Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,572 Year: 4,829/9,624 Month: 177/427 Week: 90/85 Day: 7/20 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   homosexuality
gene90
Member (Idle past 3899 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 137 of 239 (26315)
12-11-2002 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by joz
12-11-2002 12:21 PM


I was feeling grouchy when I typed that, by the way. Normally I would try to be a bit more diplomatic about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by joz, posted 12-11-2002 12:21 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by gene90, posted 12-14-2002 12:19 AM gene90 has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3899 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 138 of 239 (26565)
12-14-2002 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by gene90
12-11-2002 12:26 PM


BUMP

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by gene90, posted 12-11-2002 12:26 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 1:20 PM gene90 has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3899 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 140 of 239 (26790)
12-16-2002 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by gene90
12-14-2002 12:19 AM


BUMP

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by gene90, posted 12-14-2002 12:19 AM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-16-2002 2:29 PM gene90 has replied

Mr. Davies
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 239 (26818)
12-16-2002 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by gene90
12-16-2002 1:20 PM


Lot's o' "Bumps" in the Homesexuality Thread.
Not much grinding going on though......
------------------
When all else fails, check the manual

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 1:20 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 3:26 PM Mr. Davies has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3899 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 142 of 239 (26842)
12-16-2002 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Mr. Davies
12-16-2002 2:29 PM


LOL!
Yeah I wondered if anybody was going to comment on that the first time around...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-16-2002 2:29 PM Mr. Davies has not replied

zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 239 (26900)
12-16-2002 8:34 PM


Guys, given the right amount of effort, a human sexual organ can be stimulated sufficiently with anything from a cucumber, a tree trunk, or a non-human animal. Whether or not the proclivity to do so is genetic is academic though, if God happens to say that such practices are degrading to you as a person and not what he had in mind for you. That is the basis of the Christian prohibition against homosexuality -- God says it isn't good for us.
All the way from Leviticus it is clear that homosexuality, among a number of other practices (idol worship, drunkenness, any kind of sexual promiscuity, etc.), was something that the God of the Bible thought was something that hindered us becoming closer to him. It was for our protection and growth that he asked us for obedience in regards to these things. Like a loving parent who doesn't ask us to do something we may not understand at first except out of love and concern for us.

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 9:21 PM zipzip has replied
 Message 147 by John, posted 12-16-2002 10:20 PM zipzip has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2246 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 144 of 239 (26903)
12-16-2002 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by gene90
12-07-2002 4:57 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]
quote:
How else is "so-called" generally used to mean something else, Gene?
Hey Schrafinator,
are you still clinging to the position that "so-called" is only used in a derogatory sense, and never to introduce new vocabulary?[/QUOTE]
Actually, I do not recall saying that it is "always" used in one way or the other, but that in the particular statement by that Mormon president, it was used in such a way as to cast doubt upon the validity of the existence of homosexuality.
quote:
Because I recently heard that "derogatory" term used in a documentary on plate tectonics for exactly that purpose -- introducing new vocabularly. Just like the 92-year-old president of the church was introducing the "new" meaning of "gays" and "lesbians".
Like I said, I never said that that phrase was "always" or "never" used in any particular way, but that it was clear to me from the context of the statement on homosexuality that it was meant to be rather dismissive.
If he doesn't have younger people helping him out on how to appropriately communicate, then that's too bad.
quote:
Just for fun I plugged "so-called" into britannica.com to see what results it would give. I got the following quotes and have emboldened the "derogatory" term:
"Extracts from John Burnet's Early Greek Philosophy, provided as supplementary material for the Fourth Tetralogy, a study of the so-called middle dialogues of Plato. "
"Information on this American novelist whose writing style and subject matter reflect the so-called punk sensibility that emerged in the 1970s. Covers her writings, texts of her work, reviews, and interviews. Includes images."
There were a few uses in a derogatory sense as well, but I think this answers your question. All of these were from links to other sites on the Web, provided by Britannica's search engine.
Then I plugged "so-called" into Merriam-Webster's online dictionary at Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary.
There were two results, the derogatory (2) and the one our elderly president used (1):
1 : commonly named : popularly so termed
2 : falsely or improperly so named
Well, you certainly have constructed a pretty good "reasonable doubt" defense. I am not convinced that your version of how he meant the phrase is accurate, but I am also not totally abandoning my version, either.
The fact remains that the policy is anti-homosexual, so unless clarification comes from the source, I think that it is not unreasonable to continue the anti-homosexual sentiment through to the interpretation of the use of "so called" in the statement.
Since the case can be made either way, I think it is a stalemate unless we can get further clarification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by gene90, posted 12-07-2002 4:57 PM gene90 has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2246 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 145 of 239 (26906)
12-16-2002 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by gene90
12-11-2002 11:18 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]She wants to establish that homosexuality is "natural", therefore it is "morally acceptable". Sort of like, if violence is in a person's genes, then it is "morally acceptable" for them to explode in violent episodes, and anything they do in those episodes (up to and including murder) is perfectly fine and morally acceptable, just because it is in their genetic makeup.[/QUOTE]
Um no, Gene, that's what YOU wish that I am saying.
I am attempting to establish that homosexuality is natural.
I am also attempting to establish that the current religious obsession with condemning homosexuality as an immoral abomination has no basis in reason or intelligent thought, or really even that much of a theological basis.
The Bible also says that wearing mixed fiber clothing is an abomination, and that crippled people are not allowed to approach the alter in temple.
Gene, I believe you wish to condemn homosexuality, even though you have stated that it does no harm to anyone, simply because you are required to believe that it is immoral by your religion.
I have no problem with you believing this, but then you decided to try to defend the belif on rational grounds. Sorry, that won't work.
quote:
I'm still waiting on a response to her odd use of the term, "so-called".
My use of the term is hardly "odd", Gene, for goodness sake. It is perfectly reasonable, especially considering the general anti-homosexual tone of the policy, that "so-called" would be used in a negative sense.
It is also one of the main meanings of the phrase.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by gene90, posted 12-11-2002 11:18 AM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 11:46 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2246 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 146 of 239 (26908)
12-16-2002 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by zipzip
12-16-2002 8:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by zipzip:
Guys, given the right amount of effort, a human sexual organ can be stimulated sufficiently with anything from a cucumber, a tree trunk, or a non-human animal. Whether or not the proclivity to do so is genetic is academic though, if God happens to say that such practices are degrading to you as a person and not what he had in mind for you. That is the basis of the Christian prohibition against homosexuality -- God says it isn't good for us.
All the way from Leviticus it is clear that homosexuality, among a number of other practices (idol worship, drunkenness, any kind of sexual promiscuity, etc.), was something that the God of the Bible thought was something that hindered us becoming closer to him. It was for our protection and growth that he asked us for obedience in regards to these things. Like a loving parent who doesn't ask us to do something we may not understand at first except out of love and concern for us.

So, do you wear mixed-fiber clothing? Do you eat shellfish? Do you consider people who shave thir heads or faces as not following God's laws? What about people with flat noses, men with damaged testicles, or crippled people; they aren't supposed to approach God's altar? Do you think it is an abomination for women to wear men's clothing?
These are all forbidden and/or considered abominations in Leviticus, too.
Oh, and if you really followed the Bible's teachings on homosexuals, you would put them to death.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by zipzip, posted 12-16-2002 8:34 PM zipzip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by zipzip, posted 12-17-2002 1:06 AM nator has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 239 (26919)
12-16-2002 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by zipzip
12-16-2002 8:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by zipzip:
That is the basis of the Christian prohibition against homosexuality -- God says it isn't good for us.
Have you read Leviticus? I guarantee you that you don't do 90% of what God commands.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by zipzip, posted 12-16-2002 8:34 PM zipzip has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 10:27 PM John has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2246 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 148 of 239 (26920)
12-16-2002 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by John
12-16-2002 10:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by zipzip:
That is the basis of the Christian prohibition against homosexuality -- God says it isn't good for us.
Have you read Leviticus? I guarantee you that you don't do 90% of what God commands.

Right.
There's an awful lot in there about animal sacrifice, smearing blood around and on people, and burning said bloody animals.
...and that's the stuff that kind of makes sense to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by John, posted 12-16-2002 10:20 PM John has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3899 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 149 of 239 (26924)
12-16-2002 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by nator
12-16-2002 9:08 PM


quote:
I am also attempting to establish that the current religious obsession with condemning homosexuality as an immoral abomination has no basis in reason or intelligent thought
What if it makes sense in a theological context?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 9:08 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by nator, posted 12-17-2002 9:04 AM gene90 has replied

zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 239 (26932)
12-17-2002 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by nator
12-16-2002 9:21 PM


...Do you like to watch gladiator movies, Tommy? Have you ever seen a grown man naked? Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?
Hey, c'mon. I said all the way from Leviticus, not I practice Levitical law. Although Jesus said nothing would pass from the law until all was fulfilled, it is pretty clear that as Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, the expression of the Law changed dramatically as a result of his presence. The NT makes this clear, which is why Paul and later Peter make such a big deal about why Gentiles (like me and a lot of you folks) needn't be concerned about acting like Jews. I would be a judaizer if I practiced OT law, something that is regarded as heretical in Christian doctrine.
I have read Leviticus (in fact I just re-read it...it is not very long and not all that hard to read). A lot is reasonable, a lot is pretty tough stuff to swallow. But I certainly did not live in that time, in which most of the Jews' neighbors practiced appalling forms of incest, bestiality, ritual human sacrifice, forced ritual temple male/female prostitution/rape, and child murder. The reason why Leviticus has such pointed prohibitions of these deplorable acts ("do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt."etc.) was because they were *commonplace* in the surrounding area.
In this context, much of Levitical law is amazing -- modern prohibitions against rape and incest, prohibitions against eating raw meat, the idea that you *should not touch* the discharge from a gaping, festering wound in another man's body, on and on. Some of these people were obviously incredibly ignorant, and much of Leviticus fills them in on common sense items. Even the culmination of the "eye for an eye/ tooth for a tooth" ideal, which is so often *misunderstood* -- it is the astonishing (and modern) idea that the punishment should fit the crime. If a man steals something, make him pay it back -- don't kill him or cut off his hand.
There are also some pretty tough consequences for certain actions -- prostitution, adultery, incest, homosexuality, bestiality, etc. The way I read it, these were all held in the same low esteem. And for a wandering clan whose neighbors did all of these things with abandon, maybe the threat of a death was the only thing that shook people up enough to make them realize just how seriously God took the behavior of his chosen people. God has his reasons, and I'm not going to do any handwaving. Yet people don't make as much of a deal of adultery being on the list. It is really commonplace and the basis of movies and bestsellers everywhere. Jesus did not throw the first stone at the adulterous woman, instead he forgave her and told her to stop sinning. I'll bet he would not throw the first stone at a homosexual, either, particularly since I'm sure they were part of his usual entourage of followers, some of whom were former prostitutes, tax collecters, and thieves as well.
An entirely different segment of Leviticus deals with temple practices which are in and of themselves fascinating and I do not pretend to entirely understand some of them. But I do gain the sense that while other gods were asking for the sacrifice of firstborn children and forced rape, the God of the Bible was asking for offerings that people could make reasonably while still instilling in them a vision of the sacrifice that God promised he would make for them one day (even with compassion -- if you can't afford the sacrifice, use doves instead, if you can't afford that, use some grain -- the same as the widow's tiny sacrifice in the NT where the heart behind the sacrifice means more than the sacrifice itself). This is obvious and a keystone of both Judaism and Christianity, since the whole thing starts with Abraham and Isaac --> 'Isaac, you don't have to sacrifice your only son, I will sacrifice mine. But I want you to sacrifice some of what I give you so that you understand just a little bit of what it is I will go through when I send my son.'
Looked at in that light (which really is the most reasonable way to look at it), the portion of Leviticus that deals with temple worship is an amazing picture of God's holiness and deep capacity for forgiveness.
As far as the testicle / nose / deformity question -- it is pretty clear in the Leviticus ch. 21 that Levites (the priestly tribe) were in fact not supposed to approach the altar if they had any of these unfortunate qualities. Yet a deformed priest was allowed to "eat the most holy food of his God," an high honor not afforded to the general population, healthy or not. I think this was a reflection of the fact that each sacrificial animal was also meant to be perfect -- this was in keeping with perfect reverence for the Lord and the perfect sacrifice he would make in Christ.
Handicapped people were cared for, loved, and treated as equals except in this regard -- elsewhere in the region they were lucky if they were not killed at birth. Perhaps you should marvel that the law should mention handicapped people at all, which suggests that they were commonplace. *Think on this*
As for the hair question -- yes it says that Jews were not to cut their sideburns or beards, so any Jew doing this would be directly disobeying that part of the Law and probably also sleeping with his aunt(!). At the same time, aliens (who might not have beards at all) were to be loved and treated as equals, because "you were aliens in the land of Egypt". This is pretty neat stuff, actually. To take these things out of context is goofy. If that is all you got out of Leviticus you need to *slow down* and ... get Hooked on Phonics! Also try to think about context.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 9:21 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by nator, posted 12-17-2002 9:12 AM zipzip has replied
 Message 153 by John, posted 12-17-2002 11:32 AM zipzip has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2246 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 151 of 239 (26965)
12-17-2002 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by gene90
12-16-2002 11:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
quote:
I am also attempting to establish that the current religious obsession with condemning homosexuality as an immoral abomination has no basis in reason or intelligent thought
What if it makes sense in a theological context?

Well, then, the people who hold to that particular theology feel a certain way about it.
However, there are lots of things that can be "made to" make sense, or not make sense, in a theological context, depending upon one's interpretation of the Theology.
I also suppose that it depends upon how comfortable you are with suspending your reason and intelligence in favor of said theology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 11:46 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 1:13 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2246 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 152 of 239 (26966)
12-17-2002 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by zipzip
12-17-2002 1:06 AM


The point is, zip, that you pick and choose the rules from the Bible that you follow. What you do or do not follow is rather arbitrary and more culturally-based than religioulsly or theologically-based.
It very clearly states in the Bible that homosexuals are to be put to death.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by zipzip, posted 12-17-2002 1:06 AM zipzip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by zipzip, posted 12-17-2002 11:55 AM nator has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024