equality blooms with spring - Page 67

AEON · 11-15-2009, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Really? I remember when you first start posting here, you said you were in seminary school but you were flat out wrong about a very important part of biblical history, and you were corrected by those who didn't agree with your stance and even those that did agree with your stance. At the time it shocked me that someone who was that far along didn't know this... I have to ask did you ever finish?

I can't recall being "flat out wrong" about a very important part of Biblical history. I'm not saying I wasn't - I just don't recall it. To answer your question about seminary - I have 42 of the semester units completed out of the 72 units required (45 units is typical of most Master's programs). I took time off from seminary for military duties, civilian work, and to finish my MBA.

Yes, you are correct - there isn't an example of every aspect of life. That being said - homosexuality presumably has been around for a very long time. It is an aspect of life that is addressed in the Bible - and it is never positive.

Quote:

I mean it seems obvious that Jesus didn't talk to his disciples at the time about the world being round because frankly they wouldn't understand...

Jesus didn't address heroine abuse or baseball players using HGH either - that doesn't make it right.

melon · 11-15-2009, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AEON

I also found it interesting that in the Catholic Catechism - the part addressing the problems with homosexuality are in the "Love Thy Neighbor" section, which is based on the quote you used above (which of course is based on other quotes in the Old and New Testament).

Except Roman Catholicism is, even by admission of the Vatican, not primarily centred around Biblical fundamentalism as many Protestant denominations are. I'd say that the Bible runs third in primacy; the first two being, in order, its own moral authority and then its philosophical traditions, primarily originating from Aquinas.

I've read the Vatican arguments against homosexuality, and it primarily comes down to its medieval traditions regarding "natural law" from Aquinas. My own opinion is that the Church took the wrong lessons from him. Aquinas wrote what he did in the spirit of inquiry and a desire to make Greek philosophical traditions compatible with Christianity, and many of his conclusions flat out come down to being wrong, because of a lack of sufficient data in the 12th century. But because of Aquinas, Western philosophy was able to mature into what it is today. Instead, the Vatican has fixated on his specific conclusions and ignored the methods he used to derive them that would likely come to different conclusions with a modern scientific understanding.

Quote:

In the end, I think the greater problem is that many Christians (perhaps even some non-Christians) believe we are living in a time when every man is doing what is right in his own eyes...and in Biblical history , at least, that didn't work out too great.

Is this not the end result of the Reformation--that is, a reliance on a personal relationship with God that can be achieved directly without intermediaries? A centralized religious power structure also is no guarantee of utopia or even universal agreement on doctrine; hence, why the Christian church has been divided from the start.

Morality has always benefited from good natured debate, and if there's one flaw I'd wish to point out it's that the Left has pretty much abandoned religious discourse to conservatives.

AEON · 11-15-2009, 02:35 AM

Quote:

as a word and a concept, it [homosexuality] does not exist until the mid-to-late 19th century

Just to clarify, are you seriously stating that homosexuality, as a concept, did not exist until the late 19th century?

Quote:

It is also equally preposterous to expect the Bible to anticipate modern homosexuality

Please explain "modern" homosexuality - considering that many here have asserted that homosexuality is "of nature" - meaning, it is a result of DNA, not upbringing.

Are you quoting and/or paraphrasing Allan Bloom? I am trying to determine which are your thoughts and which are his. I don't expect APA format, and I am not accusing you of plagiarism, it is just difficult in this post to distinguish your points from his.

BVS · 11-15-2009, 02:48 AM

Quote:

I can't recall being "flat out wrong" about a very important part of Biblical history. I'm not saying I wasn't - I just don't recall it. To answer your question about seminary - I have 42 of the semester units completed out of the 72 units required (45 units is typical of most Master's programs). I took time off from seminary for military duties, civilian work, and to finish my MBA.

It happen to be about the original commandment... and nbcrusader, myself and others had to correct you.

Quote:

Yes, you are correct - there isn't an example of every aspect of life. That being said - homosexuality presumably has been around for a very long time. It is an aspect of life that is addressed in the Bible - and it is never positive.

This is wrong as well... and you've been show this several times as well. It may not be as obvious as the original commandment issue, but it's still a lack of understanding.

Quote:

Jesus didn't address heroine abuse or baseball players using HGH either - that doesn't make it right.

Well excess was addressed, but this does help prove my point. We do assign a lot of rights and wrongs that were never talked about in the Bible.

AEON · 11-15-2009, 02:48 AM

Do you believe there is any social benefit to marriage (gay or straight)? Or is it simply an act between two people and only two people?

**Diemen** · 11-15-2009, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irvine511

what is it about our relationships that makes it so that you see nothing worthwhile about offering us the same protections that you and your wife are entitled to (and, indeed, Britney Spears and Hugh Hefner are entitled to), and why do you feel it is necessary to maintain the distinction of "marriage" vs. "not a marriage"?

This. This is the question I keep coming back to in this whole debate. So far it's gone unanswered. Why deny two consenting adults the protections of the state afforded to others who also want to join into a monogamous, committed relationship?

AEON?

Indy?

Bueller?

BVS · 11-15-2009, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AEON

Do you believe there is any social benefit to marriage (gay or straight)? Or is it simply an act between two people and only two people?

Before asking the same question just in a different form, why don't you answer some of the questions asked of you? You keep getting called out on avoiding certain questions, why do you think that is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS

What meaning does it have now, when anyone can get meet tonight and get married by Elvis an hour later?

What meaning does it have when 50+-% ends in divorce?

What meaning does it have now, that can possibly be taken away from even more?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS

Answer me this, why do you think THIS is the only sin that doesn't seem to have logic behind it? I've asked you this before, but I'm wondering if time has granted you an answer.

**Diemen** · 11-15-2009, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AEON

Do you believe there is any social benefit to marriage (gay or straight)? Or is it simply an act between two people and only two people?

I see one large social benefit being the promotion of monogamous, committed relationships between two consenting adults.

I also see that this thread is just about at the 1000 post mark. Time to start up a new one, folks!

melon · 11-15-2009, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Just to clarify, are you seriously stating that homosexuality, as a concept, did not exist until the late 19th century?

Yes. Please read the background of Karl-Maria Kertbeny, the 19th century German writer responsible for coining both the word "homosexual" and the concept of "homosexuality" as sexual orientation. Prior to that, the common view was that same sex acts were committed by otherwise heterosexual men out of "wickedness."

Quote:

Please explain "modern" homosexuality - considering that many here have asserted that homosexuality is "of nature" - meaning, it is a result of DNA, not upbringing.

"Modern" homosexuality is what you see possible today: individuals of same-sex orientations having sex and/or forming loving relationships with one another to the exclusion of the opposite sex. Biblical "homosexuality" did not conceive this, primarily because these types of relationships did not exist in Antiquity. Greco-Roman mores involved having an often loveless marriage, while the man was permitted to engage in any number of affairs, with same sex acts generally occurring in the context of societally sanctioned pederasty, upon which the sexual relationships were to end once the boy was of age and to be married off to a woman, or mass temple orgies of a bisexual nature, reflecting beliefs that sex brought one closer to the gods (reminiscent of ancient fertility cults).

Quote:

Are you quoting and/or paraphrasing Allan Bloom? I am trying to determine which are your thoughts and which are his. I don't expect APA format, and I am not accusing you of plagiarism, it is just difficult in this post to distinguish your points from his.

I paraphrased him, and he directly made those comments regarding classical philosophy being non-democratic and incompatible with modern notions feminism/equality, plus he advanced the idea of classical philosophy having value in spite of being written in an authoritarian, misogynist, etc. time.--i.e., a direct challenge to liberal modern philosophers, who would argue that they were outdated and unnecessary to the present.

AEON · 11-15-2009, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS

This is wrong as well... and you've been show this several times as well. It may not be as obvious as the original commandment issue, but it's still a lack of understanding.

The disagreement is not whether homosexuality (man on man sex) is mentioned in the Bible (as we can all look up passages that mention it), but whether or not the homosexual acts potrayed in the Bible were called out as sin because they involved rape and/or temple worship, thus leaving room for the possibility that consenting homosexual relationships were permissible.

AEON · 11-15-2009, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS

You keep getting called out on avoiding certain questions, why do you think that is?

Doing the best I can to address everyone. A little bit of a one man show here so cut me some slack. Also, if you look back, Melon has left some questions on the table...

melon · 11-15-2009, 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AEON

Do you believe there is any social benefit to marriage (gay or straight)? Or is it simply an act between two people and only two people?

Marriage provides stability at a state, social, and familial level. As gay people are continuing to have stable, monogamous, loving relationships while raising children of their own, they are continuing to resemble heterosexual relationships in all aspects except that they are same sex couples, rather than opposite sex, and they require the same assurances of stability that heterosexual couples desire.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-15-2009, 02:48 AM	#995
AEON Refugee Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: California Posts: 1,994 Local Time: 08:40 PM	Do you believe there is any social benefit to marriage (gay or straight)? Or is it simply an act between two people and only two people?