Could We Discuss The Podcast In My Post After Listening With Open Minds?

[USU78]

This is not a valid response to what Boswell states.

Here's what he wrote:

The persons Paul condemns are manifestly not homosexual: what he derogates are homosexual acts committed by apparently heterosexual persons….It is not clear that Paul distinguished in his thoughts or writings between gay persons (in the sense of permanent sexual preference) and heterosexuals who simply engaged in periodic homosexual behavior. It is in fact unlikely that many Jews of his day recognized such a distinction, but it is quite apparent that–whether or not he was aware of their existence–Paul did not discuss gay persons but only homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons…

Nowhere does he show that folks of Saul/Paul's day would have understood what h3ll you and are I talking about. Nor can he. People did things. Or they did not. It remains true today, but the taxonomy that preceded the delisting prevents our thinking clearly about such things.

Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman

is remarkably unambiguous. Those were Saul/Paul's and his contemporaries' in the Levant scriptures and moral guidewords.

This is a silly argument the zoobie nutjob put forward.

[CASteinman]

What did I say about the Bible being conflated with a history textbook? Perhaps I should extend it to all scripture. What I also find odd is that you would cite scripture that is not accepted by the LDS church.

Oh... so one more time you insist on limiting references. You are not permitted to do that. DESPITE your failure the fact remains... NONE of the documents and sources cited support his views. NOT ONE.

They are the EXACTLY the documents and sources that I was referring to. You are being disingenuous to first of all ask me to prove a negative and then when I do my best to claim that the very documents and sources I was referring to originally cannot be used to support the fact that they exist.

Here is in essence what has happened:

Person A: Joshua in leading the Israelites obviously used a cell phone and a framus to swallow the sun and defeat the town of Jericho.

Person B: "Person A says that Joshua had a cell phone"

Person C: "Person A has long been known to make things up. There are no historical documents or sources that support his ridiculous claim that Joshua had a cell phone".

Person B: Prove that there are no documents that support this ridiculous claim.

Person C: As proof I present every document every available written contemporary with Joshua or even contemporary within 2000 years. None of them contain any support that Joshua had a cell phone.

Person B: You are not allowed to use contemporary or even close to contemporary documents. You cannot possibly have meant them anyway. Even though you did use the word "historical". I hereby declare your argument invalid because you insist on using the very historical documents you claimed to use ... and I just don't like that.

Its hypocritical.

Edited August 15, 2012 by CASteinman

[wenglund]

I guess if you say so...

I am not going off my say so. I am going off the conventions of critical thought--specifically the principle of "warrant" I mentioned earlier. In other words, I am countering your say-so with evidence and reason.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CASteinman]

I have long felt like I am "different" even as an adult--though not in terms of sexual attraction.

When I was young, I thought I was just like everyone else and that my whole view constituted right and valid. As I get older, I increasingly believe I am different but still.. my views are right and valid.

Edited August 15, 2012 by CASteinman

[Tacenda]

I have long felt like I am "different" even as an adult--though not in terms of sexual attraction.

I am not sure how odd it was, but I had no idea about sexual attraction until late in junior high, and even then it wasn't very pronounced. Before then my primary social attraction was more in relation to whether a person liked to do the same things I did--play baseball, ride bikes, dig dirt forts, shoot toy guns, etc. Since girls that age by and large weren't into those kinds of things, they weren't attractive to me, and I even considered them as though they were from another planet--one with cooties. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm so glad you finally admitted you're different!

[Damien the Leper]

Here's what he wrote:

Nowhere does he show that folks of Saul/Paul's day would have understood what h3ll you and are I talking about. Nor can he. People did things. Or they did not. It remains true today, but the taxonomy that preceded the delisting prevents our thinking clearly about such things.

But this doesn't discount any knowledge that the communities you speak of had no knowledge of sexual orientation. To assume such would be to overstate one's case.

It would be wrong to allude that based on the position you defend that all persons are born straight or without any sexual orientation have the natural inclination to participate in homosexual activity. In fact, it is absolutely ridiculous.

is remarkably unambiguous. Those were Saul/Paul's and his contemporaries' in the Levant scriptures and moral guidewords.

This is a silly argument the zoobie nutjob put forward.

Maybe you should read that scripture you cite with the genders explicitly in mind and not assume something that is clearly not implied.

Perhaps you should also refrain from insults against the author.

[USU78]

Perhaps you should also refrain from insults against the author.

I'm insulting the institution he works far more than I'm insulting him: And I'm insulting his silly presentist argument more than I'm insulting yBu.

[Damien the Leper]

I am not going off my say so. I am going off the conventions of critical thought--specifically the principle of "warrant" I mentioned earlier. In other words, I am countering your say-so with evidence and reason.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Umm...I've addressed your 'critical thought' ideas and methods before and then you banned me from the thread, I assume, for insulting your defunct 'think tank' that was an epic failure. Beyond this...lets not discuss your definition of 'critical thinking'.

[Damien the Leper]

I'm insulting the institution he works far more than I'm insulting him: And I'm insulting his silly presentist argument more than I'm insulting yBu.

I didn't know that such a university such as Yale warranted insults. Then again, a university's accreditation and reputation means nothing if one does not agree with certain ideas and positions that are coming out of it. Such silliness!

I also did not accuse you of insulting me. I was talking about Boswell.

[Damien the Leper]

When I was young, I thought I was just like everyone else and that my whole view constituted right and valid. As I get older, I increasingly believe I am different but still.. my views are right and valid.

And I respect such an opinion.

[Damien the Leper]

Oh... so one more time you insist on limiting references. You are not permitted to do that. DESPITE your failure the fact remains... NONE of the documents and sources cited support his views. NOT ONE.

They are the EXACTLY the documents and sources that I was referring to. You are being disingenuous to first of all ask me to prove a negative and then when I do my best to claim that the very documents and sources I was referring to originally cannot be used to support the fact that they exist.

Here is in essence what has happened:

Person A: Joshua in leading the Israelites obviously used a cell phone and a framus to swallow the sun and defeat the town of Jericho.

Person B: "Person A says that Joshua had a cell phone"

Person C: "Person A has long been known to make things up. There are no historical documents or sources that support his ridiculous claim that Joshua had a cell phone".

Person B: Prove that there are no documents that support this ridiculous claim.

Person C: As proof I present every document every available written contemporary with Joshua or even contemporary within 2000 years. None of them contain any support that Joshua had a cell phone.

Person B: You are not allowed to use contemporary or even close to contemporary documents. You cannot possibly have meant them anyway. Even though you did use the word "historical". I hereby declare your argument invalid because you insist on using the very historical documents you claimed to use ... and I just don't like that.

Its hypocritical.

You are citing historical artificats as sources for your arguments. You are NOT citing actual historical record as the source of your arguments.

Are you or are you not LDS? It is perplexing to me that your method of apologetics in this matter involves using sources that YOUR religion and church do NOT recognize as authoritative scripture with the exception of the canonical Bible.

If you are unable to present an appropriate argument with the realm of your LDSism to support your LDS perspective then simply say so.

Example: It would absolutely 100% illogical for me to cite Gnostic tractates and treatises as a means to defend any of LDS theology BECAUSE those writings are not recognized by the LDS church as authoritative.

I suppose that I am being unreasonable for you 1) use authoritative LDS resources and 2) historical resources and not artifacts to sustain your argument.

Sincere apologies for asking too much of an LDS person.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Valentinus

[CASteinman]

And I respect such an opinion.

Well, that's just your opinion.

[CASteinman]

You are citing historical artificats as sources for your arguments.

Well DUH! My argument was that there were no historical sources that support his statement. It is his imagination.

You are NOT citing actual historical record as the source of your arguments.

The Bible is an actual historical record. You may dispute its accuracy -- as with ANY historical record, but it is an actual historical record.

Are you or are you not LDS? It is perplexing to me that your method of apologetics in this matter involves using sources that YOUR religion and church do NOT recognize as authoritative scripture with the exception of the canonical Bible.

I don't consider this apologetics. And the issue was not anything about Mormonism. It was the unsupportable ramblings of a professor.

If you are unable to present an appropriate argument with the realm of your LDSism to support your LDS perspective then simply say so.

No problem... when that happens, I will simply say so.

[USU78]

I'm not and I believe you are incorrect about Paul. Here is why:

Let me get out of jokester mode and get serious about him.

His work has been pretty thoroughly trashed by folks who ought to know:

http://roadsfromemmaus.org/2012/05/11/church-history-and-same-sex-marriage/

You'll note the list of links to articles addressing various, outrageous claims both by Boswell and others in the continuing fight against religions and for the homophile political agenda.

Here's a snippet from one of them:

In sum, Boswell and his book have had quite a run. Among his fellow historians, however, Boswell has not fared so well. The scholarly judgment of his argument has ranged from the sharply critical to the dismissive to the devastating. But reviews in scholarly journals typically appear two or three years after a book is published. By that time the Boswell book had already established itself in many quarters as the definitive word on Christianity and homosexuality. In the draft statement on sexuality issued late last year by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), for instance, Boswell’s interpretation of New Testament texts on homosexuality is uncritically accepted.

So . . . Boswell, for political purposes, it seems, is willing to tell the "Big Lie" in support thereof.

Not someone on whose historical judgment I would choose to pin my own political hopes.

[Damien the Leper]

Well DUH! My argument was that there were no historical sources that support his statement. It is his imagination.

Perhaps you should sit down and talk with him about his imagination rather than diagnosing an ill concluded delusion.

The Bible is an actual historical record. You may dispute its accuracy -- as with ANY historical record, but it is an actual historical record.

Can I get a textual criticism professional in here? Have you read any of Raymond Brown, Bruce Metzger, or Bart Ehrman's work?

I don't consider this apologetics. And the issue was not anything about Mormonism. It was the unsupportable ramblings of a professor.

YOU cited non LDS writings to support your position as an LDS person. The issue isn't Mormonism. The issue is what you propose.

Perhaps you would also be so kind as to provide a SOURCE for the professors unsupportable ramblings that are NOT simply your opinion.

[TAO]

What is apparent is that no one on this board has been able to appropriately apply the second example from Wiki. If this is what you are attempting to apply then you have failed.

Valentinus, I don't actually believe my argument was a slippery slope. What happened was somebody said 'You don't know this will happen.' To counter it, we said, 'Their community has told us one thing before, and done another thing. We do not trust them now, when they say one thing (because they could do the other thing).' That is a valid argument, I believe.

[TAO]

Perhaps you should sit down and talk with him about his imagination rather than diagnosing an ill concluded delusion.

I think what CASteinman is saying is that his conclusion is unfounded. That is, it could be possible, but it doesn't need to be possible. That is, it is totally possible and logically valid to come up with the opposite conclusion compared to the professor's. Because of that, he is critiquing the professor for citing it as fact, when it was a matter of opinion (because the alternative conclusion is very obvious).

[Calm]

Could it be where the gays are transexuals in some cases but haven't made the leap to change physically? I'm sure many have noticed that gay couples usually wear clothing and hairstyles to differentiate the two. In your opinions do you give gays the benefit of the doubt in this situation? Or the benefit of doubt that this particular situation is inborn?

Most of those who are attracted to the same gender also have typically strong gender identification (if they are male, they see themselves as male; if female, female), IIRC the studies correctly.

I don't know what you mean by "benefit of the doubt in this situation".

Edited August 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[Damien the Leper]

Let me get out of jokester mode and get serious about him.

His work has been pretty thoroughly trashed by folks who ought to know:

http://roadsfromemma...e-sex-marriage/

You'll note the list of links to articles addressing various, outrageous claims both by Boswell and others in the continuing fight against religions and for the homophile political agenda.

Here's a snippet from one of them:

So . . . Boswell, for political purposes, it seems, is willing to tell the "Big Lie" in support thereof.

Not someone on whose historical judgment I would choose to pin my own political hopes.

Interesting. Given the sources for the arguments against Boswell that these authors share...there seems to be much more than their disagreement with him that they have in common.

[Damien the Leper]

I think what CASteinman is saying is that his conclusion is unfounded. That is, it could be possible, but it doesn't need to be possible. That is, it is totally possible and logically valid to come up with the opposite conclusion compared to the professor's. Because of that, he is critiquing the professor for citing it as fact, when it was a matter of opinion (because the alternative conclusion is very obvious).

Then perhaps someone can bring forth a non-scriptural and unbiased work concerning a history of homosexuality. This could be a much more authoritative work.

Maybe I just found my dissertation...probably not.

[Damien the Leper]

Valentinus, I don't actually believe my argument was a slippery slope. What happened was somebody said 'You don't know this will happen.' To counter it, we said, 'Their community has told us one thing before, and done another thing. We do not trust them now, when they say one thing (because they could do the other thing).' That is a valid argument, I believe.

This I agree with. How Wade interpreted your argument is what I don't agree with. You have in no way provided a valid slippery slope argument. But you have provided an appropriate and logic based argument.

[TAO]

Then perhaps someone can bring forth a non-scriptural and unbiased work concerning a history of homosexuality. This could be a much more authoritative work.

Maybe I just found my dissertation...probably not.

Well, my question would be, why does he need to? Let us look at one of the verses in question:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Boswell interprets that to mean heterosexual men shouldn't act like homosexual men.

I interpret that to mean that no men should perform homosexual acts.

Can you see how both interpretations can fit? Which would you judge to be more likely to be correct, and why?

I suppose a book could be found, but, I mean, sources will just be sources, and I think that doesn't get past the ultimate point of things; an interpretation needs to be decided upon for this conversation.

Edited August 15, 2012 by TAO

[USU78]

Interesting. Given the sources for the arguments against Boswell that these authors share...there seems to be much more than their disagreement with him that they have in common.

You are unwilling/unable to address the presentism in his, therefore your, argument re Saul/Paul?

I question where you stopped reading in the article I excerpted . . . where he points out that "homosexual" as a genus was invented in the late XIXth Century, and that, prior to that taxonomic choice, people either did things or they did not: we did not tend to define them as a subgroup of a society based upon a shared behavior-based syndrome.

Which was my initial response to what you said.

Silly presentism thoroughly debunked.

[Tacenda]

Most of those who are attracted to the same gender also have typically strong gender identification (if they are male, they see themselves as male; if female, female), IIRC the studies correctly.

I don't know what you mean by "benefit of the doubt in this situation".

Allow that their being gay is ok if they are transexual and they have biological evidence to prove this and decide to have a sex change instead of living the gay lifestyle, say if they are male and want another male but only because they feel that they were born the wrong gender and should be a female. Does that make sense?

[TAO]

This I agree with. How Wade interpreted your argument is what I don't agree with. You have in no way provided a valid slippery slope argument. But you have provided an appropriate and logic based argument.

Of course, I hope you aren't too offended by the statement. By them, I was referring to the... more... 'active' persay side of the community, if you know what I mean.