|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: The Christian Institute - The Tyneside Taliban?
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Drop the inverted commas,please - because I have nothing to hide, least of all my name, I really am called Mike!
I hope you are right. Although my own thoughts are always that God will inspire and guide, but we have to do the doing, and not expect Him to place a heavenly hand on the situation, if you see what I mean. I feel there is something of a polarisation, and within the CofE anyway, the considerable differences of approach within the evangelical wing have been made apparent by the current debates - which even someone as admittetdly jaundiced and suspicious as me has found encouraging. I know formal distancing can be read as more division, but in some ways it may also bring some clarity.
I'm not, as yet, sure how far ths change in paradigm will go, but I do think as society itself recognises gay relationships, for example, the Church will look inexplicably daft if it doesn't find some sort of way to acknowledge committed and loving relationships.
Mind you, you don't have to abandon Christianity altogether simply because some of the Church refuses to get real.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Black Labrador
Shipmate
# 3098
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Its not so much about changing the minds of people like the CI, though, for there will probably always be people holding that view. There is plenty of evidence that they are losing the wider argumant.
I'm thinking more about the effect that a more affirming public position, by declared evangelicals who are not affiliated with either anything gay, liberal or catholic, on the broader evangelical constituency.
It reminds me a bit of a talk I gave at an evangelical CofE church a couple of years back. Good for them for inviting me, for a start - they were prepared to hear both sides - but after the meeting, at least three people came up to me and said 'well, I agree with you, but I wouldn't want to say so openly here'. Simply because, there wasn't the space, the permission, in their eyes, to express an alternative view than the 'party line'
I think its that sort of situation that could be assisted.
What exactly are you looking for?
Evangelicals who are not part of the CI/Reform do not feel bound by their statements, whether or not they agree with them. A press release from an evangelical leader saying "I think the CI/Reform are a bit over the top on this issue" doesn't strike me as a headline grabber.
And I suspect most evangelicals probably think this issue has had far too much publicity as it is, and don't wish to add to it. If you don't feel strongly about an issue you don't start campaigning on it - campaigning is always dominated by people who feel strongly - hence in this case you have the gay rights activists on one hand and the extreme evangelicals on the other. Most evangelicals have many other priorities.
If you're looking for acceptance of homosexual relationships within the evangelical community then it's up to the LGCM and similar organisations to make clear they hold mainstream Christian beliefs on the basics of the faith (and these groups strike me as containing a lot of liberals who might not) and then to set out a clear framework for acceptable homosexual relationships i.e. committed monogamous relationships. I don't currently see this happening, but the evangelicals aren't at fault for that.
Once gay relationships are recognised in civil law then there may be an opportunity for a proper dialogue on this issue. But there isn't much point in asking evangelicals (or anyone else) to change their whole approach to the Bible over this one issue.
On your earlier post, do you have any evidence that the CI, Reform, or any other evangelical group have actually proposed the recriminalisation of homosexual relationships?
Or are you just reading that into their general approach to this issue?
Posts: 629 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
The rapture can only be just around the cornor 'The Milkman of Human Kindness' and Merseymike have almost agreed on something.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Careau
Shipmate
# 2904
|
Posted
Ian S
I see a danger in your view of the situation.
quote:
“it's up to the LGCM and similar organisations to…to set out a clear framework for acceptable homosexual relationships i.e. committed monogamous relationships.”
Really? Why should they do that?
Do they have an absolute guarantee that should they develop a concept of monogamous same-sex relationships they will then have full acceptance and affirmation of their sexuality from the greater majority of the Christian community?
Here in lies the rub. We (or rather I) am not so concerned with the specifics of the LGCM or other particular interest groups. My concern lies with the LGBT community in general and the direction that it takes. At present the message many of us have received from our society & from Christianity during our youth is ultimately a simple one – “it does not matter how you behave – the mere fact that you happen to be gay makes you irredeemably immoral”. Given that this is the current starting point for many of us in our adult lives it is little surprise that many simply take the attitude “bollocks to sexual morality – I can’t win whatever I do anyway so I may as well enjoy myself”
Society as a whole has to establish a scenario that shows young gay people – here is your path to a morally respectable, good, gay life that society believes is worth celebrating. That means gay marriage and it means positive education for gay youngsters with regard to their sexuality AND same sex relationships (NOT just the mechanics of sex). Without this the LGBT community will continue to simply throw its hands up & say “we can’t win whatever – so bollocks”.
quote:
“I don't currently see this happening, but the evangelicals aren't at fault for that. “
They ARE – they are responsible for ensuring that young gay people grow up believing that they are inherently immoral and that, for this reason, they see no value in the concept of sexual morality at all – only oppression.
quote:
“Once gay relationships are recognised in civil law then there may be an opportunity for a proper dialogue on this issue.”
How much time do you think we have? Are you not aware that there are some within the gay community who argue for a “new vision” of sexual relationships – they see themselves as pioneers and prophets of a new age - an age in which sex is viewed as a pure "recreational" activity. Their message has strong appeal within the gay community (and without for that matter). Whilst the “evangelists” wait for a proper dialogue, the prophets of the new age evangelise. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
Bye for now. Paul.
Posts: 92 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Degs
Friend of dorothy
# 2824
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Theophilus:
quote:
Originally posted by He Who Must Not Be Named:
As I recall (sorry copy not to hand)'Issues In Human Sexuality' stated that committed same-sex relationships may be acceptable for the laity, but not for the clergy. So the 'official' view of the CofE is that homosexual activity is not always wrong.
Not really.
Issues in Human Sexuality 5.6 speaks about those who are conscientiously convinced "that they have more hope of growing in love for God and neighbour with the help of a loving and faithful homophile partnership, in intention lifelong", and goes on:
"While unable to commend the way of life just described as in itself as faithful a reflection of God's purposes in creation as the heterophile, we do not reject those who sincerely believe it is God's call to them. We stand alongside them in the fellowship of the Church, all alike dependent upon the undeserved grace of God. All who seek to live their lives in Christ owe one another friendship and understanding. It is therefore important that in every congregation such homophiles should find fellow-Christians who will sensitively and naturally provide this for them. Indeed, if this is not done, any professions on the part of the Church that is committed to openness and learning about the homophile situation can be no more than empty words."
--------------------
The preest when he hath sayd and red all: he gyueth the benedyccion upon all those that be there present and then he doth tourne hym from the people retournynge thyther from whens he came.
Posts: 2388 | From: a land that I heard of once in a lullaby | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoo
Mighty Pirate
# 254
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Careau:
[Evangelicals] are responsible for ensuring that young gay people grow up believing that they are inherently immoral and that, for this reason, they see no value in the concept of sexual morality at all – only oppression.
I'm sorry?
Are you telling me that It is the fault of Evangelicals that young people are promiscuous?
God... and to think I actualy had you down for an intelligent poster.
--------------------
This space left blank
Posts: 5266 | From: the director of "Bikini Traffic School" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
The EA proposed it as a possible option in the last but one debate on the age of consent: certainly CI spokespersons, notably the late Baroness Young, have openly regretted the passing of the 1967 legislation in the Lords. The reason I used so many 'maybes' was because they tend to react to areas of proposed legislation, and no-one is proposing re-criminalisation. Hence at the moment, the focus will be on relationships, sexual offences and employment since these are on the Government agenda.
I think, though, the whole tone of the site speaks for itself in terms of what they actually think about gay people. If you can find anything affirming or positive at all, I would be surprised.
Ian : issues about relationships are uppermost in discussions amongst gay Christians. But its quite hard to work through a meaningful theology of gay relationships when we are still battling the 'celibacy or not Christian' line. If there was an acceptance that faithful gay relationships are a possibility, then I think there would be a real role for gay Christians such as myself who desperately think that the gay community needs to hear the Christian message.In the meantime, as Paul says - why should I be listened to ?
Interestingly enough. some thoughts on these issues are starting to emerge from gay evangelical quarters, people who have changed their position,(Roy Clements, Jeremy Marks) and are trying to work through the implications of Christian gay relationships. As I am in the sort of partnership Ian describes, I have a particular interest in this.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
What I understood Paul as saying is that if young people hear nothing but negativity about the utter depravity of their sexual orientation, then they are hardly likely to be receptive to anything within the entire spectrum of Christian values - such as the benefits of stable relationships. Obviously evangelicals cannot be solely blamed, but I think this thread has shown that some groups who view themselves, as do the CI, to quote their FAQ's - as 'mainstream evangelical', they have contributed to the sort of view of sex which I think all Christians would have some concern about
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Astro
Shipmate
# 84
|
Posted
THe CI must be irresponsible if all they leave concerning what they want happening to their children to a "card".
They should make provision in their will - with prior agreement of all parties.
This is sound-bite christainity, and I think that most evangelicals (including conservative ones) would be opposed to that.
--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)
Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LowFreqDude
Shipmate
# 3152
|
Posted
I think that the CI are wrong with this exercise. From a PR perspective, this is tabloid level nonsense.
My main criticism is that once again same sex relationships have been singled out when notionally, to be consistent with their position, they should be asking for their orphans not to be adopted by (say) unmarried hetero couples, remarried divorcees...heck, non-Christians!
I get the feeling that the Church needs to get it drilled into their head that there is not a hierachcy of sins!
LFD
Posts: 625 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Careau
Shipmate
# 2904
|
Posted
Stoo
quote:
“Are you telling me that it is the fault of Evangelicals that young people are promiscuous?”
You genuinely don’t see do you. ![[Frown]](frown.gif) That is frightening. I am not getting at you, its just the way it seems to be. People in the gay community seem to get this – in fact I was talking to a lesbian about this a few weeks ago – she empathised straight away. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Think - how are heterosexuals brought up? During their teens they are told all about their sexuality and the relationships they might expect to have in their adult lives. They receive advice about adult relationships from their parents, they receive advice from their teachers, they receive advice from their religious communities, they are also presented with a wide variety of heterosexual images (although not always good) through the media. Therefore, by the time one reaches 21 your average heterosexual has received a considerable volume of information from the adult community with regard to sexuality and relationships as it relates to them. The pervading image being (still) one of monogamous, long-term relationships usually resulting in marriage at some stage.
How is a young gay man or lesbian brought up? Typically, the big issue of your teen years revolves around – why don’t I find the opposite sex attractive when everyone else does - AND THEN - am I gay? Often you have a big turmoil over simply coming out – that’s without even having time to think about what KIND of gay relationship you might want etc. PLUS you are basically told next to nothing at all about your sexuality and the relationships you might expect to have in your adult life. If anything the message is simple – “you are crap”. Even at best, they often receive NO advice about adult relationships from their parents, they receive NO advice from their teachers, they receive NO advice from their religious communities, they are also presented with next to NO positive gay images through the media (at best they get spoon-fed stereo-types). Therefore, by the time one reaches 21 your average gay/lesbian has received approximately no advice or guidance whatsoever from the adult community with regard to sexuality and relationships as it relates to them. More likely than not the only things they have heard are all negative – being gay is immoral – gay people are “perverts” etc.
So, at 21, you have learnt not to trust what heterosexual adults – be they parents, teachers or religious people say. In particular, if you come from a conservative Christian background, you may well have learnt not to trust Christian views on sex and sexuality. You know for a fact that their views on sexuality are crap – who is to say that they have not got it equally wrong on the subject of promiscuity. You are simply in the position that you are out on your own – your can’t trust the opinions of the wider community – all you have & all you can trust is the gay community.
If people criticise you for being promiscuous – SO WHAT? Have you really not noticed Stoo? In today’s society the message is that being promiscuous is OK – look at all the images of heterosexual promiscuity on TV. Is homosexuality viewed in modern society with the same degree of glamour? Basically, the impression most young gay men and women get left with is that, in terms of society’s perceptions of morality – being gay is WORSE than being promiscuous. In particular various Christian groups like the Christian Institute and the Evangelical Alliance and Reform send this message out loud and clear. What do they spend their time harping on about? Is it the evils of promiscuity or the evils of being gay? So, their message is – “if you are gay you are doomed – it doesn’t matter how else you behave”.
I shit you not – I have read the account of an Episcopal Priest who asked a gay man who was totally into the drugs scene and a promiscuous hedonistic lifestyle. He asked him why he did it – the man replied “I am damned anyway – so what does it matter – I may as well make the most of it in the here and now if I’m going to burn in hell forever whatever” – the man turned out to be a gay ex-evangelical Christian.
So, these particular Evangelicals ARE to blame. Of course they are not the only ones who have created the situation BUT they are largely responsible for making it worse.
Given a different, more positive upbringing most gay/lesbian people would probably be no more promiscuous than heterosexuals. But, to be honest, I think it is very hard for anyone to turn things around for themselves at the age of say 31 after having been through a young adult life like I have described. For Evangelicals to then turn around and criticise gay people for turning out promiscuous under those circumstances is then a bit rich I think. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
Bye for now. Paul.
Posts: 92 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoo
Mighty Pirate
# 254
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Careau:
...they often receive NO advice about adult relationships from their parents, they receive NO advice from their teachers, they receive NO advice from their religious communities, they are also presented with next to NO positive gay images through the media (at best they get spoon-fed stereo-types). Therefore, by the time one reaches 21 your average gay/lesbian has received approximately no advice or guidance whatsoever from the adult community with regard to sexuality and relationships as it relates to them. More likely than not the only things they have heard are all negative – being gay is immoral – gay people are “perverts” etc.
I don't disagree. Society has been like this since ancient times.
How, though, is this the fault of the evangelical church?
--------------------
This space left blank
Posts: 5266 | From: the director of "Bikini Traffic School" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoo
Mighty Pirate
# 254
|
Posted
quote:
In particular, if you come from a conservative Christian background, you may well have learnt not to trust Christian views on sex and sexuality. You know for a fact that their views on sexuality are crap – who is to say that they have not got it equally wrong on the subject of promiscuity.
Are we all justified in taking that line? I believe that the most vocal Christian view on homosexuality is crap. Must mean they've got the "God is love" bit wrong too.
quote:
In today’s society the message is that being promiscuous is OK – look at all the images of heterosexual promiscuity on TV. Is homosexuality viewed in modern society with the same degree of glamour?
Actually, and I'm not just being devil's advocate here, I think it is. Gay is cool. It's alternative. It's rebellious. Manchester's best place to go clubbing is its famous Canal Street. Hell, even dance music started in the gay clubs in America. Gay culture sets the trends and fashions.
--------------------
This space left blank
Posts: 5266 | From: the director of "Bikini Traffic School" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoo
Mighty Pirate
# 254
|
Posted
quote:
Basically, the impression most young gay men and women get left with is that, in terms of society’s perceptions of morality – being gay is WORSE than being promiscuous.
I can't deny your experience, but that seems totally alien to me - none of my friends and very very few of my colleagues here in Manchester hold that view.
quote:
In particular various Christian groups like the Christian Institute and the Evangelical Alliance and Reform send this message out loud and clear. What do they spend their time harping on about? Is it the evils of promiscuity or the evils of being gay? So, their message is – “if you are gay you are doomed – it doesn’t matter how else you behave”.
Yes, I agree. I am surprised, however, that they have the impact that you claim they do, especially in a society such as ours in which less than 10% of the population are practising Christians.
--------------------
This space left blank
Posts: 5266 | From: the director of "Bikini Traffic School" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoo
Mighty Pirate
# 254
|
Posted
quote:
Given a different, more positive upbringing most gay/lesbian people would probably be no more promiscuous than heterosexuals. But, to be honest, I think it is very hard for anyone to turn things around for themselves at the age of say 31 after having been through a young adult life like I have described.
The only practical impact I can see that 'Evangelicals' have had is Section 28. Even then, I would argue that that bill was pushed through, and kept, by a few vocal bigots. Section 28 does not proclude parents talking to their children about sexuality. It does not say that the media cannot produce positive images of homosexuality, and it does not say that no religious leader can dare to say that homosexuality just might not be evil.
(Finally, my apologies for this being on seperate posts - my computer can't cope with me posting large ammounts all at the same time)
--------------------
This space left blank
Posts: 5266 | From: the director of "Bikini Traffic School" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoo:
quote:
In particular various Christian groups like the Christian Institute and the Evangelical Alliance and Reform send this message out loud and clear. What do they spend their time harping on about? Is it the evils of promiscuity or the evils of being gay? So, their message is – “if you are gay you are doomed – it doesn’t matter how else you behave”.
Yes, I agree. I am surprised, however, that they have the impact that you claim they do, especially in a society such as ours in which less than 10% of the population are practising Christians.
And what about the other religions - Jews and Muslims for example - who also teach that homosexuality is "an abomination". They are equally hardline but I don't see them being targetted (or blamed) in the same way.
Tubbs
PS You're right, I am stirring ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I think its more the climate that they create : despite some of the surface gloss, Stoo, it is still not easy to grow up gay. Many young people go through considerable difficulties.Ask any youth worker and they will tell you!
I actually DO think that things are getting better and that the CI and Co . are on to a loser - but thats because people have challenged their assumptions.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoo
Mighty Pirate
# 254
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I think its more the climate that they create : despite some of the surface gloss, Stoo, it is still not easy to grow up gay.
I totally agree, and the situation, I also agree, is not helped by the most vocal Evangelical viewpoint, but equally, it is not caused by it.
--------------------
This space left blank
Posts: 5266 | From: the director of "Bikini Traffic School" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Milkman of Human Kindness:
quote:
Originally posted by Icarus Coot:
I can understand why people want evangelical christians to be the most vocal in opposing CI (where and if they do disagree with CI's stances). The way I see it, Christians are the family, and that includes CI. If a member of the family is being naughty you would expect those in the family closest to that member to tick them off or to try and get them to hold back a bit. The other problem is that if the more distant members of the family (anglocaffs, libs) give the naughty member (CI) a ticking off, that member is likely to just dismiss it as being what you would expect from a bunch that are degenerate and bereft of the gospel (which libs and anglocaffs are sometimes considered to be).
I agree that we should be the most vocal in condemnation - but in my experience, it doesn't matter who criticises nuts like these. The moment anyone, no matter how "sound" they may have previously been thought to be, attacks one of their sacred cows, these people immediately lump their former comprades in with the enemy.
Very good point. I was being a bit rose-coloured glass-ish and utopian. But if there was one... one unimpeachable, irreproachable, eminent person who could make a statement that everyone would listen to as authoritative. Erm. Cough. Yes. We already had him. I wish he'd spelled it out a bit more so we don't have to have these arguments 2000 yrs later.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
whitelodge
Shipmate
# 3339
|
Posted
I suspect the broader evangelical Church is drifting into a sort of "don't ask - don't tell" position. Nobody (and this probable includes the un-gay-sympathetic members) wants to be the one to bring up a subject that could split their congregation in two.
My own (M.O.R. Methodist) church has a pair of middle-aged women - prominent and popular churchmembers - who are clearly living in something pretty analogous to a marriage. The nature of their relationship is simply not mentioned.
I don't think the not-mentioning is because the church is universally accepting of committed same-sex relationships - though, doubtless, many of us are. It's more just old-fashioned discretion combined with a fear of openly discussing an incendiary topic.
Just don't look at me like I've got to get this discussion going. Let somebody else do it.
Posts: 130 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by whitelodge:
I suspect the broader evangelical Church is drifting into a sort of "don't ask - don't tell" position.
Agreed 100% In fact, has drifted would be more accurate. The last explicit discussion I remember actually going on that involved real people in a real church (as opposed to theoretical positions) was back in the 1970s, when some Christians I knew at college came out (which caused a little stir at the time) Nowadays, it is "don't ask".
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Theres some truth in that, whitelodge.
Actually, although everyone knows about us, and we are certainly treated as a couple, I don't actually talk about it all that much in church - I do think that actual contact with 'real people' makes a huge amount of difference to attitudes of others, actually. People aren't sometimes as daft as they're cabbage looking, and I think that a lot of people may just think ' why should I say anything', because they don't think it matters - the people in church are the people they know and like.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Stu : I said earlier that I agree with that. However, they do help to promote a climate of negativity - its a drip feed effect - and within the Church, I think they are certainly the ringleaders.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Not really, Degs-as-was - new Directions makes the odd sniffy aside, and their official 'line' is conservative, but they have never really made any clear public statements, and their only comments about Rowan have related to women priests. Mind you, you're right about the hypocrisy, of course, and I think that is , in reality, why they don't discuss it in public. Its one thing to sit on your hands or toe the party line in public, its another thing to make public statements.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Actually, although everyone knows about us, and we are certainly treated as a couple, I don't actually talk about it all that much in church - I do think that actual contact with 'real people' makes a huge amount of difference to attitudes of others, actually.
I'd go along with that. In one of our congregations we have a single, middle aged woman who is very actively involved with the church. Although nothing is said outright in the church, I know she is a lesbian, and so do a number of others. But first and foremost she is a member of our church family - she belongs in the same way as everyone else.
As a result of knowing and loving her for who she is, I suspect that a number of prejudices about homosexuality have been severely weakened. Hell - once you've got a friend who is gay, it is nigh on impossible to rant on about the iniquity of those (impersonal) "queers"!
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Black Labrador
Shipmate
# 3098
|
Posted
I'd wondered if I would come to regret replying to this thread......
Note to Paul C:
It's amazing how influential evangelicals are. I had thought they were about 2% of the British population with absolutely negligible influence on public life. But it seems that they dominate the church to such a degree that they determine the way it's seen by non-Christians. I do hope someone has told Rowan Williams, David Hope and Richard Chartres this. And the only voices from within the church on this subject are from evangelicals? No doubt LGCM and non-evangelical groups are taking note. Evangelicals control sex education in schools apparently, even though the curriculum is set by a secular government which has more homosexuals than evangelicals among its ministers. And evangelicals are responsible for young people's self-image problems as well, even though most young people have probably never met any evangelicals and wouldn't pay attention to them if they did. Obviously they don't have any non-Christian role models. Then to cap it all, evangelical Christianity encourages promiscuity ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) (though not among heterosexuals?).
And you're think you're a moderate! Well I suppose I must be a moderate evangelical (otherwise - let's face it - I wouldn't be prepared to debate this issue at all). But it appears that we're miles apart........
I know many people have been badly hurt by the church over this issue. I very much regret that. As Ken and Merseymike noted, attitudes are changing; there is less latent homophobia and more people are willing to consider the issues.
But we all consider the issues within the framework of our existing beliefs. For evangelicals that is biblical authority and a conservative approach to sexuality in general.
So I don't see much point in you asking for unconditional acceptance for all homosexual relationships - you won't get that any more than if you asked for unconditional acceptance for heterosexual relationships.
That's why I say it's up to the LGCM and similar organisations to set out a clear framework for acceptable homosexual relationships i.e. committed monogamous relationships. You are trying to change the established position of all the main Christian denominations. The burden of proof is on you. It's up to you to make your case. The way I'm suggesting you do this is to accept the core beliefs of the Christian faith, and then say when it comes to this particular issue it's time to look again at what the Bible actually says on this issue (as opposed to the way it's been interpreted in the past). This is how women's ordination, for example, got accepted by many (not all) evangelicals.
Posts: 629 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
My own (M.O.R. Methodist) church has a pair of middle-aged women - prominent and popular churchmembers - who are clearly living in something pretty analogous to a marriage. The nature of their relationship is simply not mentioned.
this is actually nothing new. back in the early days of the 20th century, one of my grandfathers cousins lived in exactly this situation. the two women were business partners in a millinary shop as well as whatever else they were, and and were obviously emotionally a couple, even to the rather stereotypical fact that one of them was more "mannish", and the other (my distant cousin) more "womanly". they were regular, very active members of the church, and the woman's club and no one ever would have had the bad manners to say anything disparaging about it. (i get this info from my aunt, who is old enough to remember them from her childhood)
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Careau
Shipmate
# 2904
|
Posted
quote:
“It's amazing how influential evangelicals are…”
They are often the most vocal and the most homophobic. They also form anti-gay lobby groups that seek out media attention and canvas MPs – the Christian Institute is a classic example. In this regard they present a strong negative image. As far as many people in the gay community are concerned not only Evangelicals BUT Christians in general = either Reform/Christian Institute OR a group of people who silently disapprove of/dislike them. The negative images are created by the vocal activities of a minority. However, the majority is largely silent therefore giving the impression of tacit approval for the views of this minority.
The Christian Institute presents itself to the media and to parliament as representing mainstream Christian opinion. Whilst some can see through such propaganda, many cannot. There is not that much high profile counter-propaganda of a pro-gay nature from the Christian community.
quote:
“I do hope someone has told Rowan Williams, David Hope and Richard Chartres this.”
A case in point. I have no idea who David Hope or Richard Chartes are – I know who Colin Hart is on the other hand.
quote:
“And you're think you're a moderate!”
You would never hear the more extreme views. But to give you an idea I know someone who said “Christians are like strange dogs – strange dogs bite – Christians hate gays – they are both best avoided”.
The onus is on Christianity to make the effort to reach out to people like that – because they sure as anything aren’t going to feel any desire to reach out to Christianity.
quote:
”attitudes are changing; there is less latent homophobia and more people are willing to consider the issues.”
Unfortunately, the change is slow. This may not seem like a problem to you – but for some people, they simply don’t have the luxury of time.
quote:
“That's why I say it's up to the LGCM and similar organisations to set out a clear framework for acceptable homosexual relationships i.e. committed monogamous relationships.”
I don’t know whether or not this might happen. I am not involved in these organisations. As regards the community in general I am not convinced. The community in general may be moving towards “long-term open relationships” if, indeed, it is changing at all. They won’t listen to Evangelicals because as far as they are concerned Evangelicals = Christian Institute et al. Evangelicals would have to reach out to them with a positive message and convince them that they have something positive to say.
quote:
“You are trying to change the established position of all the main Christian denominations. The burden of proof is on you. It's up to you to make your case.”
I have no answers, I simply point out the problems. I have no answers within the context of mainstream Christianity – only doubt.
quote:
“The way I'm suggesting you do this is to accept the core beliefs of the Christian faith, and then say when it comes to this particular issue it's time to look again at what the Bible actually says on this issue (as opposed to the way it's been interpreted in the past).”
You direct your comment at the wrong person. I lost all semblance of mainstream Christian faith years ago. I see no answers. I don’t believe so readily in the concept of a loving god any more and this issue is largely the reason why.
--------------------
Bye for now. Paul.
Posts: 92 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Paul does have a point. The vast majority of gay people are obviously going to feel hostile to Christianity if it appears to be at best, tolerant, at worst, the Christian Institute.
And if that is the case, then is it any surprise that those of us who are gay and Christian find it so difficult to 'get through'.
I'm not sure that I agree about the change in relationships - I do think there are more stable couples, but given the legal and social climate, there are some barriers against this . But things are improving.
However, the Church does seem to be the one institution which really cannot seem to cope with these changes, and at times I do get furiously angry and just feel like chucking the whole thing( and you can usually tell when from the tone of my posts, as you have probably realised)
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Merseymike
There are two strategies with crap .... the first is not contentious but only sometimes effective. The second is highly contentious but perhaps more effective in the long run.
STRATEGY 1
Ignore crap.
STRATEGY 2
Make it clear that the existence of crap seriously disenfranchises the "crap-holder" from the designation of "Christian" or "Church." An example perhaps ...
"I can't be a Christian because you lot believe in total depravity."
Response ... correction .... certain Calvinists believe in total depravity .... in this they are not living and believing as Christians.
Waiting for the flak!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Black Labrador
Shipmate
# 3098
|
Posted
Originally posted by Paul Careau:
quote:
However, the majority is largely silent therefore giving the impression of tacit approval for the views of this minority.
I'm not sure Rowan Williams or the LGCM are silent?
quote:
A case in point. I have no idea who David Hope or Richard Chartes are – I know who Colin Hart is on the other hand.
David Hope is Archbishop of York. Richard Chartres is Bishop of London. Neither are evangelicals. As leaders of the established church I would suggest they are more representative than pressure groups like the CI.
quote:
They won’t listen to Evangelicals because as far as they are concerned Evangelicals = Christian Institute et al. Evangelicals would have to reach out to them with a positive message and convince them that they have something positive to say.
Agreed. But if saying something positive = endorsement without qualification of all relationships it won't happen.
quote:
You direct your comment at the wrong person.
Apologies. Wasn't aimed at you specifically.
[Trying. Very trying.]
[ 21. January 2003, 23:45: Message edited by: sarkycow ]
Posts: 629 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Astro
Shipmate
# 84
|
Posted
quote:
As far as many people in the gay community are concerned not only Evangelicals BUT Christians in general = either Reform/Christian Institute OR a group of people who silently disapprove of/dislike them.
As much as I understand this, I find it rather sad that a group that has been unfairly charactertured should do the same to another group. May be Joe Public cannot see the difference between say the Pope and Rev Ian Paisley but I would have thought that the gay community could see the difference between say christian politains such as Baroness Young and Chris Smith.
--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)
Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I suppose the point we are making, though, is that open voices from the Church supporting gay issues are very much quieter than those who are hostile. In this situation, then all Christianity tends to be seen as hostile.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I suppose the point we are making, though, is that open voices from the Church supporting gay issues are very much quieter than those who are hostile. In this situation, then all Christianity tends to be seen as hostile.
There's a pro-gay Archbishop now, though. So it can't stay the same, can it?
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I think Rowan will be sensitive and respect the fact that the Church remains so divided. But, yes, I think his quiet and thoughtful approach, where conversation is still very much open, will help matters a good deal.
Put it like this, the G&LHumanists, who loathe religion with a passion, do their best to try and portray him as less sympathetic than he is, which suggests they recognise that he may make a real impact - curiously, their loathing of religion means that they would almost rather Christians hate gays, as then religion is easier to call homophobic!
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Careau
Shipmate
# 2904
|
Posted
Unfortunately, people like the CI and Reform are a propaganda gift to people like GALHA. Obviously, you need to bare in mind GALHA's objectives are ultimately aetheist humanism. Any opportunity they get they tend to pump out the message "we told you Christians are bad - you can't trust them". This, coupled with the propaganda from the likes of the CI simply serves to plant doubt and fear in many people's minds. That is why positive/pro-gay messages from mainstream Xians are so important.
--------------------
Bye for now. Paul.
Posts: 92 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Linus
Apprentice
# 3961
|
Posted
As an evangelical christian in Newcastle, i feel i might have a couple of points to make. First of all i want to say i think the CI are PR muppets. Paul is absolutely right to say they shoot themselves, and unfortunately the rest of us, in the foot by the way they act. The whole card carrying fiasco was in my opinion foolish, insensitive, counter-productive in the extreme, and actually the more i think about it, the more i'm disgusted by it. Even though i share a fair amount of the CIs theology up to a point (and believe me i'm not comfortable saying that, but its honest at least) I think the way they express it, in terms of language and emphasis, and in their sometimes one sided / seemingly uncaring statements, leaves a fair amount to be desired.
Having said that, they are i think at least attempting to provide a sincere and honestly arrived at a theological response to the parliamentary issues of the day; as their theology is that the Bible is authoritative and inerrant, that means they have to make strong statements in order to remain true to the beliefs they hold. I'm the first to say, however, they could do a better job of expressing those in a less offensive and prejudicing way - after all we're all very far from perfect. Whilst i accept that there is some truth in the statement that they single out this one issue, its importance to remember there's been a lot of legislation affecting it recently and the CI do act in response to what is going before parliament at the time. They do speak out on other issues equally fundamentally.
I'd also like to inform people a little of my impressions of Jesmond Parish Church. I know they support CI but i think having looked at the CI website, albiet fairly briefly, i'd say there's some daylight between a CI press release and a JPC sermon. I'd estimate i've been to 15 or so services at jpc in the last eighteen months. Only one of these as far as i recall even mentioned homosexuality, and this was in a sermon talking about all aspects of human relationships. As i recall it wasn't a particularly large chunk of that sermon either. You might be interested to know that although CI rang a vague bell when i saw the OP title, it wasn't until looking through the above posts before i was sure jpc were involved with them at all, so its not like they plug it incessantly. I know a fair few people who worship at jpc and i wouldn't say any of them could be described as homophobic, strongly held and carefully thought out positions over the inspired nature of scripture notwithstanding.
I don't think anyone will change evangelical christians' position unless they can make a case from scripture for Homosexual sex being an acceptable act before God. By definition they take the Bible as their ultimate authority. However, there are ways of stating your position and there are ways of acting, which could show Christ and christians in a much more positive light, and i'm in total agreement with you on hoping and praying that will happen.
I don't pretend to have vast insight into these matters but i hope this post is constructive and useful information.
Cheers.
L:>
--------------------
"In a world full of fugitives, the one taking the opposite direction will appear to run away" - t.s.elliot
Posts: 32 | From: Leicester and Newcastle, UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
That the CI takes a stance against homosexual persons indicates judgment of homosexuals as a class without bothering to learn anything about them individually. It is, like any other general judgment of a group without information about the members of that group, irrational. Prejudice is never pretty. The denizens of the CI believe homosexuality is a sin and say this is sufficient grounds to not want their children to be adopted by a homosexual. Since the Bible tells us that being judgmental is a sin shouldn't they also hand out cards saying "In the event of my death I do not want my children to be adopted by a judgmental person" ?
As an aside, my will asks that my children be adopted by a specific couple in the event my wife and I die while our children are minors. We chose the couple because one is related and they will make excellent parents. That they happen to be homosexual was not a factor in the decision.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Linus
Apprentice
# 3961
|
Posted
I've already said i thought the card thing was dispicable. There's no way that that particular act represented mainstream anything and it certainly didn't represent me.
Having spent the last 5 years in a single parent home environment, I feel very strongly, both due to experiences from before and after this point, that a child should grow up in an environment which is as stable as possible and contains input from parents of both sexes who love and are committed to each other, however this is my personal opinion and i would not expect anyone else follow it, nor would i wish to force it upon anyone.
You say the CI condemn "homosexuals as a class" Whilst i cannot speak for them nor would i want to defend them too much, my own position is that i feel it is important to distinguish between deciding, based on a careful study of scripture, that a specific act is wrong, and thus living personally within that boundary, and your statement about judging a group of people because of their association with this act.
I have made a decision to avoid personally acts of homosexual intercourse. I hope and pray i also avoid judging others, which as you say is clearly frowned upon. I want to make it clear i'm not trying to make myself look holier than anyone else - i'm a wretched sinner, especially in terms of my sex life, and i certainly won't be throwing any first stones.
In case you think i'm splitting hairs with the whole act and person thing, let me provide you with an example of how this works in practice. I live in a house with a bunch of non-christians and nominal christians in Newcastle. My housemates regularly get drunk and some have girlfriends they sleep with. I have chosen not to do these particular things in a response to what i believe the Bible says about how to live in response to God and His amazing sacrifice for us. Again, i don't expect others to live by these rules - their decisions are entirely there own, and i am not to judge. My flatmates know my position and why i hold it. I don't think any of them feel judged by it. Despite their different lifestyles i get on well with them, and enjoy living with them.
I use these roughly parrallel (and i know they're not great) examples cos it just so happens that none of the people i live with are in homosexual relationships, but if they were i would act towards them according to the same principles i have explained above My decision affects the way i act and the worldview i hold. Everyone else's decision is between them, their concience and God. I hope that makes sense and that i am not sounding bigoted or prejudiced - its not my intention.
sincerely
Linus:>
--------------------
"In a world full of fugitives, the one taking the opposite direction will appear to run away" - t.s.elliot
Posts: 32 | From: Leicester and Newcastle, UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sooty Puss
Shipmate
# 4155
|
Posted
An interesting debate.
I think calling the Christian Institute the 'Tyeburne Taliban' might be an accurate reflection (particularly in the light of the appalling 'donor card' episode) but perhaps not particularly charitable in my opinion.
Living under Taliban rule would be a lot more brutal and restrictive, believe me!
I have been very disappointed by the actions of the Christian Institute, Reform and the Church Society particularly on the homsexuality issue. But one should realise that these supporters are on the fringes and most evangelicals I know have no idea who these groups are or are not slightly in the bit interested in their agenda. To me, these groups are probably aligned to the similar groups in the United States of which there are plenty, unfortunately.
With the enthronement of Dr. Rowan Williams later today I think we we will perhaps see the Church of England adopt a more enlightened view of gays and lesbians in the church.
Posts: 108 | From: SUSPENDED | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Linus : I think the question may be - do you think that Christians who are gay can have different views to you and still be regarded as fully Christian.
The CI is actually run from JPC; David Holloway is one of its leading lights. However, I think the days when they could be assured of success are fast disappearing. They have few ears inside the Labour Party, and many within the Conservatives are equally sceptical now.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
MerseyMike unless your braincell is misfiring again, you know that discussions of whether one can be a Christian and homosexual belong in Dead Horses. For the newcomers here, who probably don't know this, there is a 9 page thread in Dead Horses to discuss the tangent Mike has been busy setting up in this thread.
Oh, and welcome to Hell SootyPuss and Linus. Enjoy wandering the decks, and reading all the boards. I suggest you both become familiar with the Ship's 10 Commandments, and the guidelines for each board - it'll help in the long run.
Viki, hellhost
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
I think that's insulting to the Taliban. The CI are much worse!
Scary. That's all I can say about this comment. I assume it was supposed to have some degree of humour about it, but frankly, it's not funny.
I believe within my lifetime, evangelicals will become a hated and persecuted ethic minority people group in Britain, and it is ill informed slanderous comments for unfounded hatred which will form the basis of that.
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Degs
Friend of dorothy
# 2824
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
quote:
I think that's insulting to the Taliban. The CI are much worse!
Scary. That's all I can say about this comment. I assume it was supposed to have some degree of humour about it, but frankly, it's not funny.
Don't be afraid to cite the orignator of the quote, matt, I'm not ashamed to own it!
There was meant to be some humour to it, but you're right, it's not funny.
The CI are more dangerous because they are insidious. The Taliban were prertty much 'in yer face' blowing up statues, lopping off body parts!!
The CI, on the other hand, do things like funding researchers for, now deceased, peers of the realm (against all the rules apparently), so that they can further their narrow and prescriptive agenda.
As for your fear for the future of evangelicals, I don't think so. It's not evangelicals who are distrusted, just groups like the CI.
I work very happily with my evangelical colleagues and they with me, and we tend to agree about groups like the CI.
YKW
--------------------
The preest when he hath sayd and red all: he gyueth the benedyccion upon all those that be there present and then he doth tourne hym from the people retournynge thyther from whens he came.
Posts: 2388 | From: a land that I heard of once in a lullaby | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Royal Peculiar
Shipmate
# 3159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
quote:
I think that's insulting to the Taliban. The CI are much worse!
I believe within my lifetime, evangelicals will become a hated and persecuted ethic minority people group in Britain
matt
They may certainly be mocked and reviled but will they be beaten up in the street, denied jobs or sacked or imprisoned for their evagelical beliefs or actions stemming from tnose beliefs?
Time wil tell, but I doubt it.
--------------------
Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.
Oscar Wilde
Posts: 405 | From: Barking, London | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Linus
Apprentice
# 3961
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Linus : I think the question may be - do you think that Christians who are gay can have different views to you and still be regarded as fully Christian.
The CI is actually run from JPC; David Holloway is one of its leading lights.
We are Christians because of Christ and not cause of anything we do or don't do. I am trying to follow Christ and live in a way i think pleases Him. You yourself i think have similar aims. Who am i to judge whether others are Christians or not? You're asking me not only to proclaim judgement on people i don't know, but also to do something specifically forbidden in scripture:
quote:
1 Corinthians 4v5
Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
This is a toungue in cheek point, but - Do you feel that Christians who are members of the CI can have different views to you and still be regarded as fully Christian?
As for JPC yes i agree with you they are highly involved with the CI, the point i'm trying to make is they are not a one issue Church. They have a particular stance on this issue. I can understand that you might feel hurt by it, but it is far from the main thrust of their teaching, nor do i think they are deliberately trying to persecute or crusade against the gay community.
God Bless
Linus:>
ps shouldn't we all expect persecution as Christians, evangelical or otherwise? In many places around the world what Royal Peculiar describes is happening to followers of Christ right now. We shouldn't be so complacent to presume it won't happen here. Especially depending on your views of certain prophesies contained in scripture.
--------------------
"In a world full of fugitives, the one taking the opposite direction will appear to run away" - t.s.elliot
Posts: 32 | From: Leicester and Newcastle, UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Royal Peculiar
Shipmate
# 3159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Linus:
ps shouldn't we all expect persecution as Christians, evangelical or otherwise? In many places around the world what Royal Peculiar describes is happening to followers of Christ right now. We shouldn't be so complacent to presume it won't happen here. Especially depending on your views of certain prophesies contained in scripture.
So presumably the incorporation of the European Covention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of religion and outlaws discrimination on religious grounds, into English law, is a source of great relief to Evangelicals who fear persecution.
[Peculiar coding. We are not amused.]
[ 28. February 2003, 02:12: Message edited by: RooK ]
--------------------
Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.
Oscar Wilde
Posts: 405 | From: Barking, London | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Black Labrador
Shipmate
# 3098
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Linus:
I don't think anyone will change evangelical christians' position unless they can make a case from scripture for Homosexual sex being an acceptable act before God. By definition they take the Bible as their ultimate authority.
I think if those who were campaigning for acceptance of gay relationships within the church made clear that they were only referring to committed monogamous relationships then many evangelicals would be a lot more sympathetic.
Can anyone give examples of gay rights campaigners taking such a stance?
Posts: 629 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
busyknitter
Shipmate
# 2501
|
Posted
Crumbs. I'd never heard of the CI before today and I was baptised at Jesmond Parish Church - albeit over ten years ago.
BK
Posts: 903 | From: The Wool Basket | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
