The Pauline Paradox

I said:
This is exactly what you'd expect when someone has been brain-washed by a religious group to deny his sexuality - as is obviously the case in being paired up with a lesbian to raise children. It's a propaganda piece, and hardly deserves any kind of credit on the subject.
Click to expand...

Well, believe it or not, that's what I thought at first. Perhaps he could have even been paid by some religious organization to lie. But we never know for sure what goes on in the hearts of men.

Ben
 
Thomas said:
Because the evidence points overwhelmingly to that not being the case.

Other evidence also points to people who attached themselves to an identifiable group and who then assume the group character to better fit in, even when it conflicts with their own natural inclinations.

It's called group psychology, or something ...

God bless,

Thomas
Click to expand...

Does it mean you believe that homosexuals are born so? If that's so, were the guys who wrote the Bible morons?

Ben
 
Servetus said:
He probably makes an excellent father and mother. But seriously, I don't doubt that: sexuality is fluid and Jesus even said that there would be eunuchs for the Kingdom. Although Woody Trotsky is not yet among them (and, for that matter, he is not a Christian), I have known some guys who were promiscuous but who, after consideration, became celibate. It happens.

Serv
Click to expand...

Eunuchs are not by definition homosexuals. Many of them even had normal sex. They just could not produce children. Babylonian, Persian and Roman kings would castrate some intelligent youngmen to make them eligible to serve in Court. Probably, Daniel and his three young friends were eunuchs. Definitely not homosexuals.

Ben
 
Hi Ben —
Ben Masada said:
Does it mean you believe that homosexuals are born so? If that's so, were the guys who wrote the Bible morons?
Click to expand...
The evidence seems overwhelming to me that sexual orientation is not, in the first instance, a matter of choice. I reject the whole gay/straight stereotype as a contemporary social construct. I know men who are effeminate, but are not homosexual. I know men who are homosexual, but not effeminate.

But then I think sexual activity and sexual identity can be channelled and shaped according to social norms, conditioning, a whole range of stimuli — but what I do not accept is the modern tendency to over-emphasise sexual categorisation.

I think without social conditioning, your average male will try to stick his member in anything on two legs, and most things on four. In certain times and places, this has made itself more or less evident.

The more patriarchal the culture, the more this tendency is evidenced. Greece and Sparta, we all know. Look at the samurai — there are texts written about 'the way of manly love' (read Ch11 of Hagakure or watch Gohatto) — It is said of Uesugi Kenshin, one of the greatest warriors of his day, that he cut off the sleeve of his night robe, rather than disturb the boy sleeping at his side. Was he 'gay' or 'straight'? The term simply does not apply. He was active.

I think a man should not be defined as 'how much of a man' according to his sexual orientation.

Who is worse, the homosexual man who is loving, loyal, faithful and true, or the heterosexual who uses and abuses his spouse?

Assuming the guys who wrote the text were not morons, then maybe the way we interpret the text, through post Victorian puritanical eyes, might be open to question?

God bless,

Thomas
 
Thomas, you amaze me. Very thoughtful reply " maybe the way we interpret the text, through post Victorian puritanical eyes, might be open to question?" That about sums it up.
 
Ben Masada said:
Does it mean you believe that homosexuals are born so? Ben
Click to expand...

Ben - I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the Fraternal Birth Order Effect? This is the phenomenon where each biological older brother increases the younger brothers' chances of being gay. This is only true of biological brothers, adopted older brothers do not bring about this same effect. And it also has been shown to hold true with males that were adopted into a different family.

All of this, to me anyway, shows a strong biological effect at play here; likely due to some sort of hormonal changes in the female body as she has subsequent boys. Your thoughts?

Ben Masada said:
If that's so, were the guys who wrote the Bible morons
Click to expand...

They obviously weren't morons; they were just prejudiced towards homosexuals just as they were prejudiced towards others they didn't consider "pure" such as "bastards" (even to the 10th generation), males missing a testicle, etc. Deuteronomy and Leviticus are full of such examples...
 
Ben Masada said:
Eunuchs are not by definition homosexuals.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they were. I said that Jesus said that there would be eunuchs for the kingdom and, speaking metaphorically not literally, I have known some Christian guys who reconsidered their promiscuous ways and became celibate (eunuchs) in order to improve their Christian walk ("for the Kingdom").

Serv
 
Thomas said:
Hi Ben —

The evidence seems overwhelming to me that sexual orientation is not, in the first instance, a matter of choice. I reject the whole gay/straight stereotype as a contemporary social construct. I know men who are effeminate, but are not homosexual. I know men who are homosexual, but not effeminate.

But then I think sexual activity and sexual identity can be channelled and shaped according to social norms, conditioning, a whole range of stimuli — but what I do not accept is the modern tendency to over-emphasise sexual categorisation.

I think without social conditioning, your average male will try to stick his member in anything on two legs, and most things on four. In certain times and places, this has made itself more or less evident.

The more patriarchal the culture, the more this tendency is evidenced. Greece and Sparta, we all know. Look at the samurai — there are texts written about 'the way of manly love' (read Ch11 of Hagakure or watch Gohatto) — It is said of Uesugi Kenshin, one of the greatest warriors of his day, that he cut off the sleeve of his night robe, rather than disturb the boy sleeping at his side. Was he 'gay' or 'straight'? The term simply does not apply. He was active.

I think a man should not be defined as 'how much of a man' according to his sexual orientation.

Who is worse, the homosexual man who is loving, loyal, faithful and true, or the heterosexual who uses and abuses his spouse?

Assuming the guys who wrote the text were not morons, then maybe the way we interpret the text, through post Victorian puritanical eyes, might be open to question?

God bless,

Thomas
Click to expand...

Every thing in man is a matter of choice. We have Intellect and free will. Only irrational animals that cannot reason are unable to distinguish good from evil.

Regarding the question of who is worse, between a loving homosexual and a heterosexual who physically abuses his wife is a wrong comparison. Homosexuals don't have wives. Unless you are talking about bisexuals.

Ben
 
IowaGuy said:
Ben - I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the Fraternal Birth Order Effect? This is the phenomenon where each biological older brother increases the younger brothers' chances of being gay. This is only true of biological brothers, adopted older brothers do not bring about this same effect. And it also has been shown to hold true with males that were adopted into a different family.

All of this, to me anyway, shows a strong biological effect at play here; likely due to some sort of hormonal changes in the female body as she has subsequent boys. Your thoughts?

They obviously weren't morons; they were just prejudiced towards homosexuals just as they were prejudiced towards others they didn't consider "pure" such as "bastards" (even to the 10th generation), males missing a testicle, etc. Deuteronomy and Leviticus are full of such examples...
Click to expand...

Two points here only. The first is that I do not understand why we are having this discussion under this thread because the commandment in the Scriptures against homosexuality applies only to the Jews. Therefore, the Jewish Scriptures does not condemn this style of life among Gentiles. It means you are wrong to admit that the Jews who wrote the Scriptures were morons.

The other point is that no one can blame nature for having made us to be born this or that way. Save the exception if some men are born without intellect and free will. Then, and only then, I am ready to admit that any attempt to punish one's homosexual behavior is stupid as laws given by morons.

Ben
 
Servetus said:
I didn't say they were. I said that Jesus said that there would be eunuchs for the kingdom and, speaking metaphorically not literally, I have known some Christian guys who reconsidered their promiscuous ways and became celibate (eunuchs) in order to improve their Christian walk ("for the Kingdom").

Serv
Click to expand...

IMHO, Jesus meant by saying some men make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom, as proof that it is up to us to control our emotions in the pursuance of more lofty ideals. It corroborates my point of view that human emotions are subject to man's intellect and free will.

Ben
 
Ben Masada said:
Well, believe it or not, that's what I thought at first. Perhaps he could have even been paid by some religious organization to lie. But we never know for sure what goes on in the hearts of men.
Click to expand...

Oh, there's a very clear propaganda campaign coming from the fundamentalist Christians in the USA that not only did homosexuals "choose" to be gay, they can be cured.

Here are a couple of their books:
A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality
Coming Out Straight: Understanding and Healing Homosexuality
Healing Homosexuality
Healing Homosexuality: Case Stories of Reparative Therapy

These all come from the same section of the book shelf that pronounces that America's worst enemy is liberalism.
 
I said:
Oh, there's a very clear propaganda campaign coming from the fundamentalist Christians in the USA that not only did homosexuals "choose" to be gay, they can be cured.

Here are a couple of their books:
A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality
Coming Out Straight: Understanding and Healing Homosexuality
Healing Homosexuality
Healing Homosexuality: Case Stories of Reparative Therapy

These all come from the same section of the book shelf that pronounces that America's worst enemy is liberalism.
Click to expand...

Well, I have just watched a TV program when an former homosexual man - now married and with children - was interviewed, saying that a man is not born homosexual but he has become one for several reasons, being one of them, childhood insecurities and misguided by perverted adults. At that moment, Ecclesiastes 7:29 immediately popped up in my mind: "Behold, only this have I found out: God made mankind straight, but men have had recourse to many calculations."

Ben
 
Just going strictly by the text in English:

The rule about homosexual behavior was about separation from other groups, not about ultimate definitions of good & evil. It was personal sacrifice for the sake of identifying as an Israeli, but more importantly so that there would be a clear distinction between those who kept the law and those who didn't. If the law against homosexuality were a moral one, then why didn't it mention lesbian sex, too? The Tanach mentions no restrictions upon females having sex with females or upon eunichs or androgynous persons. That would be very odd if the original forbidding of sodomy were based upon a moral objection. There are morals in the law; but keeping separate is part of showcasing the law. It is, if you will, like the phylactery that the Israeli wears on his head. It looks weird, instantly identifies him with Israel but is not of itself a significant item -- just a box.

The Israelite, like Jacob and Abraham, was to separate himself from the countries around him by living differently in many dimensions. He was to be distinctive, not same; and his connection with his people was to have precedence over personal preferences. He was to hate the taste of certain foods, through no choice of his own. Lev 11 says that if any Israelite would not follow the provided distinctions of diet and behavior, then he was to be 'Cut off from his people'. Why? To keep Israel from being like all the other nations around them. Consider that many converts to Judaism used to like bacon, but now they don't. If you slipped them bacon in their sandwich they would spit it out and would even induce vomiting if they didn't have to taste it on its way back up. Does that mean bacon is itself bad? No, bacon isn't bad. Its just another area of distinction.
 
Thanks, Radarmark. I was sill editing when you posted, but the general theme did not change.
 
Dream said:
Just going strictly by the text in English:

The rule about homosexual behavior was about separation from other groups, not about ultimate definitions of good & evil. It was personal sacrifice for the sake of identifying as an Israeli, but more importantly so that there would be a clear distinction between those who kept the law and those who didn't. If the law against homosexuality were a moral one, then why didn't it mention lesbian sex, too? The Tanach mentions no restrictions upon females having sex with females or upon eunichs or androgynous persons. That would be very odd if the original forbidding of sodomy were based upon a moral objection. There are morals in the law; but keeping separate is part of showcasing the law. It is, if you will, like the phylactery that the Israeli wears on his head. It looks weird, instantly identifies him with Israel but is not of itself a significant item -- just a box.

The Israelite, like Jacob and Abraham, was to separate himself from the countries around him by living differently in many dimensions. He was to be distinctive, not same; and his connection with his people was to have precedence over personal preferences. He was to hate the taste of certain foods, through no choice of his own. Lev 11 says that if any Israelite would not follow the provided distinctions of diet and behavior, then he was to be 'Cut off from his people'. Why? To keep Israel from being like all the other nations around them. Consider that many converts to Judaism used to like bacon, but now they don't. If you slipped them bacon in their sandwich they would spit it out and would even induce vomiting if they didn't have to taste it on its way back up. Does that mean bacon is itself bad? No, bacon isn't bad. Its just another area of distinction.
Click to expand...

Dream, I beg of you not to take this as an offense, bat I would suggest that this subject is indeed very good for discussion, but in a thread of its own. If you want to open up one, I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you; but really, I don't see any correlation with the theme of this thread. The Pauline Paradox is about the disparity between the double identification of Jesus as God and the Messiah. I have never had a Christian to explain that paradox to me; and for sure, Paul would not have been able either, although he was the one who proposed that theory in his gospel.

Ben
 
Ben Masada said:
I beg of you not to take this as an offense, bat I would suggest that this subject is indeed very good for discussion, but in a thread of its own.
Click to expand...
It seems I have made a non sequitur. No I don't think you offensive. I like your frank style actually, and I wish that it fit into the world better.
 
At the same time I'm fairly creative and don't appreciate extremely controlled conversations, such as when one is invited to a meetings to discuss issues that have already been decided before one's arrival. That is an extreme example, but a forum can become like that by degrees when there is no going back or going sideways. I wouldn't want to remove the original topic or obscure it through other topics, but every argument has many assumptions. If we are not agreed on the assumptions, then how can a discussion continue?
 
God = Paradox

God teaches in Paradoxes.

We live in a world of Duality.

The existence of Duality is a defacto state of paradox.
 
Please ignore my previous comment about not being able to continue the conversation. Of course communication can continue and controlling the topic is somewhat important. I mentioned an extreme example not an apple from our orchard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top