[minsocal]

The other notion of "marriage" found in the early Bible is that of daughters as chattel (cattle) ... it is found in Genesis. I am wondering if this whole debate, again, is to avoid the real issues? Literalists must confront their own literalism at some point. Is a defense of "marriage" a defense of this concept of marriage? Are daughters chattel? By now, anyone here knows my views to the contrary, so I will not reiterate them.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 07 February 2009 - 03:09 PM

[minsocal]

You know, as a gay male Christian, I'm just a bit peeved at you conservative Christians that messed everything up in the Garden of Eden. What were you thinking?

[davidk]

minsocal,

I agree that racial and class differences are artificial boundaries. God did not seperate man by race or class.
If egalitarianism were simply equal justice under the law, I would have no qualms. However, because it attempts to erase all human differences it has meant a social philosophy that advocates the leveling of all aspects of the social, political, and economic structure of society with the belief that all men/women are equal in aptitude and capacities; which by simple observation we know is not true. That all people should have equal opportunities and access to all the rights and the privileges of their society, should be the norm.
Men and women currently have equal access to the marriage law. It is a law built on the natural law of a man and woman excercising their natural functions and is the legitimate natural law and social law of the family. Access to violate the laws are also equally granted and violators must suffer the consequences. For any group to attempt to impose a contrary value is a demonstration of their gross intolerence of a society obedient to the natural laws of the sexes and is an affront to that society at large, and as you have so aptly put it: a boundary violation.
As far as struggling with the differences between people, it is egalitarianism, not I, that struggles - no- refuses to acknowledge man's differences. Egalitarianism is a high-minded but ultimately oppressive philosophy.

I have never said, nor have I remotely implied, that "homosexuals cannot even love each other". Yet you continue to make this false accusation. Your 'dregs' comment also continues the misrepresentation of my statements and philosophy. Is this an example of progressive tolerence?
---
It looks as though you're still not clear on what a behaviorist or a legalist is; otherwise, you wouldn't even consider calling me either one. It seems the book of Genesis may have also escaped your grasp.
That raise a question: Why does the word literal cause such great angst in liberals? Calling Genesis literally true causes such great consternation. Does the progressive not literally believe God created the heavens and the earth?

[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 16 2009, 07:27 PM, said:

minsocal,

I agree that racial and class differences are artificial boundaries. God did not seperate man by race or class.
If egalitarianism were simply equal justice under the law, I would have no qualms. However, because it attempts to erase all human differences it has meant a social philosophy that advocates the leveling of all aspects of the social, political, and economic structure of society with the belief that all men/women are equal in aptitude and capacities; which by simple observation we know is not true. That all people should have equal opportunities and access to all the rights and the privileges of their society, should be the norm.
Men and women currently have equal access to the marriage law. It is a law built on the natural law of a man and woman excercising their natural functions and is the legitimate natural law and social law of the family. Access to violate the laws are also equally granted and violators must suffer the consequences. For any group to attempt to impose a contrary value is a demonstration of their gross intolerence of a society obedient to the natural laws of the sexes and is an affront to that society at large, and as you have so aptly put it: a boundary violation.
As far as struggling with the differences between people, it is egalitarianism, not I, that struggles - no- refuses to acknowledge man's differences. Egalitarianism is a high-minded but ultimately oppressive philosophy.

I have never said, nor have I remotely implied, that "homosexuals cannot even love each other". Yet you continue to make this false accusation. Your 'dregs' comment also continues the misrepresentation of my statements and philosophy. Is this an example of progressive tolerence?
---
It looks as though you're still not clear on what a behaviorist or a legalist is; otherwise, you wouldn't even consider calling me either one. It seems the book of Genesis may have also escaped your grasp.
That raise a question: Why does the word literal cause such great angst in liberals? Calling Genesis literally true causes such great consternation. Does the progressive not literally believe God created the heavens and the earth?

Your comment about "natual law" is invalid.

Hierarchical and patriarchal systems are oppressive.

I am clear on what egalitarianism means.

I am clear on what classism means.

I am clear on what marginilization means.

I am clear on what bigotry means.

I am clear on what intolerance means.

I am clear on what acceptance means.

I am clear on what sexism means.

I am clear on what hatred means.

I am clear on what dichotmization means.

I am clear on what the divine right of kings means.

I am clear on what some Christian sects call "the elect".

Just tell me where my clarity stops?

Now, just answer my question. Are women chattel? A simple yes or no will do.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 17 February 2009 - 09:55 PM

[davidk]

minsocal, on Feb 17 2009, 09:52 PM, said:

Your comment about "natual law" is invalid.

Hierarchical and patriarchal systems are oppressive.

I am clear on what egalitarianism means.

I am clear on what classism means.

I am clear on what marginilization means.

I am clear on what bigotry means.

I am clear on what intolerance means.

I am clear on what acceptance means.

I am clear on what sexism means.

I am clear on what hatred means.

I am clear on what dichotmization means.

I am clear on what the divine right of kings means.

I am clear on what some Christian sects call "the elect".

Just tell me where my clarity stops?

Now, just answer my question. Are women chattel? A simple yes or no will do.

It stopped just about where you said,"Your comment about "natual law" is invalid."

There were so many posts I had assumed the question of chattel may have been rhetorical. My answer is simply- no.

Now you may answer mine: Does the progressive not literally believe God created the heavens and the earth?

[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 18 2009, 03:23 PM, said:

It stopped just about where you said,"Your comment about "natual law" is invalid."

There were so many posts I had assumed the question of chattel may have been rhetorical. My answer is simply- no.

Now you may answer mine: Does the progressive not literally believe God created the heavens and the earth?

My question was not rhetorical. It was based on literal statements from the Bible using the search criterion "marriage". I do not speak for all Progressives on this board. Of course God created the heavens and the earth. But, the "heavens" probably means a whole lot of other "earths". Walk humbly with your God. It's hardly the case that God created something so vast that one lone planet contains all of God's wisdom.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 18 February 2009 - 07:53 PM

[davidk]

minsocal, on Feb 18 2009, 07:45 PM, said:

My question was not rhetorical. It was based on literal statements from the Bible using the search criterion "marriage". I do not speak for all Progressives on this board. Of course God created the heavens and the earth. But, the "heavens" probably means a whole lot of other "earths". Walk humbly with your God. It's hardly the case that God created something so vast that one lone planet contains all of God's wisdom.

This planet is finite. The people on it can truly know enough to be humble as your "Walk humbly..." has attested to. I must be disagreeable and say we cannot, even collectively, inexhaustably know all the wisdom that is God's. We must be humble, right?
That there is other lintelligent life out there can be reasonably considered, but all the evidence is not yet in.

We find that Genesis is true enough when it says God created it all. So, why is it that so many disassociate themselves with the first chapters of Genesis when it begins with the truth?

[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 19 2009, 01:09 PM, said:

This planet is finite. The people on it can truly know enough to be humble as your "Walk humbly..." has attested to. I must be disagreeable and say we cannot, even collectively, inexhaustably know all the wisdom that is God's. We must be humble, right?
That there is other lintelligent life out there can be reasonably considered, but all the evidence is not yet in.

We find that Genesis is true enough when it says God created it all. So, why is it that so many disassociate themselves with the first chapters of Genesis when it begins with the truth?

Your last claim is very telling. The phrase "true enough" is Progressive. You seem to be moving away from absolutism and literalism.

[davidk]

minsocal, on Feb 19 2009, 04:33 PM, said:

Your last claim is very telling. The phrase "true enough" is Progressive. You seem to be moving away from absolutism and literalism.

My last claim actually involved 2 sentences, and in a manner, you are correct. For by purposeful intent, it is the progressive position that is in question.
---
I shall attempt to find another way that may adequately clarify enough of my intention so that it may become more readily understandable, hopefully avoiding such a temptation as the 'pulling at straws'.
---
Since we know that "God created the heavens and the earth" is true, why is it not true enough for some to consider all of Genesis as truth?

Since 'enough' means nothing less than fully sufficient, Gen 1:1 is true enough to, at the very least, give full consideration for the rest of Genesis to be true. As we have already discussed, it can be true and exhaustive information at the same time.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 20 2009, 07:46 AM, said:

My last claim actually involved 2 sentences, and in a manner, you are correct. For by purposeful intent, it is the progressive position that is in question.
---
I shall attempt to find another way that may adequately clarify enough of my intention so that it may become more readily understandable, hopefully avoiding such a temptation as the 'pulling at straws'.
---
Since we know that "God created the heavens and the earth" is true, why is it not true enough for some to consider all of Genesis as truth?

Since 'enough' means nothing less than fully sufficient, Gen 1:1 is true enough to, at the very least, give full consideration for the rest of Genesis to be true. As we have already discussed, it can be true and exhaustive information at the same time.

As I have stated elsewhwere, the Bible can be interpreted on many levels. The literal and concrete is but one option. The metaphorical and abstract being another option. When you move to the metaphorical and abstract mode, many new insights become available. It has long been understood in many cultures that both perspectives are valid. God gave us both modes of understanding. "Enough" means taking both perspectives into account.

Whether God took six days to create the heavens and the earth is not the point. The Bible fails to indicate whether or not God created many more "earths". We know that the bulding blocks of life, amino acids, are present throughout the universe. God, being the ultimate cause, put all these mechanisms in place.

The failure to take the metaphorical and abstract into account leads to a number of problems. The literal and concrete perspective itself cannot be pure, because we are humans interpreting the intentions of God. If you complain about my not getting your intentions, think about how God must feel.

Are you absolutely sure you know the intentions of God? Could God "change His mind"?

[davidk]

The use of metaphors does not make any scripture untrue, nor can a literal interpretation of the truth not be true.

I don't recall asking anything about 6 days, and it is of no matter whether or not "other earths" are mentioned. The important part is you recognize God as the ultimate cause. Why don't you consider the rest of Genesis as true as its first line?

I don't believe God has a problem knowing my intent, nor yours.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 20 2009, 02:23 PM, said:

The use of metaphors does not make any scripture untrue, nor can a literal interpretation of the truth not be true.

I don't recall asking anything about 6 days, and it is of no matter whether or not "other earths" are mentioned. The important part is you recognize God as the ultimate cause. Why don't you consider the rest of Genesis as true as its first line?

I don't believe God has a problem knowing my intent, nor yours.

Is "six days" true or not?

[minsocal]

davidk,

Please present us with each and every reference to homosexuality in the Bible, with the proper context and the "only possible interpretation". Many scholars have already done this, I want your version. Verse by verse. It would be the honest thing to do.

minsocal

[davidk]

minsocal, on Feb 20 2009, 10:11 PM, said:

Is "six days" true or not?

True.

minsocal, on Feb 21 2009, 12:38 AM, said:

davidk,

Please present us with each and every reference to homosexuality in the Bible, with the proper context and the "only possible interpretation". Many scholars have already done this, I want your version. Verse by verse. It would be the honest thing to do.

minsocal

I'll show you mine, if you show me yours.

Don't you think it would more appropriate to speak to Mr. Warren's on this thread, his is the 'controversy' here.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 21 2009, 11:45 AM, said:

True.
I'll show you mine, if you show me yours.

Don't you think it would more appropriate to speak to Mr. Warren's on this thread, his is the 'controversy' here.

Having been to his mega-church and met him in person, I have a fair idea what the controversy is about.

[minsocal]

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

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

"Some forms of homosexuality?" How many are there? Please, let us know them. And, provide their heterosexual counterparts. Continue, please. This could get very interesting. What philosophic expressions are you talking about?

This post has been edited by minsocal: 22 February 2009 - 09:14 PM

[davidk]

minsocal, on Feb 22 2009, 08:58 PM, said:

"Some forms of homosexuality?" How many are there? Please, let us know them. And, provide their heterosexual counterparts. Continue, please. This could get very interesting. What philosophic expressions are you talking about?

minsocal, the statement is self-explanatory.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 24 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

minsocal, the statement is self-explanatory.

No, it is not.

[minsocal]

Inclusivity makes use of the metaphor of the table at which all are welcome. This is a common theme of the Bible, and a major element in the teachings of Jesus. The story of Mary and Martha (another thread), points to this. While some would "gently scold" Matha (not my interpretation), they would condemn homosexuals and deny them the right of marriage (a place at the table).

But, hold on a minute ... the story of Martha and Mary is about marginalized women! Wake up folks (on that thread).

When I raised the question about "marriage" in the Bible referring to the exchange of daughters for status, I received no response. Frankly, I expected no response. Despite 36 references, I cannot find anyone with the courage to simply back what the Bible says about marriage!

What is wrong with this picture?

[JosephM]

minsocal, on Feb 26 2009, 12:30 AM, said:

(snip) When I raised the question about "marriage" in the Bible referring to the exchange of daughters for status, I received no response. Frankly, I expected no response. Despite 36 references, I cannot find anyone with the courage to simply back what the Bible says about marriage!

What is wrong with this picture?

My question is..... Why would you feel the need to defend yourself if your premise is true?
Because you got no response from progressives why would that indicate a lack of courage on anyones part?

Love Joseph