Homosexuality

1235»

Comments

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    What is it they believe? And how do you know?
    Most Christians believe that slavery is wrong, despite the scriptural authority that says it isn't. Most Christians do not think stoning their children to death for being naughty is OK, despite scriptural authority saying it is.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited August 10
    ECraigR wrote: »
    But if those passions are bad then aren’t they to be avoided? It seems difficult to go from that to endorsing them.
    Paul thought marriage was not the best thing, but Christians have no problem endorsing and even celebrating it.
    ETA: Jesus said as much as well.
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    I agree. The problem is that once we start tossing bits out because of cultural context or the like, we run the risk of quite literally building a god in our own image.

    But those who construct anti-gay arguments do exactly the same thing. "You know you have built God in your own image when he hates exactly the same people you do."


    ECraigR wrote: »
    I agree, but what general principle would we get from Paul’s condoning homosexual relationships? That carnality and lust are to be avoided? We know that already. And, if we’re being frank, in today’s sexual culture that’s hard to avoid. I know I’m guilty.

    I'm confused. Did Paul condone homosexual relationships? Or did he condemn homosexual acts?
  • ECraigRECraigR Shipmate
    It was a typo, apologies.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    What is it they believe? And how do you know?
    Most Christians believe that slavery is wrong, despite the scriptural authority that says it isn't. Most Christians do not think stoning their children to death for being naughty is OK, despite scriptural authority saying it is.

    Which means that most Christians have a selective view, in practice, about what scripture and tradition have to say, authoritatively, re justice issues. It's a key hermeneutical issue.

    I think the inconsistency is insisting that one standard of justice should apply, authoritatively, to some moral issues and another standard of justice should apply, authoritatively, to others.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited August 11
    At this point I often refer people to the cruel nonsense in Deuteronomy 22 v 13ff. Surprises me how few have ever thought seriously about the consequences of treating that as authoritative.

    Or to Jed Bartlet's rhetorical demolition job on a Talk Radio homophobe in The West Wing. That's entertaining and illuminating, despite the fact that balls used in American Football are no longer made of pigskin.

    But perhaps such thoughts are more appropriate in the Biblical Inerrancy thread, now sprung to life in Purgatory? There has always been an overlap between considering justice for homosexuals and the way folks treat the authority of scripture.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    What is it they believe? And how do you know?
    Most Christians believe that slavery is wrong, despite the scriptural authority that says it isn't. Most Christians do not think stoning their children to death for being naughty is OK, despite scriptural authority saying it is.

    Which means that most Christians have a selective view, in practice, about what scripture and tradition have to say, authoritatively, re justice issues. It's a key hermeneutical issue.

    I think the inconsistency is insisting that one standard of justice should apply, authoritatively, to some moral issues and another standard of justice should apply, authoritatively, to others.
    Is why the fundamentalist approach is fundamentally bullshit.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited August 11
    It isn't bullshit to them. And it's wrong to think that all fundamentalist lack either reasoning power or empathy.

    I guess it may be hard for you to understand why I bother to remain in dialogue with people with this mindset. I'm not sure I fully understand it myself. It feels like a kind of calling. I'm well liked and respected by lots of folks attending various local places in the Christian rainbow and I guess I've earned the right to be heard. You never know the long term future of a decent discussion, respectfully presented.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    It isn't bullshit to them. And it's wrong to think that all fundamentalist lack either reasoning power
    Not lacking in reasoning power, but lacking in application of said power. This is typically human. Understandable, but no excuse.
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    or empathy.
    People are rarely good or evil. But what good is empathy which yields a poison fruit?
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    You never know the long term future of a decent discussion, respectfully presented.
    This is true. but it is often those negatively affected who are expected to be respectful.

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    I think being respectful is a personal choice, not ever an obligation. Particularly if you have been on the receiving end. The fact that I may choose it does not imply that I will always choose it (sometimes I just think "waste of time") or expect others to.

    There is an understanding in Christian morality that you should at least try to resolve differences peaceably and try to avoid repaying evil with evil. But there is a recognition of limits.
  • Straight person: Your lifestyle is abominable to God and you are going to Hell.
    Gay person: Fuck you.
    Straight person: See? You blaspheme as well.
  • ECraigRECraigR Shipmate
    Is saying “fuck you” blaspheming?
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Don't think so. There is a difference between swearing and cursing.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited August 12
    According to whom? I have heard it so called by just those same people. I have also heard a novelty song about penes called blasphemy. Clearly their God is a real dick.
  • ECraigRECraigR Shipmate
    I don’t know if there’s a universal law of blaspheming. I certainly wouldn’t classify either as such.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Appeals to "traditionalism" seem to be exercises in carefully calibrated cruelty, with the traditionalist taking whatever position will inflict the most suffering without crossing the line of civility, however that's defined at the time. Naturally this is a moving target.

    In the 1980s prominent evangelicals like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson embraced and celebrated AIDS as "not just God's punishment for homosexuals, it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals".

    A decade later openly cheering for the deaths of others was considered rude so the "traditional" position became advocating criminal penalties for homosexuality. Or rather advocating maintaining and enforcing the criminal penalties for homosexuality still on the books in many jurisdictions. That's how conservative Catholic Senator Rick Santorum got his internet nickname [NSFW].

    Fast forward another ten years and "traditionalists" in most Western countries got a little uncomfortable with using the criminal justice system to suppress homosexuals. At that point it became "traditional" to deny same-sex couples the same legal rights the state extends to opposite-sex couples. Civil discrimination instead of criminal penalties.

    Now that same-sex marriage is the law of the land in many Western countries and society failed to collapse "tradition" now mandates private acts of discrimination against homosexuals by non-state actors.

    You could say that all this demonstrates that "traditionalists" are phonies who don't believe their own rhetoric, but I disagree. Despite the rapid changes in the content of traditional values handed down by God from the Bible the underlying action remains fairly consistent: find the most extreme form of cruelty towards homosexuals that will still be socially tolerated.
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    I don’t know if there’s a universal law of blaspheming. I certainly wouldn’t classify either as such.

    But this is afield of the point, that certain people can ruin the lives of "the other" with glee, and then get all upset about someone's use of indelicate language.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    So people can be wrong twice? Both in their attitudes to homosexuals and in their understanding of blasphemy?

    Sure they can. I think we are in violent agreement on both points. At least I am.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    So people can be wrong twice? Both in their attitudes to homosexuals and in their understanding of blasphemy?

    Sure they can. I think we are in violent agreement on both points. At least I am.

    With me, yes you are.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    So people can be wrong twice? Both in their attitudes to homosexuals and in their understanding of blasphemy?
    That was my take away.

Sign In or Register to comment.