|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people? | |||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
You are not understanding what I am saying. Polygamy is a descriptor for how many people one can have sex with, not a word for sex itself. Thus it does not matter how many, if the sex with all of them must be cleansed through ritual.
Is all sex sinful?
No. I agreed my initial statement was over broad several posts ago. It's amazing that you cannot notice when someone agrees with a criticism and so changes the wording they initially used.
Then the heterosexuals have been given a pass.
Whether you believe this or not, heterosexual does not mean a person enjoys vaginal sex. It means enjoying sex with someone of the opposite gender. There are plenty of heteros that prefer nonvaginal sex. Sometimes it even becomes an issue within a marriage. If you need a reference frame, I am sure you must have met gay and bi men that find anal or oral sex disgusting or undesirable. Thus, with a proscription on nonvaginal sex, heteros are hit as well. The only people getting a pass, are those who enjoy or are practicing vaginal intercourse. Gay men can and have done so in order to have children. So have straight men for the same reason, though they would have preferred something else. That is why many heteros got clapped with all sorts of punishments throughout the ages. If vaginal sex was all it took to be hetero, then they could have easily avoided said punishments.
We're talking about Christians and the last time I checked, Christians were not the Bible.
Ok.
Onan.
So what are we discussing, the Bible or Xians. While you might have a valid point about the meaning of the Onan passage, many Xians believe it has a different meaning. On a point of information, wasn't it thought that the brother had the same right to the wife, through the marriage ritual? I thought that was an artifact of those times.
Where does the Bible ever say that?
It doesn't say that anywhere, remember, it never discusses Xians? I said as many believe. You think I meant as many Bibles believe? h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
iano and I write:
quote:quote:quote: Don't play dumb.
quote: But you're not.
quote: Which you're not supposed to do. Since the text literally does not say what you think it says, for you to judge that it does means you are saying that you know more about what god thinks than god. That is judgement. That is denied to you.
quote: But you're telling others, not merely concluding as you do. Your book says you are forbidden from doing just that. You're insistence that you understand god's will is judgement. That is denied to you.
quote: Read: LA-LA-LA! I can't hear you! If you can't respond to the fact that your holy book literally does not say what you think it says and thus your insistence that a certain moral conclusion is required based upon the fantasy you have created in your own head about what you think god wants, then there is very little to say. You think you know god's will. That is judgement. That is denied to you.
quote: You need to re-read Matthew: Matthew 6:5: And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But as I have been paraphrasing directly to you: Matthew 7:1: Judge not, that ye be not judged. "Judge not, that ye be not judged."7:2: For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 7:3: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 7:4: Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? And later: Romans 2:1: Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. And again: Romans 14:13: Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. And again: James 4:12: There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another? Your book literally does not say what you think it says. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Silent H responds to me:
quote: Don't play dumb. And don't increase the insult to our intellegence by pretending you don't know what I'm talking about.
quote:quote: So you're contradicting your earlier claim. When you settle on an argument, let us know. Message 221:
Apparently God wants to exclude all sexual acts for all individuals, except the one case where a penis and vagina meet in such a way to facilitate reproduction, and even then only after an arcane ritual has been conducted between the two reproducers. ...
Celibacy is the model behavior, if one fails at that, then chastity and prudism. Oh, but that's just dancing around. Here, let's cut straight to the chase: Message 226:
Straights are told they are sinning when they have sex. [B][I]All sex is sin.[/b][/i] There is a mystical right which allows one type of act alone to be given a temporary reprieve for atonement, and that is based on its ability to produce offspring. [emphasis added] So which is it? Is all sex sinful or is not all sex sinful? When you settle on an argument, let us know.
quote: Oh, really? I responded to your "All sex is sin" claim (Message 229):
Since when? "Be fruitful and multiply." Last time I checked, humans hadn't mastered parthenogenesis and the Catholic Church just declared cloning to be a sin. The Bible is filled with people desperately wanting to have a baby, praying to god to make it happen. The sin of Onan is that he didn't have sex (or, at least, didn't complete the act). Where does this idea that "all sex is sin" come from? Paul? We're going to trust Paul over god? Jesus doesn't say not to have sex. Are we going to trust Paul over Jesus? And your response? Message 232:
The exhortation to "be fruitful and multiply" does not remove the sin of sex by heterosexuals. You didn't "agree that your initial statement was over broad." You actively supported it and then avoided discussing it. This is the first time you have even hinted at saying, "Oops. I made a mistake." That's the thing about the internet, Silent H: Your words tend to stick around and we can see what you said in the past.
quote: Non sequitur. What does this have to do with anything? Surely you're not saying that nobody enjoys vaginal sex, are you? And the discussion isn't about everybody being expected to enjoy vaginal sex. It has to do with your claim that sex for pleasure is a sin. Where? Where do we find this canard?
quote: We are discussing Christianity as described by the Bible and practiced by Christians. This means that certain parts will be about what the Bible says and other parts will be about what practitioners do. One would have to be playing dumb to confuse the two. Don't play dumb.
quote: No. Where on earth did you get that? While we're at it, "droit de signeur" never existed, either.
quote: Indeed. And since their book literally does not say what they believe, where does that leave us? That'd be with them pretending to know what god thinks. And that's judgement. And that is denied them. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Since the text literally does not say what you think it says, for you to judge that it does means you are saying that you know more about what god thinks than god. That is judgement. That's a bit of a stretch! For me to judge that it does means I am saying I draw other linguistic meaning than does the rabid literalist. When allied with my belief that the Bible is the word of God you can extrapolate to me saying that I believe I know more about what God thinks than does the rabid literalist. Which I do believe. -
I can't see what would stop me judging things on a linguistically meaningfully basis
But you're not. Not judging on the basis of rabid literalism perhaps. There are other ways to skin a cat. -
As already mentioned, I'm not getting into the relative merits of this or that linguistic meaning with you.
Read: LA-LA-LA! I can't hear you! Once my entitlement to judge linguistic meaning at all is established then this conversation of ours is over. There would be no objection left to my saying a persons action is sinful (according to the combination of a) linguistic meaning arrived at by me + b) my belief that the Bible is God's word). The qualifier given in brackets above dispenses with any requirement that I get into this, that or the other linguistic meaning with you. I can understand the attempt to re-direct. Your objection seems to centre on a demand that rabid literalism be applied to Bible reading. That's not much of an objection Rrhain. -
I truly believe the Bible and nothing that I see in it prevents me from saying what I believe God thinks.
You need to re-read Matthew: The judgement involved in the statement "I believe that God thinks homosex is sinful" isn't the kind of judgement Matthew is talking about. At least, I don't derive that meaning from Matthew (or the other verses you quote). That you clearly do (at least for the sake of your argument) is irrelevant however. As you say yourself:
Rrhain writes: Irrelevant. This isn't about them. It's about YOU. YOU are the one that made the judgement. ..and not you. Quite.. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Hello Rrhain,
And don't increase the insult to our intellegence by pretending you don't know what I'm talking about.
You are not a collective. And although it is errant to point out poor spelling, I certainly don't hit 100%, it is funny to see you misspell intelligence in that instance. I was being totally honest with my statement on polygamy. I have no idea what that has to do with the topic of heterosexuality, or the sinfulness of the sexual act.
So you're contradicting your earlier claim. When you settle on an argument, let us know.
You are now beginning your m.o. of quote-mining, and pretense that a person has not only admitted an error, but has admitted to changing a position. Why you engage in this, I have no clue. I did originally state that all sex is sin. I did say, and still maintain, that celibacy is the model behavior, and failing that then chastity and prudism. This is because the highest figures in Xianity are generally celibate, and often required to be such. They are the ideals. For the rest of the people falling beneath priest and sainthood, chastity and prudism is the goal. To your correction, I then stated that I should have said sex for pleasure is a sin. There is a reply to that very comment by another poster. So you can pretend I never said it, but as you point out it is all written here for people to read. What you are doing is rather obvious, even if the reason for doing so is opaque.
Indeed. And since their book literally does not say what they believe, where does that leave us? That'd be with them pretending to know what god thinks.
No, that would be several groups having different interpretations. Pretending to know does not quite capture the reality of this situation. And in any case, it would then be judging the word of god, not judging someone else... which was YOUR original case. I am now stepping off this merry-go-round. You may have the last word if you feel you have something to add. Thank you for your time. h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
iano responds to me:
quote: This isn't a question of literalism. This is a question of the passage you think is there specifically not existing. If you look in the works of William Shakespeare, you won't find any mention of Don Quixote. Therefore, to say that the works of Shakespeare have something to say about Don Quixote is to claim that you understand the mind of Bill since there is nothing in the text regarding it. It has nothing to do with an interpretive style of "literalism." It's that there is nothing in there to interpret, literally or otherwise.
quote: Yes, it is. Let us not be naive and pretend that you're being neutral, a la Fox. The reason why you aren't supposed to do that is because you cannot be neutral, you will act on your usurpation of god's will, and you will judge those around you. You need to stop worrying about others and start paying attention to yourself. How can you remove the mote in your brother's eye when there is this great plank in your own? If you think god doesn't want you to have sex with someone of your own sex, then simply don't have it. Why are you incapable of letting it go at that? Why are you obsessing over it? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Silent H responds to me:
quote: I asked nicely: Don't play dumb.
quote: You're the one who said, and I quote, "All sex is sin." I'm the one asking you to explain yourself, where you find any justification within the holy book of Christianity that sex is sinful, in general, and sex for pleasure is sinful, in specific. When you figure out what your argument is, let us know.
quote: A statement you defended up until the point you realized you couldn't back it up. Now that you have made this realization, you are trying to sidestep the consequences. If not all sex is sinful, and if heterosexuals are allowed to have sex and not sin, then heterosexuals are given a pass. That's what "given a pass" means, after all. So if the Bible doesn't say anything about homosexuality (and it doesn't), then why are we picking on gay people? If it's the sex that's sinful, why do straights get a pass? It certainly isn't the mechanics of it or the pleasure of it because there's an erotic poem in the Bible that mentions both oral and manual sex. There isn't anything that gays do that straights don't so why is it they get a pass when they do it?
quote: Let's suppose the Bible didn't have the book of Genesis. For whatever reason, it's simply gone, no copies of it anywhere to be found. How could one possibly "interpret" the creation myth when there is literally no creation myth to be found? The text of the Bible doesn't have anything to say about homosexuality because the concept of homosexuality simply did not exist at the time. How does one "interpret" something that doesn't exist? Now, one might decide to live one's life with only encounters that the Bible specifically mentions. After all, with no discussion in the Bible regarding things like computers, flight, nuclear energy, etc., we have absolutely no idea if god considers them to be good or bad and as the Bible shows, god is pretty arbitrary regarding such things. There is no reliable pattern. And yet, we don't seem to think the airplane is sinful, even though the Bible doesn't say anything about it. So why do so many people seem to think they know the mind of god regarding other things the Bible says nothing about? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
not anytime soon as far as I can see.
Marc Hall v. Durham Catholic School Boardquote: Chelsea Overstreet and Lauren Martin quote: My take on this? It's already hard enough that these kids have to deal with people's shit almost on a daily basis just because of who they love. But now school officials are also giving them shit... as if having asshole jocks beating up a gay kid to prove their manhood wasn't enough. Edited by Taz, : No reason given. Edited by Taz, : No reason given. I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Please include at least some quoted material from each of the links. A little personal commentary would also be nice.
As is, you message is a fine example of a violation of forum rule 5.
quote: Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
This isn't a question of literalism. This is a question of the passage you think is there specifically not existing Sorry. When you said this...
Rrhain writes: Since the text literally does not say what you think it says, for you to judge that it does means you are saying that you know more about what god thinks than god. That is judgement. ...I thought you meant it was a question of literalism. Are you now saying that the text does not say what I think it says in any of the ways a text can convey a message? I sure hope not!! -
The judgement involved in the statement "I believe that God thinks homosex is sinful" isn't the kind of judgement Matthew is talking about.
Yes, it is. Let us not be naive and pretend that you're being neutral, a la Fox. The reason why you aren't supposed to do that is because you cannot be neutral, you will act on your usurpation of god's will, and you will judge those around you. Who's pretending to be neutral? I believe homosex is sinful and cannot see how anyone could take that up as being a neutral position. If you manage to connect linguistic judgement with mote/plank judgement then I might well agree that my believing homosex is sinful means I must judge others around me (in mote/plank fashion). Given this from you..
quote: ...I don't expect that connection to be made anytime soon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
iano responds to me:
quote: No, I'm saying that the words you seem to think exist in the text precisely and specifically are not there. As I pointed out in my example: If you were to search the works of Shakespeare, you will not find any references to Don Quixote. Thus, to look to Shakespeare for assistance on how to interpret Don Quixote is a fool's errand as the character "literally" does not appear. It has nothing to do with taking a "literal" approach or a reference to "literalism." It has to do with the fact that the words do not exist. Please do not play dumb.
quote: You are. I've asked you nicely not to play dumb. You are pretending that this information you are seeing is simply there for one's edification. But instead, you are acting upon that knowledge with regard to what you think god wants you to do. OK, so long as you restrict yourself to yourself, that's fine. It's when you try to complain about the mote in your brother's eye that you run into trouble. How can you remove the mote from your brother's eye when there is this great plank in your own? If you think that's what god means, then fine...don't do it. But your attempt to tell others that they shouldn't do it, either, is judgement. And that is forbidden to you. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Are you now saying that the text does not say what I think it says in any of the ways a text can convey a message?
No, I'm saying that the words you seem to think exist in the text precisely and specifically are not there. I'm not talking about individual words. I'm talking about a message. Not there...in any of the ways a text can convey a message? -
You are. I've asked you nicely not to play dumb. You are pretending that this information you are seeing is simply there for one's edification. But instead, you are acting upon that knowledge with regard to what you think god wants you to do. OK, so long as you restrict yourself to yourself, that's fine. It's when you try to complain about the mote in your brother's eye that you run into trouble. How can you remove the mote from your brother's eye when there is this great plank in your own? There is my belief that homosex is sinful (arrived at in three steps). Then there is my belief that the gospel of God is to be proclaimed and that doing so involves naming sin as sin at times. This second belief is arrived at by those same three steps. If you ever manage to connect mote/plank judgement with the judgement involved in the 1st belief then you'll have automatically included the 2nd belief. But you yourself have already denied that connection existing when you said:
quote: -
If you think that's what god means, then fine...don't do it. But your attempt to tell others that they shouldn't do it, either, is judgement. I'm not telling others that they shouldn't do it. I'm telling them it is sinful. Telling someone that they are breaking the law is a simple proclamation. It's not telling them they shouldn't break the law. There would be something unseemly about one lawbreaker (me) telling another lawbreaker that they shouldn't break the law. That would indeed be mote/plank. Given that a persons own sinfulness is utilised by God in his attempt to save them, it wouldn't be a sensible thing for me to be telling them they shouldn't sin. God forbid, they might actually attempt not to sin in the hope that that would save them!! Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
iano responds to me:
quote: Neither am I. There is literally nothing there concerning the topic.
quote: And according to your own book, doing so will damn you for doing so is only to do it for the glory of men. You are to pray in private, do your good deeds in secret, let not your left hand know what your right hand is doing. Your only goal is to be a shining light before others, not to browbeat them into submission.
quote: It's more than that. It is you ignoring your own sins in order to obsess about the sins of others which are tiny compared to yours. You are not god. You are in no position to say what someone else should be concerned about. You have your own problems to deal with. You only know your own problems. For you to worry about other people's problems is for you to judge them and you have no business doing that.
quote: What makes you think they're sinning? That's judgement. That's forbidden to you. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Rrhain writes: Neither am I. There is literally nothing there concerning the topic. That my linguistic judgement arrives at a different conclusion than your linguistic judgement doesn't alter the fact that linguistic judgement is the category of judgement operating in both cases. Given: a) the basis for my considering and proclaiming homosex sinful is one of linguistic judgment + belief only b) that you yourself erected a wall between linguistic judgement and mote/plank judgement ..we can justifiably park any rhetoric of yours that is fuelled by the (apparently rendered undemonstrable by you) assumption that I am engaged in mote/plank judgement. Given that and the fact that we are not debating the relative merit of this, that and the other linguistic judgement there is nothing left to respond to in the rest of your post that I can see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
iano responds to me:
quote: Irrelevant. You cannot arrive at a linguistic determination over words that do not exist. Don Quixote appears nowhere in Shakespeare. Therefore, one cannot come to any linguistic determination regarding Don Quixote by examining the works of Shakespeare. That you want to read into the Bible statements that literally are not there indicates that you wish to engage in judgement. And that is forbidden you. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024