|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people? | |||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Silent H responds to me:
quote: I guess I need to repeat it: 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. What part of "make peace with gay people" means we're talking about, oh, stealing? Or murder? Or any of the other possible "sins" out there? Are you trying to say that being gay means one does not keep the Sabbath? Spit it out. What are you trying to say?
quote: 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? Yes, there are lots of ways straight people can engage in sex and sin, but as I've repeated over and over: That doesn't mean god loves them any less than the gays...just that they need more supervision.
quote: Ahem. The Song of Solomon. Where does this idea that sex for pleasure is a sin come from?
quote: Strange, that's my argument to you: You do nothing but repeat the same non-answers to my points. If you have nothing to contribut but repetition of the same non sequiturs, then perhaps you should not reply. 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: |
iano responds to me:
quote: It's the entire point of the discussion, friend. You have made a judgement. They have made the opposite one.
quote: Incorrect. Big objection to Step 1.
quote: But you don't have that right. Who are you to tell god what to do?
quote: Incorrect. Big objection to Step 2.
quote: You can believe whatever you wish. This isn't about your beliefs. It's about your judgements. That you base your beliefs upon your judgements isn't the problem. It's the judgements that you have made that are the problem. Note: I am assuming you "believe" the Bible. Therefore, I assume that you "believe" that you are not supposed to make judgements. But then you immediately turn around and make them.
quote: But that's the entire point. The Bible doesn't say what you think it says and yet you seem to think you have the right to make declarations about god's opinion. That's judgement. 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: And since no such statements have been made, one wonders why you are attacking a strawman.
quote: But where is the sin of sex to begin with? The problem is not the sex: It's the rituals surrounding it. When the great elders of the Bible have hundreds of wives, then there is clearly no sin with regard to sex in and of itself. As I said before: Yes, there are lots of ways straight people can engage in sex and sin, but as I've repeated over and over: That doesn't mean god loves them any less than the gays...just that they need more supervision.
quote: But there is nothing in the Bible that says any such thing. The Bible is very quiet on the mechanics. Even the sin of Onan, supposedly about masturbation, isn't about that: It's that he was supposed to conceive a child for his dead brother and couldn't bring himself to do it. If sex were sinful, why on earth would he be ritually required to have sex with his sister-in-law? But when the Bible does talk about mechanics, it talks about oral sex and declares it wonderful: Sol 2:3: As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste. Sol 4:16: Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits. And then there's this passage which is a bit difficult to consider: Sol 5:4: My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him. I'm pretty sure they don't mean fisting, but clearly there is some form of masturbatory action going on.
quote: Ahem. You're the one who brought it up. No, not the Song of Solomon; the claim that sex for pleasure is a sin. You have yet to show where the Bible ever says sex for pleasure is a sin. Since the Bible contains an erotic poem covering an entire book, you have yet to meet your burden of proof. 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: |
iano responds to me:
quote: Irrelevant. This isn't about them. It's about YOU. YOU are the one that made the judgement. That is not your place. You are in no position to tell god what to do or to tell anybody else what god thinks. You are not god.
quote:quote: You've got to be kidding me. Read the very first two words in your "Step 1":
1)I judge their self-reported actions to be sinful in "linguistically meaningful" fashion. You are in no position to judge anything. Therefore, big objection to Step 1.
quote: When the Bible doesn't say anything, how do you come up with "linguistically meaningful" anything? You are making up stuff out of whole cloth. Thus, you are putting yourself in god's place.
quote: Because the text literally does not say what you think it says. There are no passages in the Bible referring to homosexuality. None.
quote:quote: Don't play dumb. I have already answered this. Do you need me to repeat it? Your understanding of god does not give you the right to tell anybody else if what they are doing is sinful. And that is what you are doing. Ergo, big objection to Step 2.
quote: But there is nothing in the Bible referring to the topic at hand. Therefore, where do you get off making any sort of claim as to what god thinks?
quote: Then were is it? There is nothing in the text referring to homosexuality. There are a small handful of passages referring to ritualistic sex. Last time I checked, gay people weren't having sex in a fertility rite in order to have a good harvest. That isn't what being gay is all about.
quote: No. You certainly have a freedom of expression right to say whatever you wish. But if you truly believed the Bible, then you have absolutely no right to ever say anything about what god thinks. That is judgement. You are not god. You have absolutely no idea what god thinks or wants. Not only is it judgement, it's arrogance. That's the sin of pride. 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: You're kidding me, right? What do you think Solomon was doing with those wives? Playing triple-deck, chunk-deal, mega-pass Hearts?
quote: (*sigh*) You don't even remember your own argument, do you? Your argument is that all sex is sinful. If there is a way to have sex without sin (i.e., get married) and if that path is given to heterosexuals, then heterosexuals are given a pass. A way to have sex without sin is a pass.That way is given to heterosexuals. Therefore, heterosexuals are given a pass. This is your argument. You're the one who claimed that all sex was sinful. You now seem to be backtracking. So which is it? Is all sex sinful? Yes or no. Simple question, simple answer. Is all sex sinful?
quote: Huh? Are they still having sex? Are they not sinning? Are they heterosexual? Then the heterosexuals have been given a pass. Is all sex sinful?
quote: Who said anything about the Bible? We're talking about Christians and the last time I checked, Christians were not the Bible.
quote: Not always. Onan. His sin was not that he had sex. It was not that he masturbated. It was that he refused to complete the sex act with his brother's widow. He was REQUIRED to have sex in order to NOT sin. Because he refused, god smote him where he stood. So if one is required to have sex, how can it be sinful? Is all sex sinful?
quote: Where does the Bible ever say that? Is all sex sinful? 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: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
iano responds to me:
quote: Non sequitur. Please rephrase. Are you trying to say that oral and manual sex only happen between heterosexuals? 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: |
iano responds to teen4christ:
quote:quote: Read: I can't actually defend my point, so I will continue to shift the burden of proof and hope nobody notices. We don't buy it, iano. You're the one making the claim, therefore it is your burden of proof. I have quoted the text. It is now your job to show where I have made any errors. "Because I say so," is not sufficient. 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: |
iano responds to me:
quote: I asked you very politely not to play dumb. That is nowhere close to what I have said. Remember, I am not referring to literalism, yet you seem so stuck in it that you're taking it to the extreme as if I am saying that the only way to talk about a blue object is to use the specific word "blue." Yes, I see what you're trying to get at, but it would help if you would stop playing games and simply come out and say it: You're trying to whine about metaphor. I don't have to say the word "blue" in order to describe an object as blue. There are languages out there that do not have a color term for "blue" (Ancient Greek, for example) and yet have no trouble referring to the color of blue objects. English doesn't have a color term for the comparative shade of light blue the way we have one for the shade of light red that we call "pink." And yet, we talk about light blue objects all the time. We simply use terms that point to what we're talking about. We refer to objects of the appropriate shade ("turquoise" and "aquamarine" and "sky") or even phrases that have simply become associated with that shade ("baby blue" and "navy blue"). But this isn't about metaphor; it isn't about finding other words to describe something. It's about there not being any words; about non-existence of even the very basic concept. When you don't see the world that way, it is trivial to understand why you don't come up with words for it but you need to understand that you don't even talk about it in other words: It simply doesn't occur to you to try. The closest the Bible ever comes to discussing anything remotely like what we understand as "homosexuality" is the story of David and Jonathan...and it isn't exactly a condemnation. But clearly David isn't "gay" the way we think of it. It isn't that the Bible has nothing to say about sexual activity between people of the same sex. It's that the people who wrote the Bible didn't think of human sexuality the way we do. It doesn't talk about gay people but rather about ritualistic practices. Therefore, for you to impose your opinions upon text that doesn't even understand what you're talking about is the very judgement you are told not to engage in. 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