TV Tropes Org

Forums

On-Topic Conversations:
LGBT Rights and Religion
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [15,600]  1 ... 207 208 209 210 211
212
213 214 215 216 217 ... 624

LGBT Rights and Religion:

Discussion of religion in the context of LGBT rights is only allowed in this thread.

Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBT rights..." threads.

Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.

edited 4th Oct '13 8:26:43 AM by Madrugada

 5276 Qeise, Thu, 29th Nov '12 9:15:51 AM from sqrt(-inf)/0 Relationship Status: Waiting for you *wink*
Professional Smartass
Carc:
Rather, he adopts a teleological stance. In brief, faculties have predetermined purposes, and to use a faculty for things other than its purpose is to pervert it. The purpose of sex is reproduction, and therefore forms of sex which have no chance whatsoever of causing reproduction are best avoided.
I'd like to play with teleology, if I may. What would you consider the predetermined purposes of the mouth?*

edited 29th Nov '12 9:23:09 AM by Qeise

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.
yarr
Finding new uses for existing structures is one of the driving forces of evolution, and all evidence points to any apparent teleology being an illusion. As far as we can tell, organisms are cobbled together from any useful structures random mutation threw up, with a few billion years of refinement streamlining those into an efficient whole.

Aquinas's argument disintegrates in the face of current scientific knowledge.
 5278 Lawyerdude, Thu, 29th Nov '12 9:53:53 AM from my secret moon base
Citizen
It could be both, actually, It's been said that some of Leviticus' stuff was related to slavery or humiliation(with Anal sex) from the Romans. Albeit, that's one way to look at it.

The current form of Leviticus predates the Roman conquest of Judea by several centuries.

The fact is, we can't impose modern understanding of human sexuality on ancient sources. They had very different values and lived in very different contexts. The idea that a person had a sexual "orientation" was not something that those people understood. Your sexuality was what you did, not who you were.

Greek and Roman ideas of sexuality (whose cultures dominated the first century western world) were related to social status (men and women, slaves and free). Basically, if you were a free adult man, you could put your penis into pretty much anything. A free man who enjoyed getting buggered by another man was considered weak and effeminate. But if you were younger, or a slave, or a woman, having things stuck into you was just a part of life.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
 5279 Carciofus, Thu, 29th Nov '12 10:28:58 AM from Canterlot
Is that cake frosting?
See where I'm going with this?
That body parts may have more than one use? Because that's not really the problem — Aquinas thought that the only proper use of sexuality was reproduction, not that the only proper use of genitalia is reproduction. He had no moral objection to peeing that I know of, after all tongue

On the other hand, perhaps he might have objected to diet food. After all, if the proper use of eating is feeding oneself, trying to eat food that contains as little nutrition as possible in order to enjoy the experience of eating without getting fat is not really acceptable. tongue

As far as we can tell, organisms are cobbled together from any useful structures random mutation threw up, with a few billion years of refinement streamlining those into an efficient whole.
True but irrelevant. How something came to be does not tell me what purposes it can serve now, nor how they can best contribute to the human experience.

As I said, I do not agree with Aquinas in that all proper uses of sexuality have to involve reproduction: but the question of which are the proper uses of something is not one that you can make vanish away simply by mentioning evolution.

edited 29th Nov '12 10:32:22 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

yarr
My point was a crucial tenet of evolutionary theory is that there is no such thing as a "proper" use for something.

So yes, actually, it is.

edited 29th Nov '12 10:45:48 AM by Elfive

 5281 Carciofus, Thu, 29th Nov '12 10:57:17 AM from Canterlot
Is that cake frosting?
My point was a crucial tenet of evolutionary theory is that there is no such thing as a "proper" use for something.
It is not. Evolutionary theory — or science as a whole for that matter — has nothing whatsoever to say about purposes and proper uses.
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

 5283 Qeise, Thu, 29th Nov '12 11:42:25 AM from sqrt(-inf)/0 Relationship Status: Waiting for you *wink*
Professional Smartass
That body parts may have more than one use? Because that's not really the problem Aquinas thought that the only proper use of sexuality was reproduction, not that the only proper use of genitalia is reproduction. He had no moral objection to peeing that I know of, after all
Hence the use of the word "purposes", the plural form of "purpose". You may list more than one purpose if you like to play. Or perhaps I should try something more immaterial, like sex. What are the purposes of writing?
Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.
yarr
Writing is obviously an unnatural and perverse use of the hands, which are clearly intended for picking stuff up and eating. None of this holding a pen and making strange glyphs on things nonsense.
 5285 Pykrete, Thu, 29th Nov '12 4:56:30 PM from Viridian Forest
NOT THE BEES
The current form of Leviticus predates the Roman conquest of Judea by several centuries.

Yeah, Rome wasn't really a point of discussion that far back. Neighboring tribes definitely were, though, and were as bad or worse than Rome as far as sex was concerned. I mean, the Canaanites were...yeah.

I'm an Irene!
Well, I kept hearing it was referencing to it. Never mind.

Anyway, as said earlier, Leviticus only refers to gay sex(not those exact words), but never about actually being a homosexual. He does not condemn anything but the literal sex act. So it's purposely being misrepresented for bigotry.(banning gay sex is bad too, but this is currently far worse at the moment)
 5287 Pykrete, Thu, 29th Nov '12 5:00:49 PM from Viridian Forest
NOT THE BEES
Paul was referencing Rome. As he was a Roman citizen and knew its excesses rather well.

I'm an Irene!
Except I'm talking about Leviticus referencing Rome, not Paul. I kept hearing it did. I was wrong.
 5289 shimaspawn, Thu, 29th Nov '12 5:04:02 PM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
Leviticus is not about Rome. It's about not fucking the temple prostitutes in one of the big local cults.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
I'm an Irene!
I heard wrong. That's what I'm saying, oy. Moving on, regardless, Leviticus never had it apply to anyone but that specific culture, so it's fully incorrect to believe it meant all of mankind.
 5291 Polarstern, Thu, 29th Nov '12 11:48:31 PM from United States
Never mind that the old testament is null and void with the coming of Jesus.

Technically, the only laws Christians have now is to love god with everything, love others as themselves, and follow the rituals of baptism and the last supper.

All the other parables and lectures are just commentary on how to fulfill the above laws, like Paul's recommendation everyone should be single and celibate to be a good Christian, but if you can't keep your head off of sex, get married and do it that way.

 5292 Jhimmibhob, Fri, 30th Nov '12 8:49:10 AM from Arm's reach of the julep machine Relationship Status: My own grandpa
[up]See my previous post on why that's not precisely so. Ever since the Marcionites got decisively refuted, the OT has been considered inspired writ (subject to NT revisions and stipulations).
"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones
 5293 Matues, Fri, 30th Nov '12 9:15:58 AM Relationship Status: Reincarnated romance
[up]

Would you not say that is one of the core and most important precepts of the religion?
 5294 Jhimmibhob, Fri, 30th Nov '12 9:29:13 AM from Arm's reach of the julep machine Relationship Status: My own grandpa
[up]Sorry; not sure I understand what you're asking about.
"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones
 5295 Matues, Fri, 30th Nov '12 9:43:52 AM Relationship Status: Reincarnated romance
Love, tolerance, acceptance.
 5296 Jhimmibhob, Fri, 30th Nov '12 11:24:20 AM from Arm's reach of the julep machine Relationship Status: My own grandpa
[up]I believe you might be thinking about the Oprah Network. "Love, tolerance, and acceptance" in themselves are fuzzy emotional categories that, in practice, mean borderline everything—i.e., borderline nothing. No one can love, tolerate, or accept everything without incurring mutual contradictions. E.g.: often, to accept X is to not accept Y by definition. To love good while also loving evil suggests a deficient concept of "love."

Additionally, love, tolerance, and acceptance are "vector" qualities: what one loves, tolerates, or accepts makes all the difference in the world. The WBC may well love, tolerate, and accept certain things and concepts, but depending on the object, do these "positive" sentiments necessarily speak well of them? Does everything that a given orthodox Christian loves, tolerates, and accepts have happy or "affirming" consequences for others?
"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones
NCC - 1701
[up] Damn. [awesome][tup]
It was an honor
 5298 Matues, Fri, 30th Nov '12 6:40:45 PM Relationship Status: Reincarnated romance
[up][up]

I'm honestly not sure how to respond to that.

I was attempting to point out some of the perceived virtues and messages of Christianity: Love God and other people, attempt to be accepting and tolerant despite the sins of others, because no one is perfect. Try to guide everyone into the love of God.

If I'm wrong then, very well. It will not be the first time.

So, yes, you're right. I'm sure they all love and respect things that others find reprehensible.

What do you think the core precepts of Christianity are?
 5299 Polarstern, Fri, 30th Nov '12 8:58:21 PM from United States
The Bible is full of a lot of confusing and contridicting messages. Come on, this is a deity that decided killing it's son for a flaw he allowed to come into being in his own creation is a good idea.

But here's where I figure people fuck it up.

For all the things the Bible says to not do, it always says uncondtional love is paramount. So if I, being a mere human, want to be a good Christian, an understanding god works on a level beyond my comprehension, I am going to just leave all the judgement drama to god and I'm just going to love and do all I can to be compassionate.

To love and act with compassion is the only way someone can be 100% fully confident they are being the perfect Christian.

Euo will do!
[up]Sadly, that slams right into good old Homo sapiens sapiens. tongue We tend to have limits to "unconditional", even if those limits are quite broad for a lot of us when it comes to other individuals. <shrugs> The problem is extending it beyond a rather small number of other people.
"When all else failed, she tried being reasonable." ~ Pratchett, Johnny and the Bomb
Total posts: 15,600
 1 ... 207 208 209 210 211
212
213 214 215 216 217 ... 624


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy