Kolya on 4/2/2007 at 18:28
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
That's the other thing with this debate - as far as I can tell, there is much less correlation between the quality of parenting and how stable an individual is than people think there is.
Yeah, there may be more to genetic preconditions than we think. Good parenting is still somewhat helpful for a child. What if you had had your friend's parents?
Martlet, these questions sound not so much anti-religious but to test how far they can go with you, as kids always do. And they always find something to do it with. But I wasn't there, so what do I know.
Martlet on 4/2/2007 at 18:33
Quote Posted by Kolya
Martlet, these questions sound not so much anti-religious but to test how far they can go with you, as kids always do.
true and that was the point of them, but they still have an anti-religous subtext
Didn't affect me tbh... if they work out that you're genuine and won't be baited, and in fact you are a rounded person (I play sport to county standard, music quite well and am not exactly stupid) and not a mono dimensional, dogmatic "biblebasher" they will always get on your side....
fett on 4/2/2007 at 21:22
Quote:
Quote:
Christians should have no problem with lesbians, as the female orgasm serves no reproductive purpose, and is therefore not preventing life from occurring but they do strangely condemn lesbians.
Quote:
Lesbianism does "prevent life from occurring" because those women aren't in heterosexual marriages and being baby-making machines, which is their role in a traditional Christian family mechanism.
Wrong on both counts. They are theologically opposed to it based on Paul's prohibition of homosexual encounters in Romans 1 - A woman should not 'lie' with another woman as with a man, and vice-versa. All the political/social sentiment is peripheral.
SD on 4/2/2007 at 21:51
So I was wrong where exactly :confused:
belboz on 4/2/2007 at 22:28
What about lions laying down with sheep.
God was invented to control humans and to force limits.
as in if god had wanted us to fly he would have gven us wings.
fett on 5/2/2007 at 02:07
Thank you belboz. Clearly you've thought through this at length.
Stronts - I thought you were saying that christians opposed Lesbianism because it detracted from women playing traditional roles. I think you'd find most christians to be surprisingly progressive in their thinking about traditional roles within the marriage. At root, their objection is strictly based on the biblical definition of lesbianism as a sexual sin, totally apart from any role the woman is to play in marriage or society. Maybe I misunderstood your point?
Fingernail on 5/2/2007 at 08:44
Isn't he being pedantic about saying that because two women can't "lie" together as do a woman and a man; ie. penetrative intercourse featuring but not limited to a PENIS, that it's irrelevant? I dunno.
Vivian on 5/2/2007 at 11:08
What about if they do it standing up? Or bent over a chair? What does the bible say about that?
SD on 5/2/2007 at 12:20
Quote Posted by fett
Stronts - I thought you were saying that christians opposed Lesbianism because it detracted from women playing traditional roles.
Not so much, I was just pointing out that if you have a lot of lesbians, it will definitely have something of an impact on the amount of new life created. The bit about traditional gender roles was just a sly dig at backwards sexist attitudes across much of the Church.
fett on 5/2/2007 at 13:23
C'mon guys -context. When Paul says to a woman "don't lie with another woman as with a man" - it's a pretty close Greek equivalent to "don't fiddle with another woman's vagina." His readers knew that, and the 'gay church' movement knows it too. They're trying to slide by on semantics.
I think there are fewer backwards sexist attitudes in the church than most people think. There is a pocket of the 'barefoot and pregnant' philosophy in some of the more Pentecostal groups, but overall, (and I say this based on 15+ years of un-official marriage counseling w/in the church) most christian couples think no differently than the mainstream about gender roles in terms of career, child-rearing, finances, decision making, etc. To some degree that's also a reflection of the relatively liberal attitude the NT has toward the woman's role in marriage. Paul said some pretty eyebrow raising things about women bearing children, but for the time, the woman's role in marriage as portrayed in the NT was revolutionary - as it was in the OT. They had far more rights and recourses than any surrounding culture of the time, and I don't think that thread has been lost in the modern church either.
