Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

1…9394969899…218

Comments

  • #2852
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    tommy2bad wrote: »

    Oooooh... I agree and disagree with this so much I'm torn.
    I think the bible is different for some people because they believe their can only be one truth. Art is capable of several contradicting interpretations without anyone being 'wrong'. The bible isn't, so determining the exact nature of its truth is important. However I'm not sure all the books of the bible were intended to be used as such, a lot of them are 'art' and should be interpreted as such.

    I think if I wished something into James Joyce's Dubliners that was never there or not explicit in the text I would rightfully get given out to :)

    That's not textual criticism, that's nonsense. Textual criticism should deal with what is in the text rather than what's not there at all.

    I would have failed my philosophy exams and dissertation if I used that approach.


  • #2853
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    philologos wrote: »

    I think if I wished something into James Joyce's Dubliners that was never there or not explicit in the text I would rightfully get given out to :)

    That's not textual criticism, that's nonsense. Textual criticism should deal with what is in the text rather than what's not there at all.

    I would have failed my philosophy exams and dissertation if I used that approach.
    Can one critically analyse all biblical texts? Do Christians all interpret the bible the same way, without reading anything into the text that's not there or isn't explicit? Why are there bible study classes if there's no need to critically read it?


  • #2854
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I'm not opposing critical analysis. I'm just informing you that reading stuff that isn't in texts into them or indeed wishing stuff into them is not textual criticism at all.


  • #2855
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    philologos wrote: »
    I'm not opposing critical analysis. I'm just informing you that reading stuff that isn't in texts into them or indeed wishing stuff into them is not textual criticism at all.
    I agree. How many critical analyses of the bible have you read?


  • #2856
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,046 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    philologos wrote: »
    I think the idea that all interpretations are equally valid is absurd.
    Not an idea that I've ever put forward. I'm only contesting your claim that your interpretation is the only right one
    philologos wrote: »
    The reality is that given any text our justification for coming to one conclusion rather than another in a given context should be based on sound reasoning from the text to come to one conclusion rather than the other. We use linguistic tools both from the translated texts and the original languages to do this.
    And you're missing a huge, huge part of any analysis of a literary piece where we don't have access to the original author. We will never know what the original author meant. It's impossible to transmit absolute knowledge through language.
    philologos wrote: »
    Why are people unwilling to apply these skills to reading Scripture but would balk at butchering any other text in this way?
    That's an equally bizarre claim. It's not "butchering" the text to claim that it is open to more than one interpretation. To return to the phrase "Time flies like an arrow": I do not butcher it by claiming that the original author meant it one particular way, even if it contradicts what you claim it means.

    The difference in our stances is that I do not claim it must mean my way, and that all other interpretations are wrong

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Advertisement
  • #2857
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    28064212 wrote: »
    Not an idea that I've ever put forward. I'm only contesting your claim that your interpretation is the only right one

    On no textual basis as of yet. The only thing you've introduced is postmodernism, which is a policy if applied to my philosophy course would result me failing every exam bar maybe anything to do with postmodernism itself, or perhaps not even then :)

    Please present a Biblical argument and I'll be happy to follow it through and present my objections.

    On postmodernism we're going to hit a dead wall.
    And you're missing a huge, huge part of any analysis of a literary piece where we don't have access to the original author. We will never know what the original author meant. It's impossible to transmit absolute knowledge through language.

    From a Christian point of view we do. He's alive. I'm referring of course to the one who inspired Scripture, the Holy Spirit :)
    That's an equally bizarre claim. It's not "butchering" the text to claim that it is open to more than one interpretation. To return to the phrase "Time flies like an arrow": I do not butcher it by claiming that the original author meant it one particular way, even if it contradicts what you claim it means.

    Bring up a Biblical argument on this topic and I'll discuss it in depth
    The difference in our stances is that I do not claim it must mean my way, and that all other interpretations are wrong

    I've not been presented with a decent alternative. Textually Scripture as a whole points to one conclusion.

    If you think I'm wrong I'm all ears.


  • #2858
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    philologos wrote: »
    I think if I wished something into James Joyce's Dubliners that was never there or not explicit in the text I would rightfully get given out to :)

    That's not textual criticism, that's nonsense. Textual criticism should deal with what is in the text rather than what's not there at all.

    I would have failed my philosophy exams and dissertation if I used that approach.

    Phil the giving out would depend on what you intended by inserting something into a text. It happens all the time in art and no one blinks an eye, not so much in history but it dose happen as new information comes to light.
    No one suggested not dealing with the text, I'm not sure where you got that.
    Well yes but if you used the same approach to actually do philosophy you would contribute nothing new and fail as a philosopher.


  • #2859
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,046 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    philologos wrote: »
    On no textual basis as of yet. The only thing you've introduced is postmodernism, which is a policy if applied to my philosophy course would result me failing every exam bar maybe anything to do with postmodernism itself, or perhaps not even then :)
    Postmodernism? You wouldn't, by any chance, happen to be interpreting my words and coming up with a meaning that I, as the original author, did not intend?
    philologos wrote: »
    From a Christian point of view we do. He's alive. I'm referring of course to the one who inspired Scripture, the Holy Spirit :)
    Never said He was dead. But we do not have access to Him for literary clarification
    philologos wrote: »
    I've not been presented with a decent alternative. Textually Scripture as a whole points to one conclusion.
    Once again you miss the point. My contention is not that there is undoubtedly a better interpretation out there.

    My objection is to your self-appointed position as the sole arbiter of all Christendom. I have no issue with you holding the positions you hold on the basis of your interpretation of scripture. I do have an issue with you insisting that you are the sole holder of "The Truth", and that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #2860
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    28064212 wrote: »
    Postmodernism? You wouldn't, by any chance, happen to be interpreting my words and coming up with a meaning that I, as the original author, did not intend?

    :)
    Never said He was dead. But we do not have access to Him for literary clarification

    Don't we? :)
    Once again you miss the point. My contention is not that there is undoubtedly a better interpretation out there.

    Thus argument is fruitless unless we assess the merit of the argument. You're essentially saying a few people disagree with me. That's not surprising.
    My objection is to your self-appointed position as the sole arbiter of all Christendom. I have no issue with you holding the positions you hold on the basis of your interpretation of scripture. I do have an issue with you insisting that you are the sole holder of "The Truth", and that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong

    I'm not. All I'm saying is that the Bible says X. I'm more than happy if you want to say the Bible says Y but you need to show me your explanation from Scripture.

    This is my defence against false teaching. There must be sound reason to believe the Bible is saying Y before I can accept it as sound theology.

    So I hold to sola scriptura principles.


  • #2861
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    28064212 wrote: »
    My objection is to your self-appointed position as the sole arbiter of all Christendom. I have no issue with you holding the positions you hold on the basis of your interpretation of scripture. I do have an issue with you insisting that you are the sole holder of "The Truth", and that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong

    What would Jesus say about one of His flock guarding all interpretations of His word so assiduously as to prevent any other analysis apart from that person's being known as His truth?


  • Advertisement
  • #2862
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Considering how seriously Jesus regarded false teaching in the Gospels I think its only right to tread very carefully.


  • #2863
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    philologos wrote: »
    Considering how seriously Jesus regarded false teaching in the Gospels I think its only right to tread very carefully.
    Maybe he could post here and make sure people are treading carefully enough.


  • #2864
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Sorry just in terms of history was there always a history of homophobia in the Christianity or is it something the Church has evolved its opinions on similar to abortion?

    Excuse my ignorance.


  • #2865
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Do you still beat your wife Tim?


  • #2866
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    philologos wrote: »
    Do you still beat your wife Tim?

    Eh... not exactly a constructive comment there.


  • #2867
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    philologos wrote: »
    Do you still beat your wife Tim?
    I've reported this hilariously inappropriate comment. Context, Phil?


  • #2868
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    It was to point out the logical fallcy in Tim's question. The question assumed that Christians are homophobic just as my question assumed that he was beating his wife.

    I don't believe that Tim actually does. Indeed I'd hope not.


  • #2869
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    philologos wrote: »
    It was to point out the logical fallcy in Tim's question. The question assumed that Christians are homophobic just as my question assumed that he was beating his wife.

    I don't believe that Tim actually does. Indeed I'd hope not.
    I think that might be reading something into something someone wrote that isn't there. You're posting about denying gay people the right to marry and/or having those marriages normalised in education settings. How is that comparable in any way to domestic violence? Logic fail. For shame, Phil.


  • #2870
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I'm comparing the logical processes to get there.

    The question are you still beating your wife assumes that Tim is beating his wife when it is likely that he isn't.

    The question have Christians been traditionally homophobic assumes that Christians are and have been when it is entirely possible that they aren't.


  • #2871
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    philologos wrote: »
    I'm comparing the logical processes to get there.

    The question are you still beating your wife assumes that Tim is beating his wife when it us likely that he isn't.

    The question have Christians been traditionally homophobic assumes that Christians are and have been when it is entirely possible that they aren't.
    That makes no sense. Why bring domestic violence into a debate on Christian attitudes to homosexuality when you're constantly pleading with others to stay on the debate at hand. Is this how your saviour expects you to get people to be saved?


  • Advertisement
  • #2872
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,059 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    lazygal wrote: »
    I think that might be reading something into something someone wrote that isn't there. You're posting about denying gay people the right to marry and/or having those marriages normalised in education settings. How is that comparable in any way to domestic violence? Logic fail. For shame, Phil.

    Tim asked a loaded question that presumes Christianity is homophobic, philo responded in kind with the "do you still beat your wife" question. He wasn't comparing marriage equality to domestic violence.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2873
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    koth wrote: »

    Tim asked a loaded question that presumes Christianity is homophobic, philo responded in kind with the "do you still beat your wife" question. He wasn't comparing marriage equality to domestic violence.
    Could he not have stayed on topic, as he's constantly asking others to do?


  • #2874
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    philologos wrote: »
    It was to point out the logical fallcy in Tim's question. The question assumed that Christians are homophobic just as my question assumed that he was beating his wife.

    I don't believe that Tim actually does. Indeed I'd hope not.
    Many people would agree there is a strain of homophobia in Christianity. Even Christians.

    Perhaps you could show me who believes I beat my wife?

    Or perhaps you'd like to answer my question instead of derailing it.


  • #2875
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    lazygal wrote: »
    Could he not have stayed on topic, as he's constantly asking others to do?

    See the wiki page on loaded questions where "When did you stop beating your wife?" is given as the classic example of such a question. There isn't an issue here.


  • #2876
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Many people could agree, but many people aren't necessarily right. This moves me on to the ad populum informal fallacy. It's kind of like an argument from authority that uses numbers instead of reputation as its basis.


  • #2877
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    philologos wrote: »
    Many people could agree, but many people aren't necessarily right. This moves me on to the ad populum informal fallacy. It's kind of like an argument from authority that uses numbers instead of reputation as its basis.
    Oh absolutely. If you have such an issue with how the question was phrased how about I rephrase it to:

    * Is there a history of evolving attitudes to Homosexuality in Christianity (which many people regard as homophobic but we can infer from that they are actually homophobic) similar to the evolving attitudes to the question of when life begins?


  • #2878
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,046 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    philologos wrote: »
    Don't we? :)
    Nope, we don't
    philologos wrote: »
    Thus argument is fruitless unless we assess the merit of the argument. You're essentially saying a few people disagree with me. That's not surprising.
    Not "a few people" phil. Your very particular interpretation is not shared by the vast majority of Christians. And once again, I am not contending that a particular interpretation is more right than another particular interpretation, so asking me to provide a theological argument is not part of the discussion. You might as well ask who's going to win the match tonight, it's about as relevant.

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #2879
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    28064212 wrote: »
    Nope, we don't


    Not "a few people" phil. Your very particular interpretation is not shared by the vast majority of Christians. And once again, I am not contending that a particular interpretation is more right than another particular interpretation, so asking me to provide a theological argument is not part of the discussion. You might as well ask who's going to win the match tonight, it's about as relevant.

    Which interpretation isn't a majority one? I'd hazard a guess that the compromising position would still be in the minority Christian view. Even if it wasn't it's an ad populum fallacy to suggest this as a persuasive argument.

    I've given you a simple proposition. If you genuinely think that I'm mistaken in my understanding I'm more than willing to look into it if you provide an argument from Scripture that suggests I'm wrong.

    Otherwise I can't accept your argument as being a valid one because it doesn't have a sufficient basis.

    I'm genuinely not trying to be snotty. I'm simply telling you that if you want to convince me that I'm wrong you're going to need to show me how.


  • #2880
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,046 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    philologos wrote: »
    Which interpretation isn't a majority one? I'd hazard a guess that the compromising position would still be in the minority Christian view. Even if it wasn't it's an ad populum fallacy to suggest this as a persuasive argument.
    As a whole, your interpretation of scripture is not shared by the majority of Christians i.e. you are unlikely to ever meet a Christian that agrees with every single one of your interpretations

    Which isn't surprising. Pick any two Christians, put them in separate rooms, pick 20 passages with ambiguous meanings and ask them to interpret them. The odds of both Christians having exactly the same interpretation to all passages are astronomically high, due to the nature of interpreting the written word
    philologos wrote: »
    I've given you a simple proposition. If you genuinely think that I'm mistaken in my understanding I'm more than willing to look into it if you provide an argument from Scripture that suggests I'm wrong.
    You are mistaken in your understanding of my argument. I don't think you're wrong to hold your particular interpretation of Scripture. I'm not even saying that your particular interpretation is wrong. I'm saying that it is fundamentally impossible to say that one particular interpretation is definitely the right one.
    philologos wrote: »
    I'm genuinely not trying to be snotty
    Didn't think you were :)

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Advertisement
  • #2881
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    28064212 wrote: »
    As a whole, your interpretation of scripture is not shared by the majority of Christians i.e. you are unlikely to ever meet a Christian that agrees with every single one of your interpretations

    Which isn't surprising. Pick any two Christians, put them in separate rooms, pick 20 passages with ambiguous meanings and ask them to interpret them. The odds of both Christians having exactly the same interpretation to all passages are astronomically high, due to the nature of interpreting the written word


    You are mistaken in your understanding of my argument. I don't think you're wrong to hold your particular interpretation of Scripture. I'm not even saying that your particular interpretation is wrong. I'm saying that it is fundamentally impossible to say that one particular interpretation is definitely the right one.


    Didn't think you were :)

    It's not impossible from reading to see that X is being said rather than Y. If all the text points to a single conclusion I'm going to see it this way unless there is decent basis to view it otherwise.

    In this case there's been no decent counterargument offered. Therefore I'll hold to the traditional Christian position on this issue and any others which aren't challenged sufficiently.

    The passages in question here aren't ambiguous at all. In practice I don't believe that reading Scripture is a subjective / postmodern exercise. In the vast vast majority of cases of reading it with other Christians from varying denominations I've reached the sane conclusion. Even when I've read it one to one with skeptics I would say also.

    It's not impossible. You read what it says you look to what evidence we have in the passage for coming to one conclusion rather than another.


Advertisement