How dare Evangelicals talk about nixing homosexual marriage?

[Feathers in Hair]

SoliDeoGloria,

what does 'Gitty' mean, please ?

Maybe he meant 'giddy'? It sounds similar.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

what does 'Gitty' mean, please ?

I've used and heard it used as a slang meaning to be rediculously happy all the time. I've tried to look it up for you but haven't found a match anywhere. The closest I have found was a british alleyway. lol It must be more of a slang than I thought. (lol)

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

Maybe he meant 'giddy'? It sounds similar.

maybe...typo on my part. hahaha

gid·dy (g

d

) adj. gid·di·er, gid·di·est 1. a. Having a reeling, lightheaded sensation; dizzy.
b. Causing or capable of causing dizziness: 2. Frivolous and lighthearted; flighty.

intr. & tr.v. gid·died, gid·dy·ing, gid·dies To become or make giddy.

[Middle English gidi, crazy, from Old English gidig; see gheu(

)- in Indo-European roots.]

 

[michel]

SoliDeoGloria

I Said:

Christianity is about Love, compassion, forgiveness, non -judgementalism.

Who are the people who are more outspoken than the rest about Homosexuality ? - The ones who do not practice what they preach.......

To which you replied (in part)

The problem I have with it is at face value it states that Christians are supposed to be naive people who are giddy ? all the time

How on earth do you come to that conclusion, from what I said ?

How can following the principles and tenets of Love, compassion, forginess and non-judgementalism mean that you have to be naive and giddy ?

(I take it we are in the same dimension ?)

 

[mr.guy]

Today, evangelicals are holding not only to the Bible, but to the philosophy of Plato which influenced its writers.

Does this mean christians ought to be suspicious of any thinking less than 2k years old?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Does this mean christians ought to be suspicious of any thinking less than 2k years old?

What this means is that since the New Testament commands are given from the philosophical standpoint of Plato, and the evangelicals are embracing Plato's rhetoric instead of Paul's (Paul really did not go into much detail as to his rationale, except Romans 1, where Paul waxes eloquently against homosexuality from a first-century medical view), all one has to do is show two things:

1) That Paul's view of homosexuality is dependent upon Plato's poletia and sexual ethics

2) The evangelicals are quite obviously following Plato's footsteps. That's why we hear stuff like, "Homosexuality is going to destroy this country." It threatens the family, which threatens the country. However, in the first century, and for many centuries, homosexuality was not seen as a stable family. Two homosexuals could obviously not have natural children and provide for family property to pass on to legitimate children, and this fact really did threaten the framework of how the society worked.

After dependence upon Plato is demonstrated, the thinking of Plato can be attacked on one or two points. The cool thing about this line of argument is it takes the focus off of the Bible and the psychological and interprative baggage that many evangelicals carry with them, and goes to the root of the problem.

1) A healthy family is not needed for a healthy society. Our democratic capitalist society does not require the familial stability that aristocratic client-patron democracies of the first century (and many other epochs) needed. The need to protect and insure legitimate children is gone - we don't need to maintain the wealth of a family name to preserve businesses - because most successful businesses are publically owned and traded. Status in American life is won not by familial grooming but by hard work and a bit of luck - somthing that any family structure can achieve.

2) Plato was completely wrong in the first place.

EDIT: I guess that this also means that in my view, the Industrial Revolution was the beginning of the destruction of the so-called traditional family, and the success of capitalism in America and the West sealed its fate.

Have fun

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

How on earth do you come to that conclusion, from what I said ?

How can following the principles and tenets of Love, compassion, forginess and non-judgementalism mean that you have to be naive and giddy ?

(I take it we are in the same dimension ?)

That's why I started with:

To a degree I will agree with this statement.

and used the terms

at face value it states

because when taken strictly at face value ,without any further explaination, that is exactly how I have seen people understand the idea that Christians are supposed to be about

Love, compassion, forgiveness, non -judgementalism.

What this means is that since the New Testament commands are given from the philosophical standpoint of Plato, and the evangelicals are embracing Plato's rhetoric instead of Paul's (Paul really did not go into much detail as to his rationale, except Romans 1, where Paul waxes eloquently against homosexuality from a first-century medical view), all one has to do is show two things:

1) That Paul's view of homosexuality is dependent upon Plato's poletia and sexual ethics

2) The evangelicals are quite obviously following Plato's footsteps. That's why we hear stuff like, "Homosexuality is going to destroy this country." It threatens the family, which threatens the country. However, in the first century, and for many centuries, homosexuality was not seen as a stable family. Two homosexuals could obviously not have natural children and provide for family property to pass on to legitimate children, and this fact really did threaten the framework of how the society worked.

After dependence upon Plato is demonstrated, the thinking of Plato can be attacked on one or two points. The cool thing about this line of argument is it takes the focus off of the Bible and the psychological and interprative baggage that many evangelicals carry with them, and goes to the root of the problem.

1) A healthy family is not needed for a healthy society. Our democratic capitalist society does not require the familial stability that aristocratic client-patron democracies of the first century (and many other epochs) needed. The need to protect and insure legitimate children is gone - we don't need to maintain the wealth of a family name to preserve businesses - because most successful businesses are publically owned and traded. Status in American life is won not by familial grooming but by hard work and a bit of luck - somthing that any family structure can achieve.

2) Plato was completely wrong in the first place.

EDIT: I guess that this also means that in my view, the Industrial Revolution was the beginning of the destruction of the traditional family, and the success of capitalism in America and the West sealed its fate.

First off, once again, wonderfull post. With all that wonderfull information, I wonder how you explain the OT's condemnation of the act of homosexuality especially when you take into consideration that the first Christians, especially Paul, were pretty devout followers of judaism?

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I wonder how you explain the OT's condemnation of the act of homosexuality especially when you take into consideration that the first Christians, especially Paul, were pretty devout followers of judaism?

The need for a secure family structure was the same in the OT as it was in the time of Plato: the people of Israel needed to pass their property on from father to son through legitimate children. This is how they kept the "promised land" in the family. Widespread homosexual coupling would have been a disaster for familial property (EDIT: any homosexuality in the family would be a threat to inheritance - the patriarch would see that one of his sons was not passing on his name and property), and folks needed children to work for them on the farm and tending animals- you were not doing your part if you didn't have children. The rationale is the same for both, but Plato is the one who put the rationale in family-city-state order, and Paul copied that in more than one place in the NT.

It is my view that Paul was raised the first-century Jewish tradition, and in his Greek training he was exposed to Plato, Aristotle, and Homer, which he quite liberally incorporated into his Christian theologizing.

EDIT: The simplest answer is this: the Hebrew Scriptures were not the only thing that Paul and other first century Jews followed. Paul was in many ways a Hellenized Jew: once a Christian, it was easy for him to eat pork and welcome Gentiles into the "new Israel. Paul wrote in Greek in the style of Aristotle, with allusions to Homer, with some Platonic philosophy. This tells me that he had access to these writings (either directly or they were on the lips of his teachers) and he internalized them to some extent he internalized them - he made them his own and incorporated them into what later became Christian theology.

 

[painted wolf]

sorry, I don't parade my sexuality around... it stays in my bedroom where it belongs... unless ofcource I give my husband a kiss or hold his hand in public.

Naturally the way to fix this obsenity is to pass a law like some other countries where holding hands and kissing will get you a right good caining....

However certen parties in the country wish to peek into everyones personal lives and make sure they arn't doing anything 'naughty'.... at lest 'naughty' by thier particualr religious viewpoint.
Well thank you but I have my own religion and I can keep an eye on my own private areas thanks.
I won't obsess over your sexual life if you won't obsess over mine... I think that is quite fair and constitutional.

wa:do

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

EDIT: The simplest answer is this: the Hebrew Scriptures were not the only thing that Paul and other first century Jews followed. Paul was in many ways a Hellenized Jew: once a Christian, it was easy for him to eat pork and welcome Gentiles into the "new Israel. Paul wrote in Greek in the style of Aristotle, with allusions to Homer, with some Platonic philosophy. This tells me that he had access to these writings (either directly or they were on the lips of his teachers) and he internalized them to some extent he internalized them - he made them his own and incorporated them into what later became Christian theology.

Wow, I find your answers very intriguing. The most intriguing part of it is how it brings into question the book of Acts account of the council at Jerusalem(Acts ch.15) and the letter that was sent to the gentile churches at the time. One thing that has always cuahgt my eye about that letter is that the only two laws they were concerned about for the gentiles was abstaining from food sacrificed to idols (which Paul gave further explaination of in Rom.14 &1 Cor.9) and fornication/sexual immorrality(depending on which translation you are using) which has always been taken at face value and in no need of further explaination. Now with the definition of fornication being: *** WordNet (r) 2.0 ***
fornication
n 1: voluntary sexual intercourse between persons not married to
each other
I don't think I am too off base here in stating that this covers the subject matter of this thread. As far as eating pork goes Peter was brought to issue with that before Paul (Acts. 10). Now when you take into consideration that the author of the book of Acts(Luke) speaks in the first person during most of their explaination of the accounts of Paul's missions, if what you are stating is true, then the whole book of Acts is a farse as far as explainations go for what we are discussing and you may as well throw in the book of Galations in there too. If that is the case then what we really have an issue with is the reliability of the Bible and should be where you and I start this conversation.

sorry, I don't parade my sexuality around... it stays in my bedroom where it belongs... unless ofcource I give my husband a kiss or hold his hand in public.

I never stated that you did. I simply asked rhetoricle questions.

However certen parties in the country wish to peek into everyones personal lives and make sure they arn't doing anything 'naughty'.... at lest 'naughty' by thier particualr religious viewpoint.
Well thank you but I have my own religion and I can keep an eye on my own private areas thanks.
I won't obsess over your sexual life if you won't obsess over mine... I think that is quite fair and constitutional.

Once again, I didn't start this thread and this thread was a criticism of a Christian viewpoint, not anybody obsessing over anybody's sex life.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[Fatmop]

Well thank you but I have my own religion and I can keep an eye on my own private areas thanks.
I won't obsess over your sexual life if you won't obsess over mine... I think that is quite fair and constitutional.

To an extent. I think we can all agree that pedophilia is wrong, and probably should be stopped - would you disagree with THAT kind of peeking and prying into someone's sex life? Where do you draw the line?

 

[linwood]

Once again, I didn't start this thread and this thread was a criticism of a Christian viewpoint, not anybody obsessing over anybody's sex life.

I thought the fundamentalist Christian viewpoint was obsessing over everyones sex life?

 

[painted wolf]

fatmop- naturally I'm talking about Concenting Adults... not abused children or nonconcenting adults.
I should have made myself more clear on that I guess.

wa:do

 

[Searcher of Light]

Seems to be a forest in the eyes of Evangelicals and they focus on the splinter of homosexual marriage. How dare they? How can this drive, this homophobic drive, take center stage in a "defense of the family"?

This focus can also allows them to ignore larger problems. The largest problem that should be dealt with in "defense of the family" is the erosion due to lack of prescense. Families do not have time to spend with each other because of the necessity to work. In order to defend the family, Evangelicals should be focusing on the societal climate and business structures that prevent even a single day off in a week.

The government should require ALL businesses to close for one day out of the week. Traditionally, this would be on a Sunday but I understand that would cause problems because of its religious aspect. One day where everything except emergency services would result in a lot of money loss at first glance; However, when factors such as productivity, medical/stress related, familial, cultural, and innovation benefits are examined the monetary loss would be negligable if even present.

 

[YamiB.]

To an extent. I think we can all agree that pedophilia is wrong, and probably should be stopped - would you disagree with THAT kind of peeking and prying into someone's sex life? Where do you draw the line?

People should keep their freedom as long as they are not harming somebody. Sexual relations without consent is harmful to the individual who is not consensual.

 

[michel]

I thought the fundamentalist Christian viewpoint was obsessing over everyones sex life?

Slightly sarcastic ? - perhaps you are right; I can only say I am glad not to be a fundementalist Christian......besides, I don't think the adjective 'fundementalist' has a place in our world any more - not without the 'in between the lines' connotations.....

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

I thought the fundamentalist Christian viewpoint was obsessing over everyones sex life?

If you get critical of the way certain people eat a certain food, does that make you obsessive over everybodies eating habits? I didn't think so. With how obsessed you are over accussing Fundamentalist Christianity, I am starting to think you are obsessing over wanting Christians to obsess over your sex life.

This focus can also allows them to ignore larger problems. The largest problem that should be dealt with in "defense of the family" is the erosion due to lack of prescense. Families do not have time to spend with each other because of the necessity to work. In order to defend the family, Evangelicals should be focusing on the societal climate and business structures that prevent even a single day off in a week.

The government should require ALL businesses to close for one day out of the week. Traditionally, this would be on a Sunday but I understand that would cause problems because of its religious aspect. One day where everything except emergency services would result in a lot of money loss at first glance; However, when factors such as productivity, medical/stress related, familial, cultural, and innovation benefits are examined the monetary loss would be negligable if even present.

very nice

Slightly sarcastic ? - perhaps you are right; I can only say I am glad not to be a fundementalist Christian......besides, I don't think the adjective 'fundementalist' has a place in our world any more - not without the 'in between the lines' connotations.....

Very True. It's too bad especially when you consider that most people probably have no clue what the definitions of certain adjetives are due to false steriotypes.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[dms5aze]

i call you and everyone from the call of islam to accept this divine religion,

ofcourse gay marriages will be allowed in christianity, christianinty is clealry a man made religion the bible was written by men not god being the author, according to the bible this world we live in is only 6000 years old now every 1 in their right mind knows this is far from being right. so how can god make this mistake and god is perfect and does not make mistakes my brothers. people only usually need one or two mistakes from the bible to make them aware it is not diviNe far from it brothers.

say he is Allah the one,
Allah is Eternal and Absolute,
None is born of him nor is he born,
and there is nothing like him.

Over time, regardless of what the Bible says or not, gay marraige will become accepted.[/QUOTE]

 

[painted wolf]

so then the extistance of Homosexuals must be intentional... after all Allah doesn't make mistakes and they are here.

So then gay marrage should be accepted as they are not a 'mistake' but part of the overall plan.

wa:do