BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Ormus said:
I think it's called, as AEON put it, "smoke and mirrors."
Ormus said:
I think it's called, as AEON put it, "smoke and mirrors."
AEON said:Doesn't the Fall account for mutations, deformities, illness...etc. It is one of the foundations of Christian Theology.
Quite simply - there is the way things ought to be (Kingdom of God), and the way things are (the World).
AEON said:I was only using the argument that you constructed.
AEON said:
Doesn't the Fall account for mutations, deformities, illness...etc. It is one of the foundations of Christian Theology.
Quite simply - there is the way things ought to be (Kingdom of God), and the way things are (the World).
phillyfan26 said:AEON, your problem is that everything is so concrete with you. You don't allow for other interpretations, as I've shown, which you did not respond to. You take everything word for word, and ignore the context which Melon has shown time and again. You even took the hyperbole literally.
The context is important, and what Melon said made a lot of sense.
nathan1977 said:No, the command to Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply was given pre-Fall, therefore there was sex in the garden.
AEON said:
According to my theology, we are ALL born with a self-centered nature. It isn't a matter of choice, it is our nature.
Only supernatural intervention can transform us into people that live for God and others.
ZeroDude said:Do I need to cite sources?
In regards to ‘sin’, I do believe that one has to take into account the fact that morality is often a subjective and culturally manipulated concept. So, to be honest, in my opinion, a lot of the more inter or intra-personal issues such as one’s sexuality should never be subjected to the same strict western, pseudo Judaeo-Christian morality system as murder, which in most historical cases, outside of sacramental sacrifices or other religious contexts, is, and has been, universally frowned upon.
Nevertheless, the above due to its admittedly flaccid nature, doesn’t hold water once people question said moral subjectivity beyond human reason. A response concerning the ethical or moral beliefs of a mass murderer would be expected in an attempt to undermine such comparatively rational thoughts.
Then again, if one equated the actions of a homosexual to those of a murderer, I wouldn’t hesitate in suggesting that such a person requires professional help.
AEON said:
If you can’t see – from a “big picture” perspective, taking everything into consideration (pleasure, “fitting”, child birth, child raising, gender roles…all of it) – that Men are and Women are a better natural fit - then I have to say that you are simply deceiving yourself (or allowing yourself to be deceived).
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Is everything literal with you? Do you believe Bono actually climbed the highest mountain?
AEON said:
If you can’t see – from a “big picture” perspective, taking everything into consideration (pleasure, “fitting”, child birth, child raising, gender roles…all of it) – that Men are and Women are a better natural fit - then I have to say that you are simply deceiving yourself (or allowing yourself to be deceived).
Irvine511 said:
and since when is sex only about inserting body parts into openings? isn't that terribly reductive?
AEON said:It isn't a matter of choice, it is our nature.
AEON said:Quite simply - there is the way things ought to be (Kingdom of God), and the way things are (the World).
ZeroDude said:Do I need to cite sources?
In regards to ‘sin’, I do believe that one has to take into account the fact that morality is often a subjective and culturally manipulated concept. So, to be honest, in my opinion, a lot of the more inter or intra-personal issues such as one’s sexuality should never be subjected to the same strict western, pseudo Judaeo-Christian morality system as murder, which in most historical cases, outside of sacramental sacrifices or other religious contexts, is, and has been, universally frowned upon.
Nevertheless, the above due to its admittedly flaccid nature, doesn’t hold water once people question said moral subjectivity beyond human reason. A response concerning the ethical or moral beliefs of a mass murderer would be expected in an attempt to undermine such comparatively rational thoughts.
Then again, if one equated the actions of a homosexual to those of a murderer, I wouldn’t hesitate in suggesting that such a person requires professional help.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Well actually that's up to debate, yes the command was made prior, according to Genesis, but many don't believe there's any evidence of sex prior to the fall.
Ormus said:
Such things as "context," "interpretation," and "intention" are considered irrelevant to the printed word.
nathan1977 said:
If you assume that sex is a post-fall activity, then you wind up falling into the same lot with ultra-conservative Christians who believe sex is solely for procreation and any enjoyment thereof is sinful. But if all things were created to be enjoyed if received with thanksgiving (1 Tim 4), and sex did exist in the Garden (and there's no evidence that it didn't), then you open a whole different can of worms in terms of the role of sex in humanity's created state.
AEON said:In my opinion - to reflect back His love.
AEON said:
This is a lie. A flat out lie. You are either completely ignorant about this or you are purposely deceiving people. Every class of interpretation that I’ve taken deals with all 3 items you have mentioned – almost to the point of exhaustion.
AEON said:
This is a lie. A flat out lie. You are either completely ignorant about this or you are purposely deceiving people. Every class of interpretation that I’ve taken deals with all 3 items you have mentioned – almost to the point of exhaustion.
I suggest you go to a conservative seminary and take a Biblical Interpretation class and THEN see if you can honestly come here and say these things. There are many people at these seminaries filled with love and are EXTREMELY intelligent. Like you, they want to improve the world. I don’t expect you to agree with everything we say, but I expect you to be honest.
I’m surprised the moderators didn’t mention something about this quote. You apparently have free reign here because your views are seen as "progressive" and "beautiful" - but the truth is: you are deceiving people. And I feel I should call that out until I am banned.
80sU2isBest said:
Not all people choose to sin. Some don't even know what sin is, yet that doesn't mean they don't sin.
AEON, you plunged into FYM headfirst and running from the moment you hit the ground back in June, and you made exactly the same boast at the time--that you expected to be banned for what you have to say. I was angered that you said it at the time and I am angered that you are saying it now. We do not ban people based on their views. So long as you continue to express yourself reasonably civilly and without obvious intent to create outrage for its own sake, as you almost unfailingly do, there is no chance of your being banned. I have privately contacted several members (of various political persuasions--you not being one of them) concerning their behavior during my time as moderator, but the only time I've ever asked Sicy to ban anyone or even considered it was when I recognized someone as an alter for a permanently banned member known for his extremely vulgar personal attacks on others. The thought of having you banned has never even crossed my mind, and I have no idea why you think it would. I don't understand what you think this place is or how it works that you would suspect or anticipate anything like that, and frankly, I'm not sure I want to.AEON said:I’m surprised the moderators didn’t mention something about this quote. You apparently have free reign here because your views are seen as "progressive" and "beautiful" - but the truth is: you are deceiving people. And I feel I should call that out until I am banned.
AEON said:This is a lie. A flat out lie. You are either completely ignorant about this or you are purposely deceiving people. Every class of interpretation that I’ve taken deals with all 3 items you have mentioned – almost to the point of exhaustion.
I suggest you go to a conservative seminary and take a Biblical Interpretation class and THEN see if you can honestly come here and say these things. There are many people at these seminaries filled with love and are EXTREMELY intelligent. Like you, they want to improve the world. I don’t expect you to agree with everything we say, but I expect you to be honest.
In philosophy, essentialism is the view, that, for any specific kind of entity it is at least theoretically possible to specify a finite list of characteristics —all of which any entity must have to belong to the group defined. This view is contrasted with non-essentialism which states that for any given entity there are no specified traits which that entity must have in order to be defined as that entity.
...
Essentialism in ethics is claiming that some things are wrong in an absolute sense, for example murder breaks a universal, objective and natural moral law and not merely an adventitious, socially or ethically constructed one.
...
An essence characterizes a substance or a form, in the sense of the Forms or Ideas in Platonic realism. It is permanent, unalterable, and eternal; and present in every possible world. Classical humanism has an essentialist conception of the human being, which means that it believes in an eternal and unchangeable human nature.
I’m surprised the moderators didn’t mention something about this quote. You apparently have free reign here because your views are seen as "progressive" and "beautiful" - but the truth is: you are deceiving people. And I feel I should call that out until I am banned.
Personalism finds a primacy in the ethical or moral realm. Thus, for example, in dealing with environmental issues, for personalism morality and what we owe to others take precedence to questions of utility. In political contexts, persons and their lifeworlds take precedence to systems or structures. In psychology and cognitive science, personal levels of explanation take precedence over subpersonal categories. Ontologically and epistemologically, personal or "moral" categories are irreducible to impersonal systems, or subpersonal processes. Personalism is thus an attempt, in an age of increasing depersonalization, to defend both the concept and the reality of persons.
Ormus said:
I don't know whether to pity you or not, because you don't even seem to know what "essentialism" is. I didn't need to go to the seminary to learn this; this was taught to everyone in my high school religion classes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism
Am I somehow misrepresenting your basic philosophy here? This seems to fit the bill of every one of your religious arguments here, and you've quite ardently argued that there's universal "absolute truth." And where do you think that comes from? Essentialism. You are a textbook essentialist, based on everything that you've written here.
Biblical essentialism, by extension, looks at the printed word, and if you believe that the Bible says "Thou shalt not bear false witness," lying in every and all circumstances, no matter what the intention, is a sin. If the Bible says that there was a global flood and Noah put polar bears and penguins in his Ark from the hot sands of Mesopotamia, then Noah did just that. "Context," "interpretation," and "intention" are considered irrelevant to the printed word.
Tell me how I'm contradicting anything that you've said here. You've refused to entertain any of my Biblical scholarship, and I've long believed its because of your hardline essentialist philosophy when it comes to religion. My larger criticism of essentialism, in general, is that it eventually becomes less about the "printed word" and more about the "traditional (mis)interpretation."
As for the idea that your religious studies contain "context," "interpretation," and "intention," who's the one being lied to? Me? Or you? Because every religious stance you've given me has fallen under elementary Biblical fundamentalism. Nothing that you've stated to me, in all the months that you've been here, has been a surprise, and I'm not a seminarian. Has your seminary studies contradicted anything that your average self-ordained fundamentalist preacher couldn't have come up with himself?
Perhaps I'm being unduly harsh with my last paragraph here, and, for that, I apologize. It is less my intention to insult your religious vocation, and more my intention to illustrate a point in postmodernist/Marxist philosophy:
Just because you believe that you've been taught "context," "interpretation," and "intention" doesn't mean that you have; and, in contrast, all you may have been given is an overly complicated superstructure that encourages the exact opposite.
In fact, the funny thing about all of this is that I appear to be more educated about conservative Christianity than you are about mainline/liberal Christianity. I say this, because you'd realize that my belief system is nothing radical and revolutionary. I reject essentialism, yes, but I consider myself more of a personalist, which flourished in 20th century religion.
And this philosophy isn't strictly liberal or conservative. Pope John Paul II is considered an ardent personalist within the traditionalist realm; I just happen to disagree with most of his conclusions regarding social morality.
So I hate to break it to you. Not everyone who disagrees with you is looking to deceive you and everyone else. I just happen to be a much more confident and assertive liberal Christian than you might have ever encountered. For instance, the Episcopal Church shows an interesting dichotomy that illustrates my point well. Liberal Episcopalians have been trying to bend over backwards and compromise to prevent a conservative schism, whereas conservative Episcopalians have been doing nothing but threatening to leave and refusing to compromise. I'm just more apt to refuse to compromise and say, "Good riddance!"
I'm surprised you haven't called me a "false prophet" yet. I find that when I have exhausted conservative Christians here that they start calling me that in frustration. Nice try.