it's His followers I could live without - Page 25 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-09-2006, 09:47 AM   #361
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
You said "Such things as "context," "interpretation “and” intention" are considered irrelevant to the printed word."

This is what I have taken issue with. Essentialist or non-essentialist – this is false.
No, for essentialism, it's true. If you're not a doctrinaire essentialist, that's fine; but that is the dominant philosophy behind traditionalist/conservative Christianity.

Quote:
You have impeccable wikipedia knowledge and cut and paste skills. That's great. It obviously serves you well in FYM. You can learn much from there apparently. I also find it a convenient place to look up a quick historical fact or definition of a school of thought.
I quote from there, because I cannot quote from my high school lectures or textbooks. I merely use it as a quick outside source, since you seem to think that everything I say comes out of the blue.

Quote:
Also, if I wrote a paper and I did not address context, interpretation, and intention – and also cite the sources that support my assertions – I would get a failing grade on that paper. It is that simple.
I addressed the postmodern/Marxist take on this subject. Like "1984," the Ministry of Peace wages war and the school that claims to address context, interpretation, and intention really works to dismiss all three.

Quote:
The ironic part in all of this is that I believe your argument fails to adhere to these very three principles…
went to Catholic High School)
Then you're willfully blind. Read a book that wasn't written by a conservative Christian sometime.
__________________

__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 09:55 AM   #362
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus




So I hate to break it to you. Not everyone who disagrees with you is looking to deceive you and everyone else.
You are right – not everyone is purposely deceiving people. It is only those that purposely hold up a premise despite knowing it is false.

Since you claim much knowledge about the conservative school of thought – I hope you can see how easy it is for me to think that you are fully aware that any “conservative” article or textbook does take context, interpretation, and intention into consideration – even if you disagree with the conclusions.

You stated that you read the article I posted a few pages ago – the author went to great lengths to address all three of these principles. You disagreed with his conclusions – but you still have to concede that the author did find these principles important to support HIS conclusion.

In my view – it seems to me - that you purposely held up a premise despite knowing it was false. And I took issue with that.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 10:08 AM   #363
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus




Then you're willfully blind. Read a book that wasn't written by a conservative Christian sometime.
I have read all of Elaine Pagel's books - and several others. The "Mystical Sense of the Gospels" is another recent read.

I don't have time to 'absorb' myself in liberal theology - but I certainly do read much of the material.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 10:19 AM   #364
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus


I quote from there, because I cannot quote from my high school lectures or textbooks.
This is not intended to be offensive – but do you have any “college” level textbooks and lectures lying around that you might be tempted to cut and paste from? I am not even asking for post-graduate stuff – just undergraduate.

It does serve me well to read other theologies. Believe it or not, I do try to be unbiased when reading them- even though it is impossible to be completely unbiased in reading anything. I think that it also might serve you well if you did the same thing. I do encourage you to read a textbook or a commentary intended for "conservative" seminary students and not a “Comparative Religion” class or “Survey of Christian Thought”.

I am not claiming a book like this would change your mind. But I do think it would help you understand how they are reaching their conclusions.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 11:34 AM   #365
Acrobat
 
BorderGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Under A Blood Red Texas Sky
Posts: 418
Local Time: 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BostonAnne

The only path forward in humanity is to view all people as one.
I personally find it offensive to not recognize that there are differences in people.
Because a marriage and a same-sex union are essentially different realities, it is not unjust to treat them differently. In fact, justice requires society to do so.
__________________
BorderGirl is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 12:49 PM   #366
Acrobat
 
BorderGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Under A Blood Red Texas Sky
Posts: 418
Local Time: 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977

ultra-conservative Christians who believe sex is solely for procreation and any enjoyment thereof is sinful.
No one believes sex is bad, sinful, or unenjoyable.

However, the idea is that sex is reserved for the union of a man and a woman because it is "life-giving". Their union produces life---biological children.

This act is and remains a procreative or reproductive kind of act even if the spouses, because of non-behavioral factors over which they have no control, for example, the temporary or permanent sterility of one of the spouses, are not able to generate human life in a freely chosen marital act.

Chastity is promoted for unmarried persons, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

With that said however, this "openess to life" is biologically non-existent in same sex acts and therefore considered immoral/unordered.

I'm not taking sides, just adding to discussion, so pleeease.......
__________________
BorderGirl is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 12:58 PM   #367
Refugee
 
BostonAnne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 2,052
Local Time: 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BorderGirl


I personally find it offensive to not recognize that there are differences in people.
Because a marriage and a same-sex union are essentially different realities, it is not unjust to treat them differently. In fact, justice requires society to do so.
Sorry - I didn't finish..

One, but not the same....
__________________
BostonAnne is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 01:05 PM   #368
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BorderGirl


No one believes sex is bad, sinful, or unenjoyable.

Don't be so sure about that.

Quote:
Originally posted by BorderGirl


This act is and remains a procreative or reproductive kind of act even if the spouses, because of non-behavioral factors over which they have no control, for example, the temporary or permanent sterility of one of the spouses, are not able to generate human life in a freely chosen marital act.

It is by no means purely a reproductive act.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 11-09-2006, 01:18 PM   #369
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 07:22 PM
Border Girl didn't say it was purely a reproductive act. There's lots of ands to that statement -- "and it's enjoyable, and it promotes intimacy, and..." -- but its primary (though not exclusive) purpose is reproduction.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 01:33 PM   #370
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
Border Girl didn't say it was purely a reproductive act. There's lots of ands to that statement -- "and it's enjoyable, and it promotes intimacy, and..." -- but its primary (though not exclusive) purpose is reproduction.
I realize that, but she didn't say any of those things...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 11-09-2006, 01:37 PM   #371
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 11:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BorderGirl
This act is and remains a procreative or reproductive kind of act even if the spouses, because of non-behavioral factors over which they have no control, for example, the temporary or permanent sterility of one of the spouses, are not able to generate human life in a freely chosen marital act.
I had complete control over my sterility; it was a conscious choice. Am I allowed to have sex with my husband?
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 11-09-2006, 02:45 PM   #372
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


I had complete control over my sterility; it was a conscious choice. Am I allowed to have sex with my husband?
NO!!! What kind of harlot are you? You must have babies dammit!
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 03:04 PM   #373
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
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.
Actually, your arguments seem to be based more towards, "God has a law, I'm telling you exactly what it is."

Melon has stated that context means something, stated how, very clearly with great time and effort, and with logical explanations that make the entire things make sense. Your return has essentially been "That's a mere technicality, they knew that homosexuality would end up like this."

I'm sorry if people here disagree that Bible writers couldn't see 1700 years into the future.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 07:39 AM   #374
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
In my view – it seems to me - that you purposely held up a premise despite knowing it was false. And I took issue with that.
Rest assured, I do not argue any premise that I know to be false here. We just have very sharp philosophical differences regarding conservative Christianity and Christianity, in general.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 08:14 AM   #375
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
I am not claiming a book like this would change your mind. But I do think it would help you understand how they are reaching their conclusions.
A lot of my basis is a matter of "reading between the lines" in the context of Christian history. Much of conservative Christian philosophy reminds me an awful lot of the exact approach that St. Thomas Aquinas took a millennium ago, which, to me, was based on admirable intentions and a logically flawed approach.

St. Thomas Aquinas, like some of what you have said here, believed that God and reason were compatible, and he, ultimately picking up where St. Augustine of Hippo left off from 600 years ago, became the father of "natural law."

The trouble is that his logical basis for "natural law" was entirely disproven with the advent of science. That is, all of reason, science, logic, etc. could be made to correspond with what he read in the Bible. And, most certainly, anything that he disliked in this world and could not reconcile with what he read in the Bible, automatically--and without fail--went into the category of "Satanic."

And it was through these "natural law" arguments that they came up with a whole bunch of wacky theories of the world. It was here that the real homophobia of the Christian church started, not with the Bible or Bible passages. Indeed, like anything from "natural law," the Bible was merely used as justification after the fact.

But don't think that they stopped with same-sex acts (notice my distinction; "homosexuality," both in the concept of the sexual orientation and word did not exist until the 19th century) in these days. No, "natural law" also stated that every and all expressions of pleasure and pain were Satanic. Men were forbidden to express either. They were to go through life with a macho emotional detachment (hence, the origin of the modern adjective "stoic," in reference to their self-described "Christian stoic" movement).

And continuing with St. Augustine's deep misogyny, women were not expected to be "stoic," admitting to their "inherent weakness" as human beings. After all, "objectively," it was through the sin of Eve that mankind underwent "the Fall," right? From there came the extension that, if women are weak and cry, then that must mean that they're inherently Satanic too. Since it would be several hundred years that science would reveal that pregnancy would be created through sperm and eggs, these "Christian stoics," without fail, "objectively" believed that life must come strictly from men and that women just held the incubating waters. After all, if women are "objectively" Satanic, they cannot have any part of life.

But what about female babies? Since women are "objectively" Satanic, how could a "Godly" male create a "Satanic" female child? After all, the woman only had the incubating waters. Rest assured, the Christian stoics covered this too! As a result, "objectively," all fetuses were really male, but that Satan, with his wily ways, would interfere with many pregnancies and, thus, create female children!

But back to the idea that all pleasure and pain were "objectively" Satanic, not only were same-sex acts "objectively disordered," since it was seen as the ultimate act of hedonistic "pleasure" with no responsibility, but opposite-sex acts, even amongst married couples, were highly regulated. No pleasure was permitted. The woman was expressedly forbidden from expressing any sense of enjoyment from sex, and the man was, theoretically, forbidden from it too. They could not look at each other, for fear of "objectively" sinning from lust from one another. Hence, it was sex through a "hole in the sheet." Obviously, in this climate, sex only occurred when they were to conceive a child and never at any other time.

...

Do you see why I ultimately end up rolling my eyes at a lot of conservative Christian arguments? They end up sounding like a bunch of medieval pseudoscientific nonsense to me. Like the Christian stoics, it is all "tradition first, Bible justification afterwards." Babble like "intelligent design" also takes a page from this era, and reading a papal encyclical, with its elaborate, purposely intimidating language to ultimately say nothing is also from this era.

In the end, like St. Thomas Aquinas, I do believe that God is represented through logic, reason, and science. However, I do not believe that the Bible inherently represents any of these concepts, and, as such, I look to science first. Science has long since dismissed the idea that people "choose" to be gay, and that's that. As such, it is "objectively" part of "God's plan."

But if you all are to look at sex as being strictly for procreation, you're certainly taking a page from Christian stoicism, not so much the Bible. As such, I hope you're using a hole in a sheet and not enjoying it, having sex solely when you're ready to conceive a child, because they would all frown upon you wanting to have sex with your wife. And, most certainly, she had better not want it either! You hedonistic lushes!
__________________

__________________
Ormus is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com