Assumptions

What is it about people, that allows them to form a set of assumptions with little or no support then to use those assumptions as the basis to make assertions which they expect others to accept.

For example, I listened to bits of Hillary's interview with the CNN reporter.   I was honestly surprised that the reporter asked some specific, tough questions and then followed them up.

What didn't surprise me was the Hillary did not answer any of them.  She just trotted out the same old lame talking points "vast right wing conspiracy", "just because someone says something, you have to ask questions", etc.      At one point, she flat out lied about the number of "devices" she had while SECSTATE (hint: she has already said that she had a Blackberry for official business and an iPhone for personal).

The point here is that her response is not based on the facts of the situation, or on a desire to actually answer that question.  It's based on the fact that her supporters will accept uncritically these talking points because their underlying assumptions condition them to do so.  While at the same time Hillary's underlying assumption is that anything that diverts attention from her and blames her "enemies" is what people really want to hear, not actual answers to actual questions.

I have also seen this recently on Facebook, the fact that people will uncritically post a comment or meme from someone simply because they assume that the content is correct, not because they checked it out, but because they agree with the person they got it from.

I suspect that we are all guilty of this to some degree.  I myself have pointed out when my opinions on a particular matter might be driven by my underlying assumptions and not by principle or the desire to be intellectually consistent.   I'm pretty confident that we all have this desire.

But how do we respond when those assumptions are directly and specifically challenged?

Do we take the time to go back and examine our assumptions, and are we able to provide some rational reasons why those assumptions should be assumed?

Do we, as I have done, sometimes admit that our assumptions are not always consistent and explain why?

Do we simply continue to assume that our assumptions are correct and ignore challanges to them?

At some point probably all of the above.

 Where it becomes problematic is when someone defines the terms of a discussion on the basis of their personal assumptions without providing any  sort of support that explains why their particular assumptions should be accepted as the basis for any conversation.   From that point it becomes difficult to move forward if there is no willingness to actually discuss and support those assumptions.    

I suspect that a lot of it comes down the the fact that it is just easier to operate on the basis that your assumptions are correct, and that they make sense for everyone else as well, and an unwillingness to actually put forth the effort to reexamine and support your assumptions.   So, it seems as if the default position is to just ignore it when those assumptions are questioned.

How's this going to work ? (edited)

I was just reading a blog post by a mainline ordained pastor who identifies as bi-sexual.  She was talking about how amazing it is that her denomination had changed it's definition of marriage from "a man and woman" to "two people", and how cool it was that queers (her word not mine) can get ordained.   While I'm sure this is all very exciting, especially in light of the SCOTUS decision, I was left with a question.   How will this work?   Given the fact that this entire campaign has been portrayed as being about lofty things like love, equality, equity, and justice, how can we arbitrarily grant justice to one group, while denying it to others?

This particular young woman identifies as bisexual, so how does a bisexual achieve marriage equity/equality?   It seems that there are three options.  One can marry one other person (of either sex), then engage in am extra marital affair with a person or persons of the other sex.  One can marry a person of each sex.  One can simply marry and divorce a series of individuals depending of their current preference.

It seems to me that each of these is problematic.

The first is problematic in that traditionally one component of marriage is the concept of monogamy, obviously this one is not shared by many in the GLBTQXYZPDQ community, but in a Christian marriage ceremony it talks about "forsaking all others" etc.  Again, it seems that entering into a marriage with the intent of engaging in a sexual relationship outside of the marriage kind of defeats the purpose.

The second, is probably the closest to equity/equality for the bisexual, and is probably one of the next bridges to fall.  But for now, the definition of marriage still reads "two people".  So, it seems like this one is out as well.

The third option has the benefit of seeming to fit with the popular culture in general which doesn't seem to see much problem with marriage and or divorce at will.   It does seem problematic to go into a marriage agreeing to the vows, all the while knowing that you'll divorce this one for someone of the other gender when you feel like a change.

It seems clear that the current push for "marriage equity" is the first step down a path.  How can we grant marriage to the person of one's choice to gay people, but not to bisexuals?  The PR is it's all about marrying who you love, right?   If that's the case, the obvious next question is why limit it to two people who love each other? 

So, how is this going to work when the bisexual folks realize that they are still getting less equity than the G and L initial folks are getting?

Charleston

The tragedy in Charlston is lamentable and horrible beyond words.   I am in awe of the way the victims families are handling this whole ordeal.    Hope is that the God who created all things will come near to each of the family members and wrap them in His peace.  

Before this goes further

I know this is a bit strange, but I wanted to get this settled before things went any further.    So, I'd like to try to clarify something.

You frequently use the term "rules", many times it seems that you use the term in an almost dismissive fashion.  What I would like to have you clarify is what you mean by the term "rules".    I presume that you are using the term as a shorthand for what the Scripture refers to as Law(s), The Law, Commandments, and Ordinances.     I have no problem using the shortcut, I just want to be clear about what meaning your are assigning to the term and whether or not you see some sort of differences between the terms.

A quick follow up

I think that there is a phenomenon in Christian circles that has spawned the type of thinking seen in the previous post.

Some friends of mine used to put it like this.

"People want Jesus to be their savior, but not their Lord"

I see this playing out differently of both sides of the spectrum

On the more conservative side this looks like someone who "commits their life to Christ", but still wants to hang onto that one (or more) thing that they/we just enjoy too much to turn over to God.    Usually, this is manifested as certain areas of ones life that one keeps private (from people) which entail things or habits or behaviors that one (we) know are wrong but don't want to give up.

On the more liberal side it takes a couple of different forms.

The first is what we are seeing from a growing number of influential folks who label themselves as progressive christians.   This one is the "If there even is a god, he is so loving and tolerant that he doesn't really care about stuff like sin, so as long as you're a good person it's OK."

The second is the folks who want a savior who is going to save people from whatever they perceive as the most pressing societal ill.   Poverty, Pollution, Racism, Climate, whatever.   They want a god who will come and save us from stuff and if he decides to use government mandates to do so, well that's OK too.

Ultimately, we see this playing out with (some) folks on the right focusing on personal piety as well as the public "sins", while failing to grasp (or ungrasp) what holiness is.   While in the left, we see anything from a denial of sin entirely to an almost relativistic view of sin (Well that might be sin to you, but...).

So, what's the answer?    I'd suggest that the place to start is to put God in His proper place, submit to His authority (even when we don't like it), and accept His gift of grace that gives us a clean slate.   I'd suggest that if we'd get the hierarchy straightened out and live like people who have been given a marvelous gift, that you'd see less of the social ills and we'd start to see the beginning of the Kingdom of God on earth, as It is in Heaven.

"God-given sexuality"

I saw this term used recently, and I found it a bit confusing.  starting with how the terms are Defined.

In this context does "God given", mean that God has "given" humans parameters for what is and is not appropriate behavior?   Does "God given" mean that whatever it is that "God" gave us, is objective, clear and understandable?   If it is, then where does one find out what "God" gave us on this topic?  If not, then how could one not argue that anything fits under that category of "God given"?    How did "God" give us this information?  How do we know if it is really from God?

One way to look at this is through the lens of who God is (or at least how God is portrayed in the Bible).    If Jesus choice of topics is any indication, then one could reasonably conclude that God is "King".     One way one could conclude this is the fact that in the existing record of Jesus words he uses the phrase "Kingdom of God" between 90 and 100 times.  He uses the term "King" between 10 and 20 times. He uses the term "Your/His Kingdom twice, and tells 3 parables about the what "Kingdom of God" is like.    So, it seems safe to conclude that it is at least within the realm of probability that God is King of something.

If one was somehow willing to grant the above point, then it seems that one might ask, what does that mean?

One possible conclusion that could be drawn is that God is (in fact) the King of all creation.     Or one could conclude that God (or god) is King (or king) of something, but not everything.  

So, what is a king (or King)?   According to the dictionary.com folks we find that two definitions are relevant here.

"1. a male sovereign or monarch; a man who holds by life tenure, and usually by hereditary right, the chief authority over a country and people. "

"2.(initial capital letter) God or Christ."

So, one could reasonably conclude that when Jesus spoke of the "Kingdom of God", he was speaking of a realm where God was the chief authority.   Most Christians would probably substitute "sole" for "chief", but I think the point stands.

What does that leave us with then,   If "God given sexuality" does exist, then wouldn't it follow that something "given" by the King would be really more in the nature of an ordinance or command?   Further, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that something  of this nature "given" by the King would be communicated in some rational way?   I mean really, what good is it to be King (king) if your gifts, wishes, ordinances, and commands are so vague and amorphous that no on can really grasp exactly what you meant?

I could go on, but I think my questions are enough for now.

Yet, we must grapple with the term "sexuality".    If the term is used to mean that God has created humans to reproduce sexually, and that there is/are feelings of pleasure as well as emotional bonds created between the male and female sexual partners, then I suspect some might quibble around the edges, but at least agree in principle.

But, like many terms today, this seems to be one which can be used to mean virtually anything or nothing, potentially both at the same time.

So, we're left with a few questions before even evaluating whether of not the claim is reasonable.

What exactly is the definition of that term?
What, specifically, is sexuality?
Why did God "give us" a sexuality?
How do we know sexuality is "God given"?
If we don't live within the parameters of what God gave us concerning sexuality are we breaking a rule?

In the end we are left with a statement that at least implies multiple claims of fact.

1.   There there is a God

2.   That God gives us things in general

3.   That God have given us a specific "sexuality"

4.   That is is possible to know what #3 refers to and to understand that scope of what we have been given

5.   That there is a scope of "God given sexuality", which can be known and adhered to

6.   The straying outside of the scope of "God given sexuality" could be problematic

This may get continued, but I wanted to throw it out.

Free at last, Free at last....

The ransom has been paid, it's time to move into the future without the baggage.