Homosexuality

[Sammy-San]

Context is everything.

Girls say girlfriend for a friend but this rarely happens with guys. Girlfriend or boyfriend are rarely used platonically except for girlfriend with women

 

[Sammy-San]

Context is everything.

What else could it mean. The nuance is different but the concept is the same. A dating partner is a girlfriend or boyfriend because there is potential future consummation

 

[Paidiske]

What else could it mean. The nuance is different but the concept is the same. A dating partner is a girlfriend or boyfriend because there is potential future consummation

Actually the platonic sense is much older. I suspect that it was co-opted for romantic relationships as dating became more common (rather than, say, arranged marriages).

 

[Sammy-San]

Context is everything.

So if two opposite sex best friends held hands they would be boyfriend and girlfriend? People hold hands platonically in other cultures with friends but it would be wierd if they used the term boyfriend and girlfriend. Those terms imply more like a friend than a lover and a relationship with a connection to sexuality but not the intention of using the other person for sex. Girlfriend and boyfriend means like a friend.

 

[Sammy-San]

Well, there are two separate issues there. One is being "visual" in the sense of being particularly responsive to visual stimuli (which is what I was questioning). The other is "viewing" someone as an object, which has nothing to do with your response to stimuli, but more to do with mental habits and attitudes.

I'm not sure either of those relate neatly to levels of homophobia.

Women don't objectify gay men like men in Hollywood objectify gay women.

 

[Paidiske]

So if two opposite sex best friends held hands they would be boyfriend and girlfriend?

Maybe, if they chose to use those terms. I honestly don't think it matters.

 

[Paidiske]

Women don't objectify gay men like men in Hollywood objectify gay women.

Ahh... how much do you want that bubble of naivete popped?

 

[Sammy-San]

Ahh... how much do you want that bubble of naivete popped?

The movies show that men objectify women it's a sad reality of Hollywood promoting degeneracy.

 

[Sammy-San]

Maybe, if they chose to use those terms. I honestly don't think it matters.

It sounds like a wierd term. Why mention the gender of a friend or say that they are like a friend

 

[Paidiske]

The movies show that men objectify women it's a sad reality of Hollywood promoting degeneracy.

Movies tend to be made for male audiences, so they tend to objectify women more than men. But outside Hollywood, women are very capable of objectifying men also.

 

[Sammy-San]

Movies tend to be made for male audiences, so they tend to objectify women more than men. But outside Hollywood, women are very capable of objectifying men also.

Women with similar behaviors as womanizers are looked down upon.

 

[Paidiske]

Women with similar behaviors as womanizers are looked down upon.

Well, I don't know that we need to look down on anyone, here. But we can recognise that some attitudes and behaviours are wiser than others.

 

[Sammy-San]

Well, I don't know that we need to look down on anyone, here. But we can recognise that some attitudes and behaviours are wiser than others.

In the same way I wasn't condeming gay people but I don't think it is right.

 

[GDL]

Nothing in Scripture establishes that "God's image is masculine." It is very dangerous to ascribe maleness/masculinity to God, as if we can project our human characteristics onto the deity; or as if we can think that some human beings are somehow more like God than others

Your bold highlight is a little disconcerting. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your reason for using it.

God is Spirit. So I'm with you there. And in His image He created them male & the female, so we're still good, I think. But then we have the Father, the Son, the first Adam & the second Adam as heads of the races, the man Jesus Christ having all authority in Heaven & on earth, the inherent male authority heirarchy, and so on.

Human beings can make anything dangerous. But I don't think the portrayal of God as Father, or the masculinity of Jesus Christ, or God's established heirarchy is without reason, or should be viewed as dangerous.

 

[Paidiske]

But then we have the Father, the Son, the first Adam & the second Adam as heads of the races, the man Jesus Christ having all authority in Heaven & on earth, the inherent male authority heirarchy, and so on.

Human beings can make anything dangerous. But I don't think the portrayal of God as Father, or the masculinity of Jesus Christ, or God's established heirarchy is without reason, or should be viewed as dangerous.

If you are suggesting that God established patriarchy or a hierarchy which places mortal men over women, then I would disagree, and given the damage wrought by patriarchy, suggest that that is exactly one of the reasons why such an idea of God is dangerous.

 

[GDL]

If you are suggesting that God established patriarchy or a hierarchy which places mortal men over women, then I would disagree, and given the damage wrought by patriarchy, suggest that that is exactly one of the reasons why such an idea of God is dangerous.

This is what I thought your bold text meant, but I thought it appropriate to ask.

The points I used are the Biblical reality from our Text, not my suggestion. What humanity does with it in sin is a problem, to be sure. Nevertheless, God portrays and establishes what He will for His purposes.

 

[Paidiske]

The points I used are the Biblical reality from our Text, not my suggestion.

That is highly debatable (although also off-topic to this thread).

 

[GDL]

That is highly debatable (although also off-topic to this thread).

Everything's highly debated, but once you deal realistically from our Text, nothing I've said is highly debatable.

 

[Paidiske]

Everything's highly debated, but once you deal realistically from our Text, nothing I've said is highly debatable.

If you're arguing for patriarchy/male-female hierarchy, yes, it certainly is highly debatable. But again, off topic to this thread.

And since I really am not keen to go through all of that yet again in a new thread, may I direct you to the many, many threads where this has been done to death? You could get a good head start on the landscape of interactions here in this thread: The World Needs Women Priests

 

[GDL]

If you're arguing for patriarchy/male-female hierarchy, yes, it certainly is highly debatable. But again, off topic to this thread.

And since I really am not keen to go through all of that yet again in a new thread, may I direct you to the many, many threads where this has been done to death? You could get a good head start on the landscape of interactions here in this thread: The World Needs Women Priests

You can assert your thinking as much as you want. So can I. Nothing I've said is highly debatable per the Bible. The topic of this thread is homosexuality & leadership, which is within the context of what I think we're discussing.

I'll pass on your head start suggestion, but thank you for the link. If you'd like to focus more directly on homosexuality & leadership in the Ekklesia of Jesus Christ, fine. I already know you don't like the fact that God is portrayed as a Father & Jesus walked the earth as a man in a Jewish culture that had Law against homosexual sin. Is this why you want to redirect me - because I study His Word and believe it instructs us how to think and live according to His will?