Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 241 of 263 (462055)
03-29-2008 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Rrhain
03-29-2008 8:36 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Rrhain, posted 03-29-2008 8:36 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Rrhain, posted 04-02-2008 3:40 AM Silent H has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 242 of 263 (462274)
04-02-2008 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by iano
03-29-2008 9:42 PM


iano and I write:
quote:
quote:
quote:
The basis on which I say homosex is sinful doesn't refer in anyway to how others judge.
Irrelevant. This isn't about them. It's about YOU. YOU are the one that made the judgement.
What's irrelevant?
Don't play dumb.
quote:
I can't see what would stop me judging things on a linguistically meaningfully basis
But you're not.
quote:
I judge that there are.
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:
It involves how I come to concluding as I do.
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:
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!
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:
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:
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by iano, posted 03-29-2008 9:42 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by iano, posted 04-02-2008 10:04 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 243 of 263 (462276)
04-02-2008 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Silent H
03-29-2008 10:44 PM


Silent H responds to me:
quote:
Polygamy is a descriptor for how many people one can have sex with, not a word for sex itself.
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:
Is all sex sinful?
No.
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:
I agreed my initial statement was over broad several posts ago.
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:
Whether you believe this or not, heterosexual does not mean a person enjoys vaginal sex.
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:
So what are we discussing, the Bible or Xians.
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:
On a point of information, wasn't it thought that the brother had the same right to the wife, through the marriage ritual?
No. Where on earth did you get that?
While we're at it, "droit de signeur" never existed, either.
quote:
I said as many believe.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Silent H, posted 03-29-2008 10:44 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Silent H, posted 04-02-2008 1:46 PM Rrhain has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 244 of 263 (462300)
04-02-2008 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Rrhain
04-02-2008 3:00 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Rrhain, posted 04-02-2008 3:00 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Rrhain, posted 04-05-2008 6:06 AM iano has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 245 of 263 (462321)
04-02-2008 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Rrhain
04-02-2008 3:40 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Rrhain, posted 04-02-2008 3:40 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Rrhain, posted 04-05-2008 6:35 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 246 of 263 (462566)
04-05-2008 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by iano
04-02-2008 10:04 AM


iano responds to me:
quote:
For me to judge that it does means I am saying I draw other linguistic meaning than does the rabid literalist.
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:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by iano, posted 04-02-2008 10:04 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by iano, posted 04-07-2008 7:23 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 247 of 263 (462567)
04-05-2008 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Silent H
04-02-2008 1:46 PM


Silent H responds to me:
quote:
I was being totally honest with my statement on polygamy.
I asked nicely: Don't play dumb.
quote:
I have no idea what that has to do with the topic of heterosexuality, or the sinfulness of the sexual act.
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:
I did originally state that all sex is sin.
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:
No, that would be several groups having different interpretations.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Silent H, posted 04-02-2008 1:46 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 248 of 263 (462597)
04-05-2008 5:23 PM


To answer my own question...
not anytime soon as far as I can see.
Marc Hall v. Durham Catholic School Board
quote:
Marc Hall v. Durham Catholic School Board began when Oshawa, Ontario's Monsignor John Pereyma Catholic Secondary School asked students attending the prom to submit the names of the guests they intended to bring. Hall, who is gay, submitted the name of his 21 year old boyfriend, Jean-Paul Dumond, and was denied on the grounds that homosexuality is incompatible with Roman Catholic teaching.[1]
Supported by his family and a wide variety of community organizations, Hall thus took the school board to court in a two-day hearing that began on May 6, 2002. Hall's lawyer, David Corbett, argued that the denial of his request violated the Ontario Education Act, which requires school boards in the province not to discriminate. The school board, on the other hand, argued that court interference in its decision would amount to denying its religious freedom.
Corbett argued that an organization which accepts public funding (Catholic school boards in Ontario are fully funded in the same manner as public schools) has to be accountable to the same laws (including anti-discrimination laws) as other public institutions. The school board's lawyer countered that Section 93 of the Canadian constitution protects the Catholic board's rights to conduct its affairs in accordance with Catholic teaching.
In addition, Corbett noted that while extramarital sex is also contrary to Catholic teaching, the school board had previously allowed pregnant students to attend the prom.
On May 10, Justice Robert McKinnon granted an interlocutory injunction ordering that Hall be allowed to attend the prom with Dumond. The justice also ordered that the school not cancel the prom. He did not decide on the larger issues raised by the case, leaving those to be heard at a later trial. In 2005, Marc Hall dropped the case.
Chelsea Overstreet and Lauren Martin
quote:
Judge rules schoolcannot ban pairfrom the festivities
SCOTTSBORO - Chelsea Overstreet and Lauren Martin were like many other Scottsboro High School girls Saturday afternoon, both nervous and excited about going to their first prom in a only a few hours.
But unlike the others, they went to the dance as a gay couple, something the Scottsboro City Board of Education tried unsuccessfully to stop.
"It's something they had been planning for a year," Martin's mother, Connie Farrington, said during a press conference Saturday afternoon with their lawyer, Parker Edmiston, at his Scottsboro office. "Just like every other child, she was ecstatic" about going.
But the day before spring break two weeks ago, the mothers said, their girls were told by school officials that they could not go as a homosexual couple.
"It was a big letdown" for the girls, Farrington said. She said they had already bought their prom tickets and formal wear for the dance.
A last-minute court order from Jackson County Circuit Judge John Graham of Stevenson prohibited the board from banning the girls from the junior-senior prom at Scottsboro's Goosepond Civic Center Saturday night.
In making his 10:15 a.m. ruling Saturday, Graham cited two federal court rulings. In one, the U.S. Supreme Court said "states and their agencies ... cannot set-out homosexuals for special treatment..." The other "prohibits publicly-funded schools ... from barring same-sex couples from school functions."
Efforts to reach school officials for comment were unsuccessful.
During the press conference, Edmiston, Farrington and Overstreet's mother, Sarah Collins, answered reporters' questions as the girls stayed in another room. Edmiston said the girls would not be talking to reporters, although photos and videos of them were permitted after the press conference. Overstreet, 17, a junior, wore her prom dress while Martin, 16, a sophomore, had on a tuxedo.
"This is just a dance," Edmiston said. "Adults need not get involved."
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-05-2008 9:09 PM Taz has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 249 of 263 (462614)
04-05-2008 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Taz
04-05-2008 5:23 PM


A couple of quotations to go with those bare links would be nice.
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:
Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Taz, posted 04-05-2008 5:23 PM Taz has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 250 of 263 (462684)
04-07-2008 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Rrhain
04-05-2008 6:06 AM


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:
"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 don't expect that connection to be made anytime soon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Rrhain, posted 04-05-2008 6:06 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Rrhain, posted 04-08-2008 1:44 AM iano has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 251 of 263 (462720)
04-08-2008 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by iano
04-07-2008 7:23 AM


iano responds to me:
quote:
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.
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:
Who's pretending to be neutral?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by iano, posted 04-07-2008 7:23 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by iano, posted 04-08-2008 5:43 AM Rrhain has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 252 of 263 (462725)
04-08-2008 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Rrhain
04-08-2008 1:44 AM


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:
"Judgement" as in "comprehension of language to determine a linguistic meaning" is not the same as "judgement" as in "determination of good and evil."
-
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Rrhain, posted 04-08-2008 1:44 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Rrhain, posted 04-09-2008 12:06 AM iano has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 253 of 263 (462760)
04-09-2008 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by iano
04-08-2008 5:43 AM


iano responds to me:
quote:
I'm not talking about individual words.
Neither am I. There is literally nothing there concerning the topic.
quote:
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.
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:
There would be something unseemly about one lawbreaker (me) telling another lawbreaker that they shouldn't break the law.
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:
God forbid, they might actually attempt not to sin in the hope that that would save them!!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by iano, posted 04-08-2008 5:43 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by iano, posted 04-09-2008 6:38 AM Rrhain has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 254 of 263 (462769)
04-09-2008 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Rrhain
04-09-2008 12:06 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Rrhain, posted 04-09-2008 12:06 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Rrhain, posted 04-09-2008 12:36 PM iano has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 255 of 263 (462788)
04-09-2008 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by iano
04-09-2008 6:38 AM


iano responds to me:
quote:
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
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by iano, posted 04-09-2008 6:38 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by iano, posted 04-09-2008 1:17 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024