For those who do not think homosexuality is a sin, what is your opinion of what Paul says in Romans 1:27?

biblediction · 2012-05-25T15:13:55.905110+00:00

It is true ... those verses do contrast gender identity perversion versus gender "natural" things. I found some good Greek on the matter but I can't consider it all this morning. (DARN YOU REDDIT!)

The one precise thing I can say is that almost of those are very exactly linked to (1) prostitution for idol-worship with males [unnatural, utterly Jewish-unclean and idolatrous], (2) Sodom's specific crime of raping of travelers ... which was the core sin repeated in the OT against Sodom.

Note the parallel story of a (rather heartless) traveler's concubine raped-and-killed outside a house in Judges. This was used to inflame all of Israel against a region ... but it was a woman, not a man, being raped. This is even though the traveler was threatened and later walked away unscathed. The story of it caused and intense uproar and the structure is similar to Sodom.

Lastly ... Paul is a good Jew. He does not nearly EVER go into the foul things that Greeks and Romans engaged in. Almost all of his references are simply "pornea" .. or "sexual immorality" ... so we know he simply has utter distaste to mention it in detail.

I think I would too.

So I will have to look into this to see what is inherent and what is spoken to the Jews of Rome (which Romans is based on) that is precisely related to a men-turning-feminine sexually toward other men.

We aren't under the Law ... so the details of eating shellfish and of Leviticus must be considered side-by-side. Homosexual sex seems a very unclean thing and has uncleanliness consequences .... so it would fit with laws relating to that ... but it was apparently spoken of in the most as the practice prostitutes.

tornfromabook · 2012-05-25T14:51:47.880606+00:00

Well .. 90% of the time names are in service of others. No control over that, sadly. You can't pick your nickname. Even the term "Christian" has a slightly mocking tone from the original Greek: "Little Wannabes of the Long-Predicted Anointed-Messiah".

The quality that is bad/unhelpful/dysfunctional about naming is its reinforcement of dividing lines that are arbitrary, merciless and dispute-enhancing. I feel that is the core place to ask for change. People will have dedicated and fierce enemies, opposition groups, traditionalists/reformers ready to change your "benighted ways".

The question is if people decide the enemies list is what they are. Its much more fun to play "Let's all play church and heave contempt on outsiders" as opposed to "Let's worship the Perfect Divine and humble our sinful selves as all people would if they knew what they've done." This has happened all the way back to I Corinthians in the first century with Paul.

My hope for a solution-framework, in my home Western context, that is common-enough to not exclude those who dislike Christianity would look like this set of Observed-Foundational-Axioms:

(A) A joint-Universal Reality of many fact-viewing observers exists and Universal Truth's confusing/multi-faceted existence is no use to ignore. [Imaginary divisions are only tolerable as research hypotheses but they are an absolute fiction]

(B) Greater Reality of humanity will be an empathy-based perspective with no sugar-coating. Apathy toward humans living under injustice/ignorance/deceit cause a vast amount of lasting "social-entropy","revenge-dynamics","selfishness/anger-memes" .... also called a "debt of Sin".

(C) Reality also includes healing/restorative events, social harmony, thriving lives, peaceful changes and bridging of divisions. Helpless fatalism commonly pushes to lie about this. [This is my biggest problem with current Philosophy]

(D) Short-term/regional/recent thinking and animalistic distortions are hard to overcome. Motives of pleasure/fear/bias can destroy incredibly wise plans.

(E) A process of "bankruptcy" or "forgiveness" is a fundamental long-term solution to many things. Fully-public real debts (i.e. with revenge, contempt, hatred) given actual forgiveness can end cycles of chaos.

(F) A sincere process of "reality-testing" like the Scientific Method can cause divisions, confusions, issues, and poor heuristic-based thinking ... and it can filter away utter falsehoods and distill out utterly infallible Universal Truths. Respect for Truth's existence (of some nature) and for moral Foundations can overcome any divisions without destroying productive unity.

biblediction · 2012-05-25T05:20:17.498714+00:00

Roman sexuality is not the same as what we consider "homosexuality". It is carnal to an extreme. No commitment. No love. Usually domination for many men over every object they find suitable.

tornfromabook · 1 day

This perspective can't be engineered through censorship, just as we don't arrest people for publishing racist literature.

Well .. Europe, with their extremely recent sensitivities, has no such fears against Censorship. Further lots of the USA, when the Right is in charge, has shown they think punishing musicians/writers that are "disloyal" is not a problem for them. Further, the Left has objected vehemently to using a non-standard lingo for every identity under the sun. Censorship is out there ... and it feels like feasible social engineering to many many people.

A rational, non-random, universal morality seems much further out of reach when anyone says "I am an anarchist/black supremacist/zionist/objectivist/jew/scientologist/etc"

I can heartily agree with some of that feeling. If you've ever seen society overseas you can really sense that cultural homogeneity opens up an "ease" and "simplicity" that enhances trust, increases community and brings out some amazing types of harmony among people. The Japanese, even in their tough times, prefer even more to stick where their language and customs are a ticket to "belong" on every street and to be in the safest-yet-densest environments on planet earth.

The thing is that those names lead to behavior. The names not only delineate the "enemy list" (which, i'll admit, is a HUGE thing that an identity-name creates). They delineate solutions to problems of every type... ones that are wildly offensive to others.

Even so... I'd say that a "human" "rational" "[deliberate]" morality becomes one more attempt among others. Its ability to influence is precisely the same as any creed or cultural solution: gain adherents versus the alternatives.

tornfromabook · 1 day

Oh... THAT'S what you want to call it? Totally acceptable!

Well then we shall mark you down as "They who declare the superiority of dancing with lights and glitter balls at the Divine Cool Disco" .... and there will be much rejoicing, most funky of the beats, and delicious tea will be drank by all.

Major bummer that all the lovely women will be in a disco next door. (DARNIT!!) Well at least the marrieds can walk home together.

tornfromabook · 1 day

I'm in favor of a cultural value system in which enforcing the dictates of one ideology over another is considered tasteless. I don't know how to make this happen; I'm talking about pipe dreams, I suppose. But history certainly doesn't illustrate that BEING "so pompous as to believe you're better than everyone" works out well for anyone.

Well I, also assuredly, would make room for such a sense of value/dis-value. To have such a distaste ... frankly ... starts to become arbitrary and an all-encompassing ideal of the human role .... the single best human role to play. It becomes, in function, a religion. There can be room for that. As I said .. I fully acknowledge that it is popular. The only problem is Censorship becomes a very very very logical consequence. Bad words and thoughts is our focus? Ban them and all is well!

In my mind ... the entire entire entire world has real live absolutes that are clearer over the ages. It also has uncomfortable uncertainties, confusion and ambiguity ... but its more complex than just "all morality is random". (That's a cop-out). We in the USA (for example) believe there is an ideal state of independence / capitalist-stature / productivity / diversity which works well for society to base morals on. Apparently, in history and in current times, there are many others that can work well ... though mostly ones that require a more standardized culture than in the USA.

If we, in the USA or in other countries, really live out a set of absolute ideals that we expect will keep society whole and cooperating, then we can't ever claim that "equality of all" is really our ideal. It isn't. Are we pompous? Damn @#$@# right we are! Fascism. Beneath our ideal, and almost all others on the face of the earth. Stalinist Communism. Abhorrent to almost all on earth. Racism. Repulsive to us and we, of many, began dealing with it far before other countries. We in the USA expect that an unlimited number can "share" our ideal (regardless of their religion or ethnic background) ... but we do demand that it is "above a certain standard" of cooperative tolerance and/or harmony.

If we are soooo freaking adamant about these, and many other societies frankly are NOT, the details of them become their own very set of shared values. They are the USA's "religion" in the West. Europe shares many of them, but frankly not all. Why act as though we don't have them and that we believe all ideals are equal? Because we're too isolated and think they're "obvious".

A homogeneous society like Islam in Saudi Arabia or nativists in Japan can thrive from shared behavior and morals. It can happen and it can be rather harmonious ... but its not the same as us. We have problems that are not the same as theirs. Their moral sphere is not "just equal" (they have some bad problems) .. but they are actually "comparable" in a peaceful society (minus the stress/fear/rights lost by cultural roles). Even beyond this... we both would agree they are better than the morals of North Korea.

So claiming we are somehow "non-pompous" is a lie.... even in the area of morality and in the area of advanced civil rights. We hold these ideals / anti-ideals fiercely, without questioning or discussion every moment. Yet ... in our isolation we act as though they are somehow "obvious" or "unspoken" and that all will know them ... making all the rest details. After those ... preferences for oneself are "pompous" right? They aren't obvious, so distinctions aren't "pompous".

They show how little we know ourselves.

I want to see a morality in which the values are simply human values, a world in which there are no labels other than "human".

Buzzword alert. It sounds like its own separate religion, one superior to others, because it is. Not to be ashamed or violently repulsed ... but it walks/talks/quacks/speaks just like a religious-moral-code. It considers itself superior to Naziism. Superior to North Korean Leader Worship. Superior to Narco-Rebel Mafia Society. I'd heartily endorse it in a heartbeat if I lived in any of those other societies. "Humanism" demeans its "enemy" moralities because the others' results are horrific! Not because it is pompous.

It must be understood that specifying a moral code or foundation is to chase after that is a millennia-long dream.... one from Plato and many before him. Humanism, for its own part, is nary a minor thread of thinking from the Enlightenment to now. It isn't "worked out" yet ... and there is no "obvious" part of it.... in the real world.

tornfromabook · 1 day

tl;dr: "Imprecision must be the standard belief system" is pompous-as-hell, unstable and as brutal as any endless Communist Revolution ideology-of-enforced-equality.

Sincerely... I tried to tone my post down a bit. "Enforced Appearances of Politeness" as is suggested above, is one of the worst and most egregiously shallow attempts to make up a moral structure of living that I've ever seen. It cannot stand any test... but it is immensely popular. I do not deny ... but many people hope that some bizarre code-of-guilt-and-behavior for the very few somehow will create a moral foundation for all people.

I feel, for my part, it is utterly and completely insane in its basis, as it is contrary to the whole of history. Polite and obscure little mores, rituals, words, terms and behaviors have no record of preventing all cruelty and division. Why would the little idea: "Don't be so pompous as to believe you're better than all others!" somehow save us all? Has politeness really saved one life in a conflict?

SIDE NOTE: Humility is a wonderful and absolutely crucial concept, but external and truth-defying false humility fails horribly.

People are polite to condemned political prisoners, nobility that are soon to be beheaded, to social enemies of all types and toward the underlings or races they despise. Enforcing some rule about how someone speaks externally is so wrongheaded as to be farcical. The lies made up by people to get around politesse are notorious.

Worse than all the above, it is insanely false. It is a lie. It is not true that all are inherently equal in uncertainty. We have a far far far more precise world-view than ever before about many many many circumstances/causes/issues / rumors/hopes/dreams/consequences.

Most of it does not overlap with religion, but the increased precision, specificity, exactitude is utterly astounding. To act as though "imprecision" is the solution should make someone turn around and ask what they really think they think they are avoiding... .and why it would work.

Nothing at all is at its core as random, magical, chaotic and confusing as it was even 100 years ago.... and yet someone decides that that very fear-of-precision will save us?

Essentially ... as I see it there are so many folks that despise, hate, fear, worry and endlessly hand-wring about "religious people" that they look for ways to impede and block anything they thing is quintessentially "religious". This has gone on past "religious" to the nature of "hegemonic views" in Post-Modernism. It has gotten past that point and now questioned the nature of Science, Reality, Factual-Universality and created more useless circluar-de-leveraging of reason than any other movement in history.

Are we to take it one further and declare that because "Multiple narratives exist" therefore "All who promote one Narrative are forbidden from speaking what they believe!"

It is the black hole of Nilhilism... where the completely false external appearance of 'peace' is imagined to be the reality. So a simplistic view that "unsure feelings and shame or shyness" are somehow the source of all peace and harmony within mankind ... becomes a truly and wholly bizarre world.

NOTE: I'm a bit emphatic because I'm politically Liberal. I do believe in a Pluralistic society which has core, concrete, real, absolute and reason-based values that can include many many people within society. HOWEVER ... almost ALL concrete and historically powerful principles of the Left in the USA are being demeaned and lied about. The Left is empty and speechless and aimless, without a brain to reply, because of the reasoning I've heard along this line: 'We can't be too precise or we'll be considered impolitely exclusionary to other ideas'.

tornfromabook · 2 days

So, class, the lesson for everyone:

(1) Never be different enough for anyone else to ever give your group a name.

Or else ..... we'll attack you for escaping the ONE TRUE WORLD VIEW WE HAVE! HOW DARE YOU DIVERGE FROM OUR MINIMALIST SET OF VIEWS!!! WHAT GALL TO CLAIM YOU KNOW ANYTHING THAT DISTURBS OUR SENSE OF REALITY!

wang-banger · 5 days

Honduras. What's not to like about changing the US to Honduras?

Banana Republic everyone?

BlankVerse · 7 days

Well ... let's say that we don't want to do inferences, even if we consider them legitimate. Scripture is Scripture ... and there is no "Obviously This Was Just Like It Is Now" in many times of history.

In areas of sexuality during Jesus' time, where sensible Jews were ashamed of everything Greek and Roman and Babylonian ... it can be said we have only the word "pornea" to know as "sexual immorality" and Paul's fierce reactions to it. He called out the Romans and the Greeks for their absolutely random satiation of lust ... sometimes planned for random domination of the target.

Jesus for His own part did not even consider it but only hinted that casting off fleshly passions was the beginning of Godly wisdom that would open one's eyes and help clear one's mind, but He certainly never forbade marriage itself.

In the old testament it was obvious that "prostitution" ... sleeping around especially for every type of good-luck-temple or inebriated experience possible ... was what men were tempted by. It would seem the messages, written for men of power who were very very likely married, mostly had to do with "temptresses" from outside Mosaic law. It also prohibited against adultery in one's own country, and many types of tribal border-breaching as well as the foreign indulgences of idolatry.

Even with all this in the old testament .. it was made perfectly acceptable to have multiple wives, concubines and many other arrangements of sex for the dominant men who could afford to keep a household or support one for their live-in children. Foreign practices were the fear. Isolation from male sexual partner sharing seems the most important principle ... and that because of so many other issues of power mentioned, ones we know well of today.

So we have two images of the forbidden and the repulsive: pornea and "prostituting oneself". They don't even correspond well to Sodom and Gomorrah's supposed reputation because sexual abuse of strangers-under-protection was its main horrible crime.

So I am not convinced that all is obviously as it is now in the latter two centuries. Paul may be speaking of restraining lust for anyone, genuinely.

Note, love and romantic love are absolutely idolized, worshipped and are one of the hugest downfalls we have in the West. Remarriage of widows was Paul's only topic, a somewhat rare one. That is what we have now all the time: willing and socially unplanned pairings without economic concern.

Romantic stuff like we have now is not common through all history and it plays a very low role in the Bible. For some, like with Abraham and other loving couples, it is treated as uncommon and a happy chanceful event. But marriage itself is normal, near-random and necessary for life. Even children aren't the critical outcome, but merely chastity of both who are following God.

So I don't see anything in Scripture that makes a more "Mormon" dogma of "Marriage of two as designed in Eden and blessed by God" to be the ideal. It seems we are mostly to tide ourselves over and contain our passions with friends, wives, husbands, children and thereby remain pure from the world.

BlankVerse · 7 days

Paul said the most core thing I think. He obviously teaches marriage as solely one-and-one man and woman, but the emphasis is assuredly not on that aspect in the least.

I Cor 7:1 Now as to the matters of which you wrote me. It is well [and by that I mean advantageous, expedient, profitable, and wholesome] for a man not to touch a woman [to cohabit with her] but to remain unmarried. 2 But because of the temptation to impurity and to avoid immorality, let each [man] have his own wife and let each [woman] have her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights (goodwill, kindness, and what is due her as his wife), and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have [exclusive] authority and control over her own body, but the husband [has his rights]; likewise also the husband does not have [exclusive] authority and control over his body, but the wife [has her rights]. 5 Do not refuse and deprive and defraud each other [of your due marital rights], except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, so that you may devote yourselves unhindered to prayer. But afterwards resume marital relations, lest Satan tempt you [to sin] through your lack of restraint of sexual desire. 6 But I am saying this more as a matter of permission and concession, not as a command or regulation. 7 I wish that all men were like I myself am [in this matter of self-control]. But each has his own special gift from God, one of this kind and one of another.

8 But to the unmarried people and to the widows, I declare that it is well (good, advantageous, expedient, and wholesome) for them to remain [single] even as I do. 9 But if they have not self-control (restraint of their passions), they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame [with passion and tortured continually with ungratified desire].

In essence ... marriage has one core valuable purpose in Paul's mind: to satisfy that which causes troubling lusts. That does fit the role implied for gay marriage.

BlankVerse · 7 days

The whole admonition is about divorce ... breaking of one flesh, only, as regarding a man and woman.

It is true this mentions marriage ... but in the context he specifically was being asked about divorce of wives. Also this is in context of Mosaic law, so some Christians could claim it was part of the old covenant. Within the Mosaic law, it is obvious David and Solomon had multiple wives and concubines.

It is interesting that it mentions a MAN divorcing and then committing adultery, which is probably what surprised them. This is probably one of the first times a divorce-then-remarriage was named unfaithful for the man to engage in. This marriage-and-divorce cycle of permission is currently used in rather quiet ways to tacitly allow prostitution in some more remote societies within Islam.

Jesus goes past this by demanding that men obey God. This is significant ... but mostly for that point.

jentaculophile · 8 days

Isn't most of the article on Heaven .. and not Hell / Sheol / Gehenna / Lake-of-Fire?

faswich · 8 days

What will be the most interesting is to see if it has mature and deeper themes. So far it is good at combat, great at utterly imaginative art and backgrounds. It is rather 'anime' for its own style.

However ... the life, meaning, feeling and living in "The Grid" needs more depth. Is possible but they already have questions of loyalty, mercy and friendship put into the plot.

I'm more worried about the Clone Wars fight-fight-fight and discuss-boring-boring-boring design for everything.

Taqwacore · 9 days

Um. That may have worked on 8th grade schoolyards, but read some history. All sorts of inolerant groups grew up mocking publicly first in their home cultures.

A few smart folk start. But soon the Mocking Hoarde just makes up a little cult about their superiority and their "open eyes" versus all others. Mockers start to turn into a echo-chamber group and don't know their targets nor question why they are so wise among others. They make up things instead, because its more fun and any wannbe can do it.

None of this affects the mock-ees at all. Some hard-line folks will cry persecution and make folk question the civility of the new group. Sooner or later the group comes out as just a fiendish pile of hatred and superiority ... convincing only itself.

Either the world laughs at them or the world bands up against their intolerant behavior, because they're just like an anger cult full of morons. The question then is what they think their mad mad skillz can do when they're finally laughed at as a group.

All the while they are starting out, they are positive they somehow are "doing some good!" in getting larger numbers of know-nothings together.

andjok · 9 days

WTH? Thank your Majesty for telling we low folk when to not post?

andjok · 9 days

Now there's a "No True Scotsman" zeal-test for the r/Atheists definition of Atheist? Isn't that a bit repulsive to reddit Atheists? Isn't that yet ANOTHER sign of the Zealous Religiousity of the r/Atheism crew?

I'm talking going from an outspoken, hardcore, passionate atheist like one you might find on r/atheism

I'm sorry but a large large number of people come to r/Christianity decrying exactly those kinds of people... and THOSE FOLKS are atheists with all the concrete signs that they really fit the description.

They are "True Scotsman"... and so they widen the circle beyond that group. Some of this type of people who similarly would find r/Atheism repulsive .... that type of atheists .... have become Christians. I myself saw Carl Sagan for the first run of COSMOS ... loved it ... was rethinking and began silently rejecting the 70s "Zen / psychological seminar" series my dad was very very devoted to in California. I considered myself an Atheist at that time and for several years afterward.

I became a Christian later on and that "taking my beliefs seriously" has stuck to this day.... so I'm a pretty reliably-tested Scotsman of the other brand now too. Would you disqualify me because I don't meet your "Shibboleth" (look it up)?

I wouldn't advocate for myself any life like who express themselves in the way they do, so I find that behavior itself confines Atheists too much. Unless you feel fury-of-emotion is a real intellectual property necessary to "Not-Believe" in the correct dogma?

Taqwacore · 11 days

The "We are angry!" message is not a success in the long term.

Others are using it too, as is the Neo-Atheist movement. Get in line, because it is not original but merely represents yet another wave of angry youth. One of several right now. Start to understand it or ignore it at your peril.

Some of those who use it with such zeal represent later movements that DO become violent and have fierce anger toward others' place in society, wanting them to be restricted or ejected. Many have said these positions already.

Get an understanding of history and those angry movements, or you'll repeat one of them.

randomletterusername · 11 days

Give the reason for == apologos.

Apologetics has Biblical roots ... but it must be about the core: the Hope, the Gospel, the Glory of God as the Saviour made Him known to us.

Rentalsoul · 11 days

Awesome!

Taqwacore · 11 days

Overall, the stigmata associated to atheism in the US is well documented, and the above article just tries to build another stereotype.

We are in a different time than all the historical concepts of atheism and its very large stigma. There are many times in history when it was more fashionable and we're back into one now.

Historically, its been actually a very dour grumbling and unpleasant history. Atheists are major downers in almost all their phases, except for now. Mostly filled with variants on Sartre who look down on others and yet feel sad because they do so. These Neo-Atheists have a different culture entirely. They are the Star Trek, "Singularity" and maybe Heinlein-Atheists. The vast majority are very young, very young and deny all the roots they have in Academia. They have a purified hope in a childish view of "Science" and "Technology" with a barbaric world-of-illusion spawned by "Religion" that ejected us out of a sort of garden-of-innocent-atheism.

It is a taste of what is to come we all see. For observers is no shame in placing penetrating and deep questions upon a group that is full of fury, hateful words, anger and declares to themselves endlessly that they feel sidelined. The largest part are young and likely facing a difficult economic future. Would you treat them as a moderate middle-ground unremarkable phenomenon?? Could never go wrong?

They are an open question. Unfortunately for they and others, they are just among other movements too. The USA's rise of "Patriot-Loyalist" "Rural-Identiity" Ayn-rand Capitalism advocates with fewer and fewer roots in anything but Libertarianism and cultural Fascism .... is at least as important. Both have the same message for people who don't like them or haven't heard of them: hear us and know we are angry at not being more respected.

Notice that. The "successful approach" is proving to be only the meta-narrative of "LOOK THEY KNOW WE ARE ANGRY!" that many groups want. Tea Partiers. Environmental / Class-Equality Activists. Atheist Libertarians or not-so-Libertarians.

The "We are angry!" message is not a success in the long term.

Taqwacore · 11 days

No one said violence. Hatred, mockery, harassment and lots of other actions that are possible over the Internet .... those are present.

Zeal is not identical with violence.

Taqwacore · 11 days

You claim there's no evidence of the "angry Christian haters"?

Has this changed since I last looked?

Taqwacore · 12 days

There's this website called reddit. Check it out sometime, except the Atheists who post there refuse to rely on evidence for much of their own discussions.

phileconomicus · 13 days

But that's the problem in this case ... an "ideal of living" is an archetype that someone has experienced... an image of an ideal culture ... an ideal that may hang together well, that did once or otherwise is appealing to them as a solution.

In many many cases .. there is NO Deontological theory at the root of moral ideals. Someone can guess a posteriori that "Those weirdos wanted it because of a misguided sick and wrong theory" but that's just self-elevating and assuming everyone who disagrees was crazy for thinking anything different.

Morals are either reactions to genuine problems, or hopeful memories about a good point in time where problems were missing.

The extremes appear to come from application not of abstract theory, but of easy-to-enforce rules that are a subset of the moral ideal. Enforcing an image, tighter and tighter, closer and closer to the simplest imagination of the leaders .... until it is a farce or has decayed in the typical ways all cultures do. Myths of some types are much easier to enforce than others, especially for external and shallow images.

Also ... the observer bias maybe at play in your observation of communism and libertariansm converts. Many other simplistic moral theories and guidelines may be formed by other people you know ... but you only noticed the highly economically divergent ones, the extreme ones.

In any case deciding that "property is theft" or "taxation is theft" both always are traced back to occasions where those seem to explain the problems that were found. They then are applied as a technique of solving all problems. Communism simplistically ignores corruption and unstable economic incentives. Libertarianism completely ignores externalities, crises of security and criminality when owners are the only people allowed to run everything.

jeezfrk

TROPHY CASE

jeezfrk

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login