[minsocal]

davidk, on Jan 24 2009, 12:55 PM, said:

Dear minsocal,

I guess my answering your burning questions has been relegated to the 'back' burner.
---
The natural purpose of sex is procreation, created with intention to be between a male and a female. Otherwise there would no need for a differentiation between the sexes. If Gen 2:25 defines sexual intimacy, it is explicit in its reference to be solely between a man and women as man and wife.

It has never been said being heterosexual makes anyone sinless or without sexual indiscretions.

The term homosexual isn't needed to understand what the act is. Other ways of expressing it were used in Scripture such as, "... lies with a male, as those who lie with a woman..."; a verbal proposition nonetheless.

Jesus' teaching about marriage consistently emphasizes the permanence of the marriage covenant between a man and a woman. He simply accepted the prevailing Jewish convictions of his day and disapproved of homosexual relationships. In Jewish tradition, homosexuality was not tolerated.

At this point I must say that I stand by my saying that some forms of homosexuality are not just homosexuality but a philosophic expression. It is an expression of the denial of absolutes, so the male and the female as complimentary partners are finished. It is of a philosophy that all the order of God's creation must be fought against- including male female distinctions.

Dk

Ok. Let's take your limited interpretation ... according to Paul (and not Jesus). Example: "... lies with a male, as those who lie with a woman..."; a verbal proposition nonetheless." That is taken out of context, and you know it. The context is this "in accordance with nature"? or ... "in accordance with one's own nature"? Bluntly stated, if you are straight and sleep with men, that is not "natural", "not your nature". Try it out intellectually and get back to me. Meanwhile, you can clear up a controversy for me. Tell me if the subject of the dialogue is temple prostitution (or not). I await your enlightenment.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 24 January 2009 - 07:07 PM

[October's Autumn]

Back on topic: Warren did as was suspected. He cannot be sectarian.

He had no business being at the inauguration. It is akin to having a member of the KKK there or any other hate group. I hope Obama makes amends quickly to the LGBT community and those of us who support it. Getting rid of the "Don't ask, don't tell" would be a good start.

[minsocal]

Put another way ... love and care (not doing harm) are transcendent qualities given their ultimate psychological value through the scalar value of emotion. Bluntly stated, I care more for other people than I do my refigerator, even though my refrigerator helps me survive. I care more for other people who suffer "now" than mere procreation, which can over-populate the planet and lead to the extinction of the species. Of course, we could say "let the poor die" in favor of competition for limited resourses. THAT my friends, IS the debate found in the Bible. Life is finite. This planet is finite. WE ARE NOT GOD. But, God left us to deal with the finite! Deal with it!

This post has been edited by minsocal: 24 January 2009 - 07:42 PM

[Russ]

I think that George Fox, a central founding fiqure of the Religious Society of Friends, had a good point. When confronted by critical individuals who would start every sentence with 'The Bible says...' or 'Jesus said...' he would respond by asking 'What do YOU say?' It's easy to hide behind scripture or words allegedly spoken by Jesus, but it is much more challenging to search ourselves and ask ourselves very difficult and confrontational questions. Until this is done, a person is simply taking second-hand spiritual material and using it as rocks to be thrown in defense of one's own political agenda. We must search ourselves, find the place where our Inner Life is, and place those 'burning issues' of one's life onto the alter there. Only then will someone have something to say that is genuine and truely comes from the heart.

[minsocal]

Russ, on Jan 24 2009, 04:48 PM, said:

I think that George Fox, a central founding fiqure of the Religious Society of Friends, had a good point. When confronted by critical individuals who would start every sentence with 'The Bible says...' or 'Jesus said...' he would respond by asking 'What do YOU say?' It's easy to hide behind scripture or words allegedly spoken by Jesus, but it is much more challenging to search ourselves and ask ourselves very difficult and confrontational questions. Until this is done, a person is simply taking second-hand spiritual material and using it as rocks to be thrown in defense of one's own political agenda. We must search ourselves, find the place where our Inner Life is, and place those 'burning issues' of one's life onto the alter there. Only then will someone have something to say that is genuine and truely comes from the heart.

"com" * "passion". Passion is the old term for "e * motion". Action terms. If you think emotions are only "reaction", think again. They are the prototypes of intententionality, or "final cause", "purpose", and "aim". "From the heart" IS emotion.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 24 January 2009 - 09:44 PM

[davidk]

Grampa,
Haven't heard from you in a while, you lovable old reprobate I hope all has been well.
I don't recall having ever addressed gay rights in order for you to shame me or disagree with me about. Argue what you will, but, the natural delineation between the sexes as complimentary partners and their natural functions will never change.
---
minsocal,
You seem to be a little shaken since you had asked me to be explicit concerning homosexuality. I have made the effort to be as clinical as I could be, presenting with your encouragement, some Biblical reference, while also providing a philosophical position on some forms of homosexuality. I made no personal references to or about anyone. Since I believe man was created in the image of God, I have reason to understand man's importance and love man because of it.
--
I don't recall ever saying anything that remotely resembled denying love or compassion for anyone.
--
compassion is from the latin com- (with) + pati (to bear, suffer). meaning: to sympathize.
---
While I'm not sure what you meant about taken out of context, I don't think Paul had anything to do with Lev 18 & 20. However, he did say in Romans "... their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the women and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men, committing indecent acts...".
--
Now intellectually, if "in accordance with one's own nature" is the correct context, then I could reasonably argue that it is not in accordance with my own nature to have sexual relations with adults, but rather it is in my own nature to "sleep" with 5 year old children, male or female. It would have to be tolerated because Jesus never said not to have sexual relations with children. And since He didn't, it must be OK. To limit it to adults would have to be considered arbitrary, given your context.
---
If I may address Autumn,
President-elect Obama made his choice of Mr. Warren so therefore, Mr Warren had legitimate business at the inauguration. Given you predilection for inclusiveness, I think you meant to say Mr. Warren could only act in a sectarian manner. I know you'll correct me if I am in error.
--
Russ, if I understand you correctly, are you saying we can only ask ourselves for answers?

Dk

This post has been edited by davidk: 26 January 2009 - 09:13 PM

[minsocal]

davidk, on Jan 26 2009, 06:08 PM, said:

minsocal,

You seem to be a little shaken since you had asked me to be explicit concerning homosexuality. I have made the effort to be as clinical as I could be, presenting with your encouragement, some Biblical reference, while also providing a philosophical position on some forms of homosexuality. I made no personal references to or about anyone. Since I believe man was created in the image of God, I have reason to understand man's importance and love man because of it.

Dk

Shaken? Not at all. "Clinical" ... get real. You, sir, are as about as arrogant as they come. YOU are the one who would be shaken if your absolute interpretive propositions turned out to be false. YOU are as capable of error as anyone else. And YOU will have to take responsibilty for your errors. Give it a try.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 27 January 2009 - 04:49 PM

[minsocal]

davidk, on Jan 26 2009, 06:08 PM, said:

--

Now intellectually, if "in accordance with one's own nature" is the correct context, then I could reasonably argue that it is not in accordance with my own nature to have sexual relations with adults, but rather it is in my own nature to "sleep" with 5 year old children, male or female. It would have to be tolerated because Jesus never said not to have sexual relations with children. And since He didn't, it must be OK. To limit it to adults would have to be considered arbitrary, given your context.

Dk

Your logic is repugnant and ignorant. You simply fail to note that I am a psychologist. As a psychologist, I would have to "recuse' myself from treating a pedophile due to my religious and cultural beliefs. In other words, the ethics of the profession require that I "refer out" because I cannot honestly deal with a pedophile who resists change. Perhaps the concept is too subtle for you. There are boundaries, but you seem to want to dictate where those boudaries are. YOUR comment about pedophilia was totally expected. It is always interjected into these discussions by conservatives (political and religious) to confound the discussion. Thank you for being so predictable.

minsocal

This post has been edited by minsocal: 27 January 2009 - 06:27 PM

[minsocal]

davidk, on Jan 24 2009, 12:55 PM, said:

Dear minsocal,

I guess my answering your burning questions has been relegated to the 'back' burner.
---
The natural purpose of sex is procreation, created with intention to be between a male and a female. Otherwise there would no need for a differentiation between the sexes. If Gen 2:25 defines sexual intimacy, it is explicit in its reference to be solely between a man and women as man and wife.
Dk

No, the "verbal proposition" is that "a man" and a "woman" saw each other naked and were not ashamed. That is the limit of the proposition. Any other proposition concerning it's meaning is YOUR proposition. YOUR inference is A DIFFERENT proposition. In a few minutes, I am going to search my Bible database to see if anyone has reached your conclusion. Back in a while.

Ah, there it is:

"The allegorical and typical allusions to marriage have exclusive reference to one object, viz., to exhibit the spiritual relationship between God and his people. In the Old Testament (Isaiah 54:5; Jeremiah 3:14; Hosea 2:19) In the New Testament the image of the bridegroom is transferred from Jehovah to Christ, (Matthew 9:15; John 3:29) and that of the bride to the Church, (2 Corinthians 11:2; Revelation 19:7; 21:2,9)"

My point, exactly.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 27 January 2009 - 11:15 PM

[minsocal]

Dear davidk,

Given what I have presented, please tell me (exactly) why I should believe YOU and not my own research. Why YOU? What makes YOUR view correct (now that you have admitted the possiblityof error). GIVE ME your authority under the possibilty of error. Which propositions can be false? YOURS or MINE?

minsocal

[davidk]

Autumn,
This is just a follow-up on my previous note to you in regard to the topic of Pres. Obama and Mr. Warren.

Since they agree on the issue of homosexual marriage, it is unlikely to expect an apology from Obama.

This post has been edited by davidk: 28 January 2009 - 12:42 PM

[davidk]

minsocal,
On this we agree; it would be foolish for me, or for either one of us, to say I am not capable of error or don't have to personally be responsible for it.
-
I understand, by way of the verses you provided (as well as some others) in reference to the spiritual union of and the differentiation between the bridegroom (God/Jesus) and His bride (believers/the church).
Genesis was the forerunner for that understanding. By having defined the marraige union between a man and a woman, the later metaphor explaining the spiritual union can be well understood. The language in Genesis makes it clear that in human relationships there is a bridegroom/man and a bride/woman differentiation of characteristics and responsibilities. Later, it is used metaphorically to explain the differentiation of the partners and their characteristics in the spiritual union between God and His Church.

Ephesians 5 provides a good explanation.
-
Perhaps if I put both possible translations of the Hebrew word "ishshah" into the context of our scripture reference in Genesis, the meaning for the differentiation between the sexes in marraige may be more clearly seen.

"For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his woman/wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his woman/wife were both naked and they were not ashamed."- Gen 2:24-25. (If you want further context you can go back as far as v.20).
-
I agree that there are real moral boundaries. As a student of the science of behavior, you should know well that it is to protect others from our behavior and not just to protect us from theirs. I would argue that it is those who know love, whether conservative or liberal, that bring to light the pedophiles repugnant rational that his or her natural behavior is for children. The boundaries are those set by God in the truths He has given us. They are not by you or by me arbitrarily like the pedophile, trying to suit our own agendas. Moral man tries to be truly moral, but as man, we will hardly be perfect at sinlessness.

Despite knowing this, God still provided us a way for salvation.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Jan 28 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

-
I agree that there are real moral boundaries. As a student of the science of behavior, you should know well that it is to protect others from our behavior and not just to protect us from theirs. I would argue that it is those who know love, whether conservative or liberal, that bring to light the pedophiles repugnant rational that his or her natural behavior is for children. The boundaries are those set by God in the truths He has given us. They are not by you or by me arbitrarily like the pedophile, trying to suit our own agendas. Moral man tries to be truly moral, but as man, we will hardly be perfect at sinlessness.

Despite knowing this, God still provided us a way for salvation.

davidk,

I am NOT a student of the "science of behavior" ... behaviorism began it's decline in the 1950's, both in philosophy and psychology. Perhaps you could get a bit more current?

Pedohilia has NOTHING to to with love. It is about CONTROL and POWER. If you understand the Bible, then you know what I'm talking about. What you fail to comprehend is that God set the boundaries and placed them in our own nature so that WE have to deal with them. That would be a very wise God indeed, as I see it! Do you really think God wanted to replicate Herself?

minsocal

This post has been edited by minsocal: 01 February 2009 - 02:09 PM

[davidk]

minsocal, on Feb 1 2009, 01:50 PM, said:

davidk,

I am NOT a student of the "science of behavior" ... behaviorism began it's decline in the 1950's, both in philosophy and psychology. Perhaps you could get a bit more current?

We are having a difficult time communicating here aren't we?

I am not speaking of behaviorism, also known as Determinism, which is the doctrine that human action is not free, but results from such causes as psychological and chemical makeup which render free will an illusion.

What I am speaking of is: when you told us you were a psychologist, I assumed you were a specialist in one or more branches of psychology. (the science of mind or mental phenomena and activities; systematic knowledge about mental processes; the science of behavior; the mental, attitudinal, motivational, or behavioral characteristics of an individual or group of individuals.)

minsocal, on Feb 1 2009, 01:50 PM, said:

Pedohilia has NOTHING to to with love. It is about CONTROL and POWER. If you understand the Bible, then you know what I'm talking about. What you fail to comprehend is that God set the boundaries and placed them in our own nature so that WE have to deal with them. That would be a very wise God indeed, as I see it! Do you really think God wanted to replicate Herself?

Ok, I'd like you to be clear on this. If you read again what I had said; it is the love of others around the pedophile whose love exposes to the pedophile his/her behavior for what it is. Hopefully so they see the need why to change their behavior, the pedophile that is.

It's difficult to understand that if these boundaries already exist in our nature, how/why do we violate them so often. Wouldn't we have to willfully violate our intrinsic nature to cross these "Godly" boundaries? For what reason would we want to do evil if we are born good?
---
Do you really think we are little God's?

[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 2 2009, 10:23 AM, said:

We are having a difficult time communicating here aren't we?

I am not speaking of behaviorism, also known as Determinism, which is the doctrine that human action is not free, but results from such causes as psychological and chemical makeup which render free will an illusion.

What I am speaking of is: when you told us you were a psychologist, I assumed you were a specialist in one or more branches of psychology. (the science of mind or mental phenomena and activities; systematic knowledge about mental processes; the science of behavior; the mental, attitudinal, motivational, or behavioral characteristics of an individual or group of individuals.)
Ok, I'd like you to be clear on this. If you read again what I had said; it is the love of others around the pedophile whose love exposes to the pedophile his/her behavior for what it is. Hopefully so they see the need why to change their behavior, the pedophile that is.

It's difficult to understand that if these boundaries already exist in our nature, how/why do we violate them so often. Wouldn't we have to willfully violate our intrinsic nature to cross these "Godly" boundaries? For what reason would we want to do evil if we are born good?
---
Do you really think we are little God's?

The subject of boundaries is complex. A great deal of development concerns learning just where boundaries should be set. Boundaries become blurred when people are unable to experience certain emotions. A person who cannot experience "love" in either direction-of-fit will not recognize the implicit boundary. The law of reciprocity is intuitive for most people. The human brain is very complex as is the human genome, leading to variability. How to treat this variability is the issue. Promoting care and avoiding harm (to self and others) ranks high for Progressives. Accepting positive diversity in the form of egalitarianism also ranks high for Progressives. Negative diversity, such as religious intolerance, negates the law of reciprocity, creating a boundary violation.

[davidk]

minsocal, on Feb 3 2009, 04:48 PM, said:

The subject of boundaries is complex. A great deal of development concerns learning just where boundaries should be set. Boundaries become blurred when people are unable to experience certain emotions. A person who cannot experience "love" in either direction-of-fit will not recognize the implicit boundary. The law of reciprocity is intuitive for most people. The human brain is very complex as is the human genome, leading to variability. How to treat this variability is the issue. Promoting care and avoiding harm (to self and others) ranks high for Progressives. Accepting positive diversity in the form of egalitarianism also ranks high for Progressives. Negative diversity, such as religious intolerance, negates the law of reciprocity, creating a boundary violation.

minsocal, I think I know where your heart is, in that you are genuinely compassionate for others; but doesn't the egalitarianism philosophy ultimately run into severe conflict with diversity by its suppression of human distinctions? I must say that while being egalitarian may produce some genuine changes in legal terms, it also erases necessary boundaries required to respect the variability of the individual. This confusion of where to set the boundaries is the consequence we face when absolutes aren't understood.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 5 2009, 10:13 AM, said:

minsocal, I think I know where your heart is, in that you are genuinely compassionate for others; but doesn't the egalitarianism philosophy ultimately run into severe conflict with diversity by its suppression of human distinctions? I must say that while being egalitarian may produce some genuine changes in legal terms, it also erases necessary boundaries required to respect the variability of the individual. This confusion of where to set the boundaries is the consequence we face when absolutes aren't understood.

Egalitarianism, in the sense I use the term, has to do with social justice and individual rights. It recognizes that differences such as race and sexual orientation should not be used to artifically limit or demonize others. As I said, some boundaries are necessary, and are often abused by individuals and social organizations. For example, "feed the poor" is one of the most common topics found in the Bible. People should not go hungry simply because they are born into the wrong 'class'. 'Class' is an artifical boundary. 'Race' has been used as an artifical boundary. And, as noted elsewhere, those who actually particpated in the Civil Rights movement more often than not considered it a religious experience. Some of the early feminists also argued from a religious perspective in their quest for equal rights for women.

Jung posed the problem in a slightly different manner. His argument was that if individual differences do exist, then people become "neurotic" when forced into roles in life that are a "good fit" to their temperament. In other words, artificial boundaries often cause harm. The California Supreme court recognized this when they decided in favor of gay marriage. Their decision had two components. The first considered the rights of indivuduals under the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The second is a very interesting conclusion from a moral perspective. They found that the children of same sex couples could be harmed if their parents did not enjoy the same status as other families. This is where the Warren controversy began. It is not just the rights of the couple, but also the rights of a family and the wellbeing of children.

The boundary violation occurs when one group seeks to impose their values on others. There is nothing wrong with a Christian sect that chooses certain norms for their own group. Your much hated liberal philosophy developed largely around the issue of artifical and harmful setting of boundaries. In my own family, my ancestors came to America to escape religious intolerance, which brings me to another point. Egalitarianism and tolerance go hand-in-hand. In my church, "tolerance" does not even go far enough for most as the preferred position is "acceptance". What you seem to be struggling with is the simple fact that we are all human, all created by God, and all different. A clear proposition.

As I have said before, the God I know is not passive-agressive. She created what she created. Love has no boundaries, although I believe you stated that homosexuals cannot even love each other under your oppressive value system. This brings me to yet another point. Some social systems set boundaries with the intent of oppression. Liberal/progressive philosophy as it relates to Progressive Christianity has as a primary concern the challenging of the intentional systems of oppression, in the manner that Jesus and the prophets challenged oppression. Jesus understood what you call the 'dregs' of society because he was born into the 'dregs' of Jewish society. The poor were taxed doubly, by Church and State, so that when they could not pay their taxes they lost their land (to the Church). The priests fed off of the offerings brought by the poor ... "nice work if you can get it." You will note, however, that those who challenge oppression often end up murdered. Jesus, Ghandi, MLK ...

I suggest you might go to http://www.ucc.org and watch the video titlled "ejector".

This post has been edited by minsocal: 05 February 2009 - 05:17 PM

[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 5 2009, 10:13 AM, said:

minsocal, I think I know where your heart is, in that you are genuinely compassionate for others; but doesn't the egalitarianism philosophy ultimately run into severe conflict with diversity by its suppression of human distinctions? I must say that while being egalitarian may produce some genuine changes in legal terms, it also erases necessary boundaries required to respect the variability of the individual. This confusion of where to set the boundaries is the consequence we face when absolutes aren't understood.

To put it simply, egalitarianism is the celebreation of diversity. I know your tactic very well. I see it on many message boards. You take a concept already established by the opposition and try to make it your own. So, NOW conservative Evangelicals are concerned about the environment. HUH? NOW they want to call themselves "progressive". When you arrive late, you should at least recognize those who were there before you. WE welcome them to the fold on this issue, and hope they might "get it" on other issues.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Jan 24 2009, 12:55 PM, said:

Dear minsocal,

I guess my answering your burning questions has been relegated to the 'back' burner.
---
The natural purpose of sex is procreation, created with intention to be between a male and a female. Otherwise there would no need for a differentiation between the sexes. If Gen 2:25 defines sexual intimacy, it is explicit in its reference to be solely between a man and women as man and wife.

It has never been said being heterosexual makes anyone sinless or without sexual indiscretions.

The term homosexual isn't needed to understand what the act is. Other ways of expressing it were used in Scripture such as, "... lies with a male, as those who lie with a woman..."; a verbal proposition nonetheless.

Jesus' teaching about marriage consistently emphasizes the permanence of the marriage covenant between a man and a woman. He simply accepted the prevailing Jewish convictions of his day and disapproved of homosexual relationships. In Jewish tradition, homosexuality was not tolerated.

At this point I must say that I stand by my saying that some forms of homosexuality are not just homosexuality but a philosophic expression. It is an expression of the denial of absolutes, so the male and the female as complimentary partners are finished. It is of a philosophy that all the order of God's creation must be fought against- including male female distinctions.

Dk

"The term homosexual isn't needed to understand what the act is. Other ways of expressing it were used in Scripture such as, "... lies with a male, as those who lie with a woman..."; a verbal proposition nonetheless."

A statement about behavior with no reference to love or affection. This is the error in extending a "proposition" or reducing a "proposition" beyond an isolated context. Liberal/progressive thought takes the next step and considers the case of an "act" WITH love and compassion. You are still a behaviorist in that you want to restrict behavior first and relegate love to a second tier. You remain a legalist, since you continue to refer to the "law" of God.

[minsocal]

Going back to Genesis, there is more to "marriage" than what has been revealed in the current discussion. Having looked at what the Bible says, it dawned on me that the predominant message is about 'heterosexual sin' (not my concept). I now find myself in the awkward position as a gay male defending heterosexuals against this notion of 'heterosexual sin'. Is it possible that the current anti-gay message is a means of deflecting attention away from the real issue conservatives do not want to address in their own interpretation of the Bible?