As to the other... I notice that accusations of childishness and immaturity only flow in one direction. I find it completely immature that someone would use such an extreme example to "make a point". It's no more acceptable, debate-wise, to use pedophilia than it is to use Nazi fascism. If you can't argue without resorting to the most vilified people in society, then your point is very weak, and your debate style immature.

You see, Paige, there is a huge difference. I have a hard time discussing things with people who have no intention of changing their minds. Likewise, I feel it is pointless and dishonest to enter a debate in which I know I'm not going to be changing my mind. If I have someone who, for whatever bizarre and incomprehensible reason, thinks that pedophilia and homosexuality are in any way comparable, I don't believe there is a common ground for us to explore. I'm certainly not going to change my mind about the fact that they are in no way related, and I can't see how anyone who can draw that analogy could change his/her mind, either, without some extensive logic courses thrown in. (This is not an insult, I just think that logically it is absolutely impossible to relate homosexuality with pedophilia.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Clearly, FCB, there are differing points of view on Musta's arguments. And considering that the hosts have made their ruling (totally and completely uninfluenced by me, I did not even see this until after Louise had posted her first warning), that is the final word on how Musta's post came across. Host rulings always have been the final word. You've been here long enough, you should know this.

---

Infallible magisteria come in handy when they rule in your favor, don't they? But my point was that valid points can be badly made. It may be a host's role to warn someone that certain comparisons generate more heat than light, but I don't think hosts are capable of ruling on how a post "comes across." That would involve a major act of mindreading. In addition, I think the hosts clearly misunderstood the post. It was an equation of arguments, not of actions. So your point about consensual-coercive actions was beside the point.

quote:

---

As to the other... I notice that accusations of childishness and immaturity only flow in one direction. I find it completely immature that someone would use such an extreme example to "make a point". It's no more acceptable, debate-wise, to use pedophilia than it is to use Nazi fascism. If you can't argue without resorting to the most vilified people in society, then your point is very weak, and your debate style immature.

---

Agreed. Like I said, mentioning pedophiles is likely to make folks see red.

quote:

---

Or do I petition the hosts to close this train wreck of a thread?

---

Petition away.

FCB

[I can't believe I'm editing this code, just goes to show how nice I really am ]

quote:

---

Infallible magisteria come in handy when they rule in your favor, don't they?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
As if.

---

Are too!

quote:

---

I've always maintained that, from the beginning, and I defy you to come up with an instance where I've deviated from this.

---

All I can say is that hosts have failed in the past. Yet we still look to them for guidance. After screw-up after monumental screw-up, we still look to the hosts for our netiquette. We still base modern secular society's views on posting on ancient usenet teachings – teachings the hosts can't even live up to. We still let the hosts dictate what we can post, and when, and how.

Oooo, I feel a rant coming on.

I believe I've made my point.

I'm not acting as administrator here, but please, this is about MY RANT, not about the host rulings, so if this discussion continues along these lines I will ask Ruth and Louise to shut the damn thread down.

Ruth and I have already called this post the way we see it.

Anyone who wants to carry on disputing about the interpretation of that post made by us and backed/not backed by other posters, now needs to take that dispute to the Styx.

If someone has a personal dispute with Erin, then they need to take that to the Hell board.

What's not on is to continue derailing this thread with it.

Louise

And I'm not sure what point it is that you think you've made.

The church getting it wrong is only half of why I want them to shut up. The other half is because there are far, far more important things to get on your soapbox than who is doing what with which mutually consenting adult. I realize that there are some people (do not know if you are one of them) who believe that even mutually consenting adults should be subject to the church (a view I do not hold in any way, shape or form), but good Lord, even those of you who are biblical inerrantists have to admit that there is by far a greater number of exhortations in the scriptures regarding caring for the poor, the sick, and the hungry than about ALL aspects of sexuality.

Yet do churches throw you out for not giving all that you have? No. Do churches throw you out for not visiting or caring for the sick? No. Do churches throw you out for not feeding the hungry? No. But some will quite gladly throw you out simply because of who you're screwing. That is wrong and it will always BE wrong. And as long as we let the church define us as Christian or not based on what's going on with our genitalia, we will continue to look like the biggest bunch of hypocrites in the world.

And if you wish to debate authority in general, you may do so on a thread in Purgatory. If you wish to introduce the element of the authority of the church's teachings about sex into a discussion of Erin's rant, then go right ahead.

But be clear about this: dragging pedophilia into any discussion that isn't specifically about pedophilia is simply not acceptable. Musta compared Erin's argument for her views to the arguments pedophiles use to justify their actions. There are all sorts of other less combustible comparisons he could have used to express his opinion of the quality of her argument. The reference to pedophilia was entirely unnecessary.

Because of our miserable experiences in dealing with references to pedophilia, the hosts will continue to be heavy-handed about quashing such references.

RuthW

My hope is that one day the church will recognize that our sexuality (or lack thereof) is a part of who we are. It's not some outward sign of how fallen and dirty we are. It is another aspect of us, it does not define us, but the church can't (or won't) recognize this. To be honest, and I know that the Rant probably belies this, I can't see why everyone is so obsessed with it. I came to terms with my sexuality some time ago. Contrary to what is I am sure board-wide opinion by now, I do not sit around planning out how many orgasms I can squeeze into one day, or how many people I can get them with. When I am in a situation where sexual expression is appropriate, I I express it, when I'm not, I get on with my life. I let relationships define themselves, and I don't obsess over whether or not they are sexual, they should be sexual, they shouldn't be sexual, or whatever. If sexual expression is appropriate, fine. If not... well, that's fine, too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Of course, my own personal opinion is that people look to the church for guidelines on sexuality because they are not comfortable enough with it on their own.

---

I think that's not just limited to sexuality, but certainly I know that a small (by general population standards) but large (as a proportion of Church members) group really feel that external authorities of morality which are unquestionable are needed. I've seen some research done on this by a sociologist, which indentified a clearly distinguishable group with this trait.

My biggest concern is that the more "traditional" parts of the church are both shaped by this group's needs, and conveys the idea that this is what the church is actually for to the rest of the population. I suspect (though I have no evidence of this) that external authorities were both needed and respected more in the past, and that the Church is left catering ever more substantially to the needs of what, in "the West" at least, is a smaller and shrinking community.

Sexuality appears to be a touchstone for this difficulty, but I don't believe it's the only one, and I think the problem is much more general.

quote:

---

from ChastMastr:

Yes, it was also an argument ad hominem (I hope I'm using this term correctly).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gill:
I have only slept/made love with one guy ever. Is it so terrible to want to try it with someone who likes women?!?!

---

Gill, sorry to take so long to respond to this, I've been really busy and tired. I don't personally think it's terrrible at all, nor do many churches who don't take a hard 'no remarriage' line. If I'm honest, I would dearly like to try it with someone other than the husband I'm currently not sleeping with. But that's for me to work out by wrestling with God and maybe getting some more good counselling. (Said husband and I have a very strong relationship apart from sexually, which isn't a very comfortable state to be in).

On the 'divorce and remarriage' thing, which I guess is really another thread, many of my best friends including a (female) elder of my church are divorced a remarried. The way I guess this connects with the sex, lies and church thing is that what really seems to upset some churches about remarriage is that it entails sex with another person than the one you married first. If there was no sex in the first marriage it's annulment and even Catholics are happy.

That's all, folks. Except that I think Musta said some really sensible things and I think his 'paedophile' reference has been twisted somewhat. And Erin, if you're dissing someone please don't send them to Coventry, it's a city that deserves better. I was born and bred there (so you can send me there, but be selective in whom else you send).

[trying to fix bold]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gbuchanan:
I know that a small (by general population standards) but large (as a proportion of Church members) group really feel that external authorities of morality which are unquestionable are needed. I've seen some research done on this by a sociologist, which indentified a clearly distinguishable group with this trait.

---

Fascinating! So the church has been proved to have been taken over by conservatives... Do you have a reference for this ?

I'm getting a flavour of "us and them" from the discussion. Like, the church is "us" when it comes to acknowledging our collective sinfulness or paying up the money, but "them" when it comes to setting policy and making the rules...

I think Erin's point about the church spending far too much energy on sexual issues is right on. (Admitting that this is exaggerated by media bias). But the Rant's attempt to link this to sexual misconduct by priests seems misguided. Erin, can I vote you a full tot of rum for your post of 26 March 16:25, and a splinter for the Rant ?

Us vs them -- well, to some extent, yeah, it is, though a bit differently than I think you mean. For me, "them" is anyone who thinks that yammering about sexual sins is the mark of a true Christian. I'm just so tired of hearing about it.

I must point out that the media in the UK is not quite like the media in the US. Seeing as how the US is a secular nation, we don't hear a whole helluva lot about religion in our daily news. Outside of the (sexual!) scandals that appear every now and then, there's not too much said about religion. So what I hear on this issue comes straight from the church, rather than being shoved down my throat by the broadcast and cable networks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
the Roman Catholic church appears to be positioning itself to drum out celibate homosexual priests . . . WTF is up with that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Regarding the misconduct by the priests -- that point never got picked up much, but basically (at least in the US) the Roman Catholic church appears to be positioning itself to drum out celibate homosexual priests on the one hand while protecting pedophiles on the other.

---

In England as well, the Roman Catholic clergy have been accused of being too soft on the few pedophiles within their ranks. But this isn't obsession with sexual misconduct to the exclusion of more important issues. It's simply "us and them" - a priesthood trying to shore up the party line that they're called by God and He doesn't make mistakes. When priests do things wrong they are to be shown every understanding and encouraged to keep serving the organisation, etc. Scandalous, yes. Symptomatic of an arrogance and self-importance, probably. But a key point in a rant denouncing the church's misplaced emphasis on sexual attitudes commonly associated with the Victorian era ? Not really.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Strauss:
I am curious, though, about how you deal with those Christians that still feel that there are Biblical condemnations of homosexuality- "abomination" and all that. I know that these attitudes are not just in the Catholic church, but in many Protestant circles, as well, including friends of mine and family members.
Just curious, thanks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'Chorister:
And if they persist in ranting and raving about it and refusing to listen to others' points of view, then Erin gets her pecker up and chucks 'em off! Does that help?

---

As to how I deal with those who think that it's all an abomination unto the Lord... I learned a long time ago that there is nothing I can say. I generally just avoid the discussion altogether. There may have been a display or two of this on the board somewhere, but when I get frustrated, I quickly become very unChristian. If I'm talking to someone and it's quite clear that nothing that I'm saying is registering, I quickly reach a breaking point where I'm ready to knock the holy hell out of them. I don't, because that's wrong, but it would make me very happy. So I just do it verbally.

Strauss,
If you want to discuss sex then this is the correct board, but if you want to discuss Biblical inerrancy and faith then the correct board for that is Purgatory and you need to start a new thread as I don't see on one that subject at the moment.

L.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Strauss:
If, if, the Bible is from God-it is inerrant.
If, if, there are truly errors in the Bible, then it is not from God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Strauss:
how her views could be squared with a fundamentalist view of the Bible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Strauss:
It began with Erin's rant on sex and the church, (specifically homosexuality) and my curiousity as to how her views could be squared with a fundamentalist view of the Bible, i.e., inerrant, and with passages condemning behaviors she refers to.
I guess I am done, since it appears I am not going to get a direct answer.
'Till next time!

---

For the LAST TIME, you DID get an answer. I'll use stronger words (and bold!) so that maybe you'll pay attention this time: I don't give a flying rat's ass about squaring my views with a fundamentalist view of the Bible. I don't subscribe to a fundamentalist view of the Bible, I don't care about a fundamentalist view of the Bible, and I'm not interested in engaging with a fundamentalist view of the Bible, as I think it is WRONG.

"How do you square this with an inerrant view of the Bible?"

"Well, I don't adhere to an inerrant view of the Bible, so I don't."

"Yes, but how do you square this with an inerrant view of the Bible?"

"That's not my position, so I don't."

"I want to know how you square this with an inerrant view of the Bible, but it's clear you're not going to give me an answer."

quote:

---

In front of all of your fans, do you or do you not believe that those are from God, and do you or do you not feel that they apply to our society today, and why?

---

No and no. Because I AM NOT a biblical inerrantist. Seriously, why do you keep beating this dead and rotting horse? I've answered this question for the last time. You can keep posting it and posting it until your fingers fall off, and you will not get another response to this same question that I've answered FOUR times now.

It is boring and tedious.

Strauss,

Erin has made it clear several times on this thread that she is discussing whether the Church says too much about sex and whether it's time for it to shut up.

What she is not discussing on this thread - as she has repeatedly made crystal clear - are issues of biblical authority.

If you want to engage with her on whether the church focuses too much on sex, then do so on this thread.

However if your beef is a personal one with Erin that you want to talk biblical authority and she says it's irrelevant to this, then you need to take that to the Hell board which is where we take all personal disputes (as you should have read in the ten commandments for these boards) and start a thread on the subject there.

Given your arrogant, sarcastic and highly condescending tone you are in no position to complain about Erin.

Louise

BTW If you do want to discuss general issues of biblical interpretation/biblical authority, please do so on the appropriate threads (Biblical Inerrancy in Purgatory or for biblical teaching on homosexulaity - 'Homosexuality - are we all against it' on this board)

so i'm doing it at work, and i'm explaining to cameron that i have to say who i am and get a reference from a priest, to make sure i'm not a paedophile or anything.

and cameron says "they want a PRIEST to verify you're not a paedophile?????"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde:
This discussion on the Rant seems to have ended rather abruptly.
Does this mean that Erin has leapt off
the Plank?

---

Hehehe - oh no It means all those dissenters have been quelled, and she's sleeping the sleep of the very drunk

I'm guessing at some point all the votes will be totted up, and Erin will either take a walk, or give a speech. And you can find this out by checking back to where the rant is, at regular intervals.