Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?

iano responds to me:

quote:

---

All I need to know is that they are a) a person b) not Christ.

---

Well, Christ wasn't the only one, if we are to believe the Bible, but you are still missing the point:If everyone is a "sinner," then "sinner" doesn't mean anything. Something that explains everything actually explains nothing.

quote:

---

You seem to be under the impression that I should not judge the Bible as the word of God

---

Incorrect. I seem to be under the impression that you are not able to apply what the Bible says (whatever its origin) to anybody. To do so is judgement.

quote:

---

If I am not to do so then how am I meant to judge the meaning of the mote/plank passage?

---

Exactly as I have been saying: Worry about yourself. You are in no position to say one word about the actions of others. You have your own problems to deal with. You need to stop seeking the glory of man and start seeking the glory of god.

quote:

---

You repeat it so often I cannot but assume you intend I make some kind of judgement about it.

---

You need to start paying attention to it. Your god is trying to tell you something and you aren't listening.Edited by Rrhain, : Dropped a not which completely inverted the meaning of a sentence.

---

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.

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

but that is a bit unfair... or at least not logically valid... to judge his interpretation based on your own.

---

Two things:First, I am not the one saying that one must not judge. I am therefore under no admonition.Second, this isn't a question about judgement, per se. This is about things that actually are or are not there. Everybody "knows" that Bogart said, "Play it again, Sam" in Casablanca, but it turns out he didn't. Everybody "knows" that Mae West said, "Come up and see me sometime," but it turns out she didn't.Judgement involves questions of good and bad, not questions of existence. But, only god can say if what you have done is good or bad. Thus, we can say that god has said that X action carried out by Y is a sin, but that doesn't let us know anything about how god will feel about Z.

quote:

---

I am unaware of any Xian Bible... particularly english language Xian Bible, which has not used that specific language.

---

Well, you can start with the King James. It doesn't really say anything. This is partly because the modern concept of homosexuality is precisely that: Modern. People back then simply did not think like we do.And since the Bible wasn't written in English....

quote:

---

You cannot make out that Iano is errant in his interpretation of english Biblical scripture

---

But it isn't my burden of proof. It's his. He's the one making the claim.

quote:

---

The rest of your post attacks the validity of english language interpretations of OT and NT passages.

---

(*chuckle*) Nice try, but you're the one who was just harping on English translations. I wasn't talking about English translations. In fact, I quoted Greek to you. But if you want to talk about English, fine: The very word Paul makes up, "arsenkoitai," is a portmanteau of "male" and "temple prostitute."

quote:

---

And this does not address the other negative references to homosexuality

---

But that's just it: There aren't any. You can count the references on one hand and still have fingers left over. And since those references are all in the context of ritualistic sex, those who say that the Bible condemns homosexuality need to come up with the evidence because there doesn't appear to be anything there.

quote:

---

It seems beyond dispute that Paul was against homosexuality as he was against much sex all around.

---

But then why the harping on homosexuality? If the admonition is against sex, why do straights get a pass? If we're going to use a general anti-sex attitude to condemn gays, then we need to be just as condemning of straights...but that never seems to happen.

quote:

---

That author's ideas are in dispute

---

His name is Boswell and his ideas are in dispute in much the same way that evolution is "in dispute." People who can't show him where he has gone wrong simply say that he is.

quote:

---

the practice was neither common nor recent even according to his work.

---

Irrelevant. The point is not the frequency or the recentness. It's that the attitude was different in the past and to pretend that the cultural attitudes were some sort of monolithic universal is to simply deny reality. People act as if the moral framework that we have today was delivered to us unchanged from Adam.Well, it hasn't. Even if we want to base our morality upon the Bible, there is no way to possibly claim "original intent."

---

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.

ICANT responds to Silent H:

quote:

---

I can say anything I want to but that does not make it what God said.
I can say God said anything I want to but that does not mean that is what God said.

---

Exactly. Just because you say it doesn't mean it's what god says. We know you think that's what god says, but your say so is not good enough.

quote:

---

You do realize it is impossible to argue the Bible with someone who does not believe the Bible don't you.

---

Incorrect. One does not need to believe in order to understand.I don't believe in Romeo and Juliet, but I can argue about what it says, the themes it brings up, and interpretive justifications. You simply need to understand its own terms.It's called "internal consistency." Surely you learned this in your literature classes, yes?

---

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.

ICANT writes:

quote:

---

Why do I have to interpet the following passage to get the idea God thinks sex between man and man is wrong?

---

Because all linguistic comprehension necessarily requires interpretation.Thus, we learn that the passage you quote doesn't say what you seem to think it says. It isn't referring to gay people.

quote:

---

You could probably get a better picture by reading the entire chapter.

---

That's the point: If you read the whole context in which it is presented, it is clear that it isn't referring to gay people.Note: Placing it in context is an act of interpretation.

---

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.

ICANT writes:

quote:

---

The original text was in Chaldee Hebrew.

---

No, it wasn't. We don't have any original sources of any of the texts of the Bible and thus, we have no idea what the original languages were. The Old Testament, in particular, is a recording of oral tradition. And that written transcription was destroyed and had to be reconstructed by those who had memorized the text.And human memory is quite fallible.We don't know what the original material said because there is no record of it.

quote:

---

The text's I quote in the 20th chapter of Levi. was given to the descendants of Abraham and had nothing to do with any culture around them as they were in the desert.

---

Except they were. To think that because the law was given unto the Jews in the desert means it is completely divorced from cultural context is to ignore the text.

quote:

---

There is no room for any other interpretation.

---

Except it doesn't mean that. It doesn't even say that.You're confusing English for Hebrew.

---

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.

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

If everyone is a "sinner," then "sinner" doesn't mean anything. Something that explains everything actually explains nothing.

---

​

That is not logically valid.

---

Incorrect. I have merely restated the truism: A difference that makes no difference is no difference.If everything is X, then nothing is Y and it is useless to try and distinguish X from Y because there is nothing that is Y.If everyone's a sinner, then it doesn't matter what anybody does because there is no way not to be a sinner.

quote:

---

So now you can speak for God and judge iano?

---

I'm not the one saying that we should not judge. I am not bound by the same restrictions.

---

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 responds to me:

quote:

---

Everyone is a human being. Everyone is an air breather. Everyone is a warm blooded mammal. Everyone is a sinner. I'm not sure I follow your thinking

---

Since everyone is a human being, what does that distinction tell us about "human beingness"? Absolutely nothing. The only way to understand what that means is to compare a "human being" to something that is not a "human being."If there is no distinction, we have learned nothing.

quote:

---

That impression is gleaned from your own interpretation of the Bible I presume.

---

No, it is gleaned from the meaning of "judgement."

quote:

---

If I accept and apply your interpretation of the mote/plank passage then I am still judging the passage

---

Logical error: Equivocation."Judgement" as in "comprehension of language to determine a linguistic meaning" is not the same as "judgement" as in "determination of good and evil."Again, you are not able to apply what is said in the Bible to anybody else. It is not for you to determine if anybody else is sinning. Only god can do that. You can certainly comprehend the concept of sin, but it is not for you to tell anybody else if they are or are not sinning for that requires the ability to judge which is strictly 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 responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

If everything is X, then nothing is Y and it is useless to try and distinguish X from Y because there is nothing that is Y.

---

​

Jesus

---

All human beings are sinners.
Jesus was a human being.
Therefore, Jesus was a sinner.Great...you just denied your own assumption. Something, somewhere is false. Is it that human beings are sinners or is that Jesus was a human being?

---

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 responds to me:

quote:

---

It doesn't mean that it doesn't matter what you do.

---

But if everyone's a sinner, then there is no way not to sin. Thus, it doesn't matter what you do. If we were to follow a person through their life and at every point of choice, follow each path, then the statement that everyone is a sinner means that it doesn't matter which path you follow: There is no winning solution.Thus, since there is no way to win, it doesn't matter what you do.

quote:

---

Hell might be hell. But that doesn't mean there aren't shades of torment.

---

But you've said all sin is equivalent, not one is worse than the other. Therefore, there are no "shades of torment."Once again, a difference that makes no difference is no difference. If you're going to make a distinction, then something has to give. You have to be able to select between things to show why one is different from the other.

quote:

---

Their sinful nature has been destroyed

---

But everyone's a sinner. Therefore, it is impossible for the "sinful nature" to be destroyed. You don't get to have it both ways. Either everybody's a sinner, including Christians, and nothing anybody does matters or not everybody's a sinner and your god's direct admonition to you not to judge means that the person you are so certain is doing the thing that makes god vomit really isn't.Which is it?

quote:

---

There is one sure way not to be a sinner anymore. And that's die a Christian.

---

BZZZZZT! Pascal's Wager.I'm so sorry, iano. Thanks for playing.Besides, you just said everybody is a sinner. That means Christians, too.Which is 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.

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

When do straights get a pass?

---

Straight people aren't told they are abomination for having sex. If the admonition were against sex, why is heterosexual sex given a pass?This gets back to the "everybody's a sinner" thing. If everybody is, then it doesn't matter what anybody does. There's no way to win.

quote:

---

It was only by great effort within the last century that sex outside of marriage was allowed by law

---

What does that have to do with anything? It's still sex and still a sin. If the admonition were against sex, why is heterosexual sex given a pass?

quote:

---

You claimed it was done recently, not me.

---

In the scale of history, even if we limit ourselves to the scale of Christian history, the past couple hundred years is "recent."

quote:

---

They had brotherhood-type ceremonies in the past and that's what it looked like.

---

That included sex? Such a strange definition of "brotherhood" you have. Seems were at the same attitude proclaimed in Biological Exuberance: Any explanation except the most obvious one is forced upon the situation. It's "bonding behaviour," "submission behaviour," "dominance behaviour," anything but SEXUAL behaviour.

quote:

---

I'm sorry, but your original statement was that if everyone is a sinner than sinner doesn't mean anything... that it explains nothing. I was correct in pointing out that that statement is wrong.

---

Incorrect. If everyone's a sinner, how does one distinguish it? If everyone is the same, what makes one different from another? Since you've drawn your boundary to include everything, suddenly there is no way for anything to be any different. Thus, "sinner" doesn't mean anything because everyone's a "sinner."Didn't you see The Incredibles? If everybody's "special," then nobody is.

quote:

---

All humans are air-breathers as they fulfill the criteria for that category and do not fulfill the criteria for being water-breathers.

---

I'm sorry...what is this "water-breather" thing you speak of? There ain't no such thing because everybody's an "air-breather."What? You mean there are things that aren't "air-breathers"? Then we're talking about not humans but "breathing organisms" and thus we have a distinction that can be made.

quote:

---

Yeah, but it gets into a circular problem for yourself given your line of argument against him.

---

Incorrect. Do not engage in the logical error of equivocation.

---

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 writes:

quote:

---

my interpretation of that word" ...after statements like "homosex is sinful".

---

But "interpretation" is judgement and you are specifically admonished not to judge.

---

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 responds to me:

quote:

---

So why do you keep posing the mote and plank passage as if I'm supposed to interpret it the way you suggest - if I'm not allowed to interpret?

---

Interesting dilemma you have there, isn't it? How does one judge the demand not to judge?Here's one possible way out: It only applies to yourself. Thus, the mote/plank comment makes sense: Stop worrying about others and start paying attention to yourself.

---

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 responds to me:

quote:

---

I'm not determining good and evil. I'm stating that a person is engaging in something that is sinful

---

You do realize that the second sentence contradicts the first, yes? How do you know that "a person is engaging in something that is sinful"? Who are you to make that judgement? Since when did you become the mind of god? [quote] Rrhain writes:
"Judgement" as in "comprehension of language to determine a linguistic meaning" is not the same as "judgement" as in "determination of good and evil."I'm not determining good and evil. I'm stating that a person is engaging in something that is sinful - linguistically meaningfully I mean. That sin is defined as evil - linguistically meaningfully I mean, means that I can say homosex is evil. I'm not determining that it is - God is. I'm just reporting on that fact (assuming my language comprehension judgement is on target)It is not for you to determine if anybody else is sinning. Only god can do that. You can certainly comprehend the concept of sin, but it is not for you to tell anybody else if they are or are not sinning for that requires the ability to judge which is strictly forbidden to you.

quote:

---

That homosex falls under the category of activities deemed sinful

---

Since when? There's nothing in the Bible about it. Certainly not as we understand the term.

quote:

---

So go compare humans to non-humans.

---

Why? You're the one that said everyone is a sinner. Therefore, there is no other category. You cannot find any person who is not a sinner, by your standard. Therefore, there is nothing to be gleaned from the entire concept of "sin." It doesn't actually explain anything.Since everybody's a sinner, then it won't matter what anybody does: There's no way to win.

quote:

---

I've already told you the basis on which I state everyone a sinner. a)they are human b) they are not Christ.

---

But Christ was human.Therefore, he was a sinner.And according to your book, Christ wasn't the only one.

---

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.

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

so what is your hangup with just sexual proscriptions?

---

Huh? Do you not realize that the topic of the thread is, "Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?" It would seem to be the case that the question of sexual proscriptions would be the subject of the conversation.

quote:

---

If one looks at Lev and Deu, one might notice a whole mess of straight sex that gets nixed, before we ever get to homosexuality.

---

But straights still have sex without being told they are sinning. Therefore, they get a pass.Can you respond to that or do we have to go around the merry-go-round again?And you can drop the ad hominem, while you're at 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.

iano responds to me:

quote:

---

I judge their self-reported actions to be sinful in "linguistically meaningful" fashion.

---

And if they say it isn't sinning?

quote:

---

I then judge Bible to tell me "linguistically meaningfully" that God is the one who determines certain actions to be sinful.

---

But then it isn't you. It's god. Again, how do you know? Your own book tells you that you don't, that you can't, that you are in no position to do so and if you attempt to do so, you'll fail tremendously. So why do you spend so much time worried about it? Why are you not more concerned with your own actions? Your book even tries to advise you about that: How can you remove the mote in your brother's eye when there is a great plank in your own?

quote:

---

The above steps render me believing that homosex (for example) is sinful.

---

Even though the Bible never says so?

quote:

---

Suffice to say I judge the Bible to condemn homosex - in a linguistically meaningfully way.

---

But it doesn't say so. How can you find "linguistic meaning" when the words you claim to be there are literally not there.

quote:

---

It is clear from this standard that you can find someone who is not a sinner to compare sinners with.

---

Last time I checked, none of us were Christ.And again, by your own standard, even Christ was a sinner because, after all, Christ was human and all humans are sinners.

quote:

---

According to your standard perhaps. Clearly not according to mine.

---

So which part fails? Is the reason why Christ was a sinner because Christ wasn't human? Or is it possible to be human and not a sinner?And if it's possible to be human and not a sinner (and your Bible clearly indicates that Christ was not the only one...there are at least two others), then where do you get off judging if anybody else is?You do this for the glory of man, not god.

---

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.