• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Gay parenthood

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
Well, no doubt his defence of it is faulty, but I will wait for your detailed refutation of classical natural law teaching before I decide the whole doctrine is faulty.

Don't all Christians believe all they are is, in a sense, on loan from God? Don't they believe that men and women are created to fulfil each other's sexual needs? Of course, they are created for much, much more. But that men and women were made for each other, romantically and sexually, is a basic part of all traditional Christian viewpoints.

Natural law philosophy is faulty on the face of it because it assumes that genitals necessarily exist for heterosexual vaginal sex for the purposes of reproduction only. It's a bunch of Medieval hogwash that has largely been disproven and rejected by modern sciences.

The Christian viewpoint on that is wrong, as it is on so many other subjects. However, Driscoll did not speak of female genitals being "on loan" from God. He didn't speak of "Her vagina" or "Her clitoris". There is no focus on the pleasure of women in Driscoll's sermons. His god is a sexist male.
 
Last edited:

Viker

Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
More from Driscoll:

"During the sermon, which was entitled “Sex, a Study of the Good Bits from Song of Solomon,” Driscoll interpreted Song of Solomon 2:3 as referring to oral sex and then said, “Men, I am glad to report to you that oral sex is biblical…The wife performing oral sex on the husband is biblical. God’s men said, Amen. Ladies, your husbands appreciate oral sex. They do. So, serve them, love them well. It’s biblical. Right here. We have a verse. ‘The fruit of her husband is sweet to her taste and she delights to be beneath him.'”

...

"[In recounting the story about the man who started coming to Driscoll’s church because his wife began performing oral sex:]


She [the wife] says, “I’ve never performed oral sex on my husband. I’ve refused to.” I said, “You need to go home and tell your husband that you’ve met Jesus and you’ve been studying the Bible, and that you’re convicted of a terrible sin in your life. And then you need to drop his trousers, and you need to serve your husband. And when he asks why, say, ‘Because I’m a repentant woman. God has changed my heart and I’m supposed to be a biblical wife.'” She says, “Really?” I said, “Yeah. First Peter 3 says if your husband is an unbeliever to serve him with deeds of kindness.” [Laughter from audience] How many men would agree, that is a deed of kindness. He doesn’t want tracts. Those won’t do anything. What we’re talking about here could really help."


...

"It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either."

» Mark Driscoll Slammed by Baptist Press over Sex Teaching Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion

"In Mars Hill theology, female members are viewed through the lens of complementarianism, a theological position that prescribes separate roles for women and men including male headship. A woman being advised to get down on her knees and give her husband a blow job represents just one of a spectrum of submissive behaviors touted for females, who are encouraged to find their meaning in the traditional roles of wife and mother. The virginity of women is prized, and by some reports Driscoll’s late discovery and fury that his wife had sex with another male as a teenager became bizarrely significant in their relationship and in the life of the church even though he himself was not a virgin when he married."
Christian right mega-church minister faces mega-mutiny for alleged abusive behavior - Salon.com

So a "good Christian wife" is basically supposed to be a submissive sexual servant that is always available for her husband's "needs". Notice he doesn't cherry pick and twist Bible verses to find a command for husbands to give oral to their wives. Oh, I wonder why that is. :rolleyes:

He also blames wives for their husband's cheating.
Seems like were sex toys put on earth by God specifically to be there when men want something to play with.
 

Jeremy Taylor

Active Member
Well, he is certainly expressing himself very strangely. And, obviously if he is simply blaming wives for their husband's cheating that is wrong. The question would be whether he is also advocating men serve the sexual needs of their wives.
 
Last edited:

psychoslice

Veteran Member
I have known many gay parents, and they don't force their personal beliefs onto their child, in fact just about all the parents I have known produce children who are strait.
 

Jeremy Taylor

Active Member
Natural law philosophy is faulty on the face of it because it assumes that genitals necessarily exist for heterosexual vaginal sex for the purposes of reproduction only.
Well, this is just an assertion. Not a refutation.



It's a bunch of Medieval hogwash that has largely been disproven and rejected by modern sciences.
Well, final causes, which are essential to classical natural law were marginalised by modern science, that much is true. But whether natural science has or even could refute their existence is highly questionable, as they come more under the purview of philosophy than natural science. Indeed, not only is natural science still shot through with teleology, it can be questioned whether it does not assume it. For example, it would seem necessary to have recourse to something like final causality to avoid radical Humean conclusions about causation (which undermine natural science), including to have any understanding or explanation of regular and orderly causation.
 
Last edited:

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
Well, this is just an assertion. Not a refutation.



Well, final causes, which are essential to classical natural law were marginalised by modern science, that much is true. But whether natural science has or even could refute their existence is highly questionable. Indeed, not only is natural science still shot through with teleology, it can be questioned whether it does not assume it. For example, it would seem necessary to have recourse to something like final causality to avoid radical Humean views on causation, including to have any understanding of regular and orderly causation.

I'm sorry, but I'm not a philosophy major at a university so that's a bunch of gibberish to me.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
And yet you dismissed classical natural law out of hand. But at least you're not a bigot......

I used to be a Catholic. Catholic sexual teachings are based on natural law theory. So I know enough about it to dismiss it. I don't need wordy philosophical jargon to dismiss something as illogical and archaic. If you're going to say something, say it clearly and in a way that most people can understand. Otherwise, you'll just come off as pompous.
 

Jeremy Taylor

Active Member
I used to be a Catholic. Catholic sexual teachings are based on natural law theory. So I know enough about it to dismiss it. I don't need wordy philosophical jargon to dismiss something as illogical and archaic. If you're going to say something, say it clearly and in a way that most people can understand. Otherwise, you'll just come off as pompous.

This is typical rhetorical nonsense, of course. Such terms as final causes and causation are basic to debates on either the role of teleology in modern science or classical natural law. How one would remove them from the discussion is impossible to see. As you don't seem to realise this or even hint at an alternative to using such basic, technical terms, and have given no hint you have any detailed knowledge of the subject, I think your opinion holds little weight.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I think women are just as capable of analogous behaviour and attitudes towards men. In fact, I have found that men and women are more likely to put down the male sex than the female, in general, explicitly at least.

The difference is the context and consequences given to the sentiment. If a man has bad experiences with women, and decides he doesn't much like them, then he is a bitter, twisted misogynists who is part of the patriachical edifice that oppresses women. If a woman has bad experiences with men, and decides all men are pigs, she is not considered a bitter, twisted misanderist, in general. She is somewhat pitied, when she is not sympathised with.
I haven't found this, myself. Women tend to put down specific behaviour or tendencies. Men are much more likely to see all women as inferior. We are talking about minorities of people though. Most people just aren't like that.
I was responding to Hay 85's rather twisted post about guys. That's why I was referring to men.

Tom
 

dgirl1986

Big Queer Chesticles!
I used to be a Catholic. Catholic sexual teachings are based on natural law theory. So I know enough about it to dismiss it. I don't need wordy philosophical jargon to dismiss something as illogical and archaic. If you're going to say something, say it clearly and in a way that most people can understand. Otherwise, you'll just come off as pompous.

Were you the one I used to argue with about homosexuality about a year or so ago?
 

Jeremy Taylor

Active Member
I haven't found this, myself. Women tend to put down specific behaviour or tendencies. Men are much more likely to see all women as inferior. We are talking about minorities of people though. Most people just aren't like that.
I was responding to Hay 85's rather twisted post about guys. That's why I was referring to men.

Tom

Well, perhaps men are implicitly, but not explicitly, in Western cultures anyway. I rarely hear guys just refer to women as inferior. Women and men do, indeed, focus on specific alleged tendencies of men, but they are universalise these. This is especially true of men just being interested in sex and that sort of thing.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
This is typical rhetorical nonsense, of course. Such terms as final causes and causation are basic to debates on either the role of teleology in modern science or classical natural law. How one would remove them from the discussion is impossible to see. As you don't seem to realise this, and have given no hint you have any detailed knowledge of the subject, I think your opinion holds little weight.

More blather. My opinion on the matter holds as much weight as yours. This isn't a university lecture hall. It's a message board. As I said, I was a Catholic and Catholic sexual teaching is based on natural law theory thanks to people like Aquinas and his horrendous ideas on sex. Since I reject Christian theology, why would I care to hold onto natural law theory? Some of my Gods are bisexual or pansexual, actually. Some of them are gender benders and have both male and female forms, too. The pre-Christian Gods didn't have a problem with it.

Anyway, calling something "unnatural" when it exists in nature is illogical. Humans are naturally homosexual, bisexual, asexual, etc. Non-human animals also engage in masturbation and non-reproductive forms of sex. The view of sexuality in natural law theory is very narrow and has blinders on.
 
Last edited:

Viker

Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
This is typical rhetorical nonsense, of course. Such terms as final causes and causation are basic to debates on either the role of teleology in modern science or classical natural law. How one would remove them from the discussion is impossible to see. As you don't seem to realise this or even hint at an alternative to using such basic, technical terms, and have given no hint you have any detailed knowledge of the subject, I think your opinion holds little weight.
You see, this is also a common forum full of mere commoners. We require common English during common discourse.
 

dgirl1986

Big Queer Chesticles!
You see, this is also a common forum full of mere commoners. We require common English during common discourse.

Some people like to use big words to make others feel stupid and less educated. No reason such people cant tone it down a bit for a forum.
 
Top