Biblical Pronouncements on Homosexuality and Related Topics

[Primula Baggins]

The lack of a pink, sparkly unicorn avatar, maybe?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Mith, I've always thought you were a woman (but then, many people have thought that I was, too).

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

No, I didn't think you were a guy necessarily either, Mith. I was never sure what gender the name MithLuin was-- those damned confusing tolkien name! If it ever came up at TORC and not in Manwë, I'd never have known. Even if it did come up in Manwë, there is a good chance I've forgotten by now anyway. I don't have a very good memory.

[vison]

Just a tiny note: biblical "adultery" means sex outside marriage, and nothing else. We have come to think it means married people having sex with people they're not married to, but the original "biblical" meaning is very simple: sex between two people who are not married to each other.

Interesting discussion, as usual.

And, the usual suspects.

halplm, you are getting wiser every day.

[axordil]

(I thought Kelannar was a girl for awhile

No, just a...ah, never mind, too easy, and that scar has pretty much healed.

[halplm]

Just a tiny note: biblical "adultery" means sex outside marriage, and nothing else. We have come to think it means married people having sex with people they're not married to, but the original "biblical" meaning is very simple: sex between two people who are not married to each other.

see, I knew I wasn't crazy... this is what I thought at first too... but then nel got me all confused

(and thanks )

[nerdanel]

Gah, not again!! If I ever create another screen name it is going to be "Finrod Lover" or "Frodo's Girl" or "Daughter of <whatever>" or something else blatantly obvious.... Yes, it is my fault for picking a name that just means "grey-blue" and has no gender associated with it.

Heh - for some reason, everyone on TORC thought I was a guy, and that kept happening right on into b77 (I featured in a Lidless parody as a male at one point ). I have no idea what makes people assume one gender or another, but it seems to be context-dependent. I'm not a gamer, but I'm told that female gamers are often assumed to be male. On the other hand, in fan[dom/dumb]s of various sorts, the default assumption is female. In my limited experience, the default assumption in Tolkienland seems to be, "Male until proven otherwise," but I'm not sure.

Since this is the gay thread , I feel duty bound to remind you that "Finrod lover" could well be a guy. I would suggest changing your name to Female Daughter of Someone (XX), putting a picture of yourself in your avatar wearing a sparkly princess tiara and with pink manicured nails, noting somewhere in your profile that your favorite movie is Legally Blonde, and noting in your signature that you are "really, really, really not a guy." Even then, someone, somewhere, is going to show up and say, "Wait, the poster formerly known as MithLuin is female?" But at least then, you'll have given them fair warning.

Di - Thanks.

Jewel - thank you so much for sharing your story about your friend. It's not the first time I've seen or heard of that happening, but it's good to know that many people all over the place are having that very experience.

Cerin - sorry for repeating myself This thread stirred up a lot of feelings that are arising in RL for a multiplicity of reasons. So I probably revisited a lot of stuff from May in my post yesterday. My bad. Also...if you have an opinion, I see no reason for you not to offer it. I have to admit, honestly, that Ang's approach on this one makes a lot of sense to me in the Christian context. But I don't think I'd be able to follow it myself if I was Christian.

However, I think it is legitimate for those to whom an issue is more relevant (and who thus have confronted and answered concrete questions in our own lives) to point out when others are playing in the realm of mere philosophical theory. Indeed, I refer you to your own comment to a male poster who was expressing a moral pronouncement on abortion:

Then you'll understand just how I feel when men deign to make moral pronouncements about something not a single one of them will ever have to face...I know that you never have and never will face the realization that you are pregnant.

Substitute "heterosexuals" for "men" and "gay" for "pregnant." Thus, by virtue of your previous comment on abortion, I am certain that you can understand how it might appear to (some) gay or lesbian, or even bisexual, posters (and I do clarify "some" because I suspect otherwise yov will be here to disagree with me ) to hear heterosexual posters opine on the morality of a decision that they will never have to face - whether to enter into a meaningful, complete relationship (i.e. including sexual intimacy) with their loved one, or instead to remain celibate on a theory of sexual morality that proscribes non-heterosexual and/or non-married intimacy. This doesn't mean that heterosexual posters shouldn't comment, any more than men should abstain from an abortion discussion - but that heterosexuals should be mindful that this discussion has an attenuated connection to their lives, relative to GLB individuals. Of course, as hal points out, it CAN be relevant to heterosexuals' lives because of their friends and family - just as abortion can be very, very relevant to men if their sexual partner or significant other is deciding whether to abort. Still, the connection is not as immediate, and in making (your words) "moral pronouncements," it is always appreciated when those speaking in the realm of the theoretical understand that that is the most they can do, and that they may sound presumptuous in doing even that much.

And although I told hal off the boards yesterday, I have to say it again - thank you. I was so touched by what you wrote that I cannot come up with a response. And you know that's rare for me.

[Cerin]

nel, I didn't mean that you were being repetitious, but rather, that I had again (as it seems I have often done) occasioned the necessity of you explaining your feelings on this issue. I thank you very much for doing so. (I see now how clumsily I worded that.)

Yes, that is a very good point you make, and one that I hope I will always be mindful of hereafter in discussions of this sort.

[Lidless]

Mith outed herself in her second ever post on TORC.

http://forums.theonering.com/viewtopic.php?p=2436#2436

oh, umm, hmmm...I am the older sister who hordes her Tolkien books.

[Jnyusa]

We have come to think it means married people having sex with people they're not married to

I hate to be like the teacher's assistant whose job it is to circle the spelling mistakes, but ... when "adultery" is mentioned in the Old Testament it means sex between a married person and someone other than their spouse. It does not mean pre-marital sex.

Pre-marital sex is not listed among the relationships you may not have, nor is pedophilia.

This goes back to the question of what the Bible is really talking about when it circumscribes all those various sexual relationships, since every one of them has something to do with adherence of property to the tribe, that is, the consequences of sex outside marital relationships allowed by the tribe; whereas major sex stuff that you would expect to find in a codex about sex is just not there.

nel, I have enjoyed your posts in this thread very much. You have succeeded to define certain things much more clearly for my understanding, as I think that the observations you've made extend far beyond views about homosexuality.

Windy, I very much enjoy hearing to explain how choice enters into our interpretations of the Bible. As a Jew this has always been obvious to me because our sacred duty is not only to follow the Bible but to interpret it for our time. It is explicit within Jewish theology that there are many Torahs within the Torah and our role is to keep moving closer to the the true Torah which is ever masked by our own limitations. It is also explicit in Talmudic Judaism that how the 613 halacha are to be practiced is given to us as a consensus of the wise, and not the pronouncement of God ... this does not make our failings less of a disobediance but it avoids our thinking that we speak for God. We speak for ourselves and for the consensus of our leaders and nothing more. Where God's will is concerned we remain on the path looking forwards, not standing at the destination looking backwards, you know?

This is the thing I find hardest of all to understand about Christianity, that it believes something has been 'completed.' That there is already an end result. I do not know if it would be possible to believe in a redemption provided by Jesus without interpreting it as an "end" of some sort, but as long as Christianity places that fulcrum in the middle of history, Jews and Christians will be philosophical opposites and will never really understand one another.

Jn

[MithLuin]

Well, it is possible that no matter what, Jews and Christians can never understand one another....

But yes, the Christian view of history does have that pivot point - Jesus' life was the event. But similar to Judaism, the Church must interpret the Bible for the current times. So, Christians do have some sympathy to the view you have described.

OT: Yes, I certainly have mentioned it occasionaly, Lidless. I've even occasionally posted links to pictures of me over the years. Apparently, I don't make it obvious, though - I've never had a sig, sig pic, or avatar or anything like that. But that wasn't my 2nd ever post on TORc . I'd been there since the previous October when I wrote that. Though, now that I think of it, that must have been on the old board...so I wonder how it ended up in the current Talk? Strange... And nel... I thought you might catch that (about Finrod Lover) , but since I've had occasion to post this same rant 3 or 4 times in the past month, I thought I'd leave it unchanged. I like my name - it's the only one I've ever used online, and I'm not going to change it. But I am starting to realize it needs to come with a disclaimer . And no...I really don't expect people to remember casual details mentioned in passing years ago...I just....I dunno.

[Lidless]

I was wondering about why you chose a name that from Elvish translates as 'grey-blue'.

[MithLuin]

*profuse apologies to yov for derailing this thread*

Actually, I don't even know who's thread this is, oops....

But I'm fairly certain this is completely off topic.

When I wanted to pick an IM name, I wanted one without numbers. Many of the obvious Tolkien names (and even obscure ones) were taken, as were my favorite Spanish words. So, I decided to coin my own, using my rather limited Sindarin vocabulary. My favorite color was green; my boyfriend's (or was it my mother's and sister's?) was blue. But LegoLuin sounded silly . So, I went with MithLuin, 'grey-blue.' This was back in '98 or '99; I've used it as my name online ever since.
The only "meaning" to it is that I have blue eyes, while all the cool characters in Tolkien's books have grey eyes.

And now that is enough on my ambigous online identity!

<Apologies to everyone for derailing the thread!

[vison]

Jnyusa, I stand corrected.

Well, actually, I sit corrected.

Only, I've seen it defined as I defined it: sex between two people not married to each other. I recall reading that pre-marital sex was called adultery, in some place or another. Can't remember where, though.

[Lidless]

Continuing the osgiliation...

Actually anyone who knows elvish should know you're a chick. Come to Florida - the Gray Havens of the Seventh Age, where those weary of life come to the Uttermost West...er...East (damn me being a Brit).

Though having been to bridge clubs here and witnessed the female hair styles, it should be called the Blue Gray Havens.

And how did we know LOTR was over? Elvish has left the building.