Cultural Separation from Parents

[Ken]

This is what we might call reading our own modern biases and ideological priors back onto history

The only point I'm making is that people who have not fit in the male/female binary have always existed and that some cultures recognized their existence.

Reading the modern nuclear heterosexual family as the universal historical norm is also reading our own modern biases and ideological priors back into history.

Seriously? Perhaps true in the sense that the nuclear family vs extended family is a more modern concept, but for a supposed Christian to try to lump "heterosexual" in there, in a discussion like this, seems to be making a mockery of Jesus' words about God's plan for family.

And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Szdfan is correct. The Biblical family as depicted in the Old Testament is nothing like one man and one woman in partnership to raise children as we understand the nuclear family in the modern world.

It was a highly patriarchal society in which male patriarchs exerted authority over a large extended family clan including people like adult sisters, widowed sister-in-laws, adult daughters, mothers, etc. And a society that practiced things like honor killings of women in the greater extended family who offended the "honor" of the male patriarch. It was also a society in which polygamy was the norm for such patriarchs, especially wealthy and powerful ones and a world in which male patriarchs took sex slaves and concubines as well as multiple wives.

By the New Testament, this sort of tribal patriarchal society was in retreat but that was largely the result of 100 years of Roman Rule and the imposition of Roman law and traditions of monogamy. Paul was a Roman citizen born and raised in Tarsus which is in the center of Modern day Turkey a long way from the Biblical holy land.

I happen to believe that a two parent nuclear family is probably the best way to raise children in the modern world. It is tough enough to do with a spouse, I can't imagine doing it alone. But I recognize it is largely a modern invention made possible by the fact that we live in an unimaginably wealthy society by historic standards. But I don't begrudge or judge those who have built different family structures. The world is a complicated and diverse place. I also don't think you can do things like point to a verse in Genesis and claim, for example, that two men or two women can't form a loving and successful family. Or that they are violating "God's will" if they do so.

[Falco Knotwise]

You are quoting a NEW TESTAMENT verse about divorce and not family.

Do you really not know Scripture and what Jesus said?

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

It certainly seems that way from your argument with Josh too

Luk 2:51  And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

All we know is that Jesus defied the authority of his parents at the age of 12. And then the Biblical record goes completely silent until he begins his ministry at the age of 30. We know nothing of the teenage Jesus or what his family life was like, if he even had one.

It would be an odd thing for a mother to treasure an act of "defiance" in her heart.

Note that they went to the Festival of Passover in a company of family and friends. The company was so large Mary thought Jesus was among them somewhere for a day. Just to be clear, this is what I meant by an extended family, not polygamy!!

P. S. Many Anabaptist families are good at this!

(Hobbits, too!)

[ken_sylvania]

The only point I'm making is that people who have not fit in the male/female binary have always existed and that some cultures recognized their existence.

Reading the modern nuclear heterosexual family as the universal historical norm is also reading our own modern biases and ideological priors back into history.

Seriously? Perhaps true in the sense that the nuclear family vs extended family is a more modern concept, but for a supposed Christian to try to lump "heterosexual" in there, in a discussion like this, seems to be making a mockery of Jesus' words about God's plan for family.

And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Szdfan is correct. The Biblical family as depicted in the Old Testament is nothing like one man and one woman in partnership to raise children as we understand the nuclear family in the modern world.

It was a highly patriarchal society in which male patriarchs exerted authority over a large extended family clan including people like adult sisters, widowed sister-in-laws, adult daughters, mothers, etc. And a society that practiced things like honor killings of women in the greater extended family who offended the "honor" of the male patriarch. It was also a society in which polygamy was the norm for such patriarchs, especially wealthy and powerful ones and a world in which male patriarchs took sex slaves and concubines as well as multiple wives.

By the New Testament, this sort of tribal patriarchal society was in retreat but that was largely the result of 100 years of Roman Rule and the imposition of Roman law and traditions of monogamy. Paul was a Roman citizen born and raised in Tarsus which is in the center of Modern day Turkey a long way from the Biblical holy land.

I happen to believe that a two parent nuclear family is probably the best way to raise children in the modern world. It is tough enough to do with a spouse, I can't imagine doing it alone. But I recognize it is largely a modern invention made possible by the fact that we live in an unimaginably wealthy society by historic standards. But I don't begrudge or judge those who have built different family structures. The world is a complicated and diverse place. I also don't think you can do things like point to a verse in Genesis and claim, for example, that two men or two women can't form a loving and successful family. Or that they are violating "God's will" if they do so.

I notice you totally did not respond to my comment - why did you bother quoting it?

[Ken]

Seriously? Perhaps true in the sense that the nuclear family vs extended family is a more modern concept, but for a supposed Christian to try to lump "heterosexual" in there, in a discussion like this, seems to be making a mockery of Jesus' words about God's plan for family.

Szdfan is correct. The Biblical family as depicted in the Old Testament is nothing like one man and one woman in partnership to raise children as we understand the nuclear family in the modern world.

It was a highly patriarchal society in which male patriarchs exerted authority over a large extended family clan including people like adult sisters, widowed sister-in-laws, adult daughters, mothers, etc. And a society that practiced things like honor killings of women in the greater extended family who offended the "honor" of the male patriarch. It was also a society in which polygamy was the norm for such patriarchs, especially wealthy and powerful ones and a world in which male patriarchs took sex slaves and concubines as well as multiple wives.

By the New Testament, this sort of tribal patriarchal society was in retreat but that was largely the result of 100 years of Roman Rule and the imposition of Roman law and traditions of monogamy. Paul was a Roman citizen born and raised in Tarsus which is in the center of Modern day Turkey a long way from the Biblical holy land.

I happen to believe that a two parent nuclear family is probably the best way to raise children in the modern world. It is tough enough to do with a spouse, I can't imagine doing it alone. But I recognize it is largely a modern invention made possible by the fact that we live in an unimaginably wealthy society by historic standards. But I don't begrudge or judge those who have built different family structures. The world is a complicated and diverse place. I also don't think you can do things like point to a verse in Genesis and claim, for example, that two men or two women can't form a loving and successful family. Or that they are violating "God's will" if they do so.

I notice you totally did not respond to my comment - why did you bother quoting it?

You are quoting Jesus answering a question about divorce, not homosexuality or gay marriage. And it is a teaching on divorce that some here find it convenient to ignore. Or even “make a mockery of” if you want to use your words.

[ken_sylvania]

Szdfan is correct. The Biblical family as depicted in the Old Testament is nothing like one man and one woman in partnership to raise children as we understand the nuclear family in the modern world.

It was a highly patriarchal society in which male patriarchs exerted authority over a large extended family clan including people like adult sisters, widowed sister-in-laws, adult daughters, mothers, etc. And a society that practiced things like honor killings of women in the greater extended family who offended the "honor" of the male patriarch. It was also a society in which polygamy was the norm for such patriarchs, especially wealthy and powerful ones and a world in which male patriarchs took sex slaves and concubines as well as multiple wives.

By the New Testament, this sort of tribal patriarchal society was in retreat but that was largely the result of 100 years of Roman Rule and the imposition of Roman law and traditions of monogamy. Paul was a Roman citizen born and raised in Tarsus which is in the center of Modern day Turkey a long way from the Biblical holy land.

I happen to believe that a two parent nuclear family is probably the best way to raise children in the modern world. It is tough enough to do with a spouse, I can't imagine doing it alone. But I recognize it is largely a modern invention made possible by the fact that we live in an unimaginably wealthy society by historic standards. But I don't begrudge or judge those who have built different family structures. The world is a complicated and diverse place. I also don't think you can do things like point to a verse in Genesis and claim, for example, that two men or two women can't form a loving and successful family. Or that they are violating "God's will" if they do so.

I notice you totally did not respond to my comment - why did you bother quoting it?

You are quoting Jesus answering a question about divorce, not homosexuality or gay marriage. And it is a teaching on divorce that some here find it convenient to ignore. Or even “make a mockery of” if you want to use your words.

And?

[Ken]

I notice you totally did not respond to my comment - why did you bother quoting it?

You are quoting Jesus answering a question about divorce, not homosexuality or gay marriage. And it is a teaching on divorce that some here find it convenient to ignore. Or even “make a mockery of” if you want to use your words.

And?

And maybe he would have given the same answer if he was asked about gay marriage. Or maybe he wouldn't have. We simply don't know. One thing we know from the scriptures is that Jesus was very hard to pin down and not one to confirm existing prejudices. To the contrary. Now I'm not one to say that gay marriage is endorsed in the Bible. Some do try to make that argument but I find it tortured. But no more tortured than citing Genesis as an argument against transgender teens.

I read the few teachings on homosexuality that do exist in the Bible in the context in which they were written. Which is teaching against male debauchery. What do I mean by that? In the ancient world, books did not exist. The printing press was still 1500 years in the future. TV and movies did not exist. Radio did not exist. Recorded music did not exist. Electricity did not exist. Life at home in a small dark house with big extended family of wife, mother, mother-in-law and a pack of kids was probably excruciating for many men after a hard day working. And there was precious little with which to entertain oneself.

So what did men do? They went out and collected in local inns and taverns which were ubiquitous in ancient towns and cities. Many of which also functioned as brothels. Where you hung out with your buddies drinking (drunkenness) ate (gluttony) chewed the fat (gossip) played dice (gambling) satisfied yourself with prostitutes (fornication) and boy sex slaves (homosexuality), etc. etc. I think there is a reason why these lists of sins are grouped together and that is because they went together. They were basically about telling men to shape up, stop wasting their hard-earned money on debauching, and go back home to their wives.

I don't think there are really any teachings that are on-point about a faithful gay married couple raising kids and probably like many married couples, barely intimate anymore. Perhaps Jesus would have told them to break up their family and find wives. Perhaps he would have told them the same thing he told straight men. Which was to be faithful to your partner and stay home rather than going out to evenings of debauchery. We simply don't know because it never came up. Just like the color of your car or whether one should even own a car never came up. I am, however, certain that the subject wasn't central to Jesus' teachings and mission. He spent far more time talking about things like wealth and how we are to treat and love each other. Even (or especially) those who are different from us. Than he ever did about anything related to LGBT people.

[ken_sylvania]

You are quoting Jesus answering a question about divorce, not homosexuality or gay marriage. And it is a teaching on divorce that some here find it convenient to ignore. Or even “make a mockery of” if you want to use your words.

And?

And maybe he would have given the same answer if he was asked about gay marriage. Or maybe he wouldn't have. We simply don't know. One thing we know from the scriptures is that Jesus was very hard to pin down and not one to confirm existing prejudices. To the contrary. Now I'm not one to say that gay marriage is endorsed in the Bible. Some do try to make that argument but I find it tortured. But no more tortured than citing Genesis as an argument against transgender teens.

I read the few teachings on homosexuality that do exist in the Bible in the context in which they were written. Which is teaching against male debauchery. What do I mean by that? In the ancient world, books did not exist. The printing press was still 1500 years in the future. TV and movies did not exist. Radio did not exist. Recorded music did not exist. Electricity did not exist. Life at home in a small dark house with big extended family of wife, mother, mother-in-law and a pack of kids was probably excruciating for many men after a hard day working. And there was precious little with which to entertain oneself.

So what did men do? They went out and collected in local inns and taverns which were ubiquitous in ancient towns and cities. Many of which also functioned as brothels. Where you hung out with your buddies drinking (drunkenness) ate (gluttony) chewed the fat (gossip) played dice (gambling) satisfied yourself with prostitutes (fornication) and boy sex slaves (homosexuality), etc. etc. I think there is a reason why these lists of sins are grouped together and that is because they went together. They were basically about telling men to shape up, stop wasting their hard-earned money on debauching, and go back home to their wives.

I don't think there are really any teachings that are on-point about a faithful gay married couple raising kids and probably like many married couples, barely intimate anymore. Perhaps Jesus would have told them to break up their family and find wives. Perhaps he would have told them the same thing he told straight men. Which was to be faithful to your partner and stay home rather than going out to evenings of debauchery. We simply don't know because it never came up. Just like the color of your car or whether one should even own a car never came up. I am, however, certain that the subject wasn't central to Jesus' teachings and mission. He spent far more time talking about things like wealth and how we are to treat and love each other. Even (or especially) those who are different from us. Than he ever did about anything related to LGBT people.

Jesus cites the creation of one man, one woman, as proof of God's intent that marriage consist of one man and one woman. To say or imply that a heterosexual marriage as the foundation of the family is a modern concept and not historically normative is hogwash.

[Falco Knotwise]

You are quoting Jesus answering a question about divorce, not homosexuality or gay marriage. And it is a teaching on divorce that some here find it convenient to ignore. Or even “make a mockery of” if you want to use your words.

And?

And maybe he would have given the same answer if he was asked about gay marriage. Or maybe he wouldn't have. We simply don't know. One thing we know from the scriptures is that Jesus was very hard to pin down and not one to confirm existing prejudices. To the contrary. Now I'm not one to say that gay marriage is endorsed in the Bible. Some do try to make that argument but I find it tortured. But no more tortured than citing Genesis as an argument against transgender teens.

I read the few teachings on homosexuality that do exist in the Bible in the context in which they were written. Which is teaching against male debauchery. What do I mean by that? In the ancient world, books did not exist. The printing press was still 1500 years in the future. TV and movies did not exist. Radio did not exist. Recorded music did not exist. Electricity did not exist. Life at home in a small dark house with big extended family of wife, mother, mother-in-law and a pack of kids was probably excruciating for many men after a hard day working. And there was precious little with which to entertain oneself.

So what did men do? They went out and collected in local inns and taverns which were ubiquitous in ancient towns and cities. Many of which also functioned as brothels. Where you hung out with your buddies drinking (drunkenness) ate (gluttony) chewed the fat (gossip) played dice (gambling) satisfied yourself with prostitutes (fornication) and boy sex slaves (homosexuality), etc. etc. I think there is a reason why these lists of sins are grouped together and that is because they went together. They were basically about telling men to shape up, stop wasting their hard-earned money on debauching, and go back home to their wives.

I don't think there are really any teachings that are on-point about a faithful gay married couple raising kids and probably like many married couples, barely intimate anymore. Perhaps Jesus would have told them to break up their family and find wives. Perhaps he would have told them the same thing he told straight men. Which was to be faithful to your partner and stay home rather than going out to evenings of debauchery. We simply don't know because it never came up. Just like the color of your car or whether one should even own a car never came up. I am, however, certain that the subject wasn't central to Jesus' teachings and mission. He spent far more time talking about things like wealth and how we are to treat and love each other. Even (or especially) those who are different from us. Than he ever did about anything related to LGBT people.

This is not just about how we treat people different from us. It's also about colonizing educational institutions with curriculums supposedly neutral towards gender but which really teach that gender is something optional that anyone can choose for themselves.

That is not a neutral stance.

The effect this is having on society is obvious.

[Ken]

This is not just about how we treat people different from us. It's also about colonizing educational institutions with curriculums supposedly neutral towards gender but which really teach that gender is something optional that anyone can choose for themselves.

That is not a neutral stance.

The effect this is having on society is obvious.

Spell it out then. What exactly and precisely SHOULD public schools be teaching about gender?

What should they be teaching about gay students?
What should the be teaching about students with ambiguous gender identities?
What should they be teaching about trans students?
What should they be teaching about students who have gay parents (two dads or two moms?)
How should they be teaching other students to treat their classmates who identify as some variant of LGBT?
How should they be teaching students to view and treat LGBT people in our wider society?
How should they be directing their teachers to treat their LGBT students?

In addition, remember that we are talking about public schools in a constitutional democracy with probably the most religiously, ethnically, and racially diverse population in all of human history. Where public institutions are governed by Constitutional principles not religious ones. Which means your answers to EACH of the above questions should be based on shared civic values as expressed in the Constitution and not the narrow teachings of one faction of one particular religion.

Go ahead. I'm honestly curious. What exactly is the "neutral stance" to each of the above questions that you are advocating?

[Falco Knotwise]

Go ahead. I'm honestly curious. What exactly is the "neutral stance" to each of the above questions that you are advocating?

Whose advocating for a neutral stance? As a defender of liberal secularism wouldn't that be your bag? I was just pointing out that claims of secular neutrality are false.

As I see it, neutrality is impossible.

He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters. — Matthew 12:30

These ideologies and Christianity seem to be on a collision course.