Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Poll

How LSD vote?

Yes
 18 (26.1%)
No
 49 (71%)
Will not vote
 2 (2.9%)

Total Members Voted: 69

Author Topic: If you teach for a living, GTFIH now!!  (Read 15805 times)

Susan B. Anthony

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6571
    • View Profile
Re: California Proposition 8. How would you vote?
« Reply #30 on: October 31, 2008, 03:28:13 PM »
So, if Jesus married the church, does that make him a polygamist, or is he just married to an idea? I'd kind of like to marry an idea. I'm not entirely sure how we'd consummate the union, though.  Also, did Jesus consummate his union with the church, or could the pope totally annul the union?

Kantian

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 126
    • View Profile
Re: California Proposition 8. How would you vote?
« Reply #31 on: October 31, 2008, 04:59:35 PM »
So, if Jesus married the church, does that make him a polygamist, or is he just married to an idea? I'd kind of like to marry an idea. I'm not entirely sure how we'd consummate the union, though.  Also, did Jesus consummate his union with the church, or could the pope totally annul the union?

Pope can't divorce a dude when he's against gay marriage. Just sayin... oh wait...

j23

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: California Proposition 8. How would you vote?
« Reply #32 on: November 01, 2008, 12:01:19 AM »

 :-X

eta: bible interpretation can be fun!  And, as far as Romans 1, it looks like it's mostly just Peter's view of homosexuality.  Maybe Peter had an agenda?



Paul wrote Romans under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

j23

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: California Proposition 8. How would you vote?
« Reply #33 on: November 01, 2008, 12:08:51 AM »
So, if Jesus married the church, does that make him a polygamist, or is he just married to an idea? I'd kind of like to marry an idea. I'm not entirely sure how we'd consummate the union, though.  Also, did Jesus consummate his union with the church, or could the pope totally annul the union?

I don't even know how to respond to such blasphemy. It is a metaphor, just as Christ is the Head and the Church is the body of Christ. However, one day you will stand before Him and you can ask him that ridiculous question yourself. Although, I doubt you will have the courage to say such a thing when that time comes.

To elephant lee: I did read the post you were responding to, but after reading it again I see that I most likely responded to you in a wrong way. Sorry about that.

Kantian

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 126
    • View Profile
Re: California Proposition 8. How would you vote?
« Reply #34 on: November 01, 2008, 12:11:59 AM »
So, if Jesus married the church, does that make him a polygamist, or is he just married to an idea? I'd kind of like to marry an idea. I'm not entirely sure how we'd consummate the union, though.  Also, did Jesus consummate his union with the church, or could the pope totally annul the union?

I don't even know how to respond to such blasphemy. It is a metaphor, just as Christ is the Head and the Church is the body of Christ. However, one day you will stand before Him and you can ask him that ridiculous question yourself. Although, I doubt you will have the courage to say such a thing when that time comes.

To elephant lee: I did read the post you were responding to, but after reading it again I see that I most likely responded to you in a wrong way. Sorry about that.

This is really disturbing that some mortal being, like yourself, claims to know what happens after we die. If your mother didn't pound this into your head as a child, would you have come to the same conclusion?

j23

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: California Proposition 8. How would you vote?
« Reply #35 on: November 01, 2008, 12:21:48 AM »

This is really disturbing that some mortal being, like yourself, claims to know what happens after we die. If your mother didn't pound this into your head as a child, would you have come to the same conclusion?

If the teachers in your schools didn't pound into your head that we cannot know happens after we die, would you come to the same conclusion?

!закон и право!

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1599
    • View Profile
Re: California Proposition 8. How would you vote?
« Reply #36 on: November 01, 2008, 12:31:17 AM »
Say no to fags (cigarettes)

Kantian

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 126
    • View Profile
Re: California Proposition 8. How would you vote?
« Reply #37 on: November 01, 2008, 02:46:31 AM »

This is really disturbing that some mortal being, like yourself, claims to know what happens after we die. If your mother didn't pound this into your head as a child, would you have come to the same conclusion?

If the teachers in your schools didn't pound into your head that we cannot know happens after we die, would you come to the same conclusion?


Yes, I have a conscience.

mugatu

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 22183
  • I'll show YOU pacifist.
    • View Profile
Re: California Proposition 8. How would you vote?
« Reply #38 on: November 02, 2008, 10:41:59 PM »

 :-X

eta: bible interpretation can be fun!  And, as far as Romans 1, it looks like it's mostly just Peter's view of homosexuality.  Maybe Peter had an agenda?



Paul wrote Romans under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

and then someone chose to put those letters in the bible.  Also, how do you know that?
Let me show you Derelicte. It is a fashion, a way of life inspired by the very homeless, the vagrants, the crack whores that make this wonderful city so unique.

They're break-dance fighting.

Elephant Lee

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4786
  • Maybe ju an' me are amigos!
    • View Profile
Re: California Proposition 8. How would you vote?
« Reply #39 on: November 13, 2008, 12:39:54 PM »
However, you can read Romans 1 along with many other passages to see how God views homosexuality.
I'd beeen brewing up a response to this post in my head, but I came across an essay by Walter Wink (a theologian I don't always agree with) that touches on most of things I wanted to say.

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink

Homosexuality and the Bible
by The Rev. Dr. Walter Wink

Sexual issues are tearing our churches apart today as never before. The issue of homosexuality threatens to fracture whole denominations, as the issue of slavery did a hundred and fifty years ago. We naturally turn to the Bible for guidance, and find ourselves mired in interpretative quicksand. Is the Bible able to speak to our confusion on this issue?

The debate over homosexuality is a remarkable opportunity, because it raises in an especially acute way how we interpret the Bible, not in this case only, but in numerous others as well. The real issue here, then, is not simply homosexuality, but how Scripture informs our lives today.

Some passages that have been advanced as pertinent to the issue of homosexuality are, in fact, irrelevant. One is the attempted gang rape in Sodom (Gen. 19:1-29). That was a case of ostensibly heterosexual males intent on humiliating strangers by treating them "like women," thus demasculinizing them. (This is also the case in a similar account in Judges 19-21.) Their brutal behavior has nothing to do with the problem of whether genuine love expressed between consenting adults of the same sex is legitimate or not. Likewise Deut. 23:17-18 must be pruned from the list, since it most likely refers to a heterosexual prostitute involved in Canaanite fertility rites that have infiltrated Jewish worship; the King James Version inaccurately labeled him a "sodomite."

Several other texts are ambiguous. It is not clear whether 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 refer to the "passive" and "active" partners in homosexual relationships, or to homosexual and heterosexual male prostitutes. In short, it is unclear whether the issue is homosexuality alone, or promiscuity and "sex-for-hire."

Unequivocal Condemnations

Putting these texts to the side, we are left with three references, all of which unequivocally condemn homosexual behavior. Lev. 18:22 states the principle: "You [masculine] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (NRSV). The second (Lev. 20:13) adds the penalty: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them."

Such an act was regarded as an "abomination" for several reasons. The Hebrew prescientific understanding was that male semen contained the whole of nascent life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the woman provided only the incubating space. Hence the spilling of semen for any nonprocreative purpose--in coitus interruptus (Gen. 38:1-11), male homosexual acts, or male masturbation--was considered tantamount to abortion or murder. (Female homosexual acts were consequently not so seriously regarded, and are not mentioned at all in the Old Testament (but see Rom. 1:26). One can appreciate how a tribe struggling to populate a country in which its people were outnumbered would value procreation highly, but such values are rendered questionable in a world facing uncontrolled overpopulation.

In addition, when a man acted like a woman sexually, male dignity was compromised. It was a degradation, not only in regard to himself, but for every other male. The patriarchalism of Hebrew culture shows its hand in the very formulation of the commandment, since no similar stricture was formulated to forbid homosexual acts between females. And the repugnance felt toward homosexuality was not just that it was deemed unnatural but also that it was considered unJewish, representing yet one more incursion of pagan civilization into Jewish life. On top of that is the more universal repugnance heterosexuals tend to feel for acts and orientations foreign to them. (Left-handedness has evoked something of the same response in many cultures.)

Whatever the rationale for their formulation, however, the texts leave no room for maneuvering. Persons committing homosexual acts are to be executed. This is the unambiguous command of Scripture. The meaning is clear: anyone who wishes to base his or her beliefs on the witness of the Old Testament must be completely consistent and demand the death penalty for everyone who performs homosexual acts. (That may seem extreme, but there actually are some Christians urging this very thing today.) It is unlikely that any American court will ever again condemn a homosexual to death, even though Scripture clearly commands it.

Old Testament texts have to be weighed against the New. Consequently, Paul's unambiguous condemnation of homosexual behavior in Rom. 1:26-27 must be the centerpiece of any discussion.

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does. He seemed to assume that those whom he condemned were heterosexuals who were acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up," or "exchanging" their regular sexual orientation for that which was foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life, or perhaps even genetically in some cases. For such persons, having heterosexual relations would be acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up" or "exchanging" their natural sexual orientation for one that was unnatural to them.

In other words, Paul really thought that those whose behavior he condemned were "straight," and that they were behaving in ways that were unnatural to them. Paul believed that everyone was straight. He had no concept of homosexual orientation. The idea was not available in his world. There are people that are genuinely homosexual by nature (whether genetically or as a result of upbringing no one really knows, and it is irrelevant). For such a person it would be acting contrary to nature to have sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex.

Likewise, the relationships Paul describes are heavy with lust; they are not relationships between consenting adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity as any heterosexual couple. That was something Paul simply could not envision. Some people assume today that venereal disease and AIDS are divine punishment for homosexual behavior; we know it as a risk involved in promiscuity of every stripe, homosexual and heterosexual. In fact, the vast majority of people with AIDS the world around are heterosexuals. We can scarcely label AIDS a divine punishment, since nonpromiscuous lesbians are at almost no risk.

And Paul believes that homosexual behavior is contrary to nature, whereas we have learned that it is manifested by a wide variety of species, especially (but not solely) under the pressure of overpopulation. It would appear then to be a quite natural mechanism for preserving species. We cannot, of course, decide human ethical conduct solely on the basis of animal behavior or the human sciences, but Paul here is arguing from nature, as he himself says, and new knowledge of what is "natural" is therefore relevant to the case.

Hebrew Sexual Mores

Nevertheless, the Bible quite clearly takes a negative view of homosexual activity, in those few instances where it is mentioned at all. But this conclusion does not solve the problem of how we are to interpret Scripture today. For there are other sexual attitudes, practices and restrictions which are normative in Scripture but which we no longer accept as normative:

This was my country
This frightful and this angry land

"I guess she was a hooker, that makes sense, those shorts didn't really look all that comfortable." -Dash