this issue for themselves is just as bad. Life, including people's sexuality, is a mess. Our calling as a Church is precisely to "got down that route". Not to go around trying to sort out other people's mess (we each have enough of our own) but to open the doors of the Kingdom of Heaven to all.
quote:
But "I have an urge to do sex up the shithole" is NOT something people 'ARE' in the way that they 'ARE' of another race or disabled, and cannot be entitled to the same kind of legal protection as race or disability.
Your reduction of same-sex sexual relationships to a single practice that you deem repulsive is both inaccurate and tiresome. But then I suppose you reduce heterosexual attraction to penis-in-vagina sex for the sole purpose of making babies.
[ 25. May 2017, 22:08: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
Your reduction of same-sex sexual relationships to a single practice that you deem repulsive is both inaccurate and tiresome. But then I suppose you reduce heterosexual attraction to penis-in-vagina sex for the sole purpose of making babies.
Just using what is basically the 'best-known' case to make the point that it really isn't the same kind of issue as race or disability discrimination. And also that the definition of 'gay' in a Christian worldview might not be the same as the stock 'gay' self-understanding. Basically I pushed on the 'anal sex' button, so to speak, to try to get a more detailed dioscussion of what 'gay' is and what about it is 'sinful' rather than trying to discuss the whole thing under a vague umbrella term.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Oh FFS you've been told a million times that your idea of what 'gay' means is completely stupid. It doesn't need to be discussed any further.
There are two other things that go up arses with great frequency that serve to demonstrate homosexual anal sex is utterly irrelevant to any sane discussion of homosexuality:
1. In relation to women's arses: men's penises.
2. In relation to your arse: your head.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Sex is action. Sexuality is attraction.
It's regrettable that you can't comprehend bigger words.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Basically I pushed on the 'anal sex' button, so to speak, to try to get a more detailed dioscussion of what 'gay' is and what about it is 'sinful' rather than trying to discuss the whole thing under a vague umbrella term.
It's not a vague umbrella term. "Gay" means "boys who are attracted primarily to other boys and girls who are attracted primarily to other girls."
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
A couple of points:
1. SL is trying his not-enough-time trick on both this and the Purg thread on episcopi vagrantes.
2. Madame had great difficulty carrying a child to full term. She eventually was successful after a very difficult pregnancy, but her obstetrician and others advised against trying for a second. It could well have killed her. This is serious. So we both took steps to minimise the possibility, and those have been successful. As there was virtually no possibility of her becoming pregnant these last 25 years, does that mean that our sexual activity during that period has been sinful?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
A couple of points:
1. SL is trying his not-enough-time trick on both this and the Purg thread on episcopi vagrantes.
2. Madame had great difficulty carrying a child to full term. She eventually was successful after a very difficult pregnancy, but her obstetrician and others advised against trying for a second. It could well have killed her. This is serious. So we both took steps to minimise the possibility, and those have been successful. As there was virtually no possibility of her becoming pregnant these last 25 years, does that mean that our sexual activity during that period has been sinful?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Basically I pushed on the 'anal sex' button, so to speak, to try to get a more detailed dioscussion of what 'gay' is and what about it is 'sinful' rather than trying to discuss the whole thing under a vague umbrella term.
No you didn't.
You explicitly said, and have so far failed to retract, that quote:
Marriage - in God's terms, whatever the secular world may say - is for those who can naturally do sexual intercourse, and not for those who can't
That is not provocation, it's a key plank of your argument.
Either retract that or concede that if marriage is "naturally" about p-i-v sex for the purposes of procreation and nothing else ("the complementary body parts naturally designed for the purpose... creating a new mingled life in their child(ren"), you have no choice but to conclude that anything else going on in a straight marriage is "unnatural".
Furthermore, your entire anti-gay argument at this point revolves around the supposed ick factor involved in anal sex. I challenged you to point to anywhere in the Bible outlawing any particular sexual position for either gay couples or straight, and you can't do it simply becuase there is no such prohibition.
You also repeatedly avoid the twin realities that anal sex can be practiced by a heterosexual couple and that sex acts excluding anal sex can be performed by a gay couple.
All of which makes using anal sex as a discussion-starter on what is meant by "gay" ridiculous, and you know it.
You're simply trampling over other people's struggles and grossly misrepresenting them without a thought for any pain you might cause.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Eutychus: Either retract that or concede that if marriage is "naturally" about p-i-v sex for the purposes of procreation and nothing else ("the complementary body parts naturally designed for the purpose... creating a new mingled life in their child(ren"), you have no choice but to conclude that anything else going on in a straight marriage is "unnatural
Did Steve suggest that procreation is part of the essence of marriage and must extend to its entirety?
Take the idea that X has been been part of a marriage for 40 years but the childbearing aspect is long over. Does this fact imply that such a marriage is effectively null and void in Steve's view, given that child bearing and rearing is finished?
This is what you seem to say he stated or implied and it is hard to believe anyone would say this.
This is obviously not a necessary conclusion if that aspect of a marriage was seen as only a necessary part for a certain time rather than necessary over the entirety of the marriage.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Did Steve suggest that procreation is part of the essence of marriage and must extend to its entirety?
Take the idea that X has been been part of a marriage for 40 years but the childbearing aspect is long over. Does this fact imply that such a marriage is effectively null and void in Steve's view, given that child bearing and rearing is finished?
This is what you seem to say he stated or implied and it is hard to believe anyone would say this.
Read the quotes above and make up your own mind. Especially the first one, which is the one I have been trying to get him to retract for months.
Don't think I haven't thought about this.
Essentially, a lot of anti-gay marriage arguments boil down to "they can't produce children" and "they indulge in anal sex" (um, lesbians?). The fact is that both those statements apply to at least some straight couples, and nobody bats an eyelid. If you want to outlaw gay marriage on either of those grounds, you are going to disqualify a lot of straight marriages too.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Steve, Steve, Steve...
Just fuck off already, OK? Why you persist in thinking that any other human gives the slightest hovering fuck to your myopic opinions about homosexuality? The only reason you get any responses whatsoever is because people are so appalled with your notions that they feel compelled to refute them.
quote:
I'll try for tomorrow to come up with some more detailed ideas on how this works....
Please don't. Don't bother. Because:
A) Nobody wants to hear any of it, and,
B) Fucking get a boyfriend already and stop punishing all of us with your flailing repressions.
Pages of this banal idiocy because you can't stop thinking about it. Become an adult and get a motherfucking blog already. Or just download Grindr and stop teasing yourself.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I think the answer is not to get annoyed and to treat Steve as the kind of idiot who thinks that the moon is made of cheese or that Moses surfed with the dinosaurs.
Just imagine David Attenborough appearing from the undergrowth..
And here we see the Lesser-spotted Anabaptistish Christian Weirdo-bird in his natural habitat, a pulpit which appears to be built on sand. Mostly seen at night, he comes out from his nest with a characteristic "Anal Sex is Ikky" squawk, when he unfurls his beautiful plumage. As he walks around his tiny territory, he leaves massive heaps of steaming excrement in order to attract the right kind of fellow weirdo-birds to join his brood, apparently unaware that he is almost entirely alone.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Eutychus;
quote:
Your reduction of same-sex sexual relationships to a single practice that you deem repulsive is both inaccurate and tiresome. But then I suppose you reduce heterosexual attraction to penis-in-vagina sex for the sole purpose of making babies.
Just using what is basically the 'best-known' case to make the point that it really isn't the same kind of issue as race or disability discrimination. And also that the definition of 'gay' in a Christian worldview might not be the same as the stock 'gay' self-understanding. Basically I pushed on the 'anal sex' button, so to speak, to try to get a more detailed dioscussion of what 'gay' is and what about it is 'sinful' rather than trying to discuss the whole thing under a vague umbrella term.
So to be provocative, the Bible presents autistic people as being possessed with demons. It provides several remedies. If you don't have a messiah handy, get the stones out. Naturally modern society doesn't treat autism that way, but of course no one can be a good Christian while being possessed with demons. Isn't it fun to be provocative to people who aren't treated badly enough in society,
In case you ever bother to look up from your endless spewing, you might notice that most people on this thread find your posts more disgusting than anal sex.
[ 26. May 2017, 07:13: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This is obviously not a necessary conclusion if that aspect of a marriage was seen as only a necessary part for a certain time rather than necessary over the entirety of the marriage. [/QB]
How about people who marry with known infertility who can never have offspring. Does Steve's conclusions apply to such couples? I must have missed the part of the marriage ceremony where the medical tests are presented.
[ 26. May 2017, 07:39: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Jamat--
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Take the idea that X has been been part of a marriage for 40 years but the childbearing aspect is long over. Does this fact imply that such a marriage is effectively null and void in Steve's view, given that child bearing and rearing is finished?
This is what you seem to say he stated or implied and it is hard to believe anyone would say this.
This is obviously not a necessary conclusion if that aspect of a marriage was seen as only a necessary part for a certain time rather than necessary over the entirety of the marriage.
In previous, rather heated discussions on other threads, this was stated as the RCC's (traditional) position. (Particularly by a certain absent Shipmate, who felt it his duty to fight the RCC's corner, tooth and nail.)
IIRC, one of the points was that a married couple must be open to having kids. (Whether or not God provides them is another matter.) If an older, straight couple wants to marry, they have to either be willing to have a baby, or not get married. Etc. Under those rules: if the RCC ever permitted same-sex marriage, I presume the spouses would have to be amenable to having an anomalous child.
{Ingo, if you're reading this, I hope your sabbatical is helping you find what you need. Please come back, some day, if/when you're ready.}
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
In previous, rather heated discussions on other threads, this was stated as the RCC's (traditional) position. (Particularly by a certain absent Shipmate, who felt it his duty to fight the RCC's corner, tooth and nail.)
OK, well I'm sure Steve is glowing in the knowledge that he agrees with the apparent practice of the RCC - an institution that he clearly despises.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gee D
quote:
1. SL is trying his not-enough-time trick on both this and the Purg thread on episcopi vagrantes.
Not a 'trick' - right now I don't have a lot of free time. Especially if you want the best answers I can give....
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The difference with the rest of us is not that we have more time at our disposal, but that we don't unwaveringly invoke a lack of it to avoid answering.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
You explicitly said, and have so far failed to retract, that
quote:
Marriage - in God's terms, whatever the secular world may say - is for those who can naturally do sexual intercourse, and not for those who can't
That is not provocation, it's a key plank of your argument.
Nothing to retract. Male with female sex is 'naturally' in a big sense, because 'as designed by God'; male with male and female with female cannot ever do that act naturally. As already said, male with female can have practical difficulties but that doesn't affect the big basic point there.
I don't think that sex "must be" procreative or possibly so. I think of it rather in terms that because procreation - the coming into life of extremely important new human beings - is a major part of sexuality, then sex and sexuality needs to be treated with some respect (though not always with po-faced seriousness!). The indications in the Bible are that God doesn't see it as respect when people do actions like anal sex and disregard His male with female design.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Male with female sex is 'naturally' in a big sense
You may not realise it, but you are are playing fast and loose with the word "naturally" here.
The only claim you can support with the adjective "natural" is that reproductive sex is the only way of producing children naturally.
Your dilemma is the following:
- either all sexual activity other than reproductive sex is "unnatural", including heterosexual sex acts
- or at least some other forms and aims of sex are "natural" - and none of them are exclusive to heterosexual partners.
Your refusal to admit this dilemma is epitomised by this colossal fudge of non-sequiturs: quote:
I don't think that sex "must be" procreative or possibly so. I think of it rather in terms that because procreation - the coming into life of extremely important new human beings - is a major part of sexuality, then sex and sexuality needs to be treated with some respect
Besides, who are you to talk about respect given the violent and childish language you've used?
quote:
The indications in the Bible are that God doesn't see it as respect when people do actions like anal sex and disregard His male with female design.
As I have said before, not only is the Bible deafeningly silent on sexual positions, your idea of "design" - if you really are attempting to decouple it from reproductive sex as you are flailingly claiming - is stunningly lacking in imagination. There's a lot more to our bodies and sex than Tab A and Slot B.
quote:
As already said, male with female can have practical difficulties but that doesn't affect the big basic point there.
So you are finally admitting exceptions to your "natural law" rule above?
The protestant Church as a whole has long admitted such "exceptions", e.g. divorce and remarriage, a) because it has a non-sacramental view of marriage b) because it has accepted that while things may have been a certain way "in the beginning", our "hearts are hard" - and accommodations need to be made.
I'm pretty much a natural law nut in that I believe fertile heterosexual monogamy to be God's original archetype.
However, I don't think I'm misrepresenting Jesus (as you claim) in also believing, today (we are no longer "in the beginning"), that other configurations should be envisaged in order to accommodate the many and various ways people's human condition - including what they may perceive to be "natural" for them - may prevent them from matching that archetype exactly.
I really don't think that amounts to supporting people in their certain damnation and that you should grant a shedload more respect to people for whom such issues are not about shoving anything anywhere, scatalogical or otherwise, but about a life-and-death struggle - sometimes literally.
[ 26. May 2017, 11:41: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
How about people who marry with known infertility who can never have offspring. Does Steve's conclusions apply to such couples? I must have missed the part of the marriage ceremony where the medical tests are presented.
Exactly. No-one ever BOTHERS with this tiresome argument when heterosexual couples are involved, even though there are assuredly such couples that fall on the "gay" side of the dividing line that is being constructed with the argument.
I'd have some sympathy for the logical consistency of such an argument if it was actually applied consistently, but it never is. It's nothing more than a reach for a justification after the fact, an attempt to provide a rational foundation for an argument that is nothing more than "homosexuals are icky" dressed in nicer words.
I'll believe that procreation is essential to marriage when people demonstrate their dislike of ALL non-procreative marriages, not just the ones that involve 2 males or 2 females. Until that day, people arguing that procreation is the key thing are nothing more than bigoted liars.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
As for God's natural male and female design... take a fucking biology lesson and learn something about all the wild and weird variety that actually exists in the world.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
I think a big part of Steve's issue here is that his argument basically boils down to "But it's OBVIOUS! Why can't you see that?"
The problem is that the reasons why it's obvious don't actually stand up to rational scrutiny. So you're left with a choice of either facing up to the fact that just maybe it isn't that obvious after all, or stamping your foot and shouting louder.
I'm not unsympathetic. Emotionally, viscerally, I rather fall into the "But it's OBVIOUS!" camp. Trouble is, when I examine that position intellectually, rationally and indeed prayerfully, I'm forced to conclude that it's only obvious because I'm quietly importing a truckload of assumptions, axioms and prejudices that are nothing more than culturally bound viewpoints and received 'wisdom'. So one's view has to adapt to maintain integrity.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gee D
quote:
1. SL is trying his not-enough-time trick on both this and the Purg thread on episcopi vagrantes.
Not a 'trick' - right now I don't have a lot of free time. Especially if you want the best answers I can give....
What I see is that somebody asks you a real zinger, and you disappear for a month, and when you come back you go on with the conversation as if it was never asked. I can see why people would be frustrated.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Let's take a stroll down the wondrous beauty of the "natural design" of... The DUCK.
[WARNING: Some things can't be unseen.]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Nature is bloody horrible. The only possible moral lesson or example you can possibly take from nature is that humans should not try to take moral lessons or example from nature. At all. Stop it.
[ 26. May 2017, 14:19: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, it amazes me that people use 'natural' and 'naturally' as moral indicators. I suppose they have to twist it, as with natural law, so that in the end, it doesn't mean natural at all, but what I want it to mean, copyright Humpty Dumpty.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Let's take a stroll down the wondrous beauty of the "natural design" of... The DUCK.
[WARNING: Some things can't be unseen.]
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
This is the best Youtube channel I have ever seen. Forget ducks. How about true facts about snails?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Snails ARE evil aliens who do nothing good and should be striken from the face of the planet.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I won't keep linking them all, but oh my goodness this is amazing. The one on marsupials had me laughing so hard I could barely breathe.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
See, now that's really gross. Eating faeces. Eww.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Zefrank's "True Facts About" youtube series is truly epic. My favourite is the Sea Pig. But they're all good shit.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Male with female sex is 'naturally' in a big sense
You may not realise it, but you are are playing fast and loose with the word "naturally" here.
The only claim you can support with the adjective "natural" is that reproductive sex is the only way of producing children naturally.
I realise, and I assumed you did, that the word 'natural/ly' can be used in more than one sense. Paul for example uses the word 'natural' to refer to things which are 'natural/good' in the sense of being as God made/designed them. But he also uses the word to talk about the 'natural man' as a term of disapproval, meaning the man who follows his sinful nature, doing 'what comes naturally' to him, but in relation to God actually doing the 'unnatural/bad/sinful'. As far as I know those and other uses are clear and easy to sort out by reading 'in context' to see which sense is being used.
In this case I was basically using that first sense - 'the nature of things as God designed/intended'. In that sense, and also anyway as a simple fact about the physical possibilities, only male-with-female' can naturally do what God designed. Male-with-male, female-with-female, can't.
The 'natural' problems which may make practical difficulties for individual cases are somewhere between that usage and Paul's 'natural man' usage; they don't carry the 'blame' aspect of 'the natural man' phrase - but they are 'things natural in a sin-affected world', but ultimately imperfect/unnatural - they don't challenge the over-arching ideal that still only male-with-female can actually do sex as God intended.
by Eutychus;
quote:
Besides, who are you to talk about respect given the violent and childish language you've used?
I of course normally use 'polite' language; and if you can be bothered to check you'll find little coarse language ever used by me - but a very great deal of it, and far worse, used against me. Don't forget to tell them how childish they are...! I certainly don't follow the example of Thomas More in his massively coarse writings against Luther and Tyndale which I've just been reading samples of in a Tyndale biography.
But I can still sometimes feel that in a particular discussion the reality of what's being talked about can be blunted and too much softened by euphemistic polite language and that a pointed literal use of 'basic Anglo-Saxon' brings out reality and stops people hiding behind fudges. That's what I've done here. It's a perfectly grown-up form of argument and there are Biblical examples - indeed quite a few cases where a modern commentary will tell you the word you found in your translation is much more polite than the original.
by Eutychus;
quote:
I really don't think that amounts to supporting people in their certain damnation and that you should grant a shedload more respect to people for whom such issues are not about shoving anything anywhere, scatalogical or otherwise, but about a life-and-death struggle - sometimes literally.
For a bit of perspective here -
1) while there is a sense in which all sins are equally bad as representing a rejection of God,
2) I'd regard most cases of 'dodgy consensual sex' as comparatively trivial sins in themselves, and I believe that 'gay sex' has in many ways been given an unwarranted prominence by the way history has worked out. I'd be pretty sure that Rook, objectively, is committing a worse sin by some of his immature insults at my expense than most gay couples are committing by their sex acts.
3) I too am appalled by such incidents as those canings in Indonesia. Such things are not a matter for criminal law; and indeed you pretty much all know that when that kind of thing expresses supposed religion I'm against it. But I still don't want to compromise Christianity by pretending things are right which God has said are wrong.
As for the time thing, look guys, I am the kind of person who when he's running out of time just like conversationally says so because it's a fact. I'm worried that some of you are so determined to see sinister, cynical or evasive in it - I think that says more about the state of your minds than of mine. As of right now, plenty of time, just had enough of this discussion for now. Goodnight.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
God has told you nothing. God has not told anyone anything by any demonstrable definition of certainty. You have a book that someone says someone else said God told somebody else. And it is full of stuff that is not considered good by modern Christians. Either your God is an incompetent idiot or you are.
Sorry, not fair. We know you are.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As for the time thing, look guys, I am the kind of person who when he's running out of time just like conversationally says so because it's a fact. I'm worried that some of you are so determined to see sinister, cynical or evasive in it - I think that says more about the state of your minds than of mine. As of right now, plenty of time, just had enough of this discussion for now. Goodnight.
No. Your using the "out of time" thing to avoid answering tough questions says nothing about our state of mind, and everything about your ability as an advocate for your position.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
orfeo--
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'll believe that procreation is essential to marriage when people demonstrate their dislike of ALL non-procreative marriages, not just the ones that involve 2 males or 2 females. Until that day, people arguing that procreation is the key thing are nothing more than bigoted liars.
In the discussions I mentioned above, that *was* put forth as being part of the RCC argument.
(I don't agree with any of it.)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I was basically using that first sense - 'the nature of things as God designed/intended'. In that sense, and also anyway as a simple fact about the physical possibilities, only male-with-female' can naturally do what God designed. Male-with-male, female-with-female, can't.
What you are trying to make "naturally do what God designed" mean is penis-in-vagina sex - to the exclusion of anything else.
There are a number of problems with that argument.
1. It is a simple fact that normally constituted male-with-female couples can engage in other sex acts besides penis-in-vagina sex. Whether you like the prospect or not, these other configurations are quite clearly "natural" in that they are within male-with-female design limits.
2. The only objective way penis-in-vagina sex is "more" natural than other kinds is the potential for reproduction. You cannot champion penis-in-vagina sex on the sole basis of it being "natural" unless you believe that the sole purpose of sex is reproduction (and that should lead you, say, to decry all forms of contraception as "unnatural"..).
When you say quote:
only male-with-female can actually do sex as God intended
you mean reproductive sex.
3. Paul seems to think that nature itself tells us that women should have long hair and men not. Scarcely any Christians pay attention to that in practical terms today. Invoking the "natural" argument has clearly run up against contextual issues there - why not here?
quote:
But I can still sometimes feel that in a particular discussion the reality of what's being talked about can be blunted and too much softened by euphemistic polite language and that a pointed literal use of 'basic Anglo-Saxon' brings out reality and stops people hiding behind fudges.
No, the fudge is yours. You've used coarse language to insinuate that homosexuality is about violent anal sex and nothing else.
This is not true.
The fact is that anal sex is neither exclusive to nor a required component of homosexual practice.
It is quite clearly possible in male-with-female sex, a point you studiously avoid acknowledging. quote:
It's a perfectly grown-up form of argument and there are Biblical examples
I'm struggling to see a Biblical example condemning anal or oral sex (I've been asking for one from you for several months now) and I'm struggling still further to see a Biblical example of coarse language being used to conceal the invalidity of an argument (rather than support a valid one). quote:
I'd be pretty sure that Rook, objectively, is committing a worse sin by some of his immature insults at my expense than most gay couples are committing by their sex acts.
So insulting Steve Langton is a worse sin than the gay sex you feel the Bible so roundly condemns? Glad we got that cleared up.
Did you stop to consider the possibiity of the sin of "shutting the door of the kingdom of heaven to others and refusing to go in yourself"? Or slander (wilful misrepresentation of the facts), right there in Romans 1 and of which you yourself are demonstrably guilty by using anal sex as a descriptor of all homosexuality? Or indeed pride?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In this case I was basically using that first sense - 'the nature of things as God designed/intended'. In that sense, and also anyway as a simple fact about the physical possibilities, only male-with-female' can naturally do what God designed. Male-with-male, female-with-female, can't.
This argument obviously doesn't work if you've bothered to watch any of the videos we mention above. Male ducks are apparently designed to rape female ducks, sometimes when they're dead - or male.
Plenty of organisms have penises and vagina - you can't go around claiming that this means that "nature" determines they should be doing with them given that "nature" gives extremely mixed messages depending on where you look.
The really tiring part of this discussion is that you seem to try to bring the conversation constantly back to what people do with their gonads. As if the only time a human is fully alive is when they're engaged in sex, pregnating another human or giving birth.
Let me introduce a thing that says humans are more than their sexual urges; you might have heard of it, it is called Christianity.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
So insulting Steve Langton is a worse sin than the gay sex you feel the Bible so roundly condemns? Glad we got that cleared up.
No, more a case of insulting anyone in such terms, and being the kind of person who does so, is a worse sin. As is being the kind of person who will describe Jesus as 'mistaken' if it will enable them to carry on supporting gay sex, while clearly not thinking through the wider implications of that stance....
The point is I don't see 'homosexuality' as all that extraordinary or important in itself. i'm not sure if I've previously used this example on the Ship, but I see it as rather like the case of the very ordinary farms of La Haye Sainte and Hougoumont in Belgium. Nothing special about them in themselves, but on one day in 1815 the way the Brits and their Allies lined up against Napoleon meant that the walled farmyards of La Haye Sainte and Hougoumont became key points in the battle of Waterloo which the Allies had to hold or Napoleon take to decide the result of the battle.
At the same time this is not a simple two-way battle like Waterloo - it's a confused melee of multiple parties with some who aren't really on either of the obvious 'sides' but both partly agree and partly disagree with the 'obvious' combatants. Me, I'm kind of defending a metaphorical La Haye Sainte from all comers and in some ways also defending the other sides from themselves.
I note above (though with the Ship's mechanics I'm not sure I can easily track back to it to quote it) that you effectively conceded you think heterosexual sex is God's intention 'in the beginning' - not at all sure you've proved God's intentions/wishes have actually changed.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Let me introduce a thing that says humans are more than their sexual urges; you might have heard of it, it is called Christianity.
Exactly; which is why it's fairly important to get right what Christianity does say on the subject. And persuade the non-Christians that there's more to life.
You still appear to be confusing different usages of the concept 'natural'. The world as it is is NOT perfect and entirely as God designed it. How do you avoid the trap the Marquis de Sade fell into of thinking "Whatever is, is right" (and even then I understand he would have said the word 'right' implied far more morality than he really believed in)?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Me, I'm kind of defending a metaphorical La Haye Sainte from all comers and in some ways also defending the other sides from themselves.
Ah, the "nuclear option" that "if we touch [insert pet peeve here], it's actually blasphemy against the Holy Spirit/an assault on the Trinity/etc".
You might like to look back through history and see what other causes this oh-so-noble-sounding defence has been invoked for. It's not reasoned argument, it's intimidation, nothing more and nothing less.
quote:
I note above (though with the Ship's mechanics I'm not sure I can easily track back to it to quote it) that you effectively conceded you think heterosexual sex is God's intention 'in the beginning' - not at all sure you've proved God's intentions/wishes have actually changed.
Let me help you. I referred to this idea (on this thread) here and before that, here (not that I expect you to consider the substance of these posts, since you have a habit of lightly skipping over everything you can't actually address).
In the very context you quote, Mark 10, Jesus is drawing a contrast between how things were in the beginning and the accommodations made in the Law to cater for the fact that "all have fallen short of the glory of God" (before going on to point out that accommodations should not be abused).
So it is quite clear in Jesus' mind that a) things are not now as they were "in the beginning" and b) reasonably accommodating that present-day state of affairs is desirable.
As I also said, I think God's archetype for sexual relations is heterosexual monogamy, and I missed the edit window at the time to add "for life".
However, human fallenness means that many of us do not match that archetype - and not just in the way you might think. Many who tick the "heterosexual-monogamous-for-life relationship" box may do so in such a way as to make that relationship an abomination (spousal abuse springs to mind).
The good news is that while fallenness is a fact of life - we are all less than ideal - redemption is a fact of the Gospel. God uses all sorts of "less than ideal" circumstances to manifest his grace and his glory - including relationships other than those conforming to that archetype.
If you're going to insist that God's initial "ideal" is a rule that brooks no exceptions, you are ruling out divorce and remarriage, and probably adoption too.
My experience is that given that things are no longer as they were in the beginning, God's grace and glory shines out from many surprising (to me) quarters, even as it attracts the revulsion and, yes, hatred, of modern-day Pharisees.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You still appear to be confusing different usages of the concept 'natural'. The world as it is is NOT perfect and entirely as God designed it. How do you avoid the trap the Marquis de Sade fell into of thinking "Whatever is, is right" (and even then I understand he would have said the word 'right' implied far more morality than he really believed in)?
You are a special kind of moron who thinks that everyone who disagrees with you is a sadist. Got it.
The fact that some gay people are beautifully supporting each other (and who, let's be honest, probably aren't having much or any sex at all) seems to completely pass you by given that you're so obsessed with "correct" natural sex.
The fact that plenty of married heterosexual people have sex without it being possible to have children seems to have slipped off your radar.
If it doesn't matter as you claim, stop talking about it. Nobody cares what you think "natural" human sex might or might not include - most of the rest of us are interested in supporting long, stable, supportive, uplifting, loving Christian relationships.
It is basically only you who think that you've got a right to tell other people that what they're doing is ungodly based on your assumptions about what they're doing in the bedroom. Because you're a plain old-fashioned jerk.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I note above (though with the Ship's mechanics I'm not sure I can easily track back to it to quote it) that you effectively conceded you think heterosexual sex is God's intention 'in the beginning' - not at all sure you've proved God's intentions/wishes have actually changed.
God's intention 'in the beginning' didn't include birth defects. But at some point we got over the urge to kill people therefor. "People weren't like that in the beginning therefore God hates people like that now" doesn't work.
But what also doesn't work is "this wasn't in the beginning therefore it's a sin."
People weren't blind in the beginning. So, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?
"Wasn't in the beginning" <> "sinful".
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The point is I don't see 'homosexuality' as all that extraordinary or important in itself.
Then why don't you shut up about it?
Homosexuals don't have the luxury of seeing their sexuality as unimportant, because society, and assholes like you, are beating on them every day, sometimes literally, for being who they are. Casually tossing off ignorant insults is a stance of privilege, and you are abusing your privilege to make the lives of other people unpleasant.
Why not just shut up about it? Plenty of things to talk about on the ship besides homosexuality and church-and-gummint.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As is being the kind of person who will describe Jesus as 'mistaken'
Please point to where anyone has said this.
What I, and others, have said is that you are reading the bible wrong. And that the bible is not a literal thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As I also said, I think God's archetype for sexual relations is heterosexual monogamy, and I missed the edit window at the time to add "for life".
However, human fallenness means that many of us do not match that archetype
Actually, you are part of the problem. Well, more correctly, the concept of "fallen" that you embrace.
It is the much same thing as SL's interpretation, just without the condemnation and ick factor.
I know it is a popular Christian thing, but the very concept of a fall from grace pokes a lance directly into the heart of what y'all say God is.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
It's not far from "fallen" to "sex is evil". More better is to consider the human body isn't a temple and is an amusement park. That the best rides incorporate the sewage treatment is only a fact of evolution. So be excellent to one another.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Actually, you are part of the problem. Well, more correctly, the concept of "fallen" that you embrace.
It is the much same thing as SL's interpretation, just without the condemnation and ick factor.
Well I'll happily embrace both those exclusions, thank you
quote:
I know it is a popular Christian thing, but the very concept of a fall from grace pokes a lance directly into the heart of what y'all say God is.
Yes, I know, you think belief in what is commonly referred to as any kind of "fall" is equivalent to believing Jesus rode on dinosaurs. We've had this discussion already.
The only germane point here is that in my view, the simple observation that the world around us does not correspond to the idyllic picture painted of the Garden of Eden, plus the fact that Jesus himself said something to the same effect, should give us pause before imposing anything depicted as being the case then as being universally binding for now.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It's not far from "fallen" to "sex is evil".
It is in my bible. quote:
More better is to consider the human body isn't a temple and is an amusement park.
To quote a famous meme Why not both?
Sounds like a great way of describing the current now-but-not-yet incarnated, embodied spirituality christians struggle to get to grips with.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I haven't a clue what you mean.
Thought I suspect God wonders why people don't have more orgasms. And some may have to answer the question of why they failed to enjoy the simple things they might have in their post life interviews. There's far too much suffering and far too little love in the world.
[ 27. May 2017, 16:25: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The idea that sex is inherently sinful is not one I subscribe to.
The Bible depicts the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit and suggests that as such it should be looked after responsibly, but nowhere does it rule out having fun with it.
Admittedly, some Christians have trouble with this idea, as alluded to in the poem on this page by George Target: quote:
They don’t look at women and girls with lust in their hearts,
But neither do they roll breathless with love and laughter
Naked under the sun of high Summer.
The whole concept of Christianity is bound up with the paradox of a living out a hope that transcends this material world whilst still in it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The idea that sex is inherently sinful is not one I subscribe to.
But by your logic it is. The fall is tied into Adam and Eve. Separating it from a literal Adam and Eve, but keeping it does not have any inherent logic. They are both part of people trying to make sense of their world in context of a rational deity.
In this way, the Greek and Scandinavian systems are much more rational. They do not pretend deities are better than people, just more powerful.
You do so believe, therefore the burden of a rational proof is much more.
And "sin" fucked the world isn't rational in your system.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I spent six pages discussing the "fall", to which you contributed very little after the initial posts, and I don't propose to rehash it here and now.
There is abundant theology supporting the theory that sex is not ipso facto sinful.
And I think evil is indeed irrational in the sense that it throws off the entire system.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I spent six pages discussing the "fall", to which you contributed very little after the initial posts, and I don't propose to rehash it here and now.
IIRC, it simply boiled down to what point people choose to believe. Still never made any rational sense. I did not bring it up to rehash the argument.
What makes you different to SL is you are not an inveterate arsehole or bigot. And that is no small thing. But your POV still feeds those who are. And that is what I'd have you consider.
quote:
And I think evil is indeed irrational in the sense that it throws off the entire system.
I think the concept of evil as an entity or a force is irrational. And irrelevant.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
your POV still feeds those who are. And that is what I'd have you consider.
I've put all my cards on the table in this discussion as regards "the beginning" to show SL the inconsistency of invoking Mark 10 to impose how things were "in the beginning" as a universal binding norm for today. That is all.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
So be excellent to one another.
PARTY ON, DUDES!
Thank you Rufus / George Carlin.
[ 27. May 2017, 23:08: Message edited by: RooK ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The idea that sex is inherently sinful is not one I subscribe to.
But by your logic it is. The fall is tied into Adam and Eve. Separating it from a literal Adam and Eve, but keeping it does not have any inherent logic. They are both part of people trying to make sense of their world in context of a rational deity.
Milton writes that Adam and Eve had an active sex life before Eve succumbed to temptation, and then pressured Adam into also eating to fruit (Milton's account of it, not necessarily mine). It was these 2 latter acts which constituted the fall, not their having sex.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The idea that sex is inherently sinful is not one I subscribe to.
The Bible depicts the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit and suggests that as such it should be looked after responsibly, but nowhere does it rule out having fun with it.
Admittedly, some Christians have trouble with this idea, as alluded to in the poem on this page by George Target: quote:
They don’t look at women and girls with lust in their hearts,
But neither do they roll breathless with love and laughter
Naked under the sun of high Summer.
The whole concept of Christianity is bound up with the paradox of a living out a hope that transcends this material world whilst still in it.
It doesn't have to. Some believe in here and now salvation, of the kind that leads to social gospel. Saving people now. Trouble is the dirty sex message so beloved of radical conservatives has become the foundation, even the unconscious foundation of their view of the world. It allows the full flower of the cartesian mind-body separation to reduce healthy orgasms, remotivate sex into violence, and make things like screwing someone over in business become orgasmic replacement.
Can sex be sacremental in your world? Can an orgasm be prayer? Why can't we be excellent to each other, and lose the bogus transcendence?
[tangent]
Was Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure a homoerotic movie?
Does it matter?[/tangent]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
That's a tangent too far for me, especially as I haven't seen the film.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
A couple of weeks ago, I listened to an episode of a podcast about the Bible ("The Bible Project") that argued most persuasively that the idea that the world was "perfect" before the Fall is not at all supported by the Bible and causes all sorts of problems.
I have to admit I found this a little mind-blowing. But it was also, as I said, persuasive. We read that God made things and they were "good", and we read about what happened after, and we then think that "good" meant "perfect", but it is seriously questionable that it did. It is seriously questionable that the world was designed as a complete work where nothing was supposed to happen before we spoiled it.
Which then throws into question the whole idea that the world's first couple were perfect and everything was fine and dandy and that there never would have been any homosexual people if only things hadn't been stuffed up.
See, at one time as I was slowly coming to terms with my own homosexuality, I reached a conviction that God didn't make a mistake when he made me. I am not a transcription error. I'm a particular kind of person (and I don't think my sexuality is the oddest thing about me) because God was just fine with having a person like that.
I'd really prefer it if people didn't see a significant part of who I am as some kind of evidence of how the world went wrong.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
No, more a case of insulting anyone in such terms,
"in such terms"? So, if one insults a person politely, it isn't a sin? You have the mental capacity of a handful of decomposed granite, your arguments are as solid as the vacuum of space and you are as polite as vomiting the contents of your stomach onto the hostess of a formal dinner party.
Is that sinless?
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Milton writes that Adam and Eve had an active sex life before Eve succumbed to temptation, and then pressured Adam into also eating to fruit (Milton's account of it, not necessarily mine). It was these 2 latter acts which constituted the fall, not their having sex.
Well, Milton isn't cannon and Adam and Eve did not exist, so...
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
I think our linear understanding of time is flawed. I think all is good because all is completed. We just haven't seen it. And Orfeo, I think you are the perfect Orfeo- and that is good.
It gets confusing because even now -we can all be perfect arses at times.
Cross post
[ 28. May 2017, 05:45: Message edited by: Patdys ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I'm sure I'm commented on this preciousness about insults before.
All I'll say this time around is: Jesus called people whitewashed tombs. Now, either you believe that Jesus was without sin, or you believe that insulting people is a horrible sin. Choose.
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
Orfeo either we have cross posted or I have failed in communicating my thoughts - but I am confused- ahh we cross posted
[ 28. May 2017, 05:51: Message edited by: Patdys ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Eutychus--
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That's a tangent too far for me, especially as I haven't seen the film.
"Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure I" is a fun film. Plays around with history. (Not for little kids, FYI.)
{Puts on cool sunglasses, and plays air guitar.}
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
np--
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
[tangent]
Was Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure a homoerotic movie?
Does it matter?[/tangent]
Just in case you weren't entirely being flip: The guys both displayed other interests. Now, Socrates was in the film, and reportedly was involved with males in real life; but I don't remember him displaying any interest on screen.
It wouldn't matter if Bill and Ted were gay/bi, except for plot adustments.
{Announcer: We now return you to the thread that seems to run on perpetual motion, and should therefore be patented.}
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Milton writes that Adam and Eve had an active sex life before Eve succumbed to temptation, and then pressured Adam into also eating to fruit (Milton's account of it, not necessarily mine). It was these 2 latter acts which constituted the fall, not their having sex.
Well, Milton isn't cannon and Adam and Eve did not exist, so...
Well, Milton may not be canon, but his learning (if not the opinions he based on it) does give his statements some respect. And Adam and Eve did not exist, who then fell?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Me. You.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd really prefer it if people didn't see a significant part of who I am as some kind of evidence of how the world went wrong.
I wouldn't put it like that and you know I wouldn't. I have skimmed the 6-page Fall thread, and where I've got to in this debate is pretty much still here.
There I stand, at least for now. I may be wrong, but that's where I am in my conscience. I'm genuinely sorry for the hurt that might cause you and I hope you know that.
I also hope that in the meantime, you can still live with "accommodated", which was where the two of us got to once before.
Peace be with you (it is Sunday morning here after all ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Eutychus, you don't hurt me.
Well, maybe you tickle.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I don't think talking about "the fall" with reference to the observable systems of nature makes an sense at all.
When there is a nuclear blast, animals get exposed and this causes various mutations and horrific unusual deformities which make their lives very difficult.
But I don't see that the shape of a duck's penis is like that. On the face of it, it isn't just an unpleasantness which has been inflicted on the poor duck it has to carry around, it appears to be a very specific adaption to a very specific condition. And in that sense it is very hard to describe it as "imperfect" or "fallen" and the term loses all possible meaning. If this is "fallen", what the hell did an "unfallen" duck penis look like?
And there is a lot of other crap spoken ignorantly about the situation before the fall. If there was no death, how exactly did the natural systems work? How would there be anything to eat if there was no death and presumably no reproduction? How did Adam and Eve's gut work if there wasn't anything dying inside them?
To me, the fall can only possibly refer to humanity and makes zero sense when talking about the rest of creation - other than with reference to the way that humanity trashes it.
And so I can't see how homosexuality - however caused - can be seen to be a result of the fall, and I can understand why people find that idea offensive.
I think it makes far more sense to talk about humanity, our animal natures and urges and the spark within us that means we are more than that. Fairly obviously, any sexual interaction is part of our animal nature. And also fairly obviously, abuse of those urges leads to corruption of the humanity within each person.
We're better than that. We can be more than that.
So away with all this shit that sex is worship and all that bollocks. Away with all that crap which says me and mine are part of God's wonderful creation of sex whilst you and yours are part of the fucked-up fallenness.
I want you to be in wholesome, uplifting, loving relationships. I don't want to see you abused and I am not going to assist you in abuse of another person.
But beyond that, I don't care what you do in the bedroom with your own body. I don't want to know, don't want to hear about it, don't want to see it. Put it away.
FFS. Sometimes it really does feel like the only people worth hearing from are children - who can see clearly without constantly waving their willies around.
OK some children do that, but we don't think it is a good thing do we. No.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Milton writes that Adam and Eve had an active sex life before Eve succumbed to temptation, and then pressured Adam into also eating to fruit (Milton's account of it, not necessarily mine). It was these 2 latter acts which constituted the fall, not their having sex.
Well, Milton isn't cannon and Adam and Eve did not exist, so...
I agree with both of those statements, but I do think Gee D's example makes a valid point, to wit: believing there was sex before the fall is a possible, and respected, position for a Christian to take.
What positions Adam and Eve used is another question entirely -- there were no other people to evangelize so was there a missionary position?
[ 28. May 2017, 13:25: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, Milton isn't cannon
On the contrary:
A triple mounted row of pillars laid
On wheels (for like to pillars most they seemed
Or hollow'd bodies made of oak or fir
With branches lopped, in wood or mountain felled)
Brass, iron, stony mould, had not their mouths
With hideous orifice gaped on us wide,
Portending hollow truce; at each behind
A seraph stood, and in his hand a reed
Stood waving tipped with fire; while we suspense,
Collected stood within our thoughts amused,
Not long, for sudden all at once their reeds
Put forth, and to a narrow vent applied
With nicest touch. Immediate in a flame,
But soon obscured with smoke, all Heaven appeared,
From those deep throated engines belched, whose roar
Embowelled with outrageous noise the Air,
And all her entrails tore, disgorging foul
Their devilish glut, chained thunderbolts and hail
Of iron globes, which on the victor host
Levelled, with such impetuous fury smote,
That whom they hit, none on their feet might stand,
Though standing else as rocks, but down they fell
By thousands, angel on arch-angel rolled;
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
who then fell?
Like Karl said, we make our own choices. Human nature is such that we will do things that harm others, and/or ourselves, and these things could be called "sin".
"The Fall" is, quite frankly, a primitive attempt to reconcile the discrepancies between the label and the contents of the tin.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I agree with both of those statements, but I do think Gee D's example makes a valid point, to wit: believing there was sex before the fall is a possible, and respected, position for a Christian to take.
Yeah, respected is quite the variable here. I don't think it is respected by as many as you might. And there are loads of idea that were respected in the past and are now generally disregarded.
quote:
What positions Adam and Eve used is another question entirely -- there were no other people to evangelize so was there a missionary position?
"That was mousethief, folks, he'll be here all week. Try the veal".
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I agree with both of those statements, but I do think Gee D's example makes a valid point, to wit: believing there was sex before the fall is a possible, and respected, position for a Christian to take.
Yeah, respected is quite the variable here. I don't think it is respected by as many as you might. And there are loads of idea that were respected in the past and are now generally disregarded.
Do you have statistics, then, showing that more Christians think there was no sex before the fall than think there was? Pew? Gallup? Baylor?
quote:
quote:
What positions Adam and Eve used is another question entirely -- there were no other people to evangelize so was there a missionary position?
"That was mousethief, folks, he'll be here all week. Try the veal".
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Do you have statistics, then, showing that more Christians think there was no sex before the fall than think there was? Pew? Gallup? Baylor?
No, I don't think the question is asked too much. I think it would be less than you might suppose and, honestly, I don't think the majority of people truly examine their faith and how it all fits together.
American Christians are often laughed at because of the high percentage in polls who still claim to be creationists. This study seems to indicate it is not quite as simple as most polls would indicate.
The chart is still depressing, but not quite as grim as often pictured.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Then I don't understand why you were giving Gee D a bad time for believing there was sex before the fall?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
It is all about referencing the fall. Not only is "the Fall" bad theology,* but it is functionally harmful.**
You cannot have sex before something that doesn't exist. Or after it, for that matter.
*Informed opinion
**Empirically demonstrable
[ 28. May 2017, 17:37: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
You're really mixing up two different things. People's attitudes towards sex, and your attitude toward the concept of the "Fall".
If we're talking about whether or not people think sex is inherently sinful, or if not sinful "second best," then whether thought it existed before the Fall is a useful thing to know. Whether or not the fall is a helpful or harmful thing. Whether or not you or I like it. It's a matter of meeting people where they are, and using part of that (their belief in the fall) to gauge their beliefs about something else (whether or not sex is a good thing, a bad thing, or a second-best thing).
I think you're getting the two things confused.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is all about referencing the fall. Not only is "the Fall" bad theology,* but it is functionally harmful.**
You cannot have sex before something that doesn't exist. Or after it, for that matter.
*Informed opinion
**Empirically demonstrable
If it is possible in Hell, might I respectfully suggest that you lighten up a bit?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
And remember that this thread is addressed to Steve Langton - who probably does believe in the Fall and may also believe in Adam and Eve. I'm sure that Jamat does.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, Milton isn't cannon
On the contrary:
A triple mounted row of pillars laid
On wheels (for like to pillars most they seemed
Or hollow'd bodies made of oak or fir
With branches lopped, in wood or mountain felled)
Brass, iron, stony mould, had not their mouths
With hideous orifice gaped on us wide,
Portending hollow truce; at each behind
A seraph stood, and in his hand a reed
Stood waving tipped with fire; while we suspense,
Collected stood within our thoughts amused,
Not long, for sudden all at once their reeds
Put forth, and to a narrow vent applied
With nicest touch. Immediate in a flame,
But soon obscured with smoke, all Heaven appeared,
From those deep throated engines belched, whose roar
Embowelled with outrageous noise the Air,
And all her entrails tore, disgorging foul
Their devilish glut, chained thunderbolts and hail
Of iron globes, which on the victor host
Levelled, with such impetuous fury smote,
That whom they hit, none on their feet might stand,
Though standing else as rocks, but down they fell
By thousands, angel on arch-angel rolled;
Well done. Wish I'd thought of that.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, Milton isn't cannon
On the contrary:
A triple mounted row of pillars laid
On wheels (for like to pillars most they seemed
Or hollow'd bodies made of oak or fir
With branches lopped, in wood or mountain felled)
Brass, iron, stony mould, had not their mouths
With hideous orifice gaped on us wide,
Portending hollow truce; at each behind
A seraph stood, and in his hand a reed
Stood waving tipped with fire; while we suspense,
Collected stood within our thoughts amused,
Not long, for sudden all at once their reeds
Put forth, and to a narrow vent applied
With nicest touch. Immediate in a flame,
But soon obscured with smoke, all Heaven appeared,
From those deep throated engines belched, whose roar
Embowelled with outrageous noise the Air,
And all her entrails tore, disgorging foul
Their devilish glut, chained thunderbolts and hail
Of iron globes, which on the victor host
Levelled, with such impetuous fury smote,
That whom they hit, none on their feet might stand,
Though standing else as rocks, but down they fell
By thousands, angel on arch-angel rolled;
Well done. Wish I'd thought of that.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You're really mixing up two different things. People's attitudes towards sex, and your attitude toward the concept of the "Fall".
SOme Christians have a belief about sex and sexual practices that are merely based on what someone told them or how they read certain passages. Some, like Eutychus, believe the Fall has something to do with sexuality. That is why I am speaking about them together.
quote:
It's a matter of meeting people where they are, and using part of that (their belief in the fall) to gauge their beliefs about something else (whether or not sex is a good thing, a bad thing, or a second-best thing).
I am meeting Eutychus where he is. What I am not doing is giving it a pass. I am trying to bring him further along, or at least trying to have him think about it.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Some, like Eutychus, believe the Fall has something to do with sexuality.
I have said no such thing.
The disconnect between how things were "in the beginning" in Genesis and how things are now, commonly referred to by Christian theologians as "the Fall", is depicted as affecting our entire human condition - not exclusively or indeed predominantly our sexuality (although that obviously comes into it).
There is (or was) a view that (heterosexual) sex was the original sin, but this is a fringe view and not supported by the text. Your critique of what you imagine "the Fall" to be about is a huge misunderstanding of what reputable theologians say, and a gross misrepresentation of what I've said.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The disconnect between how things were "in the beginning" in Genesis and how things are now, commonly referred to by Christian theologians as "the Fall", is depicted as affecting our entire human condition - not exclusively or indeed predominantly our sexuality (although that obviously comes into it).
OK but are you not contrasting homosexuality - a result of the fall - with heterosexuality?
If not, I don't really understand what it is that you are arguing. Sex is a result of the fall. Meh.
[ 29. May 2017, 08:14: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Apologies for the length of the following.
The way I see it, according to the Bible, "in the beginning" God created male and female and enjoined male and female to be fruitful and multiply.
So far, nobody has improved on that method to perpetuate the human race; heterosexual reproductive sex appears to be an essential component of humanity as originally designed.
The way Jesus uses the Genesis passages in Mark 10 also suggests he saw lifelong heterosexual monogamy as the original framework for sexual relations.
I don't think God originally intended for people of the same sex to be attracted to one another. Despite a lot of very courteous and patient disagreement expressed by others in DH, and a lot of soul-searching on my part, I just don't see it in Genesis.
Since then, however, all considerations of a "Fall" aside, society has changed hugely. We are less concerned with immediate survival, more self-aware, have more time to think about leisure and pleasure, we have contraception, and so on - all of which affects our views on male and female, and sexuality, hugely.
Clearly, things are no longer as they were "in the beginning", socially.
At the same time, the Bible sees not only a social but also a moral difference from how things were in the Garden of Eden.
In Mark, 10 Jesus cites the "original blueprint" - but immediately goes on to cite the OT provisions for exceptions to that original framework (specifically, divorce), "because your hearts are hard".
I don't think Jesus was singling out divorcees as having especially hard hearts; rather, he was highlighting the inherent moral imperfection of the present-day human condition as a whole.
This to me reflects the NT teaching that "all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God". We are all made in the image of God, but we are all imperfect. I've been using the term "the Fall" and "fallen" as a theological shorthand way of referring to that fact.
This moral imperfection is reflected in us and thus, I believe, negatively affects our sexuality - whether we're male, female, intersex, gay, straight, bi, monogamous, polyamourous, married, divorced, or celibate - because our sexuality is part of our humanity.
Whether it's socially or morally, we can't get back to "the beginning". So where do we go from here?
To me, in Mark 10 Jesus acknowledges this reality that it may not always be possible or desirable to conform to the original framework.
As Jesus also makes plain in that passage, this is not to be taken as a licence to do what we like, but I believe it is a precedent for making practical provision for circumstances that do not conform to the original blueprint.
That is not so much grounds for judgement as it is an expression of grace - for us all.
As far as I'm concerned, following Christ in the here and now involves an acknowledgement on our part that we are imperfect and in need of his forgiveness and grace. If we accept that, the way forward is to live as best we can in the light of our imperfections to his glory.
How each of us does this will depend on our circumstances and our consciences (the tricky bit is that different people's consciences sometimes lead them to differing conclusions, whether it's food sacrificed to idols or gay marriage).
The practical fact today is that some people experience same-sex attraction as a core part of their identity (NB: some others don't). Inasmuch as that's what they experience as "natural", who am I to judge them for that? What right would I have to force them into behaviour that, for them, would be "against nature"? And why should I seek to uphold some "in the beginning" standard when Jesus himself acknowledges the need for provisions for our current human condition - however its different imperfections manifest themselves?
What counts for me is that going forward in our lives, those who seek to follow Christ do their best to reflect the fruit of the Spirit.
I am pretty much convinced that today, a gay couple may do that just as well as a straight couple and that they are not to be blamed for being who or what they are as they do so.
I do however think that in either case, doing so involves recognising that to do that at all, whatever our circumstances, we all need the grace of God, because whatever our circumstances, we have our imperfections.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I just don't understand how this understanding helps anything. According to that, loads of things are a result of the fall; from diabetes through to genocide.
If you're not using them to determine moral categories (and to separate things which are "part of God's plan from the beginning" from those who are "aberrations as a result of the fall") I don't see what this is telling you, practically speaking.
You seem to be saying "look, all things are screwed up, but no matter - God isn't interested in you following the original plan, he still upholds you even though you're clearly way, way off his original intention.."
It seems superfluous and pointless.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't think God originally intended for people of the same sex to be attracted to one another. Despite a lot of very courteous and patient disagreement expressed by others in DH, and a lot of soul-searching on my part, I just don't see it in Genesis.
The list of things you don't see in Genesis is vast and wide. You don't see internet message boards in Genesis for one thing. Do you think God "originally" intended us to communicate across such long distances?
Or fly? Were planes part of God's "original" intentions?
I appreciate your attempts to suggest we are in a modern world where the changes mean we can't get back to "the beginning". But you are still talking in ways that suggest "the beginning" was a perfect state**, and the issues that the modern world presents for your line of thinking are a heck of a lot wider than sexuality.
**Which, as I previously mentioned, I now find an extremely problematic idea after that podcast I listened to. After having my mind blown, I'm now in favour of the view that creation was intended to progress towards a state of completion. The Fall doesn't represent a loss of perfection, but a temporary deviation from the ideal path.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
**Which, as I previously mentioned, I now find an extremely problematic idea after that podcast I listened to. After having my mind blown, I'm now in favour of the view that creation was intended to progress towards a state of completion. The Fall doesn't represent a loss of perfection, but a temporary deviation from the ideal path.
Do you have a link? I can't find it based on the description you've given above.. sounds like it might be worth a listen
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
Slight tangent/
orfeo, can you tell me which episode of the Bible Project podcast you're referring to? I'd like to listen to it.
Thanks.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
You say:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Some, like Eutychus, believe the Fall has something to do with sexuality.
I have said no such thing.
Then you go on to say exactly such thing:
quote:
The disconnect between how things were "in the beginning" in Genesis and how things are now, commonly referred to by Christian theologians as "the Fall", is depicted as affecting our entire human condition - not exclusively or indeed predominantly our sexuality (although that obviously comes into it).
The "exclusively or indeed predominantly" is irrelevant as it wasn't part of what I said. A straw man if you're implying I did. What I said was pretty darned noncommittal: "Having something to do with" is about as mild a connection as one could hope for. Your "affecting" is stronger.
quote:
There is (or was) a view that (heterosexual) sex was the original sin, but this is a fringe view and not supported by the text. Your critique of what you imagine "the Fall" to be about is a huge misunderstanding of what reputable theologians say, and a gross misrepresentation of what I've said.
I'm not critiquing the Fall. I'm just saying that some people believe there was no sex before the Fall. I never said a mumbling word about sex causing the Fall. I've never even heard that theory; it's farther into ga-ga land than any theory I've ever heard about the Fall. I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote. I think you're reading into me something you saw somewhere else.
quote:
I don't think God originally intended for people of the same sex to be attracted to one another. Despite a lot of very courteous and patient disagreement expressed by others in DH, and a lot of soul-searching on my part, I just don't see it in Genesis.
There is very little in Genesis that reflects a scientific appreciation of in utero development, or the (amazingly) complex path by which our sex and sexuality are determined. So this isn't surprising. The writer of Genesis (or at least of this part) is as ignorant of all these things as the vast majority of people living now are. They're recent findings (relatively speaking) and run counter to thousands of years of prejudice and self-righteous hate.
But was this developmental pathway the same "in the beginning"? Did the events that determine chromosomal sex, genital sexual expression, gender identity, and sexuality come at a different time in gestational development, as they do now? Were there XXY females? Intersex people? People whose self understanding of their sexual identity didn't match their genitals? People whose genitals didn't match their chromosomes? Are these possibilities genetic mutations from an unfallen state in which everything "worked perfectly" to produce only XX and XY cishet genitally-unambiguous women and men?
The Bible doesn't say, does it?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
mr cheesy--
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I just don't understand how this understanding helps anything. According to that, loads of things are a result of the fall; from diabetes through to genocide.
Errr...IME, that's a traditional and common understanding of the Fall. *Everything* got messed up, even Nature. My current, personal view is that things aren't as they should be-- whether that's due to a literal Fall, evolutionary growing pains, or something else. (That's partly because I think God, if She exists, created everything, but I'm not sure *how*. Haven't seen Her blueprints--yet!)
quote:
You seem to be saying "look, all things are screwed up, but no matter - God isn't interested in you following the original plan, he still upholds you even though you're clearly way, way off his original intention.."
It seems superfluous and pointless.
The general idea (not specifically about homosexuality) is that God loves us, isn't giving up on us or the world, is working mightily to make things new, and well, and whole. And that Jesus, however you understand him, is a crucial part of that--even the catalyst.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I never said a mumbling word about sex causing the Fall. I've never even heard that theory; it's farther into ga-ga land than any theory I've ever heard about the Fall. I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote. I think you're reading into me something you saw somewhere else.
Well, given that what you quoted and responded to was in a response to lilBuddha ....
I have heard the idea that the serpent's temptation of Eve and Eve's temptation of Adam was somehow sexual in nature many times, usually from really uptight fundamentalists (of both Protestant and Catholic stripes). It's out there, both literally and figuratively.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Holy crap it is exhausting watching religious people wrangle over interpretations of obviously-made-up bullshit. Although it is amusing to recognize that a part of Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure seems to have superior functional moral utility over a supposedly sacred text.
Seriously folks, GENESIS is such a huge load of crap. Stop choking yourselves trying to swallow it whole.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
I don't agree that Genesis is a huge load of crap, though I would agree that there is real danger in trying to swallow it whole. Genesis is myth, in the proper sense of the word. There is truth and meaning there, I think, but it's rarely going to be found by taking the text literally.
Meanwhile, thanks for making me realize how long it's been since I've seen Bill & Ted. I need to watch it again.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I never said a mumbling word about sex causing the Fall. I've never even heard that theory; it's farther into ga-ga land than any theory I've ever heard about the Fall. I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote. I think you're reading into me something you saw somewhere else.
Well, given that what you quoted and responded to was in a response to lilBuddha ....
Indeed. Something I have appealed to higher authority to clarify before answering further.
Orfeo, add my name to the list of people wanting a link to the podcast.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I never said a mumbling word about sex causing the Fall. I've never even heard that theory; it's farther into ga-ga land than any theory I've ever heard about the Fall. I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote. I think you're reading into me something you saw somewhere else.
Well, given that what you quoted and responded to was in a response to lilBuddha ....
Yes that's how discussion here works. It's a round robin, not a dialogue.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
This does not explain your "I" in
quote:
The "exclusively or indeed predominantly" is irrelevant as it wasn't part of what I said.
when what was quoted was posted by lilbuddha.
Nor does it explain why you say quote:
What I said was pretty darned noncommittal: "Having something to do with"
when those words were posted by lilbuddha.
Nor again does it explain why you say quote:
I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote
when I was quite clearly responding to what lilbuddha wrote.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There is (or was) a view that (heterosexual) sex was the original sin, but this is a fringe view and not supported by the text. Your critique of what you imagine "the Fall" to be about is a huge misunderstanding of what reputable theologians say, and a gross misrepresentation of what I've said.
I think the idea that God's perfect plan was messed up by humans is farcical. There is no "original intent". That is my theology regarding "The Fall".
quote:
As I also said, I think God's archetype for sexual relations is heterosexual monogamy, and I missed the edit window at the time to add "for life".
However, human fallenness means that many of us do not match that archetype - and not just in the way you might think. Many who tick the "heterosexual-monogamous-for-life relationship" box may do so in such a way as to make that relationship an abomination (spousal abuse springs to mind).
The good news is that while fallenness is a fact of life - we are all less than ideal
"Hey, I don't return library books and you fuck other women. Nobody's perfect".
No matter how nicely you couch it, you are putting homosexuality¹ in the bin labelled "Fucked up".
You do not apply an malice towards it, and that is very good. It still is a negative POV.
¹And all the other "non-standard" sexualities
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I don't agree that Genesis is a huge load of crap, though I would agree that there is real danger in trying to swallow it whole. Genesis is myth, in the proper sense of the word. There is truth and meaning there, I think, but it's rarely going to be found by taking the text literally.
Origin myths are are broad vehicles that have tangential contact with the Road to Reality.²
They are not blueprints, instruction manual or history books.
²Originally a Bob Hope and Bing Crosby film script. Never got passed the development stage.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes that's how discussion here works. It's a round robin, not a dialogue.
It is a round robin game of Chinese whispers/telephone.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This does not explain your "I" in
quote:
The "exclusively or indeed predominantly" is irrelevant as it wasn't part of what I said.
when what was quoted was posted by lilbuddha.
In response to what I said. Did you miss that?
quote:
Nor does it explain why you say quote:
What I said was pretty darned noncommittal: "Having something to do with"
when those words were posted by lilbuddha.
My mistake.
quote:
Nor again does it explain why you say quote:
I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote
when I was quite clearly responding to what lilbuddha wrote.
Who was responding to what I wrote.
A round robin, not a dialogue. As I said.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is a round robin game of Chinese whispers/telephone.
Can't argue with that.
[ 29. May 2017, 16:42: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Well I find it odd, to say the least, that you identify so wholeheartedly with words posted by lilbuddha to have owned them not once but three times, to the extent of taking the trouble of defending the exact words she posted as though they were what you posted, but determining exactly what mistake was made is above my pay grade.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Seriously folks, GENESIS is such a huge load of crap. Stop choking yourselves trying to swallow it whole.
OK, fine, let's start an alternative universe without the book of Genesis and see what sort of underpinning of society you come up with. Albania under Hoxha, perhaps?
Besides, Genesis is my favourite band.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well I find it odd, to say the least, that you identify so wholeheartedly with words posted by lilbuddha to have owned them not once but three times, to the extent of taking the trouble of defending the exact words she posted as though they were what you posted, but determining exactly what mistake was made is above my pay grade.
What?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I have heard the idea that the serpent's temptation of Eve and Eve's temptation of Adam was somehow sexual in nature many times, usually from really uptight fundamentalists (of both Protestant and Catholic stripes). It's out there, both literally and figuratively.
Cf. the Serpent Seed doctrine, as espoused notably by William Branham.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Cf. the Serpent Seed doctrine, as espoused notably by William Branham.
Holy cow that's messed up.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I don't agree that Genesis is a huge load of crap, though I would agree that there is real danger in trying to swallow it whole. Genesis is myth, in the proper sense of the word. There is truth and meaning there, I think, but it's rarely going to be found by taking the text literally.
Origin myths are are broad vehicles that have tangential contact with the Road to Reality.²
They are not blueprints, instruction manual or history books.
²Originally a Bob Hope and Bing Crosby film script. Never got passed the development stage.
To a point, I agree. But leaving aside that there's a lot more to the myth told in Genesis than origin myth, and that there's such wide variety in origin myths that their contact with reality* also varies, there's a lot of possibility between "load of crap" and "not blueprints, instruction manual or history book."
* I never could stand Bob Hope and Bing Crosby. I found their movies to be a special form of Hell.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Do we really have to interpret Genesis as a blueprint for everything? It's obviously an attempt to explain how the world got be the way it is: a sort of Bronze Age Just So Stories - with about the same level of accuracy. Does that mean that it is really a blueprint?
Genesis contains so many other stories other than the creation stories, Adam and Eve and the Fall: Cain and Abel, Noah's Ark, Abram/Abraham and all the stories around him, Lot's wife, Sodom and Gomorrah, Isaac, Esau and Jacob, Jacob's sons including Joseph. Do we really regard these stories all as blueprints? Some read to me as Awful Warnings™. And with stories of that era, the stories will be about the human truths told, not necessarily the accurate historical truth.
As the Bible was written through human agency, so the human truths that were told will be based on that particular Bronze Age society's view of perfection, from their world view. Does that really mean we have to continue with a morality based on a Bronze Age world view?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think the idea that God's perfect plan was messed up by humans is farcical.
I think God's perfect plan was messed up by evil. quote:
"Hey, I don't return library books and you fuck other women. Nobody's perfect".
That would apply only if I thought of myself as being morally superior by virtue of being straight. Which I don't (or at least try not to).
quote:
No matter how nicely you couch it, you are putting homosexuality in the bin labelled "Fucked up".
No, this is what you really don't get. I'm putting humanity, including you and me both (and all human sexuality for that matter, along with everything else) in the bin labelled "Fucked up"¹.
I don't think heterosexuals have a better chance of achieving "unfucked-upness" than gays; it's just that not all their imperfections or shortcomings are the same.
The fact is though that many christians seem to fail to notice straight people's fucked-upness quite as much as they do gay peoples', a fact of which I am ashamed on behalf of my faith².
¹Romans 3:23. Fortunately followed by 3:24. What you're really missing in your perspective is the concept of God's response to fucked-upness, aka grace. It makes all the difference
²Footnotes are cool.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think the idea that God's perfect plan was messed up by humans is farcical.
I think God's perfect plan was messed up by evil.
No substantive difference.
You missed the significance of the emphasis of perfect. If anything messed it up, it was not perfect.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm putting humanity, including you and me both (and all human sexuality for that matter, along with everything else) in the bin labelled "Fucked up"
This does not change that your theology states that monogamous hetero is the "ideal". This still puts all others as less than. Whilst you put no onus on failing to be perfect, it is still connected to the less inclusive and more hateful manifestations. A tree is nourished even by its smallest roots.
[ 29. May 2017, 18:02: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Seriously folks, GENESIS is such a huge load of crap. Stop choking yourselves trying to swallow it whole.
OK, fine, let's start an alternative universe without the book of Genesis and see what sort of underpinning of society you come up with. Albania under Hoxha, perhaps?
Wait, I thought democracy was a product of the multi-god, pederast Greeks.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Cf. the Serpent Seed doctrine, as espoused notably by William Branham.
Holy cow that's messed up.
Tangentially, here's a bunch of people crying out for an MW visit. (You have to admire a group of strict predestinarians setting up a church called Little Hope Baptist Church).
And now, back to your scheduled argument.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No substantive difference.
Well, if you're going to lay into the Christian doctrine of the Fall, better to get your facts straight ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:
You missed the significance of the emphasis of perfect. If anything messed it up, it was not perfect.
Hoist by my using your terms. I would probably not have talked in terms of "perfect", which to my mind conjours up the rather creepy images one sees on the front cover of Jehovah's Witness magazines and will if we're not careful get us back to speculating about vegetarian lions.
The biblical word is "good". I might spring for "morally innocent" or some such. Whatever; it's gone, man.
quote:
your theology states that monogamous hetero is the "ideal"
Again, that would not be my word of choice; I prefer the term "archetype". Wikipedia tells me that this literally means "original pattern from which copies are made", which strikes me as being an excellent description of Adam and Eve.
The Garden of Eden and its unfucked-upness are long gone, but Adam and Eve remain as an archetype in the literal sense that it is from this union of male and female that copies (i.e. babies) are still made. For human life (which is what Genesis is all about), that union is the biological blueprint.
As such I don't think it's surprising that male-plus-female pairings have become an archetype in the Jungian sense. They are "how it was in the beginning". I suppose one might call that "biologically ideal" in the sense that it perpetuates the species ("biological privilege?").
And the fact is that this biological archetype isn't going anywhere soon. Even if alternatives are just around the corner, they will always be more complex than what orfeo daintily and memorably referred to on another thread as "a bit of heavy breathing round the back of the bike shed".
However, this biological reality does not confer moral superiority. You can hardly condemn Genesis for stating the obvious facts of life (or imagine you can improve morals by glossing over them).
As to monogamy, I'd say that faithfulness to a partner is a virtue regardless of orientation. YMMV.
[ 29. May 2017, 19:10: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
The Chinese had a pretty amazing and vibrant culture not based on Genesis for hundreds of years, before an import from the based-on-Genesis western world, Marxism, came and screwed it up.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Of course there are examples of thriving cultures that have done without Genesis. It was a cheap shot in retort to a cheap shot. Unless of course you are moving to redefine the Christian canon to exclude it?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The Garden of Eden and its unfucked-upness are long gone, but Adam and Eve remain as an archetype in the literal sense that it is from this union of male and female that copies (i.e. babies) are still made. For human life (which is what Genesis is all about), that union is the biological blueprint.
As such I don't think it's surprising that male-plus-female pairings have become an archetype in the Jungian sense. They are "how it was in the beginning". I suppose one might call that "biologically ideal" in the sense that it perpetuates the species ("biological privilege?").
1. Given that there are now 7 trillion of us and counting, and we're having a hard time managing food and a decent life for the people we already have, is it "biologically ideal" anymore? One might say that non-productive pairings are in fact to be preferred at this stage in the human story.
2. This carries a strong undercurrent that reproducing is what we're about. A weird straw-grasp to incorporate Dawkins' "selfish gene" into the Christian story to make us little more than species perpetuators. I know there are some who believe the only righteous purpose of sex is babies², and use both Genesis and Jesus' divorce discourse to back that view. But if that view is rejected, then Adam and Eve not being Adam and Steve really has no sociological significance.
ETA:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Of course there are examples of thriving cultures that have done without Genesis. It was a cheap shot in retort to a cheap shot. Unless of course you are moving to redefine the Christian canon to exclude it?
Huh? What does that have to do with anything said thus far in this thread?
____
²I know you're not in that camp²²
²²I don't know how to make the 1.
[ 29. May 2017, 19:19: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Coding¹ is easy
code:
¹
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Thanks, Curiosity killed...
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Given that there are now 7 trillion of us and counting
I suggest you step back from your computer and do a recount... quote:
and we're having a hard time managing food and a decent life for the people we already have
AIUI, that is (so far) a problem of distribution rather than of insufficient resources. But that's another thread. quote:
is it "biologically ideal" anymore?
I said "biologically", not ethically. The fact is that there ain't no better way of perpetuating the species. Whether that needs to be done without limitation is another question.
quote:
This carries a strong undercurrent that reproducing is what we're about.
If the human race ceases to reproduce altogether, we will not be here at all. Again, you can argue that if you're so inclined, but it sounds about as weird to me as the Serpent Seed doctrine. quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Of course there are examples of thriving cultures that have done without Genesis. It was a cheap shot in retort to a cheap shot. Unless of course you are moving to redefine the Christian canon to exclude it?
Huh? What does that have to do with anything said thus far in this thread?
My jibe was in response to one by RooK. You seem to have thought it was an invitation to find reasons to diss the value of Genesis. If you think its main contribution is to fuel Marxism and thus upset the Chinese, I'm intrigued as to why you aren't moving to have it removed from the canon.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Given that there are now 7 trillion of us and counting
I suggest you step back from your computer and do a recount...
Sorry, 7.5.
quote:
If the human race ceases to reproduce altogether,
Straw man.
quote:
My jibe was in response to one by RooK. You seem to have thought it was an invitation to find reasons to diss the value of Genesis.
Uh, no, that's not what I was doing. I was showing that there are vibrant cultures that are not based on Genesis other than Albania under Hoxha. You seem to take the "value of Genesis" very personally.
quote:
If you think its main contribution is to fuel Marxism and thus upset the Chinese,
Straw man.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I still don't understand how you're arguing that Sarah and James aren't somehow closer to the Eden ideal and/or God's plan for humanity than Sarah and Jane. All other things being equal, aren't heterosexuals in at least one way fulfilling the plan whereas homosexuals clearly cannot whatever they do?
To me this feels like you're saying to a gay person "look, I'm sorry about your sexuality - something got messed up by the fall, and fortunately I've somehow missed getting what you've got. I'm no better than you are, but the fact still remains that you're living proof of the fall in a way that I'm not".
Why even say that? Why not stick to the internal spiritual stuff; we're all messed up inside, it isn't just you or you or you - it is part of the human condition. Nothing to do with external stuff, nothing about your skin colour, your clothing choices, your hairstyle, foot size, sexuality or disability. Those are all things you can do nothing about, but God doesn't look at those things, he's interested in the heart.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Sorry, 7.5.
7.5 what again?
quote:
quote:
If the human race ceases to reproduce altogether,
Straw man
It's not a straw man. The fact is that a male and a female can reproduce without further assistance. This does not equate to moral superiority or ethical necessity (it might well entail some responsibility, though...) but it is a biological capability not shared by other pairings. If you want to prove it's morally or ethically inferior, then you need to make your case.
quote:
quote:
If you think its main contribution is to fuel Marxism and thus upset the Chinese,
Straw man.
So out of curiosity, what do you think the benefits of Genesis are? What are we supposed to draw from it?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Sorry, 7.5.
7.5 what again?
Billion, sorry. That should give you an ego boost. You seem to enjoy winning more than seeking truth.
quote:
quote:
quote:
If the human race ceases to reproduce altogether,
Straw man
It's not a straw man.
Do you know what a straw man is? It's presenting or refuting something as if it is your opponent's position. It is not my position that the human race can or should stop reproducing altogether. So it's a straw man.
quote:
quote:
quote:
If you think its main contribution is to fuel Marxism and thus upset the Chinese,
Straw man.
So out of curiosity, what do you think the benefits of Genesis are? What are we supposed to draw from it?
Why does it matter what I think? Do you want me to give my opinion so you can craft another straw man from it and drag the discussion even further off course?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I still don't understand how you're arguing that Sarah and James aren't somehow closer to the Eden ideal and/or God's plan for humanity than Sarah and Jane. All other things being equal, aren't heterosexuals in at least one way fulfilling the plan whereas homosexuals clearly cannot whatever they do?
Confused. Are you arguing the point of this paragraph or against it? Your next paragraph seems to refute it.
If for it, my response is: Which plan? Reproducing? Is that God's plan for humankind, reproducing? What a dull God. Why even send Jesus if all we have to do is squeeze out babies?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I still don't understand how you're arguing that Sarah and James aren't somehow closer to the Eden ideal and/or God's plan for humanity than Sarah and Jane.
I think both couples might reflect different bits of his plan - and/or of human "fallenness". quote:
All other things being equal
There's the rub, though: they aren't. A few posts up I coined the term "biological privilege". Like lots of other forms of privilege, people tend to confuse privilege with moral superiority, which is a mistake. I need to think some more about this.
It strikes me that the issue of whether biologically reproducing is inherently, morally, ethically important to us as a species and the extent to which social change impacts this, in particular, deserves more thought than I believe this Hell thread can allow.
quote:
aren't heterosexuals in at least one way fulfilling the plan whereas homosexuals clearly cannot whatever they do?
I had to think about this one too, and I think the answer is no, they aren't, not automatically. They might enjoy various forms of privilege but they're not "fulfilling the plan" merely by virtue of being straight, getting married, or having children.
quote:
To me this feels like you're saying to a gay person "look, I'm sorry about your sexuality - something got messed up by the fall, and fortunately I've somehow missed getting what you've got. I'm no better than you are, but the fact still remains that you're living proof of the fall in a way that I'm not".
The rightness or wrongness of sexuality is to do with a whole lot more than gay or straight. And I'm doubtless living proof of the fall in a way you're not. "Getting what you've got"? I don't think sexual orientation is a disease.
quote:
Why even say that? Why not stick to the internal spiritual stuff; we're all messed up inside, it isn't just you or you or you - it is part of the human condition. Nothing to do with external stuff, nothing about your skin colour, your clothing choices, your hairstyle, foot size, sexuality or disability. Those are all things you can do nothing about, but God doesn't look at those things, he's interested in the heart.
I probably would say something much along those lines; but not if I was responding to Steve Langton.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Confused. Are you arguing the point of this paragraph or against it? Your next paragraph seems to refute it.
I'm trying to understand Eutychus' position, as he seems to be both saying that homosexuality is a result of the fall and that it doesn't really matter.
quote:
If for it, my response is: Which plan? Reproducing? Is that God's plan for humankind, reproducing? What a dull God. Why even send Jesus if all we have to do is squeeze out babies?
The more I think about it, the less I believe that our physical existence is fallen. I just don't see it in the environment; it doesn't look like something bodged together or that has become corrupted from a previous ideal.
The general weirdness we see in nature looks less like a fault and more like an intentional feature to me.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It is not my position that the human race can or should stop reproducing altogether. So it's a straw man.
quote:
One might say that non-productive pairings are in fact to be preferred at this stage in the human story.
Go for it. Spell out how this works and how it is decided who gets the "non-preferred" role of breeders.
Reproducing might not be "all we're about" but without it, we're nothing at all. How do you solve this conundrum? See my musings on biological reproduction in my previous post. This seems pretty central to me.
quote:
Do you want me to give my opinion so you can craft another straw man from it and drag the discussion even further off course?
No, I wish you'd have let me respond to RooK's jibe without further comment. I was stupid to rise to the bait. Happy now? You seem to enjoy winning more than seeking truth.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The rightness or wrongness of sexuality is to do with a whole lot more than gay or straight. And I'm doubtless living proof of the fall in a way you're not. "Getting what you've got"? I don't think sexual orientation is a disease.
You said some interesting things that I need to think some more about. But this point stood out: I think you absolutely are saying that sexual orientation is a disease. You're saying it in different terms, but fairly obviously if it is suboptimal and a result of the fall - then it is something that wasn't intended and is therefore a kind of disease.
I can't think of anything else where we'd say that one was in a particular suboptimal situation that wasn't the intent which isn't somehow a form of disease.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Go argue with some people on the autism spectrum.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Autism seems to me to be a medical condition. Is it not?
I was thinking maybe poor eyesight isn't a disease on account of having technology which can correct it. Maybe something stops being a condition/disease/illness when the person who has it is able to control it to the extent of it having no lasting impact on their lives.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
But maybe therein is the difference between a negative result of the fall on one hand, and homosexuality on the other if we're really needing that kind of language.
Fairly obviously the latter doesn't need any correcting.
True, the human race wouldn't survive if everyone was a homosexual. But then the human race wouldn't survive if everyone was a prison chaplain. I'm not sure why this is such a philosophical problem to overcome.
The question is not whether reproducing is bad (clearly it isn't) but whether not-reproducing is inherently bad/fallen. I don't think the latter idea follows from the former.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Not a medical condition, but a mental condition, 'present from early childhood, characterized by great difficulty in communicating and forming relationships with other people, and in using language and abstract concepts.'
(A local fundamentalist church got into trouble with the Advertising Standards Agency by claiming to be able to 'cure' autism, as though it were a physical illness.)
IJ
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
At the risk of derailing this thread still further, I recall previous Hell debates where people on the autistic spectrum vigorously defended their identity as not being a condition, disorder, etc. I can't remember the preferred term but there was one.
quote:
True, the human race wouldn't survive if everyone was a homosexual. But then the human race wouldn't survive if everyone was a prison chaplain. I'm not sure why this is such a philosophical problem to overcome.
Because the latter is a temporary role while sexual orientation is a central, immutable component of one's identity (at least for some people), and heterosexual intercourse is bound up to some extent with survival of the species in a way prison chaplaincy is not.
But I have run out of brain cells for now (I have already had enough of prison cells for one day as it happens).
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Because the latter is a temporary role while sexual orientation is a central, immutable component of one's identity (at least for some people), and heterosexual intercourse is bound up to some extent with survival of the species in a way prison chaplaincy is not.
Sorry, I wasn't meaning for that to be a personal remark, I clearly could have used anything there. The point being that we actually need a range of people doing a range of things for the community to survive, and any community where everyone only does one thing isn't going to continue for long.
Yes, of course I understand about making babies. But society is more than the ability of every member within it to reproduce, surely. Do we not need a complex range of people with a range of reproductive abilities, just like we need a range of people with other abilities?
A society made up of people over 90 isn't going to reproduce. But we wouldn't say that people over 90 are therefore somehow "bad" on a whole societal level because they can't reproduce, would we?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The question is not whether reproducing is bad (clearly it isn't) but whether not-reproducing is inherently bad/fallen. I don't think the latter idea follows from the former.
Elaborating on this point:
Apparently after the resurrection there will be no marriage or giving in marriage.
Jesus does not elaborate on the implications for sexuality or reproduction.
[ 29. May 2017, 21:03: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
A society made up of people over 90 isn't going to reproduce. But we wouldn't say that people over 90 are therefore somehow "bad" on a whole societal level because they can't reproduce, would we?
They're a result of the fall, clearly. Before the fall, EVERYBODY could reproduce.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Go for it. Spell out how this works and how it is decided who gets the "non-preferred" role of breeders.
Reproducing might not be "all we're about" but without it, we're nothing at all. How do you solve this conundrum? See my musings on biological reproduction in my previous post. This seems pretty central to me.
There's no need for me to solve it. There are breeders and there are non-breeders. I don't throw those dice. I don't see why you think we should have some kind of externally decided choosing.
The human race doesn't seem to be in any imminent or long-term danger of ceasing to reproduce at replacement levels or better. Do you see any indications of such a thing that I am missing?
quote:
You seem to enjoy winning more than seeking truth.
Well aren't you the clever parrot.
[ 29. May 2017, 21:07: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Of course there are examples of thriving cultures that have done without Genesis. It was a cheap shot in retort to a cheap shot. Unless of course you are moving to redefine the Christian canon to exclude it?
I don't think it was a cheap shot. Hyperbolic overload, perhaps, but containing an essential point. The Bible isn't an instruction manual and it wasn't written by God. Even looking at it as inspired by God, here is a load of material that was apologetic in nature.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
However, this biological reality does not confer moral superiority.
It is not a biological reality. One, it is a categorical misunderstand of the way evolution works.
Two, there is a solid body of evidence to suggest having homosexuality as part of a set of behaviours is an evolutionary advantage for many species. Including humans.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
They're a result of the fall, clearly. Before the fall, EVERYBODY could reproduce.
Oh yes, durr.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
At the risk of derailing this thread still further, I recall previous Hell debates where people on the autistic spectrum vigorously defended their identity as not being a condition, disorder, etc. I can't remember the preferred term but there was one.
Neuro-atypical, perhaps?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
As the Genesis story, it was all blow jobs and masturbation before the Fall. The snake is symbolic of Adam's penis, and the problem is that Eve bit Adam's left nut for which the apple is symbol. This was not enjoyed by the ever-watching God.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
As the Genesis story, it was all blow jobs and masturbation before the Fall. The snake is symbolic of Adam's penis, and the problem is that Eve bit Adam's left nut for which the apple is symbol. This was not enjoyed by the ever-watching God.
I could really enjoy sermons at your church, I think.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
mr cheesy--
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The more I think about it, the less I believe that our physical existence is fallen. I just don't see it in the environment; it doesn't look like something bodged together or that has become corrupted from a previous ideal.
Things that would qualify for my previously mentioned idea of fallen as either evolutionary growing pains or something like the Genesis Fall:
--Parasitic wasps, and other horrors in the insect world (which would probably make Stephen King run away screaming);
--Creatures which eat their mates and/or young;
--Life feeding off death by actively causing death, not just waiting for something to die;
--Strangler figs;
--Sexual assault and rape among animals;
--Diseases.
Those are just a few.
quote:
The general weirdness we see in nature looks less like a fault and more like an intentional feature to me.
For me, that depends on the kind of weirdness. The things I mentioned just above are faults, IMHO. But there are all sorts of other wild and wonderful weirdness:
--Dung beetles use the Milky Way for navigation (Mental Floss)
--Extremophiles, which are creatures that live and thrive in extreme conditions, where life shouldn't be possible;
--Animals that change gender when their group don't have enough of a particular gender;
--Deep-sea creatures that provide their own light;
--Butterflies;
--Trees communicate with each other via their roots and a fungal network, and "Dying Trees Can Send Food to Neighbors of Different Species" (Scientific American).
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
My, this is exciting. The conversation has really taken off WITHOUT the couple of utterly tiresome people who made the whole thing deeply sour.
Anyway, just popping in to say I will post more podcast info when I'm home this evening.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Things that would qualify for my previously mentioned idea of fallen as either evolutionary growing pains or something like the Genesis Fall:
--Parasitic wasps, and other horrors in the insect world (which would probably make Stephen King run away screaming);
--Creatures which eat their mates and/or young;
--Life feeding off death by actively causing death, not just waiting for something to die;
--Strangler figs;
--Sexual assault and rape among animals;
--Diseases.
Those are just a few.
About the only thing I would agree with you are (a) viruses and (b) diseases
Even these are not hard to see as a feature rather than a mistake.
quote:
For me, that depends on the kind of weirdness. The things I mentioned just above are faults, IMHO.
Almost none of those are faults. Talk to a biologist about whether there is anything positive about them or whether they just look like something corrupted.
quote:
But there are all sorts of other wild and wonderful weirdness:
--Dung beetles use the Milky Way for navigation (Mental Floss)
--Extremophiles, which are creatures that live and thrive in extreme conditions, where life shouldn't be possible;
--Animals that change gender when their group don't have enough of a particular gender;
--Deep-sea creatures that provide their own light;
--Butterflies;
--Trees communicate with each other via their roots and a fungal network, and "Dying Trees Can Send Food to Neighbors of Different Species" (Scientific American).
I don't accept your divisions between "weirdness" and "results of the fall". Totally bogus.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
About the only thing I would agree with you are (a) viruses and (b) diseases
Even these are not hard to see as a feature rather than a mistake.
(snip)
Almost none of those are faults. Talk to a biologist about whether there is anything positive about them or whether they just look like something corrupted.
(snip)
I don't accept your divisions between "weirdness" and "results of the fall". Totally bogus.
Well, I did say that it could be evolutionary growing pains.
As to features, and whether or not a biologist would say that something positive comes from what I call "faults":
ISTM that the faults that involve cruelty. Something positive does come from them--for the victor/perpetrator. The parasitic wasp's babies have a ready food source, but...
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
The things I consider to be wild and wonderful weirdness are things that, AFAIK and AIUI, don't involve cruelty. (Though I don't know what the gender switch is like for the animals that do it.)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Doing the posting equivalent of thinking out loud a little...²
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yes, of course I understand about making babies. But society is more than the ability of every member within it to reproduce, surely. Do we not need a complex range of people with a range of reproductive abilities, just like we need a range of people with other abilities?
A society made up of people over 90 isn't going to reproduce. But we wouldn't say that people over 90 are therefore somehow "bad" on a whole societal level because they can't reproduce, would we?
I’ve been arguing all along that things are no longer as they were “in the beginning”.
One of the things that is clearly different is that we have society now.
In the Eden narrative, the world population is depicted as two. This narrative is at once an account of our origins and an account of why the world is in a mess.
I’m beginning to think that a lot of the problems lie in untangling those two strands.
Matters are not helped by Genesis 2:24, at the heart of our debate quote:
Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh
being an interpolation into the Eden narrative, and thus being right on the boundary between the first outlines of social order that we still recognise today and an unrecoverable "warm, trembling, iridescent pool of... pre-Adamite consciousness¹".
Be all that as it may, I still can’t get away from the necessity of male and female to perpetuate the species:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
However, this biological reality does not confer moral superiority.
It is not a biological reality.
I just don't get this line of argument. How is it not a biological reality that only a man and a woman can produce a baby without any outside intervention?
Of course there is more to society than breeding couples, but once again, there is no society without that. Other statuses and practices (including singlehood) may be important for society, but they can't perpetuate the human species. That is not a moral assertion but a scientific one.
==
¹CS Lewis, That Hideous Strength. I think Lewis might be part of my personal canon of Scripture...
²This has already taken me about an hour to come up with, and I'm still not satisfied with the result. Subject to review as time allows.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Society certainly could/would go on without 'breeding couples' - we have the technology. Technology which arose, one could argue, because humans are so good at society.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Be all that as it may, I still can’t get away from the necessity of male and How is it not a biological reality that only a man and a woman can produce a baby without any outside intervention?
Of course there is more to society than breeding couples, but once again, there is no society without that. Other statuses and practices (including singlehood) may be important for society, but they can't perpetuate the human species. That is not a moral assertion but a scientific one.
No. Don't bring "science" into this. That's one huge red herring.
Nobody is arguing that there is society without breeding - if there are, I've never heard of them.
Perpetuating the species is not only to do with the individual who can reproduce. Meercats share the parenting of the young. Not all of them can reproduce. Bees have a single individual who does all the reproducing.
It doesn't follow that all the meercats or bees who are not reproducing or not able to reproduce are somehow inferior - of fallen - members of that society. Indeed, the society wouldn't function at all without all those non-breeders.
Human societies have always included members who have not been able to breed. That doesn't, hasn't made them any less important. And that includes a significant number of gay people - who have not been breeding, but have nonetheless brought many things for the betterment of society and humanity.
There is absolutely no sense that a non-breeding human is somehow less important than a breeding human. This is nonsense.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is absolutely no sense that a non-breeding human is somehow less important than a breeding human.
If by important you mean of moral value, then of course not. But you are not going to have any humans at all if you start with non-breeders.
And that it seems to me is why Eden is depicted as having Adam and Eve, and a commandment to go forth and multiply.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If by important you mean of moral value, then of course not. But you are not going to have any humans at all if you start with non-breeders.
And that it seems to me is why Eden is depicted as having Adam and Eve, and a commandment to go forth and multiply.
OK. If one really must try to read things into the Genesis myth, it is true that we wouldn't be here if Adam and Eve had not been able to breed.
I don't see what that has to do with anything wrt whether homosexuals are part of fallen nature.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
No-one bred Adam and Eve.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
No, but origins (mouseover text seems appropriate, too).
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
PODCAST
Right, so the thing I'm wittering on about is called "The Bible Project".
The main podcast page of their website, linking to audio, is here. Alternatively the page linking to iTunes etc is here.
They also do other things such as (much shorter) YouTube videos which I haven't actually looked at, even though the podcast episodes are described as companions to those videos. So keep in mind that's a shorter option.
If you want the super-duper, long form version I listened to, of a whole bunch of stuff about what the point of human beings and the creation of Earth is, there are 2 topics:
1. Heaven & Earth (3 episodes)
2. The Image of God (3 episodes)
Episodes are generally around 40 minutes long.
However, if you want to zoom in on what I felt was the most crucial bit of the argument that the world was not "perfect" before The Fall, I believe this was found in The Image of God Part 2.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
No, but origins (mouseover text seems appropriate, too).
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
To me this feels like you're saying to a gay person "look, I'm sorry about your sexuality - something got messed up by the fall, and fortunately I've somehow missed getting what you've got. I'm no better than you are, but the fact still remains that you're living proof of the fall in a way that I'm not".
If I may leap to Eutychus's defence, although I understand how it sounds like that, I can see how that's not what he's saying.
As an illustration, rather than looking 'back' to Genesis, there's the example of Jesus being asked to look forward into the next age, when he's asked about marriage, and, if a woman marries a bunch of brothers, which will she be married to in the afterlife.
Jesus' response is essentially that the question is a category error. It won't work like that, and we can't understand it.
Now, we could take Jesus words to mean that human marriages don't matter, because in 'heaven', they won't be there any more. But most people don't do that. They take marriages very seriously, and what the status of the marriage is in the afterlife doesn't affect the importance of marriage now.
That's similar to how I read Eutychus's words. He's saying the same kind of thing that Jesus was saying in that passage. In answer to the question "If the archetypal relationship in Eden was heterosexual, does that nullify, or at least lessen the status of homosexual relationships now?", his answer is similarly, 'category error'. The universe of 'Eden', like the universe of 'The Age to Come' is so different to the universe of Now, that it's a nonsensical question.
I dunno if I agree with him. I'm not a big fan of 'Fall' theology, but I can see what he's saying. And I don't think that his view lessens homosexual relationships.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
Thanks orfeo! I'll give them a listen.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
If I may leap to Eutychus's defence, although I understand how it sounds like that, I can see how that's not what he's saying.
Yes, thank you, it's really encouraging to see someone at least able to reformulate what I've been trying to say
ETA: Nick (and everyone else), to save you 30 minutes of your life, the relevant bit starts 30 minutes into part 2. I found what followed that point to be far more germane than what went before.
[ 30. May 2017, 11:34: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
if you want to zoom in on what I felt was the most crucial bit of the argument that the world was not "perfect" before The Fall, I believe this was found in The Image of God Part 2.
Thanks for this - as noted above, the relevant part starts at around the 30-minute mark.
I'm not sure there was much that was new to my ears here, but it did offer some interesting ways forward.
- Before listening to this, I was already saying (to lilbuddha) that my preferred word for Eden was "good" rather than "perfect". The podcast articulated some more good reasons for doing so.
- While the podcast may mark a useful shift in emphasis for those Christians brought up in an atmosphere of constant condemnation¹ to a perspective of seeing the world as a potential place for good to happen, it by no means abandons the concept of the "Fall".
(Indeed, I think their take in this respect very much resembles mine as stated here).
- one line of thought it did throw up for me was the distinction drawn between the "Fall" as a moral failure on the part of humankind with respect to God and the idea of the "Fall" also being some all-creation-impacting-earthquake-provoking-earth-tilting-lion-devegetarianising event - which led to the further thought that perhaps the "gay-creating" narrative might be part of the latter perspective, and not the former...
I'll admit to this distinction being an area that's not very clear in my mind as yet.
It seems to me that "Fall" extends, at least indirectly, beyond simply "man rebelled against God": affecting relationships, and with at least some physical consequences - that certainly seems to be the implication in the post-Fall curse, and the way Paul sees creation groaning in Romans 8:20-21 suggests at least knock-on effects on the wider world. More thought required in this respect - another post I'm not entirely satisfied with.
=
¹As an aside, I'm sure our different backgrounds go some way to explaining our various takes, and also our various epidermic reactions, to this topic.
[ 30. May 2017, 12:38: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
=
¹As an aside, I'm sure our different backgrounds go some way to explaining our various takes, and also our various epidermic reactions, to this topic.
The epidermis is the outer layer of cells, or skin, of a living organism. So what is an epidermic reaction?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
A mistranslation. Read: instinctive.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Another thing I don't really understand about the fall; if the assumption is that everything is broken, then I don't understand how one can have any trust in anything.
Calvinists sometimes go on about absolute depravity (which I know is sometimes mischaracterised by critics), but surely if the whole of nature is corrupted, knocked off beam, subtly (or not so subtly) screwed - then surely humanity wouldn't be able to ever do anything right. Everything we touched would turn to shit, wouldn't it?
I'm sure we can talk here about God's grace, but if it is argued that it is God's grace which allows genocidical maniacs to (sometimes) do good things, then we appear to be arguing that "the fall" is not, in fact, a done deal and that humanity is not, in fact, incapable of doing anything good. Does it not then follow that nature cannot be good for humanity? That mankind ought to only face hostility from the broken environment in which we find ourselves?
It seems like you're saying that the fall threw up all kinds of unwanted stuff - including homosexuality - but it isn't really that bad and by grace we can see the good in it.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The Fall™ doesn't mean we can't ever do anything good, it means that we have "fallen out" ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
with God and none of the good we do can in and of itself restore that relationship. We elect to play God ourselves (that's the take on the podcast - have you listened to it?). Since we are in his image, we are still capable of good - but not capable of doing good alone.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It seems like you're saying that the fall threw up all kinds of unwanted stuff - including homosexuality - but it isn't really that bad and by grace we can see the good in it.
I wouldn't use precisely those words - I might want to add "including naff heterosexual relations", for a start - but I think that's pretty much where I'm at, yes.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Calvinists sometimes go on about absolute depravity (which I know is sometimes mischaracterised by critics), but surely if the whole of nature is corrupted, knocked off beam, subtly (or not so subtly) screwed - then surely humanity wouldn't be able to ever do anything right. Everything we touched would turn to shit, wouldn't it?
It's total depravity, not absolute depravity. And in this context, "total" means "all-pervasive," not "complete," and "depravity" is probably closer to "infected" than "depraved."
It doesn't mean that all of nature is corrupt; it means that there is no part of human nature that isn't touched, however slightly, by the effects of sinfulness. Nor does it mean that everything we touch turns to shit. It means that even when we do good—even when we do really good—our motives and actions are tainted in some way by sin, such as concern for self (not unlike psychological egoism.)
In other words, it means that there is no aspect of our lives where we don't need the grace of God. That's the point of total depravity.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Most sex is non-reproductive. It is about enhancing pair-bonds, ergo love, between people. It makes no difference the gender of the lovers, so long as there's mutuality of pleasure and love. -- which summarizes my full understanding. The only warning about sex is not to manipulate, deceive nor exploit.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The Fall™ doesn't mean we can't ever do anything good, it means that we have "fallen out" with God and none of the good we do can in and of itself restore that relationship. We elect to play God ourselves (that's the take on the podcast - have you listened to it?). Since we are in his image, we are still capable of good - but not capable of doing good alone.
Yes, I listened to it all but dozed until the bit that you mentioned above. Even that didn't seem all that surprising to me.
I can understand your other comments above if we were only talking about a spiritual fall. But you seem to be wedded to the idea that the whole of nature fell. I don't understand what that means if there is included in that idea a bunch of nature that isn't fallen.
Surely it is either fallen or not. It is either infected with the virus of fallenness or it isn't. How can it be a bit or indescriminately fallen?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It seems like you're saying that the fall threw up all kinds of unwanted stuff - including homosexuality - but it isn't really that bad and by grace we can see the good in it.
I wouldn't use precisely those words - I might want to add "including naff heterosexual relations", for a start - but I think that's pretty much where I'm at, yes.
I still just can't get arms around this idea of yours, it seems nonsensical. First you say there is this thing called the fall, which means everything we see is suboptimal. Not as intended.
Next you say that homosexuality is part of that; it wasn't the original intention, it wasn't what God had in mind. Also like a bunch of other human stuff.
But then you don't seem to want to make the logical leap to saying that wholesome heterosexual relationships are always better than any homosexual relationships - because they reflect the original pre-fall intentions of God.
As you're not saying that, I can't see the point of bringing it up, never mind believing it. It just seems stupid to me, unless you are also saying that all things - including heterosexual relationships, old age, etc etc are all results of the fall that we have to live with. In which case the whole point of saying it seems redundant.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
It's total depravity, not absolute depravity. And in this context, "total" means "all-pervasive," not "complete," and "depravity" is probably closer to "infected" than "depraved."
It doesn't mean that all of nature is corrupt; it means that there is no part of human nature that isn't touched, however slightly, by the effects of sinfulness. Nor does it mean that everything we touch turns to shit. It means that even when we do good—even when we do really good—our motives and actions are tainted in some way by sin, such as concern for self (not unlike psychological egoism.)
Well that's where I can't compute Calvinism. If everything is infected, then it doesn't have to be "absolutely" deprived, it just has to be enough deprived to be knocked off God's original intention, which is surely enough to be impossible to do anything good.
I can't see how it can be "totally deprived" and still capable of good things.
And anyway, the point I was trying to make was with regard to nature and all things. If they're knocked off kilter, I can't see how they can just be slightly trickier for humanity.
quote:
In other words, it means that there is no aspect of our lives where we don't need the grace of God. That's the point of total depravity.
OK. Well that seems to me to be utter gibberish, a result of the theology of the fall, which also seems to me to be nonsensical.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I can understand your other comments above if we were only talking about a spiritual fall. But you seem to be wedded to the idea that the whole of nature fell.
I think that the Fall had at least knock-on effects on nature, if only due to our bad stewardship of it. My personal jury is out on things like disease and genetic malformations at this point. quote:
Surely it is either fallen or not. It is either infected with the virus of fallenness or it isn't.
If the Fall is moral only and nature is morally neutral, it can be affected by the fall but not itself be fallen.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
First you say there is this thing called the fall, which means everything we see is suboptimal. Not as intended.
Everything with a moral component is morally suboptimal. Not sure beyond that.
quote:
But then you don't seem to want to make the logical leap to saying that wholesome heterosexual relationships are always better than any homosexual relationships - because they reflect the original pre-fall intentions of God.
That's because all relationships are affected by our "fallenness". There is no such thing as a perfectly wholesome heterosexual relationship either now. The sexual orientation doesn't make it inherently better (or worse).
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
It's total depravity, not absolute depravity. And in this context, "total" means "all-pervasive," not "complete," and "depravity" is probably closer to "infected" than "depraved."
It doesn't mean that all of nature is corrupt; it means that there is no part of human nature that isn't touched, however slightly, by the effects of sinfulness. Nor does it mean that everything we touch turns to shit. It means that even when we do good—even when we do really good—our motives and actions are tainted in some way by sin, such as concern for self (not unlike psychological egoism.)
Well that's where I can't compute Calvinism. If everything is infected, then it doesn't have to be "absolutely" deprived, it just has to be enough deprived to be knocked off God's original intention, which is surely enough to be impossible to do anything good.
I can't see how it can be "totally deprived" and still capable of good things.
That's because (understandably—I don't know why a different term wasn't used, but there it is) you're interpreting "total" to mean something it doesn't mean in this context. As I said above, it doesn't mean absolute and complete, like "total destruction." It means "relating to or affecting to whole." When you say quote:
[i]f everything is infected . . . it just has to be enough deprived to be knocked off God's original intention,
you are saying exactly what is meant by total depravity. "Total" simply means everything is infected, or affected, even if only slightly.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
However, this biological reality does not confer moral superiority.
It is not a biological reality.
I just don't get this line of argument. How is it not a biological reality that only a man and a woman can produce a baby without any outside intervention?
No one has made this argument.
Evolution¹ is not about individuals reproducing, it is about species² survival. As mr cheesy mentions, there are many examples in nature where individuals do not contribute their personal genes.³ Studies suggest that homosexuals in families added extra providers without contributing their own resource intensive offspring. In other words, a feature not a bug.
¹ Evolution isn't actually about anything, it has no purpose. It is merely the description of how random mutations work.
² Species, not the obfuscation of "society"
³ Familial genetic lines are a subset of the species imperative. At least in humans.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I dunno if I agree with him. I'm not a big fan of 'Fall' theology, but I can see what he's saying. And I don't think that his view lessens homosexual relationships.
It does, though. No matter how you slice it homosexuality, in his view, is still a less than.
The equation you describe is homo<hetero<Heaven.
That he also describes broken hetero=homo doesn't change the basic equation.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
An addendum to address the "effects of the Fall on nature" rubbish.
Species exist because of mutation. There is no plan, there is no purpose. Diseases exist because the lifeforms that cause them chanced into a survival strategy. Parasites are a result in the same processes that generated humans.
How you fit God into that is your business, but how you have done it is the genesis of Christian homophobia. At least in part.
As we begin to understand the nature of our planet, we find that whilst the geologic processed can be destructive, they are also a key to life arising in the first place.
In other words, the perfect planet is an imperfect one.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
However, this biological reality does not confer moral superiority.
It is not a biological reality.
I just don't get this line of argument. How is it not a biological reality that only a man and a woman can produce a baby without any outside intervention?
No one has made this argument.
You appeared to be denying - and still don't seem to have acknowledged - the biological reality to which I was originally referring: that, uniquely, "male-plus-female pairings... perpetuate the species".
Other factors may come into play, but naturally speaking, a man and a women producing a baby is an unavoidable part of that process (which, inter alia, would go a long way to explaining the existence of this archetype).
I don't see how your hand-waving gets around that, and your reluctance to acknowledge it is perplexing.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Other factors may come into play, but naturally speaking, a man and a women producing a baby is an unavoidable part of that process (which, inter alia, would go a long way to explaining the existence of this archetype).
Holy Fuck. what a load of utter bullshit. Who the fuck is saying that is an avoidable part of the process? Not me, not any one on this fucking website. I've been avoiding derision because it is often used as an excuse to stop listening. But you appear to be wilfully ignoring what I write anyway.
quote:
I don't see how your hand-waving gets around that, and your reluctance to acknowledge it is perplexing.
Look in the mirror. Seriously dude, you are beginning to write like Langton.
I am not hand-waving anything here. Heterosexual sex is the basic method. But evolution can be more complex than this. A species survival depends on more than just fucking to reproduce.
more than is an [b]inclusive[b] phrase, not an exclusive one. In other words, your hetero sex is part of my statement, just not the sum total.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You appeared to be denying - and still don't seem to have acknowledged - the biological reality to which I was originally referring: that, uniquely, "male-plus-female pairings... perpetuate the species".
No. Male sperm needs to fertilise female ova, I don't think anyone is denying this.
But there is no sense that this, uniquely, "perpetuates the species", because parenting often takes a community - including people who are not biological parents, might be more distantly related or not genetically related at all.
quote:
Other factors may come into play, but naturally speaking, a man and a women producing a baby is an unavoidable part of that process (which, inter alia, would go a long way to explaining the existence of this archetype).
Yes, but those "other factors" are often extremely important.
Your position is the equivalent of saying that a relevant specialist doctor is needed for an IVF birth baby, and therefore the doctor is the only important person in the process. Of course the doctor is needed. Like.. durr. But obviously the child needs parents, and other adults to look after it, teach it, love it. The kind of life it has is not entirely determined by the presence/absence of the doctor.
Similarly, whilst it is necessary to have male and female gametes to produce zygotes, this is not the totality of what is needed to perpetuate the species.
quote:
I don't see how your hand-waving gets around that, and your reluctance to acknowledge it is perplexing.
Well the perplexing part is how you seem to think that gay people are looking for everyone to be gay and therefore threaten the future of the species - if everyone was gay, we'd have no reproduction.
I know you've not said that, but why even bring it up?
Isn't it obvious that gay people don't expect everyone to be gay - just like old people who are not having sex do not expect to be relied upon to reproduce for the sake of the continuation of the species.
This seems to me to be an utterly pointless discussion.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
One of the purposes of sex is to make babies, but the majority of sexual activity is about people exchanging love and pleasure. As it ever was.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Holy Fuck. what a load of utter bullshit. Who the fuck is saying that is an avoidable part of the process? Not me, not any one on this fucking website.
Perhaps not, but it's taken a lot of prodding to get you to admit - just about - that it's unavoidable. I really don't understand why that should be such a big deal. quote:
Heterosexual sex is the basic method. But evolution can be more complex than this. A species survival depends on more than just fucking to reproduce.
You've shifted the terminology again. It's not a "basic method". Short of major technological intervention, there is no other method, "advanced" or otherwise. It's a core component. It's how each human life begins (which I suspect, all moral implications aside, is why we have male and female in Genesis).
Of course there's more to life and growth than that (I don't have any disagreement with the rest of your paragraph there). I have no doubt other members of society play their part, but without that initial act, there's no life. It's hard for me not to conclude that you'd love that not to be true for some reason. I could be wrong.
[ 30. May 2017, 20:35: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Perhaps not, but it's taken a lot of prodding to get you to admit - just about - that it's unavoidable. I really don't understand why that should be such a big deal.
Simply, so that you may understand:
I have never said that a man's sperm fertilising a woman's egg was not necessary to make baby humans.
quote:
It's how each human life begins (which I suspect, all moral implications aside, is why we have male and female in Genesis).
The bible doesn't contain much from a science POV, so it would be incredibly helpful if people didn't use it like one.
quote:
Of course there's more to life and growth than that (I don't have any disagreement with the rest of your paragraph there). I have no doubt other members of society play their part, but without that initial act, there's no life.
Again, for emphasis, nothing I've said debates this.
quote:
It's hard for me not to conclude that you'd love that not to be true for some reason. I could be wrong.
This is too stupid to respond to beyond a sneer. You are fortunate that channelling someone isn't considered sock puppetry, because I am fairly certain the spirits of Steve Langton, Russ and Jamat are flowing through your cranium.
[ 30. May 2017, 21:36: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
np--
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Most sex is non-reproductive. It is about enhancing pair-bonds, ergo love, between people. It makes no difference the gender of the lovers, so long as there's mutuality of pleasure and love. -- which summarizes my full understanding. The only warning about sex is not to manipulate, deceive nor exploit.
For bonobo apes, sex = etiquette.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I dunno if I agree with him. I'm not a big fan of 'Fall' theology, but I can see what he's saying. And I don't think that his view lessens homosexual relationships.
It does, though. No matter how you slice it homosexuality, in his view, is still a less than.
The equation you describe is homo<hetero<Heaven.
That he also describes broken hetero=homo doesn't change the basic equation.
Hmm. Okay, I can see that. But, in terms of running with the afterlife comparison...
One could believe that marriages continue after we die, and they will continue to be married to their wonderful spouse for all eternity.
Or one might believe that the afterlife has a different economic, and marriage is irrelevant in the afterlife.
Or one might believe that there is no afterlife and all marriages end when one spouse dies.
To me, saying that Eutychus's view diminishes homosexual relationships is the equivalent of saying that the latter two of the above views diminishes all marriage now, whereas the former glorifies it. I can see the logic, but it just doesn't seem that big a deal, when, as Eutychus has said, there are much more important factors that go into a relationship than the sexuality of the people involved (or to go on, what happens when we die).
Marriages might last 'forever', or they might come to an end - or move over for a new kind of relationship system in the next life. Who knows? The afterlife is a great unknown; as is Eden (which, I see as a metaphor for life now; rather than a creation-archetype as Eutychus does).
But marriages - and all relationships of varying sexualities - are valid, valuable and important now - in this life. I think we hold that in common, with Eutychus too. Different views about unknowns life the afterlife or Eden don't (IMHO) change that fundamental.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Eutychus said -
quote:
Short of major technological intervention, there is no other method, "advanced" or otherwise. It's a core component.
Turkey basters are major technology?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
It still takes a man (at some point) and a woman. And it's a lot less fun.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Eutychus said -
quote:
Short of major technological intervention, there is no other method, "advanced" or otherwise. It's a core component.
Turkey basters are major technology?
There was a news story, maybe 25 years ago, about that. A husband and wife wanted kids, but she couldn't carry a fetus to term. Her sister offered to be a surrogate, and turkey baster was employed. IIRC, it worked.
I think I've heard of another case, since then.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I still find it hard to escape the conclusion that, on a basic level, Eutychus sees homosexual relationships as not "meant to be" in contrast to heterosexual relationships as "meant to be".
I may be an awful relativist, but I'm not persuaded that the answer as to what is "meant to be" is automatically the same for all human beings just by virtue of being human. Why did God create more than 1 of us, if he wasn't interested in variety?
There probably are some truly basic, irreducible things that are the way things are meant to be for all human beings. But as a homosexual person, who never actually wanted to be a homosexual person but who eventually was forced to face the fact that I am homosexual, I have a hard time with any notion that I was "meant to be" heterosexual. If wishing had made it so I would've been.
I look at that particular idea of what is "normal" and just end up concluding that no, I am not "normal" and I can't find any sign that I was meant to be. If God didn't see to it that we are all match Adam and Eve in height, weight, skin tone, shoe size, personality, why would we think that sexuality is a deal-breaker?
And the whole go forth and multiply bit doesn't answer it, because it's perfectly possible to see that as a command given to HUMANITY without it being seen as a command given to ALL HUMANS.
First of all, there's decent scientific evidence about the benefits of homosexual members of a group to the group as a whole. Secondly, we all know perfectly well that societies don't function if everyone tried to do exactly the same thing, any more than a body functions if all the parts of the body are doing the same thing. And yes, that second point includes an intentional Bible reference.
Saying that everyone was supposed to be entering into the type of relationship that is potentially procreative seems to me to be taking a highly individualistic view of the world where it's all about propagating one's own genes, and to be honest I question the theological basis for such an approach. Part of me would in fact rather like to do some propagating of genes, but I don't think it's going to happen. Meanwhile, there are probably ways that I contribute to society that are possible because I'm not breeding, and it's also perfectly plausible that the wiring in my brain that makes me homosexual also contributes to other things about my personality/behaviour that make a difference.
End ramble. This is what you get when I've spent nearly an hour answering questions about my life and health for other purposes.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
TL;DR: If I am meant to be just like you, why do both of us exist?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Thanks orfeo, that's helpful both in clarifying how you feel and in reflecting what you perceive me to be saying. I take exception to your perception in a couple of places, very briefly to say that I draw a distinction between what God might have "meant to be" for humanity as depicted in Eden and what he might "mean to be" for you or I or any other individual (I have a lot more qualms about "God's personal plan for your life"™ anyway) in the here and now.
I'll try and formulate that in more detail as soon as I can.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
I apologize for the apparent baiting. However, I genuinely do see this nuanced issue being too-easily mangled by what is essentially a fairy tale.
Bear with me for a moment. Imagine, please, that either there is no god or that the god is purely observational to existence. This completely removes all philosophical a priori assumptions about "supposed to be" or "intention" or "design". We just are.
Continuing from there, we are left to face that not only are we imperfect, but that there is no perfection to compare ourselves and others to. All we can do is try to be better. As generally social animals with a conceptualization of existence outside our own skulls, it is fundamentally better for everyone and everything if we are as kind and loving to each other as we can. Even to those whose imperfections are different from our own. Hell, especially to them.
Years of hanging out with all you freaks has helped me see the potential value in religious belief. But in this particular case, it is hard to avoid seeing it as doing anything other than being used as a handy arbitrary bludgeon to level at each other.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And it's a lot less fun.
You just don't know how to use one.
[ 31. May 2017, 15:49: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
there is no perfection to compare ourselves and others to. All we can do is try to be better.
How can you try to be better if there is no standard to measure against?
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And it's a lot less fun.
You just don't know how to use one.
I admit to my response being largely influenced by some TV series I saw more or less by accident, involving artificial insemination by this method and in which a Winnie-The-Pooh child's cereal bowl featured largely.
Besides, I must admit to more CS Lewis in my personal canon, here his prescient description from the 1940s of sex and reproduction among the mythical inhabitants of Sulva: quote:
“On this side, the womb is barren and the marriages are cold. There dwell an accursed people, full of pride and lust. There when a young man takes a maiden in marriage, they do not lie together, but each lies with a cunningly fashioned image of the other, made to move and to be warm by devilish arts, for real flesh will not please them, they are so dainty (delicati) in their dreams of lust. Their real children they fabricate by vile arts in a secret place.”
Maybe Lewis was as wrong about the vileness of extreme artificial sex (more or less as depicted in AI) as he was misogynistic. Maybe we do need to develop new sexual ethics for sex with robots, and maybe they can be wholesome. Maybe we can transition to artificial wombs for everyone's convenience. Maybe it's just a variation on the ick factor for me.
And yes, sometimes we have little choice but to resort to means other than flesh and blood for sex and procreation.
But I can't shake the feeling that the "basic method", as you call it, is not to be despised or cast aside thoughtlessly.
Orfeo, I'm still thinking my way through your latest post.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
How can you try to be better if there is no standard to measure against?
I am going to need to revise my opinion of your mental prowess. The measure in the bible is not the obvious story-telling bits. The bible is inconsistent, contradictory and, in parts, directly contradictory to contemporary Christian teachings. And yet you do not have a problem eating shellfish, banning polygamous marriages and not stoning your disobedient children. But you get hung up on homosexuality.
For Christians, the standard is Jesus' teachings.
For the rest of the world, I suppose there is no standard of behaviour. Hey Everybody! Machete sex party at my house!
Bring your own inflatable sheep, Ariston, I only go so far down the depravity scale.
quote:
But I can't shake the feeling that the "basic method", as you call it, is not to be despised or cast aside thoughtlessly.
Hey, some of my best friends are straight couples, means I cannot be prejudiced against straights, right?
Actually not a massive fan of artificial insemination or human cloning. So the only choice left is that I want humanity to die out, I suppose. Preferably during a homosexual orgy, I'd imagine.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
How can you try to be better if there is no standard to measure against?
I am going to need to revise my opinion of your mental prowess.
Perhaps I'll return the compliment. I was answering RooK on the issue of belief in general, not about sex, and about how one aspires to be better without a yardstick to measure oneself by. Which is a tangent to this thread. quote:
The bible is inconsistent, contradictory and, in parts, directly contradictory to contemporary Christian teachings. And yet you do not have a problem eating shellfish, banning polygamous marriages and not stoning your disobedient children. But you get hung up on homosexuality.
This is not a "defend Christianity against all-comers" thread however much you and RooK try to make it one.
As far as I'm concerned Christianity is not about a set of rules, contradictory or otherwise. It's first and foremost about grace and what you have posted so far in this thread reveals little or no comprehension of how that is commonly understood by Christians.
And mock me if you will, but my contribution to this thread is one of my ways of working my way through (in your words) my hang-ups on homosexuality. It's not the be-all and end-all issue in my day-to-day life and it's not an issue in my church. There's a lot more to life than that. But it's one that's important to many people and worth more thought than many people devote to it.
I haven't come across many Christians stoning their children but Christians' treatment of gays is sometimes tantamount to that and that's worth some thought.
Especially if one is to provide thought leadership in changing the way people think about it, which in all modesty I think I am in a position to for certain constituencies.
What I can say is that my willingness to take other contributors in the discussion seriously is in inverse proportion to the extent they proceed by snark.
quote:
quote:
But I can't shake the feeling that the "basic method", as you call it, is not to be despised or cast aside thoughtlessly.
Hey, some of my best friends are straight couples, means I cannot be prejudiced against straights, right?
Does my sarcasm meter need recalibrating?
quote:
Actually not a massive fan of artificial insemination or human cloning. So the only choice left is that I want humanity to die out, I suppose.
No, there are other choices. For instance, one which has imposed itself on me thanks in part to this discussion, is to work through why you're not a massive fan of it, whether your reasons are consistent with your worldview, and make some adjustments accordingly. quote:
Preferably during a homosexual orgy, I'd imagine
Disappointingly, most humanity-dying-out scenarios seem to have a dampening effect on the libido; writers seem to think we go out with a whimper, not a bang.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I was answering RooK on the issue of belief in general, not about sex, and about how one aspires to be better without a yardstick to measure oneself by. Which is a tangent to this thread.
I did address that, though admittedly sarcastically.
The bible is a mix of myth, self-history and guidance. You are obsessing on the myth.
ETA: The yardstick the bible provides is best viewed through Jesus' words.
And there are plenty of non-Christian yardsticks that function very well for behaviour. Or at least as well as Christianity,
quote:
As far as I'm concerned Christianity is not about a set of rules, contradictory or otherwise. It's first and foremost about grace and what you have posted so far in this thread reveals little or no comprehension of how that is commonly understood by Christians.
This is not an accurate statement. Especially since many use the rules to determine what grace is.
quote:
Especially if one is to provide thought leadership in changing the way people think about it, which in all modesty I think I am in a position to for certain constituencies.
And this magnifies the problem with your homosexuality is less than theology.
quote:
What I can say is that my willingness to take other contributors in the discussion seriously is in inverse proportion to the extent they proceed by snark.
Yeah, figured. And knowing this about yourself, you are allowing it to be a cop-out if you so proceed.
And I will point out that I did not begin the derision until you began accusing me of a position which I patently did not make.
Which, if I were going to armchair analyse, I might conclude it intentional as an excuse to exclude further engagement.
I am not saying my temper is a good thing, but if you allow it to not hear what is being said, it is solely on you.
[ 31. May 2017, 18:23: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Thanks orfeo, that's helpful both in clarifying how you feel and in reflecting what you perceive me to be saying. I take exception to your perception in a couple of places, very briefly to say that I draw a distinction between what God might have "meant to be" for humanity as depicted in Eden and what he might "mean to be" for you or I or any other individual (I have a lot more qualms about "God's personal plan for your life"™ anyway) in the here and now.
I'll try and formulate that in more detail as soon as I can.
Okay. While you're doing so, you might focus on explaining why discussing what was "meant to be" for humanity is even relevant. Why bring it up, if not to say that it was better?
And not merely to say that it was better, but better in specific ways? I mean sure, one can talk in very general terms about how humanity was in a better relationship with God, but when the good old days of Eden are brought up in a discussion about homosexuality, it seems rather hard to escape the feeling that it's demonstrating an idea that homosexuals have fallen just a little bit further than heterosexuals in that particular way. That while all have fallen short of the glory of God, but homosexuals are one step behind by virtue of being homosexual before we start totting up all the other sins that individual human beings are capable of, sexual or otherwise.
[ 31. May 2017, 22:47: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ETA: The yardstick the bible provides is best viewed through Jesus' words.
And there are plenty of non-Christian yardsticks that function very well for behaviour. Or at least as well as Christianity.
Like this: "Shared belief in the "Golden Rule" (a/k.a. Ethics of Reciprocity)" (Religious Tolerance).
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
And of course C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man went through a great deal of trouble to show the ethical injunctions that the world's great religions hold in common. Quite a few, of course.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I was answering RooK on the issue of belief in general, not about sex, and about how one aspires to be better without a yardstick to measure oneself by. Which is a tangent to this thread.
That you see this as purely tangential to this thread exposes the very horrific limitations of your paradigm. For the sake of explicit and unquestionable relevance, let's keep this all about sex.
I assume that you have had sex more than once. Have you gotten better at it? If so, what is your absolute yardstick that you use for such a measure?
Face it: the things that you are using as the basis for your contemplations are all based on some very crude and limited understanding of human sexuality. By all means - be generous with your faith and assume that we collectively were meant to figure out on our own all the myriad of things that are so hilariously glossed over In The Beginning. But that is no reason to apply those oversimplifications written in a time when reproduction was the end-all-be-all of a primitive society to a modern era of realizing the nuance of human possibility.
To be blunt, your line of reasoning is the root of not just homophobia, but was also the classic justification for racism and sexism. If there is anything that I hate most, it is assumptions that can cause intelligent people like you to think stupid and hurtful things.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
That you see this as purely tangential to this thread exposes the very horrific limitations of your paradigm.
Are you sure you're not confusing a deficient paradigm with an ability to adapt to context?
It's a tall order to expect an argument about homosexuality being carried on between Christians disagreeing over the interpretation of Bible verses to address questions about whether God or any absolutes exist at all. Almost all the participants to date self-identify as some sort of Christian, so it's hardly surprising that we were working on the basis of some shared assumptions before you showed up.
quote:
For the sake of explicit and unquestionable relevance, let's keep this all about sex.
Fine. Rather than discuss the finer points of my sex life (nice try...) why not take a look at the passage quoted above about the inhabitants of Sulva (in a book which, incidentally mousethief, is as I understand it the fiction version of The abolition of man) and give me your god-free take on that prospect (stripped of the adjectives Lewis uses). Is the sex better or worse? For the individuals involved? For society? And on what basis do you decide?
Are such developments to be embraced unquestioningly as simply "realizing the nuance of human possibility"? or is there a danger of technology outstripping ethics and medicine? If they are "bad" in any way, why are they bad? (clue: saying "it's not natural" does not seem to go down well as an answer).
quote:
that is no reason to apply those oversimplifications written in a time when reproduction was the end-all-be-all of a primitive society to a modern era of realizing the nuance of human possibility.
I might not use those terms, but I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment - in fact I think this is more or less where I came into this thread: to argue against Steve Langton applying things "as they were in the beginning" to today. I have consistently done so since.
The sticking point at present is, from a Christian perspective, the extent (if any) to which what is depicted in Eden should be taken as an exhaustive account of everything that is morally and prelapsarianly superior and the extent to which it should be seen exclusively as a narrative about origins with no moral component at all, much as you suggest (those being the two extremes in the discussion).
Orfeo is arguing that bringing Genesis into the discussion at all is to import the assumption that heterosexuality is or was morally better, albeit infinitesimally, than anything else.
Before y'all's most recent posts, I was thinking along the lines of "what happens if we try and distinguish the bits of Genesis which are simply a story of our origins from the bits which are about how it all went wrong".
I think it's the difficulty of distinguishing these two overlapping themes in Genesis that is at the origin of many of the other isms RooK refers to.
Which is a slightly more nuanced view than thinking that quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
GENESIS is such a huge load of crap
Consider yourself intelligent? quote:
If there is anything that I hate most, it is assumptions that can cause intelligent people like you to think stupid and hurtful things.
Bear in mind the same can apply to pronouncements by yourself (see above).
Where I have got to so far:
Here I said quote:
I don't think God originally intended for people of the same sex to be attracted to one another (...) I just don't see it in Genesis.
I still don't see it in Genesis, but I'm less sure about the "originally intended". My (internal) questioning now is about why it's not there (sorry orfeo, this is pushing back my answer, I'm going to be late for a meeting at this rate...
[ 01. June 2017, 06:04: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Where I have got to so far:
Here I said quote:
I don't think God originally intended for people of the same sex to be attracted to one another (...) I just don't see it in Genesis.
I still don't see it in Genesis, but I'm less sure about the "originally intended". My (internal) questioning now is about why it's not there (sorry orfeo, this is pushing back my answer, I'm going to be late for a meeting at this rate...
I thought in this story God created Adam and only later created Eve. So the original intent was for Adam to be asexual, like many species on earth. Presumably they're not more fallen for not keeping up with the changes in God's intentions. This attempt to derive from Genesis leads to so many contradictions and fantasies that it's only a pile of excuses. If these are the only archetypes permitted, where did Adam's grandchildren come from? Homosexuality between Cain and Abel,incest, bestiality or divine creation. It's all inconsistent nonsense when you add these magic rules of interpretation.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
My reading of Genesis is that the creation of Eve being subsequent to that of Adam is a narrative device, not a chronological absolute. This is borne out by the text itself since the narrative in chapter 2 is quite clearly not the same as in chapter 1 where male and female are part of the same stage of creation, not two consecutive ones.
The thorny question (for Christians) is about what the narrative is trying to say and what that might or might not mean for us today.
Of course this is simply and easily dispensed with by taking the view that Genesis is nothing more than a huge load of crap, but some of us think it's worth a bit more thought than that.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My reading of Genesis is that the creation of Eve being subsequent to that of Adam is a narrative device, not a chronological absolute. This is borne out by the text itself since the narrative in chapter 2 is quite clearly not the same as in chapter 1 where male and female are part of the same stage of creation, not two consecutive ones.
Ye gods - you are prepared to re-examine what Genesis 1 is saying in the light of Genesis 2 (surely the simplest explanation is that they're different myths?) but not in the light of the understanding we have in Christ.
quote:
The thorny question (for Christians) is about what the narrative is trying to say and what that might or might not mean for us today.
It is only thorny if you insist that an ancient myth has important things to say to us today on the level that you seem to want it.
It seems to me to be a far easier position to take that homosexuality is a feature not a bug of humanity. Then you don't have to get into a silly theological contortion to explain how something that wasn't "intended by God" is still somehow "absolutely fine and dandy" for people today.
quote:
Of course this is simply and easily dispensed with by taking the view that Genesis is nothing more than a huge load of crap, but some of us think it's worth a bit more thought than that.
One doesn't have to think it is crap, one just has to think it is myth.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My reading of Genesis is that the creation of Eve being subsequent to that of Adam is a narrative device, not a chronological absolute. This is borne out by the text itself since the narrative in chapter 2 is quite clearly not the same as in chapter 1 where male and female are part of the same stage of creation, not two consecutive ones.
Ye gods - you are prepared to re-examine what Genesis 1 is saying in the light of Genesis 2 (surely the simplest explanation is that they're different myths?) but not in the light of the understanding we have in Christ.
Show me where I've said that.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
What other than where you said that "this is borne out by the text itself since the narrative in chapter 2 is quite clearly not the same as in chapter 1"
which fairly clearly suggests you think this is a chain of consciousness rather than two completely different and unconnected myths.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
but not in the light of the understanding we have in Christ.
Show me where I've said that.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Show you the part where you think something about the fall in Genesis is relevant to homosexuality rather than the words and actions of the Christ?
If you don't mean that, just say so.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
You insinuated that overall, I have been considering variations in Genesis and not anything Jesus said. That is demonstrably not true. But this part of the conversation is about Genesis. That is all.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Y'all seem terribly keen to reduce Eutychus to the function of resident homophobic chew toy, and I can't help feeling that's purely because the regular chew toys have been lost behind the couch.
To me there's a pretty obvious difference between Eutychus' efforts at engaging with questions, and the whole dismissive "well if you don't believe the same thing as me you ain't Christian" attitude that got this thread started back in the day.
Having read some stuff I said about Tony Campolo, I would put Eutychus in the same category, and I simply can't motivate myself to be venomous towards such people.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
(back to composing better response in my head)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
but not in the light of the understanding we have in Christ.
Show me where I've said that.
This is confusing.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Clarification.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Y'all seem terribly keen to reduce Eutychus to the function of resident homophobic chew toy, and I can't help feeling that's purely because the regular chew toys have been lost behind the couch.
My frustration with Euty is when he began misinterpreting what I said. Not because of the misinterpretation, but because it implies he stopped truly engaging and began a passive aggressive attack. I can take attacks, Hell, I kinda enjoy trading them; but Euty is a preacher and that makes this more important.
Yeah, I know, sneering isn't the best method of converting. Right now, I'm not sure he is worth the effort, though.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
If someone reads the Bible as literal, I cannot argue with the. A belief requires no proof and simply is. Believe what you will, but I will be honest and admit I think they are idiots for so believing.
If someone accepts that the Bible is not literal, then we can possibly discuss things.
The real conflict comes in when someone admits the bible isn't literal, but still wants to treat select parts of as if they were.
Genesis doesn't describe evolution or biology or any real science. It is a simple allegory in simple terms by and for a people of limited understanding.
You want to believe it is inspired by God, fine. But it is problematic when it is applied to things outside of its form and function. This is where people slip their own prejudices and preconceptions.
This is where Euty is. IMO.
ETA: It has not slipped past me that Troll Russ, Bigot Steve Langton and I-cannot-be-bothered-to-add-a-prefix-to Jamat are probably loving that we are arguing with someone they would see as one of us instead of them.
[ 01. June 2017, 15:56: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Just imagine how lovely it is to be in that position. If you have any empathy left for me.
[ 01. June 2017, 16:05: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Are you sure you're not confusing a deficient paradigm with an ability to adapt to context?
...it's hardly surprising that we were working on the basis of some shared assumptions before you showed up.
01) I've been here the whole time, stewing on your "shared assumptions" and relevant paradigm in context.
10) Hello, I'm RooK, and I have a hobby-horse. And you can't take it away from me.
Smushing those two together to make 3, I do apologize for seeming to butt into what might be an interesting processing of Genesis for you. My primary interest is regarding my natural laziness - finding a way to be accepting and kind to human sexuality seems easily justified from my perspective, while it appears to be fraught when working from Genesis.
quote:
And on what basis do you decide?
I like how this attempts to deflect my point from being about experiential perspective to moral relativism. Nice try.
Nevertheless, I suspect that we understand each other's meta-messages. It is trivially easy to summon a basis to evaluate the merit of something; it tends to be quite difficult to do so very well.
quote:
quote:
If there is anything that I hate most, it is assumptions that can cause intelligent people like you to think stupid and hurtful things.
Bear in mind the same can apply to pronouncements by yourself
Yes, I'm a fucking asshole. But I'm trying to be better, relatively.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Thanks.
Although I read that as "trying to be bitter"
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Just imagine how lovely it is to be in that position. If you have any empathy left for me.
I did. It is wearing thin. Resume arguing like an adult and I might find a little more.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
TL;DR: If I am meant to be just like you, why do both of us exist?
Let me try this on for size.
What follows takes into account developments in my thinking on the strength of discussions here.
Thanks to all of you who've helped me on this journey so far, on this thread and elsewhere - including the ones who set out to hinder and who helped despite their intentions.
I reserve the right to change my mind and not to answer comments.
The Genesis account of Adam and Eve and their descendants addresses our origins, first and foremost in terms of procreation – probably due at least in part to that being the primary focus of the culture in which it was written. We have come a long way since then.
While the opening chapters of Genesis do make reference to reproduction – “be fruitful and multiply” – this is already tempered within the very same verse by the implications inherent in being responsible stewards of the planet, so it cannot be intended as a universal, unqualified commandment, binding on all for all time.
Inasmuch as the early chapters of Genesis are not intended to address issues of sexuality, they're not the best place to go looking for answers to those issues.
Yes, Jesus does reference them with regard to marriage, and that needs to be borne in mind, but the reason he does needs to be carefully examined (more on this in a minute).
In this scenario, the key players in Genesis are a male and a female, presumably because that allows them to go on to beget children and thus the rest of the story, but the takeaway is not the sex, sexual practice, or sexual orientation of those involved but the untroubled relationship with each other and with God.
The “Fall” is depicted first and foremost as disrupting relationships - so its essence has nothing, inherently, to do with sex or sexuality.
The effects of the “Fall” on relationships express themselves in many ways, in all kinds of relationships, sexual and otherwise. Heterosexual monogamy is no more of a protection against these effects than any other status.
In fact one of the ways the “Fall” has played out over history, aided and abetted by a certain selective reading of Genesis in which the Church has all too often colluded for its own earthly ends, is to pervert heterosexual monogamy to become an instrument of power abuse.
This abuse is explicitly stated in Genesis 3:16 as regards the domination of women, and is evident in the wrongful exploitation of the benefits of heterosexual marriage to demonise all other conditions, from singlehood through to homosexuality.
(I would add that the Fall has played out in homosexual relations in much the same way, but manifesting itself differently).
When Jesus refers to the original male and female (aka Adam and Eve) in Mark 10, the issue in context is not what kind of sexuality was involved but the quality of the relationship.
When Jesus says “at the beginning it was not so” in the parallel passage in Mt 19:8, it is not an allusion to pre-Fall heterosexual pairing but to pre-Fall faithfulness in a relationship: this is the central issue under debate in the relevant NT passages.
So the takeaway should be focused, not on the gender of the persons involved in a sexual relationship, but on the quality of that relationship.
(The ensuing discussion in the Gospels about it being better not to marry bears this out and also clearly recognises – for some – singlehood as a valid condition. As does Jesus’ own life. As an aside, his conception also shows that at least sometimes, alternatives to the “basic method” (sic) are to be honoured even above that one).
Finally, Jesus’ acknowledgement of Moses’ granting permission for divorce is not a licence to treat relationships of any kind lightly and expediently (indeed, that is what the Fall is all about), but a recognition that accommodations need to be made for circumstances in which a committed relationship, despite the partners’ best intentions, breaks down.
The attitude to be adopted in such circumstances is one of grace.
While this requires a recognition of something having gone wrong in order to be empowering, it leaves no room for condemnation. The episode of the woman taken in adultery springs to mind in this respect.
So, my dear and long-suffering brother orfeo, in answer to your question, we both exist because we are both, in equal measure, here in God's image, fearfully and wonderfully made, amazing creatures, reflecting as parts of his Church different aspects of his infinitely-variegated wisdom.
And in equal measure, we are both fallen creatures too, living with all the hangups and contradictions of being at once justified and sinners.
But that's ok, because we can also rejoice in the grace of God in which we both stand, and look forward to the day when we go to be with him and are glorified - and the new creation we inherit and the joy it embodies are so infinitely and orthogonally beyond our comprehension that about our sexuality we will no longer give a flying fuck.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
If you're going to be civil, take it to Dead Horses.
Where it belongs...
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Surely where this most-boring-thread-on-the-Ship belongs, too?
I'll get me coat...
IJ
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you're going to be civil, take it to Dead Horses.
Where it belongs...
Not so fast.
Hold my Beer
Euty was civil, but all he did was very prettily attempt to placate orfeo without retracting, or appear to reconsider at all, his homosexuality as a less than.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I think it's you that needs to do some reconsidering - of what I actually wrote.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think it's you that needs to do some reconsidering - of what I actually wrote.
So I read it again, for the third time. And the closest you get to reversing the less than position is this bit:
quote:
When Jesus says “at the beginning it was not so” in the parallel passage in Mt 19:8, it is not an allusion to pre-Fall heterosexual pairing but to pre-Fall faithfulness in a relationship: this is the central issue under debate in the relevant NT passages.
Which is ambiguous as to the status of homosexuality pre "Fall".
You do not have to retract your original statements, of course.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you're going to be civil, take it to Dead Horses.
Where it belongs...
Category error. Which I can't be arsed correcting.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If someone reads the Bible as literal, I cannot argue with the. A belief requires no proof and simply is. Believe what you will, but I will be honest and admit I think they are idiots for so believing.
If someone accepts that the Bible is not literal, then we can possibly discuss things.
The real conflict comes in when someone admits the bible isn't literal, but still wants to treat select parts of as if they were.
Genesis doesn't describe evolution or biology or any real science. It is a simple allegory in simple terms by and for a people of limited understanding.
You want to believe it is inspired by God, fine. But it is problematic when it is applied to things outside of its form and function. This is where people slip their own prejudices and preconceptions.
This is where Euty is. IMO.
ETA: It has not slipped past me that Troll Russ, Bigot Steve Langton and I-cannot-be-bothered-to-add-a-prefix-to Jamat are probably loving that we are arguing with someone they would see as one of us instead of them.
Sorry but this reads as if you think the only alternative to the "the whole Bible is literal" ought to be "the whole Bible is not literal".
Which, given the evidence from archaeology and other cultures, is clearly not tenable. There are parts of the Bible that indisputably talk about real people and real events.
So there's a whole undistributed middle where sensible people have to pick through what the Bible says and why it says it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Sorry but this reads as if you think the only alternative to the "the whole Bible is literal" ought to be "the whole Bible is not literal".it.
[/qb]
I've said on this thread that history is part of the Bible.
quote:
So there's a whole undistributed middle where sensible people have to pick through what the Bible says and why it says it.
I've said this more than once and even on this thread. The problem, as I've said to Euty, is that many choose the bits which reinforce their predjudices. If Jesus is the point of Christianity, that is where they should start.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Which is ambiguous as to the status of homosexuality pre "Fall".
That's because I've decided that Genesis is ambiguous.
Maybe a fourth reading of what I wrote would have served you well?
quote:
Inasmuch as the early chapters of Genesis are not intended to address issues of sexuality, they're not the best place to go looking for answers to those issues.
You can't make Eden a textbook for homosexual relations any more than for heterosexual relations. At least that's where I now stand.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If Jesus is the point of Christianity, that is where they should start.
This just demonstrates your theological ignorance (or lack of attention).
The overriding reason we have been talking about Genesis is precisely because as Steve Langton rightly pointed out, Jesus himself alludes to the pairing of Adam and Eve and to the "Fall" in the gospel passages we've been referring to.
Christians do "start with Jesus": they refer to this passage in Genesis because Christ did.
That's why we're talking about it and not, say, wearing two different types of cloth, or going outside the camp to do a poo, or other arcane bits of the OT Law.
The statements by Jesus about "male and female" are taken by many as a justification, by Christ, of male-female pairing in preference to same-sex pairing, and thus seen as binding because they are made precisely by him; his appeal in this respect, as they see it, to a "creational principle" ie the pre-"Fall" condition in Genesis merely serves to reinforce the authority of his statement.
I can see only too well why some people think that (having thought much along those lines myself), but after some prolonged thought in the light of discussions here I've decided for my part that to do so is to wrest his statements out of context.
As I wrote: quote:
When Jesus refers to the original male and female (aka Adam and Eve) in Mark 10, the issue in context is not what kind of sexuality was involved but the quality of the relationship.
[ 02. June 2017, 05:24: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
This has turned into that most annoying of discussions - where all the current participants agree with each other fundamentally on the core topic, but insist on arguing semantics (probably for imaginary points). And I hate all of you for it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Which is ambiguous as to the status of homosexuality pre "Fall".
That's because I've decided that Genesis is ambiguous.
Ambiguous is a generous term, but a step forward.
quote:
You can't make Eden a textbook for homosexual relations any more than for heterosexual relations. At least that's where I now stand.
It is not a textbook at all.
quote:
Jesus himself alludes to the pairing of Adam and Eve and to the "Fall" in the gospel passages we've been referring to.
Bullshit. Jesus was talking about divorce, some Christians choose to interpret between the lines, but it is no means a definitive statement about sexuality.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
This has turned into that most annoying of discussions - where all the current participants agree with each other fundamentally on the core topic, but insist on arguing semantics
Not until this last post of Euty's, actually. Even that is kinda soft.
quote:
(probably for imaginary points).
Not for points, imaginary or otherwise. The characterising people as less than is harmful psychologically and sometimes leads to worse.
quote:
And I hate all of you for it.
You say the sweetest things! Charmer
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
As far as I can see you've just conceded the three points I just made, so RooK will be even more irritated than before.
What irritates me is that you've managed to dress up conceding all three points as attacks on my position.
1. ambiguous is your term. You now thow it back at me as insufficient.
2. you quote my use of the word "textbook" as though I've said Genesis was one, when I've just said it was not.
3. you describe as "bullshit" my reference to Jesus' allusions in the Gospels (which can be verified with ease) and insinuate that I've said he is making a definitive statement about sexuality when I've just said that that is not what he's saying at all.
You are either being terminally stupid or deliberately provocative. This appears to be a zero-sum game for you in which the aim is not reconciliation or consensus but domination, and domination by unremitting misrepresentation. I am not interested in interacting with that.
[ 02. June 2017, 05:54: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
This has turned into that most annoying of discussions - where all the current participants agree with each other fundamentally on the core topic, but insist on arguing semantics (probably for imaginary points). And I hate all of you for it.
To take just one example from what I vaguely imagine to be your world, I take it that you think the difference between, say, a Disaster Recovery Plan and a Business Continuity Plan is more than mere semantics?
Or that agreeing to "assign" as opposed to "transfer" some rights you own is not a mere question of semantics?
The biggest margins to be made in my day job, indeed practically the only margins to be made these days, are for being able to accurately distinguish semantics. If you can make money out of semantics, I think it's a fair bet they can be important.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
TL;DR: If I am meant to be just like you, why do both of us exist?
Let me try this on for size.
What follows takes into account developments in my thinking on the strength of discussions here.
Thanks to all of you who've helped me on this journey so far, on this thread and elsewhere - including the ones who set out to hinder and who helped despite their intentions.
I reserve the right to change my mind and not to answer comments.
The Genesis account of Adam and Eve and their descendants addresses our origins, first and foremost in terms of procreation – probably due at least in part to that being the primary focus of the culture in which it was written. We have come a long way since then.
While the opening chapters of Genesis do make reference to reproduction – “be fruitful and multiply” – this is already tempered within the very same verse by the implications inherent in being responsible stewards of the planet, so it cannot be intended as a universal, unqualified commandment, binding on all for all time.
Inasmuch as the early chapters of Genesis are not intended to address issues of sexuality, they're not the best place to go looking for answers to those issues.
Yes, Jesus does reference them with regard to marriage, and that needs to be borne in mind, but the reason he does needs to be carefully examined (more on this in a minute).
In this scenario, the key players in Genesis are a male and a female, presumably because that allows them to go on to beget children and thus the rest of the story, but the takeaway is not the sex, sexual practice, or sexual orientation of those involved but the untroubled relationship with each other and with God.
The “Fall” is depicted first and foremost as disrupting relationships - so its essence has nothing, inherently, to do with sex or sexuality.
The effects of the “Fall” on relationships express themselves in many ways, in all kinds of relationships, sexual and otherwise. Heterosexual monogamy is no more of a protection against these effects than any other status.
In fact one of the ways the “Fall” has played out over history, aided and abetted by a certain selective reading of Genesis in which the Church has all too often colluded for its own earthly ends, is to pervert heterosexual monogamy to become an instrument of power abuse.
This abuse is explicitly stated in Genesis 3:16 as regards the domination of women, and is evident in the wrongful exploitation of the benefits of heterosexual marriage to demonise all other conditions, from singlehood through to homosexuality.
(I would add that the Fall has played out in homosexual relations in much the same way, but manifesting itself differently).
When Jesus refers to the original male and female (aka Adam and Eve) in Mark 10, the issue in context is not what kind of sexuality was involved but the quality of the relationship.
When Jesus says “at the beginning it was not so” in the parallel passage in Mt 19:8, it is not an allusion to pre-Fall heterosexual pairing but to pre-Fall faithfulness in a relationship: this is the central issue under debate in the relevant NT passages.
So the takeaway should be focused, not on the gender of the persons involved in a sexual relationship, but on the quality of that relationship.
(The ensuing discussion in the Gospels about it being better not to marry bears this out and also clearly recognises – for some – singlehood as a valid condition. As does Jesus’ own life. As an aside, his conception also shows that at least sometimes, alternatives to the “basic method” (sic) are to be honoured even above that one).
Finally, Jesus’ acknowledgement of Moses’ granting permission for divorce is not a licence to treat relationships of any kind lightly and expediently (indeed, that is what the Fall is all about), but a recognition that accommodations need to be made for circumstances in which a committed relationship, despite the partners’ best intentions, breaks down.
The attitude to be adopted in such circumstances is one of grace.
While this requires a recognition of something having gone wrong in order to be empowering, it leaves no room for condemnation. The episode of the woman taken in adultery springs to mind in this respect.
So, my dear and long-suffering brother orfeo, in answer to your question, we both exist because we are both, in equal measure, here in God's image, fearfully and wonderfully made, amazing creatures, reflecting as parts of his Church different aspects of his infinitely-variegated wisdom.
And in equal measure, we are both fallen creatures too, living with all the hangups and contradictions of being at once justified and sinners.
But that's ok, because we can also rejoice in the grace of God in which we both stand, and look forward to the day when we go to be with him and are glorified - and the new creation we inherit and the joy it embodies are so infinitely and orthogonally beyond our comprehension that about our sexuality we will no longer give a flying fuck.
Thank you.
I think relationship, rather than procreation, is what is put first and foremost even at the very start. But apart from that minor quibble I'm pretty comfortable with everything you've said here and I thank you for the effort of writing it.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
This has turned into that most annoying of discussions - where all the current participants agree with each other fundamentally on the core topic, but insist on arguing semantics (probably for imaginary points). And I hate all of you for it.
For my benefit, exude from your tear ducts a quantity of liquid sufficient to fill a watercourse.
[ 02. June 2017, 07:32: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If you can make money out of semantics, I think it's a fair bet they can be important.
As a committed asshole, INTJ, and bureaucracy-swimming engineer, I am fully cognizant of the potential focal power of semantics. That keen insight into semantics is exactly what also lets me recognize what it is not useful for - objectivity.
While we could Zeno-paradox the fuck out of Genesis between any of our stances on human sexuality (and I think we have been), the apparent objective case is that all of us currently contributing to this conversation think that compassion and tolerance and inclusion is in order. Unlike, say, Steve dickchoking Langton, who clearly does not think so.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
all of us currently contributing to this conversation think that compassion and tolerance and inclusion is in order. Unlike, say, Steve dickchoking Langton, who clearly does not think so.
This seems to me to be a little unfair, because I genuinely think deeply-held religious views are a special case. Normally we'd say that the fact that someone is gay, or short, or fair-haired, or female etc is a ridiculous way to determine whether someone is fit for a job. Quite rightly.
And I don't think Steve is saying that those kinds of discriminationary policies should exist in the world of secular employment or other sphere of life (or if he has said that I don't remember).
As far as I can understand him, I think he is saying something solely about the church and Christians.
Yes, he's extrapolating and apparently believes that what he thinks are the lines between acceptable/unacceptable are the general rules that should apply to all churches everywhere that call themselves Christian.
I don't agree with much of what he says, but I think it is hard to argue with someone who takes a specific theological view with regard to the organisation of his own religious establishment but doesn't seek to impose this on anyone else. But I don't think it is as simple as saying he's being intolerant or incompassionate.
It's more like that he's painted himself into a corner which is only likely to get smaller and smaller until it is one in which only he lives. Which is pretty dumb, but his look-out.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As far as I can see you've just conceded the three points I just made, so RooK will be even more irritated than before.
What irritates me is that you've managed to dress up conceding all three points as attacks on my position.
Perhaps I've chosen poorly in my attempts to communicate, but I didn't think I'd conceded anything.
quote:
1. ambiguous is your term. You now thow it back at me as insufficient.
Fuck me for trying to be nice. Genesis is allegorical. Pulling specific messages from it is imbecilic. My saying ambiguous was an attempt to not be completely rude and your saying it appears to be saying "We don't know so let's not fuss". Which is better than before, but different to homosexuality is not less than.
quote:
2. you quote my use of the word "textbook" as though I've said Genesis was one, when I've just said it was not.
My bad, I should have put the emphasis on at all. You put the condition 'relations', I am saying it is not a textbook on anything. Tangential, but the root of the problem, IMO.
quote:
3. you describe as "bullshit" my reference to Jesus' allusions in the Gospels (which can be verified with ease) and insinuate that I've said he is making a definitive statement about sexuality when I've just said that that is not what he's saying at all.
Fair cop. It does appear we are on the same page here.
quote:
This appears to be a zero-sum game for you in which the aim is not reconciliation or consensus but domination,
I don't know about domination, but it is a zero-sum issue. Being hit with a pebble is better than being hit with a brick which is better than an entire wall falling on you. But the goal is to not be hit at all.
LGBT+ are not less than to any degree.
The compromise is you are allowed to believe differently. My point, though, is this is not without harm.
quote:
and domination by unremitting misrepresentation.
Excuse me? From the person accusing me of wishing to remove heteros from the reproduction pool?
Your position has been homosexuality is a product of the fall, but let's be nice about it. It now appears to be we do not know, so let's all be friends. Am I wrong? Sarcastic, yes, but wrong?
Look, I am genuinely happy that you are continually examining your faith. Everyone should, very few do.
I am happy that your view is evolving. In my awareness of it here, it has been massively better than many. But I do not think close is good enough. And I do not see any good in allowing concessions on this.
Well, I can concede this: You are not an irredeemable %#^$@!¹ like the tosser that was the initial subject of this thread.
¹Not avoiding explicative, there are just too many that apply.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And I don't think Steve is saying that those kinds of discriminationary policies should exist in the world of secular employment or other sphere of life (or if he has said that I don't remember).
But religion affects secular life, so it is not this simple. Ye, people should have the freedom to believe what they wish, but it is naive to think this has no effect on others. America is an example of this writ large, but even in more secular Britain, the church has an effect beyond their purview.
But really, it is SL's language and "ick factor" attitude that earned him a slot in Hell.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But religion affects secular life, so it is not this simple.
No it isn't simple, I agree. I'm just not sure what one can do about a religion that says "blond people are the leaders" or "only people chosen by lot are the leaders" or "only people who look good in a suit are the leaders". Not a lot, I suspect.
quote:
Ye, people should have the freedom to believe what they wish, but it is naive to think this has no effect on others. America is an example of this writ large, but even in more secular Britain, the church has an effect beyond their purview.
I don't believe it does have no effect on others. Again, I'm just not sure what to do about religions which have qualms that I don't share. At the end of the day, I might think they're completely wrong, but I have little ground to stand on if they're not actively discriminating against people outside of their religious sphere - and I don't think we have any evidence that Steve is talking about anything other than Christian behaviour.
quote:
But really, it is SL's language and "ick factor" attitude that earned him a slot in Hell.
Oh, I totally agree his point is utterly ridiculous. I was just disagreeing specifically with Rook's characterisation of it.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It now appears to be we do not know, so let's all be friends. Am I wrong? Sarcastic, yes, but wrong?
You won't be satisfied unless I sign off on something that corresponds exactly, in every word, point and nuance, 100% to your precise (and in your thinly-disguised opinion infinitely superior) mindset.
You take things that have taken me hours, days, years even of intellectual wrestling and soul-searching to arrive at, screw them up, throw a lurid caricature of them in my face, and expect me to cower and agree in the face of your patronising. If instead I try to clarify, you just unleash another layer of distortion.
You can't be bothered to actually seek clarification or a better understanding of the views you come up against; much quicker to distort them and pour scorn on the result until the other side gives up - not because you have won them over but because you are so unrelentingly obnoxious.
Fool.
I've learned plenty about how others with vastly different views to mine think here; but I can fairly confidently assert that in the present context, I've learned absolutely nothing from you.
Anyone who did anything remotely like that to someone whose position you're sympathetic to, you'd be all over them (and frequently are).
In case you don't realise, your contributions don't come across as supporting diversity or as being a good ambassador for your cause. They come across as shrill, inflexible, intolerant, wannabe demagoguery that is just as bad as the abuses you place at the feet of Christians. You admit yourself that your approach is "without concessions". That is the language of extremism.
You have absolutely no idea what it has cost me in various ways to reach where I am now. Your response makes me want to reverse all my positions, run a mile, and engage battle being as discriminatory as I can manage. I hope you're proud.
It's not much wonder you find keeping the discussion going for those listening who might be persuaded... tough. You might like to reflect on the suggestion that this might not be all their fault, but I doubt you will.
I'm done with this.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
You said I misrepresented you, so I put is simply to see if I understood you. Other than the sarcasm, why is that wrong?
I said I will not concede that LGBT+ are less than, you don't know the why if that?
You want to spin that into lilBuddha hates Christians, go for it. It is wrong, but whatever.
BTW, I didn't start abusing you after you began an insulting misrepresentation of my words. I admit to my weakness in allowing that to make me angry.
You've gone through a lot to get where you are. I've said it is good that you have made the journey.
However if you expect me to laud praise because you have finally reached a level of common decency , it isn't going to happen.
If your anger with me causes you to revert, then you didn't learn from the journey.
I know, I should be a better person and be happy that you have made the effort.
But I'm fucking tired of being nice to people for just reaching the point of treating me as a full human. You very likely have no fucking clue as to what that is like.
I am not going to lie and say that I now think you are actually like Russ. You are mostly a decent person. But you can be a bit sanctimonious at times and, evidently, a little prideful.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I said I will not concede that LGBT+ are less than
Good on you.
What has entirely escaped your attention in your relentless pursuit of that laudable aim is that I have never asserted any such thing and am certainly not asserting it now.
My journey has been about reconciling how I understand Scripture with a growing and deep-seated conviction that nobody is "less than" and nobody deserves to be treated as such.
But you're so hidebound in your convictions - notably your convictions about what everyone else actually believes - you can't do anything but piss all over that without even stopping to look where you're aiming. Great way to earn respect, make friends and influence people.
Most recently I said to orfeo, in response to his question about why he (gay) and I (straight) were both here, emphasis mine: quote:
we both exist because we are both, in equal measure, here in God's image, fearfully and wonderfully made, amazing creatures, reflecting as parts of his Church different aspects of his infinitely-variegated wisdom.
If you managed to step out of your anti-Christian anti-God sophistication and your own personal dogma for just long enough to think about what that might actually imply for me in my worldview, rather than sit waiting for me to parrot the words you keep wanting to put in my mouth, you might actually realise what "equal" (as opposed to "less than" or "more than") means.
But I'm not holding my breath. Whatever you do, don't let all your "less than" people get in the way of your continued criticism without concessions.
[ 02. June 2017, 22:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I said I will not concede that LGBT+ are less than
Good on you.
What has entirely escaped your attention in your relentless pursuit of that laudable aim is that I have never asserted any such thing and am certainly not asserting it now.
Well, there are these posts:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't think God originally intended for people of the same sex to be attracted to one another. Despite a lot of very courteous and patient disagreement expressed by others in DH, and a lot of soul-searching on my part, I just don't see it in Genesis.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As I also said, I think God's archetype for sexual relations is heterosexual monogamy, and I missed the edit window at the time to add "for life".
However, human fallenness means that many of us do not match that archetype - and not just in the way you might think. Many who tick the "heterosexual-monogamous-for-life relationship" box may do so in such a way as to make that relationship an abomination (spousal abuse springs to mind).
The good news is that while fallenness is a fact of life - we are all less than ideal - redemption is a fact of the Gospel. God uses all sorts of "less than ideal" circumstances to manifest his grace and his glory - including relationships other than those conforming to that archetype.
Bold mine.
Can't see this as anything other than homosexuality being less than.
quote:
My journey has been about reconciling how I understand Scripture with a growing and deep-seated conviction that nobody is "less than" and nobody deserves to be treated as such.
I do not doubt this. and again I think that is good, but your POV that homosexuality is part of the "Fall" does put it in a lesser category than heterosexuality.
And, honestly, your later posts didn't seem to clearly change this. If this is incorrect, then I apologise.
quote:
But you're so hidebound in your convictions - notably your convictions about what everyone else actually believes
I can be, but it is certainly not my overall record on SOF.
quote:
- you can't do anything but piss all over that without even stopping to look where you're aiming.
Oh, no, I piss exactly where I aim. Whether I should is a separate question.
quote:
Most recently I said to orfeo, in response to his question about why he (gay) and I (straight) were both here, emphasis mine: quote:
we both exist because we are both, in equal measure, here in God's image, fearfully and wonderfully made, amazing creatures, reflecting as parts of his Church different aspects of his infinitely-variegated wisdom.
That is lovely. Truly, no sarcasm.
quote:
If you managed to step out of your anti-Christian anti-God sophistication and your own personal dogma
I am nowhere near anti-Christian. I try to be careful to argue Christianity within the constraints of Christianity. Well, and where it conflicts with the natural world. There are POV within that framework that I argue strenuously against. But not the frame itself.
quote:
for just long enough to think about what that might actually imply for me in my worldview,
I really don't know what you want here, so why don't you just tell me.
quote:
rather than sit waiting for me to parrot the words you keep wanting to put in my mouth, you might actually realise what "equal" (as opposed to "less than" or "more than") means.
When you start with this simple and clear statement,
quote:
I don't think God originally intended for people of the same sex to be attracted to one another.
I do not think it unreasonable to as for just as clear a statement of change.
quote:
Great way to earn respect, make friends and influence people.
This is the hardest part to address. Right now, I don't give a flying fuck about the first two. I still haven't managed to stop caring about other people and the effects of issues on my life, so the third one matters. This is why I do not relent on certain topics.
As far as my interaction with you, I'll say it again; this dance has not been solo. I'll own my bit, I can overreact. I don't think completely without reason, but not to the benefit of the conversation.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
lilBuddha, you're being unreasonable. Eutychus is doing what he has several times before, arguing through something and trying to work out what in the Bible, specifically Genesis here, applies with our current understandings. Through this debate he has been changing his mind on what Genesis means for our generation and what the underlying message is from what I rudely call Bronze Age Just So Stories, tales of how the world is with underlying moral messages.
When he has been arguing through and changing his mind, you are being unfair going back to earlier arguments which he has discarded and continuing to hold him to account on them.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't think God originally intended for people of the same sex to be attracted to one another (...) I just don't see it in Genesis.
This is the key place where I have changed my mind in this discussion.
I've decided that looking in Genesis to discern God's original intent for sexual attraction of any kind, let alone its respective importance, is a huge red herring. Looking in Genesis to justify heterosexual attraction is tempting, but actually futile*.
I can see how trying to do so might have made it look to you as though I thought homosexuality was "less than" heterosexuality, but the fact is you're wrong, and that accusation hurts.
What has changed is that I've not that I've suddenly had an epiphany that homosexuality is not "less than" heterosexuality but that I've come to the conclusion that "the early chapters of Genesis are not intended to address issues of sexuality". Can you see the difference?
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
your POV that homosexuality is part of the "Fall" does put it in a lesser category than heterosexuality.
And, honestly, your later posts didn't seem to clearly change this. If this is incorrect, then I apologise.
Following on from my previous point, in that same post I also wrote that the essence of the “Fall” "has nothing, inherently, to do with sex or sexuality". Is that worth an apology?
quote:
quote:
The good news is that while fallenness is a fact of life - we are all less than ideal - redemption is a fact of the Gospel. God uses all sorts of "less than ideal" circumstances to manifest his grace and his glory - including relationships other than those conforming to that archetype.
Bold mine.
Can't see this as anything other than homosexuality being less than.
You missed the part you didn't bold when I used your exact phrase, "less than", to say "we are all less than ideal". None of us conform to the archetype. Heterosexuality doesn't conform to it any more than homosexuality does.
I might have moved on in my thinking about the relationship between homosexuality and the "Fall" since that post, but again, I can assure you that I wasn't thinking in terms of "less than" prior to that, as I keep trying to explain.
quote:
quote:
for just long enough to think about what that might actually imply for me in my worldview,
I really don't know what you want here, so why don't you just tell me.
I can't do better than use the above example. You appear to be fixated on the idea that your opponents rank humanity by means of a moral litmus test in which people are either gay ("less than") or straight ("more than"): this is not true.
It certainly shouldn't be true for Christians who believe the traditional doctrine of the "Fall", because whatever they might think about sexuality in Eden, the "Fall" places us all on an "equal" footing, and Jesus had plenty to say about people who, for whatever reason, think themselves "more than" their peers.
It would be much more convenient for you if all Christians opposed to homosexuality really did believe that homosexuals were "less than" heterosexuals, because that fits with your value system - in much the same way as it would be much more convenient for Steve Langton if all homosexuals consistently indulged in violent anal sex.
However, I can tell you from experience that by no means all Christians with theological reservations about homosexuality have any such "less than" belief. It's just that their theology hasn't caught up with their day-to-day attitudes.
Many of them demonstrate enormous grace in welcoming people they instinctively find repulsive and whose sexuality they can't get a handle on, and do so over and above any theological dissonance they might experience. It's just that such people don't make the headlines or contribute to this kind of debate.
They are not going to be won over by your "less than" mantra. Repeating it endlessly has roughly the same effect as if Langton were to continue repeating his. It becomes nothing more than a shouting match, and a hurtful one at that.
==
*But for the avoidance of doubt, and for RooK, not because it is "a load of crap"
[x-post with CK. These things take ages to write!]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Eutychus said:-
quote:
However, I can tell you from experience that by no means all Christians with theological reservations about homosexuality have any such "less than" belief. It's just that their theology hasn't caught up with their day-to-day attitudes.
This is a fascinating idea. I thought our theology always reflected our deepest beliefs and attitudes.
I may start a thread to explore this further.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Eutychus said:-
quote:
However, I can tell you from experience that by no means all Christians with theological reservations about homosexuality have any such "less than" belief. It's just that their theology hasn't caught up with their day-to-day attitudes.
This is a fascinating idea. I thought our theology always reflected our deepest beliefs and attitudes.
I may start a thread to explore this further.
Especially in our current culture, identity is the all-powerful factor that maddeningly frequently decides everything. "I am ..... therefore I do/think/say .......". Independent thought has become treason. Among other things, it's why this place is as unrestful as a bathtub with no bather in it.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Eutychus said:-
quote:
However, I can tell you from experience that by no means all Christians with theological reservations about homosexuality have any such "less than" belief. It's just that their theology hasn't caught up with their day-to-day attitudes.
This is a fascinating idea. I thought our theology always reflected our deepest beliefs and attitudes.
I may start a thread to explore this further.
Especially in our current culture, identity is the all-powerful factor that maddeningly frequently decides everything. "I am ..... therefore I do/think/say .......". Independent thought has become treason. Among other things, it's why this place is as unrestful as a bathtub with no bather in it.
I'm less certain that identity defines anything, but I am sure it is often used as a pretext for a lousy argument.
Next time one hears, "As a Christian ..." or "I'm not a racist but ..." just wait for the conclusion, because it will probably not follow from the stated and oft-flawed identity.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Many of them demonstrate enormous grace in welcoming people they instinctively find repulsive and whose sexuality they can't get a handle on, and do so over and above any theological dissonance they might experience.
This is so fucked up.
First, theology isn't instinctive. So you're going to have to find some other explanation for your good Christians finding gay people repulsive. Good luck trying to come up with something that doesn't make them look like jackasses.
Second, replace gay people in this scenario with women or people of color or people with disabilities, and then try to defend it.
Third, imagine yourself on the receiving end of such "grace" at church. Then imagine yourself going back for this week after week after week. Have you ever done this voluntarily in any other aspect of your life? Do you really expect others to do so.
Your "argument" is both stupid and lacking in humanity. It is no wonder Christianit is dying on the vine.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
First, theology isn't instinctive. So you're going to have to find some other explanation for your good Christians finding gay people repulsive. Good luck trying to come up with something that doesn't make them look like jackasses.
Firstly, I don't think Christians, as individuals, have the monopoly on an "ick factor" when interacting with people whose sexual orientation differs from theirs, or due to other instinctive prejudices (maybe I'm more prejudiced than you, or maybe I'm just more lucid about my prejudices).
Secondly, Christians often find themselves immersed in an institutional church culture that can be anti-gay and anti- all kinds of things, with some bad institutional theology to back that up. But more often than not they have bought uncritically into that theology. In that sense it is instinctive: they have never really thought it through for themselves. Unexamined, it gets mixed up with all sorts of prejudices.
But here's the thing - I think they can still be sincere, if misguided, followers of Christ. And as such they should exhibit, albeit imperfectly, some fruit of the Spirit.
If you don't believe that, you are doing little better than those accusing gays of not being able to be proper Christians.
Of course there are communities that can and do deliberately reject or demean gays, blacks, the disabled, women, people who smell bad.... But there are many others in which the rank and file are simply good folks with some unexamined prejudices. This is a very inconvenient truth for militants, but that doesn't stop it being true.
As I said on the parallel thread this one has spawned in Purgatory, to me the New Testament and by extension the church is one long story of having our collective prejudices challenged as the Spirit works in us (and trying to bear with one another as we do).
It's far too easy to categorise all the people in churches with institutional theology opposed to one's minority as haters. It's not true and you know it.
There are plenty of constituencies with far more focused hate out there; not only that, there are plenty more people who pay lip service to tolerance but who in actual, concrete, day-to-day fact display less love and acceptance than believers whose theoretical theology tells them homosexuality is a sin - but who when push comes to shove will actually attempt to love their neighbour.
Of course there are cringeworthy and ham-fisted attempts to exercise "grace" that are nothing more than patronising tokenism - but that's not the whole story by a long way.
And of course that's no excuse for leaving bad theology as it is.
quote:
Third, imagine yourself on the receiving end of such "grace" at church. Then imagine yourself going back for this week after week after week. Have you ever done this voluntarily in any other aspect of your life?
If your question is "have I willingly spent extended time in an environment where I was the minority in terms of belief, sexuality, and orientation" (and not on a crusade) the answer is "yes" and I would start again tomorrow given the opportunity.
I could also tell a lot of stories about the reciprocal grace I see Christian inmates exercising in prison on a weekly basis, often despite their worst primitive theological instincts.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
but your POV that homosexuality is part of the "Fall" does put it in a lesser category than heterosexuality.
And, honestly, your later posts didn't seem to clearly change this. If this is incorrect, then I apologise.
lB, I think you got so fixated with the 'less than' thing, that you allowed it to overshadow everything else that Eutychus said.
I made the comparison with marriage in the afterlife earlier - I'll say it again to see if you get the equivalence. To me the conversation you've had with Eutychus is the equivalent of:
A: "I think marriages last forever, on into the afterlife after we die."
B: "Oh, I think that there is no afterlife."
A: "Your view denigrates marriage and makes it a 'less than'! You think marriages are second rate because they don't last forever!"
B: "Uh, no. I think marriage is really important, and faithfulness and love and all those other wonderful beautiful happy things etc."
A: "No you don't! You think marriage is a less than!"
Obviously it's not totally the same, but that's how it's come across to me. I think you've focused on certain things Eutychus has said, interpreted them in a way he didn't intend, and then ignored a lot of the other stuff. Or, at least, so it seems to me.
Mainly I think... Man, there are so many genuine homophobes out there. Try not to pick on someone who really isn't one. If you're running out of real life homophobes, I can introduce you to plenty.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I am not ignoring the replies to my last post, but I am not in a state to properly evaluate and respond. But I will respond.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I've tried to think about this and sit down and write several times, but I would simply get angry again.
However, I needed to do this while I still had any fucks left, so fuck meᶠ I reread the thread from page 6 or 7 to the end. I wanted to work through what was said and where things might have been misinterpreted. I had accumulated nearly 20 linksᴿ and decided to change the structure.
I also tried to go past the anger and frustration, but I cannot just yet. So bear this in mind.
I was going to respond directly to the posts of a few of people and add some quotes, but it began to drain my will to live, so I decided to keep it relatively short.
No one is going to be satisfied with what I post, so if you are looking for that, stop now.
Eutychus.
The main bone of contention we have on this isue, IMO, is your idea of an archetype for humanity. That automatically puts other models as inherently broken.¹ You don't think this creates a hierarchy, I do not think it can fail to do so.
Your evolved view that Genesis does not address sexuality doesn't change this. Not even this post. So I am not sure what to apologise for.
No, I do not want you to "parrot" anything. I am looking for clarity.
I can understand why you might feel hurt. You see your journey as something that took effort and reflection and taking a, perhaps painful, look at your theology and POV. And you do not think I respect that. Honestly, I DO respect the effort. And I wish more of your brethren would go at least that far.
But I would be dishonest if I said I thought that was enough. Yep, hung up on the archetype thing. I think that concept damages.
My aim never was to hurt you for your theology or dismiss your journey. I think it fantastic that love and respect come first and most people never examine their beliefs. This puts you in a minority and says a lot of positive things about your character.
This is as clear and simple as I can put it right now. I do not think I have mis-characterised your POV, though I accept that we see the ramifications differently.
This post is inadequate, but my last fuck is draining away.
¹We are all equally broken now imparts functional brokenness on the failed archetype, but inherent brokenness on the others.
ᶠuck! hope that wasn't the last one.
ᴿook, your welcome.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Squeezing a bit more of that last fuck.
Life began as single-celled, self replicating organisms. Through time and mutation and many steps in between, humans arose. So I am exceedingly unsure where an archetype would fit in anyway.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
lilBuddha--
Your "I've tried to think about this" post is very well and carefully written, IMHO. It shows how much care you took with it, and that's hard on an emotional topic--especially when there's an ongoing disagreement. Brava.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
lilBuddha
Thanks for this. You'll appreciate that I can appreciate the effort that kind of post takes.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am not sure what to apologise for.
I'm not demanding an apology here, but just to clarify what I meant there:
You alleged that my later posts did not clearly state that homosexuality was not part of the "Fall", and offered an apology if they had.
I later clarified "the essence of the “Fall” "has nothing, inherently, to do with sex or sexuality", so I asked you whether that statement was deserving of the offered apology.
quote:
The main bone of contention we have on this isue, IMO, is your idea of an archetype for humanity. That automatically puts other models as inherently broken.
My current position is, again, that "the early chapters of Genesis are not intended to address issues of sexuality".
If Adam and Eve are intended to represent the first humans and not the first heterosexual pair, heterosexual pairs are no less inherently broken than any other configuration.
From the perspective of the doctrine of the "Fall", what is "inherently broken" is not any relationship that's not male-female, but the relationship of humankind to God and all relationships with each other.
Seen thus, the moral component of the story has nothing to do with sexual practice or orientation.
The fact remains, though, that Genesis depicts a man and a woman. I think it's a fair statement to say they are an archetype in the Jungian sense of "a primitive mental image inherited from the earliest human ancestors, and supposed to be present in the collective unconscious".
Depicting a man and a woman is more representative of all humanity than two men or two women would be, and it acknowledges an obvious, physical difference of sex.
My thinking on archetypes is not yet settled, but I think that this is enough for Adam and Eve to be one, without that entailing a moral judgement about their sexuality - which is not the point of the story.
[ 06. June 2017, 06:17: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Seen thus, the moral component of the story has nothing to do with sexual practice or orientation.
To explore this a little further, based on the passage, I presume that your view of whatever this 'archetype' or origins or whatever word best describes it would also involve a naked Adam and Eve, and no pain in childbirth. In the same way that you infer no moral component from their sexuality, you also wouldn't infer any moral judgements with regards to nudism, or how much pain a woman has in childbirth, right?
From where I stand, you're essentially saying this is an origins story with no morality in the detail, but a moral description of the status of broken relationships; with God; with humanity and with creation? If that's what you're saying I can totally get with that. Would you say that there is any other morality to the story, or is it literally just that?
To me that says a few things. I think it's an interesting, but quite nuanced reading of Genesis, which I'd tend to approach more loosely. But given that it's a theology that you hold, I think it's up to you to explain the moral conclusions of it. Unless you're going to start promoting enforced nudism, I think I'm more willing to take you at face value than lilBuddha does that by calling Adam and Eve 'archetypes' you genuinely are making no moral statement on sexuality or any other incidental that is tangential to the story. I'd go back to my description of Eden as 'other' in the same way that 'Heaven' is other. That's part of what makes it not a sexual morality statement for me. If you see Genesis as Same as this Universe, but earlier, then more of the mud sticks. But from what you've said, you see Eden as Other, different from this Universe. So, we can't extract the same morals.
I appreciate that for both of you posting on this issue has been a difficult process, and I respect you both for continuing to share and not giving up. I hope that my musings don't cause any frustration or further difficulty.
Posted by fluff (# 12871) on
:
Eutychus's horrible equation of any gay relationship with a dysfunctional straight relationship is wholly discriminatory.
But he wants to present this in a very Christian, 'smily' way - without actual verbal abuse (unlike Langton). But is is still a form of prejudice and abuse, justified by his preposterous Biblical exegesis. I can't imagine why you guys keep apologising to him! You are right to be angry.
Ship of Fools is a totally homophobic website (accurately reflecting Christianity as a whole) where these people are simply indulged.
Why do you do it?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
From where I stand, you're essentially saying this is an origins story with no morality in the detail, but a moral description of the status of broken relationships; with God; with humanity and with creation? If that's what you're saying I can totally get with that.
Yes, I think that's what I'm saying at least that's where I've got to for now. This is still very much thought in progress for me (as time allows...) quote:
In the same way that you infer no moral component from their sexuality, you also wouldn't infer any moral judgements with regards to nudism
Nothing could have been further from my mind! To me Adam and Eve's nudity† has long been nothing more or less than a metaphor for complete, ideal or indeed idealised transparency in relationships.*
In this sense, yes, Eden was for all intents and purposes, if not "another universe" at least "another world"; paradise lost (or has someone already said that...?) quote:
or how much pain a woman has in childbirth
Intriguingly, the "curse" says, literally, that the woman's pain in childbirth will be "increased" (that leads to all sorts of interesting thoughts about pain, and childbirth, before the "Fall"...).
Whatever, I think I'd tend towards seeing the various aspects of the "curse" more as an artifice of the narrative describing the "broken relationships" you refer to and their consequences than as God literally dishing out customised gender-specific punishments (or making snakes crawl as opposed to walk), if that's what you're getting at here.
Hope that helps.
==
†I think physical nudity is quite clearly a hugely cultural thing. We (and by we I include most Christians) are far more relaxed about it here in France than in the UK let alone across the pond, and Scandinavian countries make us look positively puritanical. Another big subtopic (those L-shaped sheets in US sex scenes to hide the woman's breasts...)
*In our current "fallen" state I'm not sure such a thing is even desirable. Non-transparent relationships (eg mediated by social convention) are, in our current human condition, just as much a protection as they are a hindrance. Another example of how the Christian emphasis is in any case on "now" not "as it was in the beginning". God deals with us as we are now: after all, it was he who clothed Adam and Eve once they had been thrown out of Eden. And the prospect of once again seeing "face to face" is an eschatological hope, not a present one when we "see through a glass darkly". But now I'm rambling and I need to get back to work
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fluff:
Eutychus's horrible equation of any gay relationship with a dysfunctional straight relationship is wholly discriminatory.
Where was that again?
quote:
his preposterous Biblical exegesis.
I look forward to reading your non-preposterous Biblical exegesis.
quote:
Ship of Fools is a totally homophobic website
I look forward to your demonstration of that, too.
Posted by fluff (# 12871) on
:
I would add that Eutychus is obviously the kind of Christian who expects a fucking medal for having attitudes towards LGBT people that are considered absolutely normal & totally taken for granted in vast sections of mainstream society.
He expects congratulations for allowing others the equal rights that theirs to claim.
To go through all that theological agonising - as he describes - to arrive at the 'we are all broken' justification for not actually stoning us to death (reminiscent of Tim Farron, not mention the unspeakable Welby) demonstrates the depth of bigotry in his heart.
Again, why does Ship of Fools allow all this? Why is Ship of Fools a mouthpiece for this vile homophobia?
Christianity = bigotry with a smile
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fluff:
having attitudes towards LGBT people that are considered absolutely normal & totally taken for granted in vast sections of mainstream society.
And yet not absolutely normal & totally taken for granted for in many countries and societies in our world. And still not absolutely normal and totally taken for granted in many sections of our own British society.
So, what's your goal? To engage, understand and enable mutual growth, or to merely condemn & reject - provoking further polarisation?
Many evangelicals have inherited homophobic baggage from their traditions that they have managed to throw off. Like Eutychus, I am one. I understand there are quite a few of us on the Ship. I don't expect any medals, and I haven't seen Eutychus asking for any either. I do see him engaging, and trying to help people like the subject of this thread see the error of their ways. I also see him 'repenting' - rethinking, learning & developing his beliefs. No medals needed, but sadly, that's a sparse trait.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Hello, newish person.
You seem to be discussing Ship's practice and rules. This is completely and utterly allowed, but not in Hell (and for sake of clarity, not anywhere else either, but only in Styx.)
There is, in fact, an open thread on this very subject, where we - hosts, admin and shipmates - are discussing where to redraw some lines. If you'd like to make a contribution to that debate, then you're more than welcome. You can find it here..
Until we decide otherwise, however, discussing various aspects of homosexuality, including its theological dimensions, is absolutely within the remit of SoF. Such discussions are confined to Dead Horses, except where they spill over into Hell.
Where I do my very best to get rid of them quickly...
Thank you for your co-operation.
DT
Hell Host
(x-post. Obviously directed at fluff. And now goperryrevs.)
[ 06. June 2017, 10:44: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fluff:
I would add that Eutychus is obviously the kind of Christian who expects a fucking medal for having attitudes towards LGBT people that are considered absolutely normal & totally taken for granted in vast sections of mainstream society.
Obviously
Or at least, that "kind of Christian" is the windmill that you absolutely need to be true regardless of evidence, to justify your tilting at it.
quote:
He expects congratulations for allowing others the equal rights that theirs to claim.
Rather, I was expecting you to point out just where I've been getting all these apologies you berate others for offering me on this thread. Not that you've given any indication at all of having read it for content (yet).
quote:
To go through all that theological agonising - as he describes - to arrive at the 'we are all broken' justification for not actually stoning us to death (reminiscent of Tim Farron, not mention the unspeakable Welby) demonstrates the depth of bigotry in his heart.
And I love you too, darling.
quote:
Christianity = bigotry with a smile
You have yet to post anything on this thread that makes me think you represent anything other than bigotry - without a smile.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fluff:
I would add that Eutychus is obviously the kind of Christian who expects a fucking medal for having attitudes towards LGBT people that are considered absolutely normal & totally taken for granted in vast sections of mainstream society.
He expects congratulations for allowing others the equal rights that theirs to claim.
To go through all that theological agonising - as he describes - to arrive at the 'we are all broken' justification for not actually stoning us to death (reminiscent of Tim Farron, not mention the unspeakable Welby) demonstrates the depth of bigotry in his heart.
Again, why does Ship of Fools allow all this? Why is Ship of Fools a mouthpiece for this vile homophobia?
Christianity = bigotry with a smile
You would rather he STAY in his homophobia and NOT work through it? You have pretty high requirements. Everybody must be born and raised unbiased or you will pronounce your judgment from on high. With a hypocritical emoticon.
fluff = asshole with a smiley.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
The main bone of contention we have on this isue, IMO, is your idea of an archetype for humanity. That automatically puts other models as inherently broken.
Genesis depicts a man and a woman. I think it's a fair statement to say they are an archetype in the Jungian sense of "a primitive mental image inherited from the earliest human ancestors, and supposed to be present in the collective unconscious".
Depicting a man and a woman is more representative of all humanity than two men or two women would be
I read lilBuddha as meaning something slightly different by "archetype".
I think she's saying that any notion of God's Plan for how human beings should live their lives necessarily involves a measure of "looking down on" those who follow an inclination to live differently.
And "looking down on" is anathema to those who subscribe to the dogma of "no less than".
God, in lilBuddha's universe, is morally obliged not to want anything from us that would conflict with those inclinations that people adopt as their identity.
Because that wouldn't be fair...
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
those inclinations that people adopt as their identity.
Please explain what the difference is, in your view, between people's inclinations and their identity and how you decide when they are adopting one in place of the other.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
God, in lilBuddha's universe, is morally obliged not to want anything from us that would conflict with those inclinations that people adopt as their identity.
Because that wouldn't be fair...
No. Bullshit.
The problem is that you can't fucking stand the idea of other people regard homosexuals as full human beings and that they exhibit natural and wholesome behaviours.
I believe that but don't therefore have to believe that God tolerates child abusers.
Fruitcake. And you wonder why nobody wants to discuss anything with you.
[ 11. June 2017, 13:43: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
those inclinations that people adopt as their identity.
Please explain what the difference is, in your view, between people's inclinations and their identity and how you decide when they are adopting one in place of the other.
Short answer - wish I knew.
Longer answer -
Sorry, Eutychus, that sentence wasn't clear. I'll try it a little more slowly.
LilBuddha raised what seemed to me a good question. Is it the case that holding up anything - any mode of life, any characteristic - as good implicitly insults or disrespects or looks down on those people who through no choice of their own lack the ability or the desire to follow that mode of life or acquire that characteristic ?
Do we wrong the one-legged man by asserting that two legs are better ?
Is it unfair to advocate vegetarianism when some of us have more taste for meat than others ? Does it fail the "no less than" test ?
The question is general (and the examples for illustration only). But more pointed in the case where the characteristic is considered as forming the person's identity or a significant part thereof.
People clearly do identify as this or that.
Maybe they shouldn't? I don't know.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I have resolved this to my satisfaction with LilBuddha. I can't speak for her and neither can you, and for my part I'm not interested in starting this conversation all over again right now, with you.
Besides, you already have your own Hell thread to play with.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
No, fuck off.
A one-eyed man is likely going to say that two-eyes are preferable. A one-legged man likely is impaired compared to a two-legged man. A short-sighted person is impaired compared to someone with perfect sight.
It might be that there are ways that these people can have absolutely full lives.
This is not the same as questioning whether a white skinned person is somehow impaired compared to a brown skinned person.
Or whether a gay person is somehow lesser than a straight person.
Only a dick could even phrase the question in such a dumb-arsed way.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
A one-eyed man is likely going to say that two-eyes are preferable.
A one-legged man likely is impaired compared to a two-legged man. A short-sighted person is impaired compared to someone with perfect sight.
One would naturally think so.
Does impaired mean "less than" ?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Does impaired mean "less than" ?
It certainly implies inferiority.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Russ, you loathsome shitweasel, you have your very own fully-functional call to Hell to continue to spout your bent-minded justifications for vile bigotry. Stop smearing your posts on this one just because some smarter kids took a few turns on this one's dogma-go-round.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Does impaired mean "less than" ?
It certainly implies inferiority.
im·paired
imˈperd/
adjective
adjective: impaired
1.
weakened or damaged.
"an impaired banking system"
North American
affected by alcohol or drugs to the extent of losing control over one's faculties or behavior.
"impaired driving charges"
2.
having a disability of a specified kind.
"hearing-impaired children"
synonyms: disabled, handicapped, incapacitated; More
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
"You're so vain/
I bet you think this thread's about you..."
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I know this is thread necromancy, but Steve Langdon has commented offensively on the Supreme Court thread in Dead Horses, and has proved that his objections to homosexuality are still to do with the ick factor of anal sex, however many times he is told that heterosexual couples are far more likely to partake.
[ 09. December 2017, 12:18: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
And he still thinks it's a matter of choice.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
I do wish Steve Langton could find another pony tp ride.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
All is forgiven, Curiosity. Steve has his very own frequent flier scheme here in Hell.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
All is forgiven, Curiosity. Steve has his very own frequent flier scheme here in Hell.
I'll donate all my miles to provide him with a private plane so long as I get to choose the destination. San Francisco on Gay Pride Day for choice.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
In-flight entertainment provided by Electric Six...
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
Oh joy, the Ship is shipping yet more Langtonshit.
Excuse me while I vomit.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
He is pretty disgusting, isn't he?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Psst, he's also just attracted some shore leave.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
Yeah, saw that just after I posted here.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
As he's not here to answer, this thread is closed.
Tubbs
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0