I would comment that sex and love are so convoluted , that a simple determination of where love starts and sex.begins as a prime motivator for relationships. Like Plato said , it’s a matter of evolution, and not at all parallel to Darwin, in terms purely of materialistic and genetic considerations. It is a vehicle by which many factors play into, and it involves through primary and secondary variations .
But the primary motive, mostly hidden, is love, and being with another. Freud also coincides the various stages of development, and allegedly he was able to overcome his own homosexuality, at a time when absolute moralistic principles ruled sexual orientation…
But to try configure which position is arguably a better moral position , is difficult, because there are myriad of sub-intervening positions which develop their own rationale.
A person who is happy with engaging with other men, can argue for that position , while the contrary can develop an opposing thesis.
I haven’t decided on that, but then both positions mimic current morals.Any hate is descipable , but morally justified positions are reprehensible only to the degree that they are not determined from the current standard.
You can’t hold a sailor hating another sailor because all others would castigate him if he did not participate in their view. He is determined, even if he is in bad faith , and he himself is closeted. J Edgar Hoover prosecuted gays indiscriminately, although he himself had a gay lover. Could anyone come out, in the 1950’ s? Nowedays sexually divisive hate crime is far less, its safe to say, but juveniles who can’t deal with it are more prone to be more explicit sue to their inner struggles , rather then issues with belonging, to their comrades. It is more a self prescribed search for identity in most part, and that is why internet crime is left anynomous.
Before ‘Stonewall’ , repression. did not allow such inner directed soul searching, the way to go was.pretty much prescribed down the line.
I haven’t decided on that, but then both positions mimic current morals.Any hate is descipable , but morally justified positions are reprehensible only to the degree that they are not determined from the current standard.
[/quote]
This does not make sense to me but if you are an adult and have not decided that discrimination and denigration of anyone without a just cause is evil, then I doubt that would know where to start to teach you decent morals.
This does not make sense to me but if you are an adult and have not decided that discrimination and denigration of anyone without a just cause is evil, then I doubt that would know where to start to teach you decent morals.
Regards
DL
[/quote]
Depends on intentionality, there is a big difference difference between juvenile and adult intentions to harm.
Education is very appropriate to mention here. Juviniles learn from their parents and then reinforced by their piers.
reducation entails vastly more difficult processes, especially as some of those are based by through loving, religious sources.
the combination of pier pressure and formal pafental guidance may create a confusion between love and sex, especially among the young, but that does not necessarily mean that moral re-education is impossible.
Depends on intentionality, there is a big difference difference between juvenile and adult intentions to harm.
Education is very appropriate to mention here. Juviniles learn from their parents and then reinforced by their piers.
reducation entails vastly more difficult processes, especially as some of those are based by through loving, religious sources.
the combination of pier pressure and formal pafental guidance may create a confusion between love and sex, especially among the young, but that does not necessarily mean that moral re-education is impossible.
[/quote]
Education is good. Lack of indoctrination into hating without a just cause by religions would be better.
Better to kill an illness at the source than to try to save infected children and adults later.
I don’t think we can speak for Jesus on homosexuality, unless you are claiming you’ve had religious experiences relating to Jesus.
A fornicator has sex out of marriage and presumably she had heterosexual sex. Jesus said he who is without sin, throw the first stone. IOW he who is not like her also a sinner, which presumes that adultery is a sin. And also that she should sin no more. Which means he considered her a sinner for having been an adulterer. So in your own analogy homosexuality is sinning. I don’t believe homosexuality is a sin, but your analogy asserts it. Further we have no reason to believe that Jesus was saying it was ok to do what she did, nor do we have any reason to believe that he decided the OT was wrong about homosexuality.
And beyond that, your analogy says nothing about her being closer to his heart than the people who accused her. They were sinners, presumably he would forgive them also. Why doesn’t your analogy extend to other sins, like judging and being angry?
We don’t know what Jesus thought about homosexuality. You don’t just get to put words in his mouth, unless you are making a psychic claim, and an interesting one since you are reading a dead man’s mind.
You don’t know if he would think homophobes or homosexuals were closer or further from his heart.
What you think not saying the insult right out isn’t a sin in your heart?
You just make stuff up, these are claims to supernatural powers on your part.
And I notice you did not even try to defend even more ridiculous statements like…
Thanks, I can live with your comments in that context. I still disagree or better put see no good reason to agree. I think it’s assuming too much, but taken as in the direction of admitted to be polemic, it doesn’t grate.
Well, sure. Though I think that works best in context where it’s just you and the scribes. So much of life is getting distorted information from opposing sides. The republicans lie about X and then the dems do. Fair enough between them, but not much use to the rest of us.
Sure, I doubt he would have stones anyone. Though he might have wanted gays to stop being gay, who knows. A lot of very saavy masters of all sorts of traditions can end up having serious flaws, and Jesus came out of a specific culture. Perhaps he managed to eliminate all traces of oppressive crap in himself, though I doubt it, but he need not have and I won’t assume it. I think assuming everything was perfect about Jesus is just an assumption and has done damage. Of course, I think there are some problems even with what we are told his spirituality was, but that’s another topic.
You’ve said somewhere you are battling or waging a spiritual war or something of that nature. Fine. But since your posts are coming at people who are all over the belief system spectrum, when you come swinging a sword and the person is not from, say, the homosexual hating community, the sword is the wrong tool.
Find a homophobe using the Bible to justify themselves, by all means, take out the sword.
My sword is two sided I cut with one side and praise with the other.
All of us, who have what it takes, should be fighting a spiritual until we win. The weaker of us are counting on us.
If you think you should live by the Golden Rule, change the labels in this quote to women, minorities, gays or children being brainwashed by religions and it shows what we should be thinking and doing for each other.
“First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I’m not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I’m not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I’m not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me.” – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)”
Getting all worked up about how Jesuaay have spoken about homosexuality is somewhat of a waste of time. There are suggestion s out there there, credible or not, that Jesus had a homoerotic feeling for St. John, his favorite disciple.
Before You go ah and huh? No lead should be left unturned, including that of being human just human.
The middle, ages, as usual plays havoc with immorality through mysticism.
In not saying , but Jesus did ostensibly travel through India on the silk road.
Who needs a sword to praise? Even a metaphorical one. But, in any case, my point was that if you distort because they distort that may be fine in relation to them, your enemy, but not so useful in relation to those who are not.
The weaker don’t need more distortion, even if the goal is a good one.
If we want to end brainwashing, we might nto want to make up stuff, even if we think it is balancing what other people make up.
I didn’t argue you should do nothing, so this quote is not relevant.
I do not believe in a real miracle working Jesus and invoke his ways to irritate homophobes who have a small amount of conscience left.
I agree that one of the Jesus archetypes in the bible is a mystic.
He is the one Gnostic Christians quote and the one that the lying preachers never quote.
Here is how that mystical Jesus talks.
Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.
Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Well, he has said something like he is in a spiritual battle. He is waging a kind of argumentative war with the people he sees as bad, beleivers in the supernatural, especially theists who do. OK, if they sling something angry using the Bible to back it up, I can see him slinging somethign angry using the Bible. If they oversimplify, I can understand him oversimplifying in return. I am not sure that’s the best strategy, but I get that. I understand the motivation and I am less concerned about the direct immediate consequences of his polemic. However if he is posting to a mixed group, which he is here, I think it is bad policy to mislead people about what he knows, what the Bible means and include strategies intended as a response to or weapon against the kinds of theists he is at war with.
All arguments use tools. And generally a variety. I don’t know which one would be appropriate when posting to a mixed group.