10 Aug 09
Originally posted by Conrau KSorry, but I can't be sure what your point is. Can you rephrase it so that it is clearer?
Amazing what mental gymnastics you need to use. Jesus says God made mankind man and female so that they could marry and become one flesh. This is not a statement only applicable to or restricted to heterosexuals. You can test this yourself. Can you say 'In regard to heterosexuals, God made mankind male and female so that they could marry' and 'in regard to ...[text shortened]... rue or false irrespective of whether the speaker is addressing homosexuals or heterosexuals.
Anyhow, let's look at your original assertion:
"Personally, I doubt Jesus would have been a champion for homosexual rights. Consider Matthew 19:1-12. Jesus discusses the legitimate grounds for divorce, he spells out that marriage is between man and woman. There is no consideration of the possibility that a man may wish to marry a man, or some other alternative pairing."
In Matthew 19:1-12 Jesus addresses the question of if divorce is lawful in the specific case of a heterosexual marriage. Within this context there is no reason for Jesus to consider homosexual marriage since it is not within the topic of discussion. Quite frankly, to assert that because Jesus does not go off topic and discuss homosexual marriage it is proper to assert that Jesus probably would not champion "homosexual rights" is ridiculous. It is as if your expectation is that when someone is asked about divorce in heterosexual marriage, a failure to give approval of homosexual marriage is to be taken as a tacit indictment of "homosexual rights".
10 Aug 09
3 edits
Originally posted by Lord Sharkwhether you think i am talking nonsense is neither here nor there, this is a public forum, are you the dictator of the public forum, no, then why are you acting as one? so shut up! it is glaringly apparent that you are intent on banding your opinion about as if it were some type of absolute truth, get it, for it is nothing remotely resembling it, get it, if you do not like what i post, do not respond and save me the trouble of reply to your dictatorial edicts and decrees! muppet!
Why do you continue to confuse the term 'natural' with 'morally acceptable'?
Suppose some animals habitually eat rival's babies. We can ask some questions about this scenario.
Q. Is this behaviour natural?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it moral?
A. As animals are not moral agents it is neither moral nor immoral.
Q. Can we infer what humans should do direc ...[text shortened]... us that they aren't talking nonsense.
I think you are talking nonsense. Please stop it.
10 Aug 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobi do not need to sort out my definitions, you are the people who are equating animal behaviour with human behaviour, not me. its you people who need to sort out why you find one form of animal behaviour acceptable which you are intent on applying to humans, and find other forms of animal behaviour objectionable, which you do not. so far morality has not even entered the fray, so do not confuse the issue with pretence references to definitions and arguments about semantics.
Sort out your definitions , then come back and we'll continue this discussion. Because at the moment it's pointless with you spouting the utter garbage you are at the moment.
10 Aug 09
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYet again Robbie i have to hold your hand through the debate like a small child being led to school on their first day.
i do not need to sort out my definitions, you are the people who are equating animal behaviour with human behaviour, not me. its you people who need to sort out why you find one form of animal behaviour acceptable which you are intent on applying to humans, and find other forms of animal behaviour objectionable, which you do not. so far morality ha ...[text shortened]... do not confuse the issue with pretence references to definitions and arguments about semantics.
you are the people who are equating animal behaviour with human behaviour, not me
This is true. Are you seriously trying to tell me that humans don't share any behaviour patterns with animals?
its you people who need to sort out why you find one form of animal behaviour acceptable which you are intent on applying to humans, and find other forms of animal behaviour objectionable, which you do not.
Is this a serious question? Here's a suggestion for you, maybe we can exhibit some animal behaviour and not others. Comparing human homosexual behaviour with animal homosexual beahviour and finding it acceptable, is not he same as comparing ALL animal behaviour with human behaviour and finding it acceptable. This is i believe a 'straw man' argument that you have concocted.
10 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe dummy has been spat. Could you answer the question though?! Ta.
whether you think i am talking nonsense is neither here nor there, this is a public forum, are you the dictator of the public forum, no, then why are you acting as one? so shut up! it is glaringly apparent that you are intent on banding your opinion about as if it were some type of absolute truth, get it, for it is nothing remotely resembling it, get ...[text shortened]... do not respond and save me the trouble of reply to your dictatorial edicts and decrees! muppet!
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLooks like I hit a nerve there 🙂
whether you think i am talking nonsense is neither here nor there, this is a public forum, are you the dictator of the public forum, no, then why are you acting as one? so shut up! it is glaringly apparent that you are intent on banding your opinion about as if it were some type of absolute truth, get it, for it is nothing remotely resembling it, get ...[text shortened]... do not respond and save me the trouble of reply to your dictatorial edicts and decrees! muppet!
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by JigtieYes I agree, but it might be legitimate to infer what Jesus would have condoned/condemned?
Fair enough. However, whatever you infer, if you claim that Jesus condoned/condemned
homosexuality, you put words in his mouth. He never said this or the other.
What's the divine penalty for lying in the name of Jesus, I wonder.
For example, Jesus never condemned car jacking nor condoned using antibiotics to alleviate suffering and disease. But we might come to a reasonable view of what Jesus would have said couldn't we?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSorry, but I can't be sure what your point is. Can you rephrase it so that it is clearer?
Sorry, but I can't be sure what your point is. Can you rephrase it so that it is clearer?
Anyhow, let's look at your original assertion:
"Personally, I doubt Jesus would have been a champion for homosexual rights. Consider Matthew 19:1-12. Jesus discusses the legitimate grounds for divorce, he spells out that marriage is between man and woman. There i ...[text shortened]... oval of homosexual marriage is to be taken as a tacit indictment of "homosexual rights".
Sure. Imagine if you were in a conversation with someone talking about the legacy of Martin Luther King. Your conversant believes that Luther would have supported discrimination against the disabled. You rightfully point out that Luther said 'God made all men equal'. Your conversant however is unconvinced and responds arguing that Luther only made this statement in the context of the debate about the civil rights of black people. Can you see the problem? The truth of the statement 'God made all men equal' is independent of its context.
Likewise, even if Jesus were discussing heterosexual divorce, the statement that God made mankind man and woman so they could marry is not context-restricted, that is, the meaning of this statement does not dependent on the listener. It would be incoherent to claim that it is true for heterosexuals but false for homosexuals. Similarly it would be incoherent to assert ''God made all men equal' is true for black people' and ''God made all men equal' is false for disabled people'. These are contradictory and to assert otherwise would be require you to equivocate on the meaning of 'all'.
And besides that, Jesus' omission is still important. Judaism at the time believed that homosexuals should be treated brutally. Leviticus demands their execution. Jesus' reticence is astounding if he really did support homosexual rights. Jesus seemed a very contrarian and argumentative person. He challenged the religious leaders on divorce, Sabbath teaching, the status of Mosaic law, even claiming that he was the son of God, so why so quiet about homosexuality?
10 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KI suspect that you fail to consider that which is to be regarded as generally true vs true in all cases.
[b]Sorry, but I can't be sure what your point is. Can you rephrase it so that it is clearer?
Sure. Imagine if you were in a conversation with someone talking about the legacy of Martin Luther King. Your conversant believes that Luther would have supported discrimination against the disabled. You rightfully point out that Luther said 'God made all men even claiming that he was the son of God, so why so quiet about homosexuality?[/b]
Let's look at Matthew 19:
3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" 4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?"
If you were to take 19:4-5 to be regarded as true in all cases and regardless of context, then you would infer that Jesus is saying that all men and women must marry.
However this was not the case as evidenced by the following. When prompted about celibacy, Jesus responded with this:
11 But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."
Obviously, the quote from the Genesis is to be regarded as generally true with eunuchs being at least one exception. Jesus did not bring this up until prompted to do so.
Likewise, if Jesus was prompted about homosexuals, He may have given another exception:
"Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are men who were born to be with men and women who were born to be with women."
He may not have. But Jesus was not prompted about homosexuals. And so far as I know, Jesus was never documented as having a position on homosexuals or for that matter homosexuality. So we do not know His position.
In general "omission" arguments are problematic. Just because someone was not documented as having given a position does not mean he did not give one. I seriously doubt that everything Jesus said was documented. For example, so far as I know Jesus was not documented as having a position on slavery even though it was commonplace during the time of Jesus. Are we to infer from that that Jesus was probably pro-slavery?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
10 Aug 09
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I suspect that you fail to consider that which is to be regarded as generally true vs true in all cases.
Let's look at Matthew 19:
3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" 4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE TH g the time of Jesus. Are we to infer from that that Jesus was probably pro-slavery?
If you were to take 19:4-5 to be regarded as true in all cases and regardless of context, then you would infer that Jesus is saying that all men and women must marry.
I will stop you there. All I can infer from Jesus' words is that the reason God made man and woman is so they can marry -- I cannot infer that every man must marry a woman. And again, I do not see any possible way that such a statement could be relativised. You cannot say 'All men are equal' is true for black people but false for others. You have not really answered that objection but rather insisted that it must be contextualised or otherwise Jesus would be contradicting himself. Your problem.
In general "omission" arguments are problematic. Just because someone was not documented as having given a position does not mean he did not give one.
I have restricted myself entirely to the Jesus as depicted in the NT. For all I know, Jesus may not have existed. I see it as pointless to try to argue about the "real" Jesus, since this could only ever be speculation.
Are we to infer from that that Jesus was probably pro-slavery?
Yes. And it is absolutely outrageous that he picks on the pharisees simply for refusing to eat with sinners, yet overlooks the horrible oppression of hundreds of thousands of people.
10 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KI will stop you there. All I can infer from Jesus' words is that the reason God made man and woman is so they can marry -- I cannot infer that every man must marry a woman.
[b]
If you were to take 19:4-5 to be regarded as true in all cases and regardless of context, then you would infer that Jesus is saying that all men and women must marry.
I will stop you there. All I can infer from Jesus' words is that the reason God made man and woman is so they can marry -- I cannot infer that every man must marry a woman. And a t with sinners, yet overlooks the horrible oppression of hundreds of thousands of people.[/b]
Sorry, I meant it as the generic 'you' as in 'one'. I didn't mean for it to be taken as YOU personally.
Read what it says:
"Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?"
It says "For this reason a man SHALL leave his father and mother and the two SHALL become one flesh". It is given as a command. And if taken as a command and regarded as true in all cases and regardless of context, then one would take it as meaning that all men and women must marry. Clearly this was not the intent.
The "All men were created equal" situation is different. It was meant to be taken as true in all cases so that King could make a point about a subset of this group which are black people. This is very different from Jesus taking what was obviously meant as a general truth and using it for a specific context to which it applies. It does not mean that it therefore applies to all contexts.
I have restricted myself entirely to the Jesus as depicted in the NT. For all I know, Jesus may not have existed. I see it as pointless to try to argue about the "real" Jesus, since this could only ever be speculation.
Yes. And it is absolutely outrageous that he picks on the pharisees simply for refusing to eat with sinners, yet overlooks the horrible oppression of hundreds of thousands of people.
On one hand you say, "I have restricted myself entirely to the Jesus as depicted in the NT" and on the other you seem to have no reservations about inferring positions outside of this depiction regarding slavery and homosexuals. If you truly restricted yourself as you claim, you'd regard Jesus as having been mute on these two topics. You can't have it both ways.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonOk, the first reference is:
[b]There is evidence that genetics plays a role in sexual orientation, let me know if you want me to dig up some references
Please do. As far as I have heard "there is evidence it MAY be genetic",which means nothing.But,I may be wrong so show me.[/b]
Hamer, Dean, Stella Hu, Victoria A. Magnuson, Nan Hu, and Angela M.L. Pattatucci. "A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation." Science 261.n5119 (July 16, 1993): 321(7).
Here is a link to an article about the Ciani study:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6519-survival-of-genetic-homosexual-traits-explained.html
I said I would, I admit I cut it fine 🙂
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
10 Aug 09
Some more:
LeVay S (1991). "A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men". Science 253 (5023): 1034–7
L.S. Allen and R.A. Gorski, "Sexual Orientation and the size of the anterior commissure in the human brain," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 89 (1992): pp. 7199-7202
11 Aug 09
Originally posted by Lord SharkHey I just want to thank you for the work on this! I am going to check these sites out.
Ok, the first reference is:
Hamer, Dean, Stella Hu, Victoria A. Magnuson, Nan Hu, and Angela M.L. Pattatucci. "A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation." Science 261.n5119 (July 16, 1993): 321(7).
Here is a link to an article about the Ciani study:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6519-survival-of-genetic-homosexual-traits-explained.html
I said I would, I admit I cut it fine 🙂