|
"a biblical understanding of X" is a cover phrase designed to obscure highly partisan exegesis. there is no single unified biblical understanding of anything. you may think you can love people while considering a basic structuring element of their life sinful. it might even be possible. but pardon me if i'm really loving skeptical that you've ever done it or ever will
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:The problem is that LGBTQ people have heard "love the sinner, hate the sin" too often, and somehow in action it always translates into "be unkind or actively cruel to the sinner". There's a whole lot of "We love you, but..." out there, and as we all know, anything that follows the "but" in sentences is apt to contradict the lead-in. Thanks for this post. I was wondering why "love the sinner, hate the sin" would be bad since it seems to be a very good guideline. In fact I often teach teens about love and morals a bit like that but in a different language obviously, so we don't have the attitude as a common phrase. I suspected there's something I don't understand from behind the cultural/language barrier. People suck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Valiantman posted:Thanks for this post. I was wondering why "love the sinner, hate the sin" would be bad since it seems to be a very good guideline. In fact I often teach teens about love and morals a bit like that but in a different language obviously, so we don't have the attitude as a common phrase. I suspected there's something I don't understand from behind the cultural/language barrier. In America, "love the sinner, hate the sin" typically translates to "bigotry, but we say it's for your own good," especially when it comes to LGBT issues and abortion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Welp. "I I have come not to bring peace, but a fighter jet"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:i think it's important to define the term 'homophobia'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooi-ah73aC4 homophobia is any thinking that gay people are inferior to straight people, that it's better to be straight than gay, because no matter how much you talk about "love" or "kindness" any talk about sinfulness or love the sinner hate the sin encourages people to legislate us into poverty and homelessness, encourages people to torture children in the name of making them straight, and encourages people to murder us for being different. i do not care that you're "not like them," your line of thinking is the same as theirs and you need to critically examine what that means in jodo shinshu we also have the understanding that all people are fundamentally "broken" in some ways, and yet when it comes to talking about sexual morality rather than saying "gay people are sinners, but we're all sinners so whatever" it's more about homophobia as the immoral stance that we need to be more kind and understanding of. what a difference!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Welp. "I I have come not to bring peace, but a fighter jet"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
WerrWaaa posted:You will know a theology by its fruits. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:orthodox priests will bless anything you ask them to. i think this is a good thing. hopefully, this plane's pilot will remain free from harm, which is ok to think no matter what our countries' opinions are of each other yeah, the way i see it, blessing something entrusts and dedicates it to God's purposes. hopefully it'll keep its pilot safe, and perhaps its weaponry will misfire or fail to hit civilian targets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:yeah, the way i see it, blessing something entrusts and dedicates it to God's purposes. hopefully it'll keep its pilot safe, and perhaps its weaponry will misfire entirely with you about civilian targets though, given the situation. are there any soldier-saints who started out as soldiers and were then converted when their weapons failed? that one star trek episode with the organians doesn't count HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Nov 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Do the Eastern Orthodox bury blessed objects when they're broken or no longer useful? They're gonna need to dig a big hole.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:orthodox priests will bless anything you ask them to. i think this is a good thing. hopefully, this plane's pilot will remain free from harm, which is ok to think no matter what our countries' opinions are of each other
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:That's really nice to know. I think I had a knee-jerk reaction as an ex-Friend, to whom all weapons are Bad Things. It wasn't about blessing a Russian jet, it was about blessing any jet at all. The Phlegmatist posted:Do the Eastern Orthodox bury blessed objects when they're broken or no longer useful? edit: google 'orthodox priest blessing _____' for this. i am not lying HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Nov 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
i know that for catholics, at least, it's permissible to dispose of blessed things by burning as well, which has been deemed to include melting down metal things and reusing the metal for something different. the blessing isn't considered to carry over, since the blessing was for an object's particular purpose and a new object would have a new purpose, which would need a new blessing
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
blessed milsurp
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i blessed my fencing dagger, but not yet my sword *sigh* i guess it's time to post it again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBFOqnMrsZs
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
The sole good thing about that game
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
HopperUK posted:drat ancient Israelites, is it so hard to just not worship false idols for five loving minutes, I mean. Ancient Israelite dad bangs on bathroom door. His son is desperately trying to hide a crude homemade idol behind the cistern. "Look, son, I know that your at an age when you're getting urges. It's perfectly natural. But try to keep it down champ. Your mother and I can hear you chanting pagan imprecations in there, and it's pretty awkward for us."
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/analysis-breitbart-s-steve-bannon-leads-alt-right-white-house-n683316 https://orthodoxwiki.org/Alexander_Schmorell i think the choice is clear edit: it's a very niche concern in light of what's been happening, and unlikely, but one of the things I'm afraid of is white nationalists moving in on the Orthodox Church in America. In the darkest timeline, Matthew Heimbach gets made our Metropolitan. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 11:55 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 11:11
|
|
|
Since we are on the subject of LGBT Hey Gal, I was wondering if you read Christian Faith and Same-Sex Attraction by Thomas Hopko and if you did, what did you think of it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
AmyL posted:Since we are on the subject of LGBT Hey Gal, I was wondering if you read Christian Faith and Same-Sex Attraction by Thomas Hopko and if you did, what did you think of it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
I haven't read the book, but I have a pretty visceral reaction to the phrase "same-sex attraction." At least in the context of American Christianity it's the politically correct way to be a bigot, it denies that LGBT people even exist, they're just broken straight people. Son, you're not gay, you just have same-sex attraction (being "gay" is not a thing that exists). Good news, we know how to help with that! *sends kid to conversion therapy camp* Edit: compare to Oh you're not black, you're just a white person with extra melanin. I refuse to acknowledge what it means to be black in America, or that it even exists as an identity. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:I haven't read the book, but I have a pretty visceral reaction to the phrase "same-sex attraction." At least in the context of American Christianity it's the politically correct way to be a bigot, it denies that LGBT people even exist, they're just broken straight people. Son, you're not gay, you just have same-sex attraction (being "gay" is not a thing that exists). Good news, we know how to help with that! *sends kid to conversion therapy camp*
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
sounds like he was a very compassionate pastor but still had garbage-fire theology that minimized the ways in which commodified heterosexuality is basically singlehandedly responsible for the desecration of eros. if these people spent half the time railing against the commodification of women's bodies and women's suffering in the porn industry that they do railing against gays, we might have actually made some cultural progress
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:the calvinist doctrine of perseverance of the saints has mutated and become a source of solace to the lazy instead of a source of anxiety to the industrious. i mean not that it had awesome psychological import in the first place since developing a "Protestant work ethic" in order to manage anxiety about election isn't the most healthy thing in the world, but "i'm saved so therefore i must be the right kind of person already b/c God wouldn't let me be otherwise" is perhaps even worse I always thought the Free Grace nonsense that started in the 1960s among Baptist and third-wave Charismatics was heretical and incredibly dangerous. It's like hyper sola fide, in that as long as you believed in the Gospel at one point in your life, you're good. Since, apparently, Paul states that "all our works are like filthy rags before God" then clearly nothing you do even matters. No need to repent or join a church or be baptized or take communion or even live as a Christian at all. You've joined the right team for eternity by saying the Sinner's Prayer and believing it! Go you! It's a massive departure from the traditional Calvinist understanding of the perseverance of saints, which is essentially Lordship Salvation. You're required to actually participate in your sanctification (even though, to be precise, you have no agency in it as a human; it's all the work of the Holy Spirit. Much how works don't actually save you; it's the work done on the cross by Christ that saves you.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:sounds like he was a very compassionate pastor but still had garbage-fire theology that minimized the ways in which commodified heterosexuality is basically singlehandedly responsible for the desecration of eros. if these people spent half the time railing against the commodification of women's bodies and women's suffering in the porn industry that they do railing against gays, we might have actually made some cultural progress lmao if you think these aren't the same people trying to shame and criminalize sex workers people like this write the porn condom law, not out of concern for sex workers but out of a desire to control, minimize, and eventually eliminate them. not to say that you can't regulate sex work, just that it needs to be regulations from the workers for the benefit of workers like mary magdelen needs to eat, and throwing her in jail and giving her a criminal record is kinda the opposite of that. sex work should be made safe and good for the workers, not criminalized.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:lmao if you think these aren't the same people trying to shame and criminalize sex workers yeah i agree entirely, i should have been clearer about that in my original post
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:yeah if it's not 100% lgbt+ accepting and for black rights, i'm not for it. i'm less happy with compromise than i was last week. Yeah half measures are not gonna cut it. Two weeks ago I'd have been mostly ok with incremental progress in trans rights for example, but the reality is we have to push for inclusivity and equal rights for every type of minority, otherwise someone gets left behind and is a ripe target for discrimination and bigotry. I'm not willing to sacrifice trans rights for LGBT rights or LGBT rights for black/Hispanic rights (those groups being less pro-LGBT generally). To go back to the book mentioned, I'm also not a fan of the whole "P in V is the only natural kind of sex, anything else is sinful because it can't lead to procreation.". Religion and  get into some very strange and scientifically questionable territory.I want a T-shirt that says SEX POSITIVE LITURGIGOON
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:To go back to the book mentioned, I'm also not a fan of the whole "P in V is the only natural kind of sex, anything else is sinful because it can't lead to procreation.". Religion and which varies of course, but it's common to think that the point of marriage is to help one another grow in holiness (as opposed to procreation). gently caress, i've heard someone say nobody should be having sex, married people included
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:
Please tell me the Cathars are making a comeback
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Please tell me the Cathars are making a comeback
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:sounds like he's been influenced by catholics, this doesn't sound native to orthodox theology. I dunno the finer details on the morality of sex-having in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, just going off the Amazon summary and reviews. Sounds like the author goes into the four different kinds of love and concludes everything is cool for same-sex people except erotic love is a sinful desire to be overcome. I guess I'd pose the following to whoever wants to tackle them from their tradition's point of view, and sorry if I (unintentionally) mischaracterize any stances: 1) If the purpose of sex (or its ideal outcome, however you phrase it) is procreation, how would a knowingly infertile couple having sex be different than using contraception? (mostly aimed at Catholics here) 2) Why is procreative sex the most righteous or rightly-ordered kind of sex? Be fruitful and multiply, sure, but consider the very real (and getting worse) lack of resources for many people around the world. Why is it better to have your own kids rather than adopt or otherwise give your time and money to help kids in need? What makes procreation more valuable than the role of sex as a part in growing and maintaining a healthy and happy relationship (this is sort of what HEY GAL was saying maybe)? Mostly I don't understand the preoccupation with procreation as the only non-sinful goal of sex. I think most of us can agree that sex has other valuable purposes? That and there are plenty of ways to raise and nurture kids without having them yourself. I honestly feel like adoption is better than having your own kids, because not only are you "procreating" but you're providing a family and childhood to a kid who may not have had a good one otherwise. Why, yes, I'm hinting toward the "gay uncle" hypothesis (one of the two main ones currently) for why homosexuality exists in humans and many other species 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
hey gal http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/sermons/2016/revolution-of-love
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Have you read Private Memoirs and Confessions? Seems like some people are using it as a theological primer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:That and there are plenty of ways to raise and nurture kids without having them yourself. Don't be silly. The nuclear family is the only worthwhile form of human relationship. It is not just your right, but your duty, to try and kill everyone outside that group with legally-enforced resource scarcity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:I guess I'd pose the following to whoever wants to tackle them from their tradition's point of view, and sorry if I (unintentionally) mischaracterize any stances: Tradition? Tradition! St. Augustine is often considered to have personal history with homosexuality. Let me crack open a few authors and see what I can find that will be appropriate for the thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
well that makes starting my first hookup meeting in front of a statue of saint augustine less symbolic or... more symbolic????
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Don't be silly. The nuclear family is the only worthwhile form of human relationship. It is not just your right, but your duty, to try and kill everyone outside that group with legally-enforced resource scarcity. not to veer off into a weird tangent, but I feel like the drive to produce your own kids vs. adopt or help others' kids is a very scientific and weird one MUST PASS GENES ON, SURVIVAL OF THE MOST REPRODUCTIVELY FIT BEEP BOOP imo the most Christian thing to do is help kids regardless of their parentage, if you have kids of your own cool but it's really a loving awesome thing to foster or adopt kids. my uncle and aunt back on the reservation foster 4-5 Native American kids from troubled families at any given time, they had three kids (white-rear end cousins of mine) but simply love raising kids on the ranch. that is loving awesome and I respect them a whole lot for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:1) If the purpose of sex (or its ideal outcome, however you phrase it) is procreation, how would a knowingly infertile couple having sex be different than using contraception? (mostly aimed at Catholics here) I believe it is different because of intent. A Catholic couple who use contraception is intending to avoid or prevent pregnancy, while an infertile couple does not necessarily intend anything one way or the other about the potential result of pregnancy/childbirth. If they choose to feel about it the way the Church says is correct, i.e. be open and happy about the possibility of children, then they are OK as far as that rule is concerned. A minor thing to keep in mind here is that an "infertile" person or couple is often just diagnosed that way by a doctor, so science being imperfect, this means they could in theory surprise everyone and have kids someday. See: that King of the Hill episode about Hank's narrow urethra. Another small thing I will mention is that the Catholic Church has in fact acknowledged the positive effects that physical intimacy can have on a relationship. I have a lot of critiques of this teaching, as well as other "conservative" teachings on sex and gender, but I'm phone posting so laters
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:I believe it is different because of intent. A Catholic couple who use contraception is intending to avoid or prevent pregnancy, while an infertile couple does not necessarily intend anything one way or the other about the potential result of pregnancy/childbirth. If they choose to feel about it the way the Church says is correct, i.e. be open and happy about the possibility of children, then they are OK as far as that rule is concerned. A minor thing to keep in mind here is that an "infertile" person or couple is often just diagnosed that way by a doctor, so science being imperfect, this means they could in theory surprise everyone and have kids someday. See: that King of the Hill episode about Hank's narrow urethra. A couple diagnosed infertile in some way has sex with the expectation no children can be conceived A couple using contraception has sex with the expectation no children can be conceived How is this different? You talk intent, but intent can be variable. Maybe the couple using contraception really wants to have children, but they're 22 and 24 years old and don't have stable, good-paying jobs able to support a family so they're waiting. Maybe the couple using contraception can't afford a pregnancy because it would mean the mother takes a year off from work and there's no compensation. What is wrong with the intention "I plan to have children but not until I can support them adequately in terms of money and time?" Edit: I am a dude so lady liturgigoons feel free to slap me down where I'm wrong here. I also have a cousin and close friend who experiences debilitating pain during her period if she's not on hormonal birth control, and I know the same is true about one of my coworkers who's posted about it on Facebook. I don't mean any of this to angle towards abortion discussion, that's NOT COOL, STOP. I'm interested in hearing about the concept of "procreative sex" vs. sinful sex in Christian traditions. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Nov 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 02:42
|
|