When does Renaissance sculpture become "pornography"? Discuss!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That "context" didn't change anything.

You posited the notion that the NT couldn't have been referring to homosexuality because that term did not exist back then

Face it...

Buffoonery.gif

And your excuse making is just making it worse.

That you have difficulties comprehending what has been written is not only my opinion!

[rogue06]

To paraphrase Uhtred context is all.

That "context" didn't change anything.

You posited the notion that the NT couldn't have been referring to homosexuality because that term did not exist back then

Face it...

Buffoonery.gif

And your excuse making is just making it worse.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Returning to the topic of this thread, my copy of Private Eye arrived today and one of the cartoons in this latest edition was captioned

Michelangelo's David (adjusted for Florida's censors)

The cartoon had the sculpture holding a very large firearm over the appropriate parts of his anatomy.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

[NT][/CENTER]

To paraphrase Uhtred context is all.

My comment that you have quoted was in response to this:

uh no. Homosexuality is condemned in multiple places in the NT also, and it falls under "sexual immorality" not "ritual purity" - it is a moral code.

Homosexuality cannot be "condemned in multiple places in the NT" as the term was not coined until the nineteenth century [and by yet another German]! Paul's views on prostitution and what he considered to be sexual immorality are more complex.

Sparko got himself into further confusion when he wrote this.

no. Just because the word abomination is used in both cases doesn't mean that both are "ritual purity" - that's one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard. Abomination means something that causes disgust. God can be disgusted by something immoral or impure. And a sexual act is a moral act. It falls under sexual morality/immorality.

However, we know that same sex relationships existed and that in the Hebrew text of Leviticus and from the hand of a priestly author they are condemned. Whether that author was reflecting the entirety of ancient Israelite culture or his own particular view is of course entirely unknown. Certainly there are far more textual injunctions and prohibitions dealing with dietary codes and the correct slaughter of animals than there are on that particular topic.

[rogue06]

Given the repeated issues you demonstrate with regard to your failing memory, you will need to provide my exact quote.

Homosexuality cannot be "condemned in multiple places in the NT" as the term was not coined until the nineteenth century [and by yet another German]! Paul's views on prostitution and what he considered to be sexual immorality are more complex.

p16630coll24211-409.jpeg
What can I say? I suck at photoshopping.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You claimed that the Bible's prohibition of it doesn't count because the word homosexual didn't exist until the 19th century.

Given the repeated issues you demonstrate with regard to your failing memory, you will need to provide my exact quote.

[rogue06]

Except that when it comes to misusing the plural [phenomena] for the singular [phenomenon] you regularly make the mistake.

The exception being that I never have stated homosexuality did not exist until a term was coined for the practice.

So once again you display your tendency towards being mendacious and caricaturing what other people write.

You claimed that the Bible's prohibition of it doesn't count because the word homosexual didn't exist until the 19th century.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You know, I'd much rather be guilty of a typo

Except that when it comes to misusing the plural [phenomena] for the singular [phenomenon] you regularly make the mistake.

than to foolishly assert that something didn't exist until someone coined the current popular term for it.

The exception being that I never have stated homosexuality did not exist until a term was coined for the practice.

So once again you display your tendency towards being mendacious and caricaturing what other people write.

[rogue06]

Perhaps one should also consider that proscriptions do not need to be placed on activities in which no one is engaging.

Reminiscent of the claims about grooming and CRT in schools


Conservative: We want to ban grooming and CRT in schools.

Liberal: [sneering] That's just stupid because it doesn't exist.

Conservative: Then you should have no trouble with it being banned, right?

Liberal: [Absolutely loses it, screeching that they want to censor teachers]

[rogue06]

I do know the difference between a phenomenon and several phenomena. Which is more than you do.

You know, I'd much rather be guilty of a typo than to foolishly assert that something didn't exist until someone coined the current popular term for it.

[rogue06]

Your last two posts, both within about a minute!
And I don't do homework for you, rogue.

A. Your claim was

Yep! And sometimes a volley of posts in reply to a single post.

Those were replies to two different posts. IOW, you failed to provide an example. Is anyone surprised?

2) You, as is often your wont, are confused. You made the accusation. It is hardly up to me to "back it up." That would be the very definition of doing someone else's "homework."

Fail better -- if its possible.

[tabibito]

Perhaps one should also consider that proscriptions do not need to be placed on activities in which no one is engaging.

Paul did comment that the law is not needed for the purpose of controlling good people.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

For the purposes of fast growth and strength, together with protection from spreading sicknesses, the Old laws required closed heterosexual couples having as many children as possible....new couples even got a year off duties so that they could enjoy each other. And therefore there was no place for homosexuality.

But you don't take much notice of the old laws, true? You just have your ten commandments?
And today with a world overflowing with people and some advances in medicine I can't see any reason for criticizing gay couples.

Perhaps one should also consider that proscriptions do not need to be placed on activities in which no one is engaging.

[eider]

Her argument is reminiscent of the one where she argued that homosexuals didn't exist before Benkert coined the word in the 19th cent.

ETA: More accurately, her position was that the Bible never condemned homosexuality because that specific term wasn't coined until the 19th century

For the purposes of fast growth and strength, together with protection from spreading sicknesses, the Old laws required closed heterosexual couples having as many children as possible....new couples even got a year off duties so that they could enjoy each other. And therefore there was no place for homosexuality.

But you don't take much notice of the old laws, true? You just have your ten commandments?
And today with a world overflowing with people and some advances in medicine I can't see any reason for criticizing gay couples.

[eider]

Provide a single example of one of those volleys.

Your last two posts, both within about a minute!
And I don't do homework for you, rogue.

I am STILL WAITING for you to actually write down and show the age which you think children should receive lessons in sex and sexuality. Your bumbling anecdote about a conversation with a young relative did not address this question.

Now I've tried to help you by pointing out that even 10yr olds can begin menstruation and so I think that lessons should commence before this age for all children. I remember the trauma that my sister experienced at a very young age ...she thought she was dying! So what will it be?