Thread: gay sex - being and doing Board: Dead Horses / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000593
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Is it valid to compare anti-gay attitudes to racism?
One thing I’ve noticed recently both shipboard and elsewhere has been the unquestioning assumption that being anti-gay is exactly the same kind of obviously immoral attitude as racism. That has not only made me think, it’s actually ended up making me query that assumption….
Racism is, at least at first glance, a simple enough concept; people are genetically different and the ‘big’ differences of being ‘black’, ‘white’, oriental, or the ‘first peoples’ of various lands are of no more moral significance than the differences within my own family whereby I am fair and blue-eyed, average height and tend to plumpness, one of my brothers has similar hair/eyes but is tall and skinny, and brother three has dark hair, brown eyes, and is between us in height and also skinny. These are aspects over which we had no control (well, OK, perhaps I could diet a bit, but then my brothers can remain skinny while eating more than I do!! – it’s not just about diet….). Nor do these differences have any moral significance in the sense that they make me DO certain things as a necessary consequence. Likewise the racial differences – there is nothing in being white, black, or whatever which compels those concerned to DO one thing rather than another. One’s race does not make one a murderer or a thief or a rapist or whatever; nor of course does it make one an angel or saint. Being Asian, African or European is just that – a matter of BEING, of what one simply IS. And so, not a matter over which people should discriminate against one.
HOWEVER – in practice different ethnic groups do develop cultures which are not things they ARE, but things they DO. Over that DOING, they have CHOICE; and that DOING can therefore properly be the subject of moral debate and criticism in a way that the mere BEING can’t be. Put simply, nobody gets to say “I’m black so you can’t criticise my rape/looting/pillage/etc.” And to judge by some recent discussions here on board the Ship, I don’t think many here would let worries about ‘racism’ get in the way of criticising a practice of child sacrifice…!
OK, in fact some of these cultural differences are only different and not obviously immoral, and some of the criticism by one race may be effectively ‘racism’ at the expense of mere difference; but that can’t overrule the basic point – things DONE are, and indeed MUST BE, subject to moral question. 'Equality' simply implies that all races must accept the possibility of their doings being criticised.
If anything this point is even stronger in relation to sexuality; people of ‘minority sexuality’ are, after all, of the same 'race' as the culture around them. But it’s very much NOT just about what they ARE; the point is that they want to live out what they ARE by actually DOING THINGS. And to be blunt, other human beings are surely entitled to question those DOINGS.
And further, if that is correct, then gay people aren’t entitled to hide behind what they ARE to evade criticism of what they DO, or to play the “It’s like racism” card to insist that they be beyond criticism; indeed, the decades during which they have been playing that card may have constituted oppression and something very like persecution BY the gay movement….
I don’t want this OP to go on for ever; I’ve actually quite a bit more to say, and I hope I’m not kidding myself in thinking that much of it will be sympathetic towards gay people. But I think I’ve said enough to open up a serious debate…. Over to you, shipmates…!
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
So gay people shouldn't be allowed to rape/loot/pillage with impunity. Yep. I'm with you.
You got anything else?
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
I think there are a couple of other elements that need to be addressed--specifically the difference between disagreement about the morality of personal sexual behavior, and the way the secular laws treat people.
I have very firm beliefs about what we, as Christians, are allowed to do sexually, and I have had to be very careful in sorting out what I believe I am permitted to do (it has taken years, and some people would consider me practically Puritan whilst others would consider me almost libertine. There's a whole thread on this in Limbo called "Explaining the Leather Thing" or something like that.) It's where the "Chast(e)" in "ChastMastr" comes from. (And, yes, it means I don't get too many play-dates, but such is the path I am on.)
But I do not want my beliefs about that, as I understand my Christian faith, to be encoded in the secular laws of the land as regards consenting adults of whatever sex, and how they choose to identify as families or as partners or as spouses.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Perhaps the key question might be "what kind of criticism are you talking about?" And for that matter, perhaps more critically than that, "how would that criticism be put?"
There's a big difference between saying "I don't believe we as Christians are allowed to put part A into slot B" and "People who do that should be jailed," for example.
"Do as you would be done by" is perhaps a helpful approach. If you were gay, how would you like to be treated? Even if it is by people who don't believe gay sex (in various definitions of sex!) is OK?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Garasu;
quote:
You got anything else?
I think you know you're deliberately twisting what I wrote. This is too serious for that kind of response.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Hmm. I suppose the thing about being, say, black, is that it doesn't have any necessary connection to how you behave. But being gay means, AIUI, that if you are going to express your sexuality- something which most straight people take it for granted that they can do, even within given moral or ethical or religious boundaries- you are going to have to do it with someone of your own sex: and that's the behaviour that some people object to. Of course there are gay people who conclude that they cannot express their sexuality in that way without breaking what they believe to be an important moral code, and whatever we think of that conclusion, we should admire that kind of self-denial. But (again AIUI) a lot of gay people, like a lot of straight people, would say that they see no reason not to express their sexuality: perhaps indeed that as it is all the orientation they have, they see it as being as God-given as anything else about them. So from that position the being/doing distinction is rather harder to maintain and, many would say, to justify: and if they are good Christian people they will one hopes maintain the same standards of sexual conduct- of fidelity, respect and so on- by which straight Christians should abide.
And in all honesty, if that is the case, I can't see any reason, apart from a rather selective emphasising and interpretation of a couple of Bible verses (and if you're going to do that, then you have to be consistent- no scallops with black pudding starter for you next time you dine somewhere fancy, and you'd better denounce anyone who does eat it!) why anybody should get hot and bothered about it at all.
[ 28. July 2014, 21:06: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Is it valid to compare anti-gay attitudes to racism?
Yes, of course. Both are about how we treat other people.
There may be anti-gay views which are not equivalent to racism because of some morally significant distinction, but there are also ones which are based on prejudice for which the comparison is apt.
quote:
If anything this point is even stronger in relation to sexuality; people of ‘minority sexuality’ are, after all, of the same 'race' as the culture around them. But it’s very much NOT just about what they ARE; the point is that they want to live out what they ARE by actually DOING THINGS. And to be blunt, other human beings are surely entitled to question those DOINGS.
Sure, but there isn't any class of thing that all gay people DO, or that no straight people DO. You can, for instance, hold the view that promiscuity is wrong, and that gay culture that appears to celebrate promiscuous sex is therefore morally questionable, but if you do, then if straight culture that celebrates promiscuity doesn't appear to bother you quite as much, there's more at work than questioning DOINGS. Or so it seems to me.
Likewise you can disapprove of non-procreative sex, or unmarried sex, but gay people don't own the monopoly on either of those. If you pick on those expressions of sexuality for the purpose of criticising gays in particular, or to argue in favour of denying them equal rights with straight people who do exactly the same sort of thing, then again, it's not all about choices and actions, is it?
The way I see it is that no one, straight or gay, is automatically entitled to my uncritical approval of their sexual ethics, but everyone is entitled to a certain minimum level of respect, and that includes a fair amount of minding my own fucking business, rather than unhealthily obsessing about their fucking business.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
I'm not sure that I'm twisting it. Being flippant, certainly. And ChastMastr has given you a much more considered and charitable response, for which ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Having said that... what are you actually objecting to in homosexual relationships that makes talk about rape/pillage/loot equivalent?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If anything this point is even stronger in relation to sexuality; people of ‘minority sexuality’ are, after all, of the same 'race' as the culture around them. But it’s very much NOT just about what they ARE; the point is that they want to live out what they ARE by actually DOING THINGS. And to be blunt, other human beings are surely entitled to question those DOINGS.
Are we? I recall an incident where a law student asked Scalia if he sodomized his wife. I think this was in the context of Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas where he essentially argued that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in sex. At any rate, despite not accepting that gays had a right to privacy in their sex lives, Scalia felt very emphatically that he was entitled to it in his own.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And further, if that is correct, then gay people aren’t entitled to hide behind what they ARE to evade criticism of what they DO, or to play the “It’s like racism” card to insist that they be beyond criticism; indeed, the decades during which they have been playing that card may have constituted oppression and something very like persecution BY the gay movement….
"The only real oppression is when you bring attention to oppression" is a popular position of late. I'm not sure there's much merit to the argument that lynching Matthew Shepard is just as oppressive as calling Matthew Shepard's death a "lynching".
Of course, if you insist on the distinction between "being" and "doing" you may feel better analogizing anti-gay hatred to religious bigotry than to racial animus. Religious bigotry is, after all, based on actions rather than inherent characteristics. If those on the receiving end of religious discrimination or violence had simply refrained from the various doing of their worship, then they never would have become targets of those who you argue are "surely entitled to question those DOINGS".
[ 28. July 2014, 21:15: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Garasu;
quote:
You got anything else?
I think you know you're deliberately twisting what I wrote. This is too serious for that kind of response.
Serious? really? Come on, it's only sex. Now, why you do what you do, and what your attitude is to those you do it with (or to someone else to whom you have a commitment)- those really are serious (which is why we are taught that monogamy and fidelity matter). But not the mere bumping of the uglies.
[ 28. July 2014, 21:18: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
A few thoughts in response to the OP.
quote:
the unquestioning assumption that being anti-gay is exactly the same kind of obviously immoral attitude as racism
In principal I guess I agree, anti-gay attitudes and racist attitudes are not *exactly the same as one another*. Yet, both involve discrimination against one or more other people on the grounds of something which makes them different. There also now seems to be widespread agreement [no source I'm afraid] that both involve discrimination over something that makes someone different over which that person does not have control, i.e. gay people do not choose to be gay any more than coloured people choose to have coloured skin.
quote:
people of ‘minority sexuality’ are, after all, of the same 'race' as the culture around them. But it’s very much NOT just about what they ARE
I don't agree. Some people dislike/hate/discriminate against gay people simply because they are gay. Try telling the family and friends of the three people killed in the bombing of the gay pub in Soho in 1999 that the bomber did not hate the victims simply for who they *were* rather than what they *did* (drink drinks in a gay pub...?)
quote:
the point is that they want to live out what they ARE by actually DOING THINGS. And to be blunt, other human beings are surely entitled to question those DOINGS
Well, we all want to live out what we are, don't we?
I would defend human beings' entitlement to question others' doings so long as they aren't selective in those questionings based on the others' sex, gender, race, sexuality etc.
quote:
And further, if that is correct, then gay people aren’t entitled to hide behind what they ARE to evade criticism of what they DO
So long as straight people aren't entitled to hide behind what they are to evade criticism of what they do. By which I mean that it should not somehow be acceptable not to question what straight people do in the privacy of their own homes, simply because so many other straight people do that. Yet, as gay people are in a minority, it becomes acceptable only to question what *they* do.
quote:
the gay movement
which is?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And in all honesty, if that is the case, I can't see any reason, apart from a rather selective emphasising and interpretation of a couple of Bible verses (and if you're going to do that, then you have to be consistent- no scallops with black pudding starter for you next time you dine somewhere fancy, and you'd better denounce anyone who does eat it!) why anybody should get hot and bothered about it at all.
Traditional Christian teaching regarding sexuality has nothing to do with the Law. Therefore this argument of yours, which one hears all the time, is nothing but a strawman. Rather it is based on the words of our Lord himself.
"Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female?...For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh".
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
But actually the OP in this case has to do with humans relating to other humans on the basis of either what they *are* or what they *do*. I realise this is the magazine of Christian unrest, but the OP had nothing really to do with Christianity, or any other religion.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Some people dislike/hate/discriminate against gay people simply because they are gay. Try telling the family and friends of the three people killed in the bombing of the gay pub in Soho in 1999 that the bomber did not hate the victims simply for who they *were* rather than what they *did* (drink drinks in a gay pub...?)
I thought the irony was that none of the people killed in the Admiral Duncan were actually gay?
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
OK, I'll rephrase, "Try telling the family and friends of the three people killed in the bombing of the gay pub in Soho in 1999 that the bomber did not hate the victims simply for who he thought they *were* rather than what he thought they *did* (drink drinks in a gay pub...?)"
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Over that DOING, they have CHOICE; and that DOING can therefore properly be the subject of moral debate and criticism in a way that the mere BEING can’t be.
The doing in this case in no way hurts straight people.
What I do in my bed affects no one not participating. Regardless of their source, moral claims in this instance are extremely dubious.
As has been mentioned, LGBT+ sex has no different moral connotations than plain vanilla straight sex.
Even should certain religious groups be correct and God hates fags, it does them no substantive harm to just bugger off.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
Sorry, not a criticism, iamchristianhearmeroar, it's just a fact that I find rather fascinating.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
Ah, OK! Lack of facial expressions/body language on the intermenet is always hard!
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Traditional Christian teaching regarding sexuality has nothing to do with the Law. Therefore this argument of yours, which one hears all the time, is nothing but a strawman. Rather it is based on the words of our Lord himself.
"Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female?...For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh".
For those who care:
Matt. 19:4ff
=
Mark 10:06 ff
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
The context being divorce, of course, not anything to do with same sex relationships, sexual or otherwise.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
The context being divorce, of course, not anything to do with same sex relationships, sexual or otherwise.
Yes, Christ says that in the context of a question regarding divorce but his answer is a whole lot more. He shows us God's intention for man and woman from the beginning. Anyway, my point was that Christians do not base their understanding of sexuality from the Law, rather it comes straight from the Gospel. I was just setting Albertus straight, that's all.
[ 28. July 2014, 22:26: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
And celibacy?
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
...other human beings are surely entitled to question those DOINGS.
But on what basis are these "DOINGS" to be questioned? The only two ways I can see "doings" being criticised is either on the basis of a pre-existing prejudice against homosexuality, which means that your argument begins to fall flat. OR, we question it on the basis of ALL sexual behaviour, which I think is what should happen; we should be judging all sex in the same way. If we did that, I suspect that "gay sex" would prove to be just as healthy as any other kind.
I can see that you are trying to resurrect the old distinction between "being gay" (which even most evangelicals will accept as being OK, if not ideal) and "acting gay" which would be rejected. "It's ok for you be a gay person, as long as you don't do anything about it" - which is nonsensical. You can't separate "being" and "acting" in this way.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And further, if that is correct, then gay people aren’t entitled to hide behind what they ARE to evade criticism of what they DO, or to play the “It’s like racism” card to insist that they be beyond criticism; indeed, the decades during which they have been playing that card may have constituted oppression and something very like persecution BY the gay movement….
This is where you just get plain silly. But of course, it isn't you alone - it is the cry of many evangelicals these days. "We're being persecuted by those nasty gays and their movement because they won't let us stop them having gay sex and they won't let us discriminate against them."
I find it deeply offensive that people who have spent a huge amount of effort in seeking to oppress gay men and women turn round and cry "persecution" the moment that they don't get their own way. It is childish behaviour.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
And celibacy?
Eh?
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
And celibacy?
Eh?
Bit of a failing with the cleaving...
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Steve Langton: And further, if that is correct, then gay people aren’t entitled to hide behind what they ARE to evade criticism of what they DO
The way I see it, most gay people don't hide behind what they are to evade criticism of what they do. Rather, they say "There's nothing wrong with what we do".
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
The split between sexuality and its expression is as false as it's insidious. If a lesbian woman or gay man is told that it's a sin to ever act on their sexual orientation, it makes a great many feel terrible for having the desires. Most can't compartmentalize like that.
You can absolutely do the same with racism. Loving v. Virginia could be opposed with a claim that anti-miscegenation laws only punish actions, and punish both parties equally.
It could be said, and it would be as hollow as claiming that it's not homophobic to demand all gay people suppress their sexuality for life.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I think the more precise comparison is between same-sex couples and interracial couples. I presume we would all agree that opposition to interracial couples is opposition to a behaviour, and it is also based on racism, yes? Then surely it follows that opposition to same-sex couples is based on an equivalent discriminatory prejudice, which for the sake of argument I will call homophobia.
Now, I'm sure there were Klan members and Nation of Islam members who would claim that they had no problem with whites or blacks (respectively) but that there was a natural order to things and black people were different to white people / placed by God on separate continents / insert pseudo-religious rationalisation of your choice and so shouldn't be in a sexual relationship. Their views weren't racist, oh no, because they only opposed this behaviour.
In many ways such a position would be less offensive than the anti-gay one, because at least most black people can find someone black to fall in love with. Most gay people can't happily pretend to be straight.
The most direct comparison for homophobia is not racism as a whole but specifically its anti-miscegenationist subset.
[ 28. July 2014, 22:37: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
And celibacy?
Eh?
Bit of a failing with the cleaving...
Ah! I see. Well, both our Lord and the Apostle address the question of celibacy. Some are called to it for the kingdom of God, others are not.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Is it valid to compare anti-gay attitudes to racism?
One thing I’ve noticed recently both shipboard and elsewhere has been the unquestioning assumption that being anti-gay is exactly the same kind of obviously immoral attitude as racism. That has not only made me think, it’s actually ended up making me query that assumption….
Anti-gay behavior is analogous to racism in many ways. You might want to consider why racism is "obviously immoral" when in the United States it wasn't fifty years ago. You could find clergy talking about the need to segregate the races and give lower status to certain races.
You also are dancing some fairly complicated dances to differentiate what people are and what people do. Would racism suddenly be moral if people could take a pill and change their skin color?
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
And further, if that is correct, then gay people aren’t entitled to hide behind what they ARE to evade criticism of what they DO, or to play the “It’s like racism” card to insist that they be beyond criticism; indeed, the decades during which they have been playing that card may have constituted oppression and something very like persecution BY the gay movement….
In what way are you being persecuted or oppressed by two people wanting to live lives of quiet domesticity in the way that straight people take for granted? And don't you think that it's a bit much claiming that Peter Tatchell writing a robust piece for Comment is Free is somehow morally equivalent to having people pop round and burn down your house. Oppression and Persecution are fairly strong terms with fairly determinate meanings and suggesting that bigotry against gay people is roughly analogous to bigotry against black people ain't one of them.
In any event it's a false dichotomy. Anyone who spends any time with racists will learn pretty quickly that there is a litany of offences committed by the offending ethnic minority. Naturally they are not bigoted. Indeed some of their best friends are black or Jewish or whatever. However observation and experience have taught them that black teenagers have a penchant for stabbing their peers with stanley knives or that Jews are incapable of patriotism or that the Muslims are all conspiring to blow us up on the underground. Of course, we tend to discount this as bullshit and as a glib rationalisation of prejudices that already exist. I suggest the same thing applies to much of the charge sheet against homosexuals.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Having been fairly vigorous in discussing the Second Great Commandment on another thread, I'll try it here as well.
You may not like people who have some visible characteristic - skin colour, physical deformity, size/shape - for whatever reason that you may think up or that you were taught. Does that give you the freedom to EITHER tell those people that they are not loved by God, OR take some action to make sure that those people aren't allowed to do ordinary things that you do?
No? Obviously, they may react badly to what you have proposed, and they, by the same principle that you used, can tell you to do the physical impossibility with your genitals.
Now, let us suppose that you are made squeamish by the thought of what some gay people may do when with another willing partner. Do you have the right to demand that those people should not go to a bar and have a drink in public, when fully-dressed and not doing those activities? Do you have the right to demand that they should not be employed in a business where you might be present?
What is it about your perceptions that allows you to demand the oppression of certain persons, based on your internal attitudes/obsessions/paranoia?
Why are you, Stephen Langton, so oblivious of the damage/hurt/injury done to people "not like you", while at the same time, you write on a religious board? What part of "Do unto others..." do you not understand?
The only arguments for denying equal rights to identifiable groups are based on "because I want it that way" and do not consider the other people as actually human, with the same reactions to hurts as you have.
Society shouldn't run on the basis of demeaning and hurting other people for no reason beyond personal vindictiveness.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And in all honesty, if that is the case, I can't see any reason, apart from a rather selective emphasising and interpretation of a couple of Bible verses (and if you're going to do that, then you have to be consistent- no scallops with black pudding starter for you next time you dine somewhere fancy, and you'd better denounce anyone who does eat it!) why anybody should get hot and bothered about it at all.
Traditional Christian teaching regarding sexuality has nothing to do with the Law. Therefore this argument of yours, which one hears all the time, is nothing but a strawman. Rather it is based on the words of our Lord himself.
"Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female?...For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh".
If you understand this literally, how do you understand intersexed people ?
[ 28. July 2014, 22:57: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
"Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female?...For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh".
It says nothing about the wife leaving her father and mother. As I don't live with my mother-in-law I'm clearly an abomination.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
HOWEVER – in practice different ethnic groups do develop cultures which are not things they ARE, but things they DO. Over that DOING, they have CHOICE; and that DOING can therefore properly be the subject of moral debate and criticism in a way that the mere BEING can’t be.
You mean like "I can't stand the smell of their curry. Why can't they eat normal food like proper people?"
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And further, if that is correct, then gay people aren’t entitled to hide behind what they ARE to evade criticism of what they DO, or to play the “It’s like racism” card to insist that they be beyond criticism; indeed, the decades during which they have been playing that card may have constituted oppression and something very like persecution BY the gay movement….
In much the same way that Trailways was oppressed and persecuted BY the Freedom Riders. This is fucking bullshit.
[ 29. July 2014, 00:35: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
(waits for Steve Langton to clarify what he's basically asking/talking about)
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
Steve Langton,
What you seem to be really asking is for people to refrain from critizing those that hold anti-gay views. I've seen a lot of Christians request this sort of thing - insisting that others should not be allowed to judge or condemn them for expressing their "sincerely held religious beliefs" while they themselves judge and condemn everyone else.
The New Testament is actually quite scathing of that sort of hypocrisy. But I've seen that hypocrisy over and over and over again in these debates - religious people saying nasty and judgmental things about gay people and then crying like a baby if anyone dares to criticize them in any way whatsoever.
It makes me think of a school bully being told off by the teacher for bullying the other kids, who then turns to the teacher and cries "you're bullying me by telling me not to bully them!" When the religious bullies are told to stop bulling gay people, or told that their nasty judgmental behaviour is bad, then they cry "oppression" and "persecution". They insist that they have free speech to bully gay people with, but they find it convenient to forget that other people can use their free speech to criticize religious people should they wish to do so.
If you are going to express judgment upon others, prepare to be judged yourself by others in return. Trying to request or demand exemption from criticism, or the ability to judge others without being judged yourself, is just laughable.
To directly address your original comparison of racism vs anti-gay discrimination...
The major problem with all types of discrimination is the harm done to the group that is being discriminated against. This can be big and obvious harm like bombings of gay bars or burning down the houses of black people or jailing gay people or enslaving black people. Or it can be a denial of basic rights and freedoms allowed to the rest of the population such as refusing to allow marriages between black people or between gay people, or not allowing black people to play on sports teams or not allowing gay people to play on sports teams. Or it can be a day-to-day demeaning of these people by refusing to serve black people at restaurants or refusing to serve gay people at restaurants.
Discrimination can involve less obvious harms, such as name-calling, expressions of condemnation, criticism, and contempt. Unfortunately the cumulative effect of these minor slights adds up, and the day-in day-out barrage of judgment and condemnation that people from the stigmatized group receive and endure takes a heavy psychological toll, a death by a thousand cuts. In such circumstances, the stigmatized group suffers increasing rates of chronic stress, anxiety and depression - everyone is out to get them and they know it. Chronic stress and anxiety are psychologically harmful, and people suffering from them suffer from greatly increased rates of strokes and heart attacks, so being subjected to continual condemnation does have the eventual effect of literally killing them. Also, stigmatized groups often resort to much higher rates of alcohol and drugs usage, wanting to escape from reality. They have much higher rates of suicide - a rate typically about four times higher than the usual suicide rate. Such insidious psychological effects of discrimination on stigmatized groups have been well documented throughout the world in many different cultures. (Jesus' ministry in the gospels, reaching out to those who are being discriminated against, I think is best read in this light) The harmful effects of social discrimination on black people and gay people fit this pattern. For this reason all the world's major medical and psychological organisations have issued statements saying that we ought to support gay rights for medical reasons alone - to reduce the massive psychological and physical harms that are being done to gay people through discrimination against them and which are causing a massive number of suicides. (eg Expert opinions)
The measurable and significant harmful effects on those who are discriminated against is the important thing about discrimination, the reason for which it has historically come to be seen as distasteful, and the reason for which anti-discrimination laws are usually passed. So when you argue that being anti-gay is different to being anti-black because one is objecting to what people are doing and the other is objecting to what people are, your argument is completely missing the main point which is that in both cases discrimination against a minority is significantly harmful to the minority being discriminated against.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
The context being divorce, of course, not anything to do with same sex relationships, sexual or otherwise.
Yes, Christ says that in the context of a question regarding divorce but his answer is a whole lot more. He shows us God's intention for man and woman from the beginning.
Right. And do you support killing your child for disobedience?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
The context being divorce, of course, not anything to do with same sex relationships, sexual or otherwise.
Yes, Christ says that in the context of a question regarding divorce but his answer is a whole lot more. He shows us God's intention for man and woman from the beginning. Anyway, my point was that Christians do not base their understanding of sexuality from the Law, rather it comes straight from the Gospel. I was just setting Albertus straight, that's all.
I guess you missed the first part of what you quoted Jesus as saying: "Have ye not read . . . ?" Jesus was quoting Genesis, i.e. Torah, i.e. the Law. To rely on this one quote to say that the Christian understanding of sexuality comes from the Gospel, not the Law, ignores that this particular Gospel understanding comes directly from the Law.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
"Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female?...For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh".
Interpreting that as anti-gay is arbitrary and inconsistent. You are seizing on a couple of words in the sentence (the gender of the people mentioned) and making them hard-and-fast rules that admit no exceptions, while taking it for granted that the other conditions mentioned in the quote (leaving the father and mother) are optional.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Sorry, but it is simply wrong to equate being gay with having sex. The entire premise of the opening post is wrong.
It's well known that conservative Christians, opposed to gay sex, habitually equate 'gay' or 'lesbian' with actually engaging in sexual activity. The Gay Christian Network, which is based in America, did a survey that demonstrated this quite effectively. But it's simply not how the gay and lesbian communities see themselves (as the same survey also demonstrated).
Nor should it be. Straight teenagers perceive themselves as straight before they actually get to have sex. It's the desire that defines their sexuality, not their actual activity. It makes no sense to apply a different standard to homosexuality.
I've related this before, so I might as well relate it again. I had no sexual activity with another man whatsoever while I was in the closet. My 'coming out' was before I had gone on a single date with a man.
The notion that I wasn't gay for the 17-odd years between first realising, as a teenager, that I was attracted to men and finally allowing myself to express that attraction is just absurd. What was I, then? Was I some sort of ambisexual human equivalent of Schroedinger's Cat?
Do I somehow stop being gay because I'm not seeing anybody? How long do I have not have sex before I somehow cease being gay? Or is that not enough? Do I have to have sex with a woman to cancel out the previous gay sex? How often does a bisexual person have to switch the gender of their sexual partners to maintain their bisexual status?
[ 29. July 2014, 03:11: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
The context being divorce, of course, not anything to do with same sex relationships, sexual or otherwise.
Yes, Christ says that in the context of a question regarding divorce but his answer is a whole lot more. He shows us God's intention for man and woman from the beginning. Anyway, my point was that Christians do not base their understanding of sexuality from the Law, rather it comes straight from the Gospel. I was just setting Albertus straight, that's all.
I guess you missed the first part of what you quoted Jesus as saying: "Have ye not read . . . ?" Jesus was quoting Genesis, i.e. Torah, i.e. the Law. To rely on this one quote to say that the Christian understanding of sexuality comes from the Gospel, not the Law, ignores that this particular Gospel understanding comes directly from the Law.
You're being very silly. When we talk about "the Law" we means the laws Moses sets out in Leviticus etc. For most here that is the accepted definition of "the Law".
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
"Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female?...For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh".
Interpreting that as anti-gay is arbitrary and inconsistent. You are seizing on a couple of words in the sentence (the gender of the people mentioned) and making them hard-and-fast rules that admit no exceptions, while taking it for granted that the other conditions mentioned in the quote (leaving the father and mother) are optional.
Thanks for the link but it's bollocks. It's not arbitrary and I certainly don't know where yoy get inconsistent from. Heaven forbid that anyone should think that the scriptures have anything to say on these things.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And in all honesty, if that is the case, I can't see any reason, apart from a rather selective emphasising and interpretation of a couple of Bible verses (and if you're going to do that, then you have to be consistent- no scallops with black pudding starter for you next time you dine somewhere fancy, and you'd better denounce anyone who does eat it!) why anybody should get hot and bothered about it at all.
Traditional Christian teaching regarding sexuality has nothing to do with the Law. Therefore this argument of yours, which one hears all the time, is nothing but a strawman. Rather it is based on the words of our Lord himself.
"Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female?...For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh".
If you understand this literally, how do you understand intersexed people ?
A result of the fall.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
The context being divorce, of course, not anything to do with same sex relationships, sexual or otherwise.
Yes, Christ says that in the context of a question regarding divorce but his answer is a whole lot more. He shows us God's intention for man and woman from the beginning.
Right. And do you support killing your child for disobedience?
Eh? Are you arguing then that if we believe God made man and women for a particular purpose we must believe that? It's completely unrelated to the Law which Moses gave to the Israelites. The Apostle uses "the Law" in the same sense too.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I call bullshit on the unrelated claim. You are picking and choosing.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
If you understand this literally, how do you understand intersexed people ?
A result of the fall.
Yes, but then what? What should they do? What should we as Christian brethren and sistern do for them?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
A result of the fall.
So, have they been around the whole 6 thousand years?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Eh? Are you arguing then that if we believe God made man and women for a particular purpose we must believe that?
I'm highly skeptical of the idea that God made people for one and only one purpose, and that this God-ordained One True Purpose™ for humanity is heterosexual fucking. It also seems a bit harsh to judge anyone who dies without having heterosexual sex (the gay, the lifelong celibates, those who die young, etc.) as failures in God's eyes.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I recall an incident where a law student asked Scalia if he sodomized his wife. I think this was in the context of Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas where he essentially argued that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in sex. At any rate, despite not accepting that gays had a right to privacy in their sex lives, Scalia felt very emphatically that he was entitled to it in his own.
Scalia presumably feels that oral and anal sex are fine and Christian if he's doing them, but dangerous and wrong if gay people are doing them.
That anecdote reminds me of a church in my own town that has been similarly hypocritical... Ten years ago a friend boasted to me that his (anglican, evangelical) church had made leaflets available to the congregation that encouraged the married members of the congregation to have more exciting sex lives, arguing that good sex was part of a good Christian marriage, and suggesting various sexual positions including anal. My friend thought this was great and that it showed the church wasn't repressed and stuck in the past and didn't consider sex a bad thing, and was actively concerned about the quality of the marriages of its attendees in ways that were relevant to their lives. Since that time, that particular church has publicly and vehemently been a staunch opponent of gay rights including gay marriage through to the present day. I guess, like Scalia, they think oral and anal sex are fine if they're doing it, but that the exact same acts are horrible and disgusting if gays are doing it.
Since every kind and position of gay sex act are also performed on a regular basis by many heterosexual Christian couples, the hypocrisy involved in such condemnations is always massive. I for one am rather curious about which of the various false rumours about the evils of gay sex Steve Langton is planning to use to condemn gay sex. I'm curious to know if he thinks it's okay when married Christian couples do the exact same acts.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I call bullshit on the unrelated claim. You are picking and choosing.
If you keep this up I'm going to call you to hell. You can't change the generally accepted definition of a word in order to make a point. In this case "the Law". Christians have always used "the Law" to refer to those specific laws Moses gives to the Israelites. Indeed, the Apostle uses "the Law" in the same manner in his epistles.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
The purpose of the bible is to instruct humans in God's will, no? So can you explain how one set of instructions contained within varies from another? Can you explain how an explicit instruction may be ignored and how an inferred suggestion must be obeyed? I am seriously asking, not being snide.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The purpose of the bible is to instruct humans in God's will, no? So can you explain how one set of instructions contained within varies from another? Can you explain how an explicit instruction may be ignored and how an inferred suggestion must be obeyed? I am seriously asking, not being snide.
The Scriptures tell us of Christ and his Church. Even in the OT, albeit through a veil.
The Law is dead. It was for a specific people for a specific time. That is why Christians are able to eat pork, for instance. By "the Law" we mean those laws which Moses gave the Israelites. Christ tells us God's intention from the beginning. All other sexual relations which deviate from that pervert the original intention and are sinful, which is why when sexual immorality is mentioned elsewhere in the scriptures it is seen as sinful, shameful etc.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Christ tells us God's intention from the beginning.
Christ said nothing whatever about homosexual sex. He could have done, there was plenty of it about in Roman times.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Christ tells us God's intention from the beginning.
And where does he talk about gay sex?
No, no, no, not the part where one must infer, where does he mention gay sex?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Christ tells us God's intention from the beginning.
And where does he talk about gay sex?
No, no, no, not the part where one must infer, where does he mention gay sex?
Using the same logic then, where does he specifically approve of it? No, other things have to be taken into consideration, such as the rest of the scriptures and, for those who consider it important, the constant teaching of the Church.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
That argument is rubbish. The bible mentions humans are stewards of the earth, they do not have permission to explore the moon. Will NASA personnel all go to Hell? Nowhere is mentioned all the trappings modern up the candle churches get in such a tizzy about, how are they important?
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
If it's particular sexual acts that you wish to object to, Steve Langton, then you need to object to them as constantly and vociferously when they are taking place in the bedrooms of heterosexual married couples as you do when the couples are gay. You need to preach against fellatio and cunnilingus, against anal sex (of course) and the use of sex toys. You need to make clear that these things are wrong, campaign against them, and exclude all those, gay and straight, who do them from ordination, employment in the church, teaching, and communion. You need to root them out of your congregation, where they are undoubtedly rampant.
[ 29. July 2014, 06:53: Message edited by: Amos ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Interpreting that as anti-gay is arbitrary and inconsistent.
Thanks for the link but it's bollocks. It's not arbitrary and I certainly don't know where yoy get inconsistent from. Heaven forbid that anyone should think that the scriptures have anything to say on these things.
Do you believe it it wrong for men to leave the family home before they're married?
Do you believe it is wrong for men to get married unless they have both parents alive?
Heaven forbid that anyone should think that the scriptures have anything to say on these matters.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And in all honesty, if that is the case, I can't see any reason, apart from a rather selective emphasising and interpretation of a couple of Bible verses (and if you're going to do that, then you have to be consistent- no scallops with black pudding starter for you next time you dine somewhere fancy, and you'd better denounce anyone who does eat it!) why anybody should get hot and bothered about it at all.
Traditional Christian teaching regarding sexuality has nothing to do with the Law. Therefore this argument of yours, which one hears all the time, is nothing but a strawman. Rather it is based on the words of our Lord himself.
"Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female?...For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh".
Well, first of all there are people who seem to derive their attitude to it from the Law and/or some verses in the NT, and it's at them that I'm aiming. But I acn't see that Our Lord's words which you've quoted necessarily exclude another, less usual, form of sexuality and relationship.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I must admit, I'm rather surprised to hear of evangelicals advocating anal sex in a heterosexual context.
I'd always assumed that evangelicals considered this out-of-bounds in any context.
Mind you, it's not one I've heard discussed that often.
I've heard evangelical preachers denounce oral sex in any context.
I've also heard evangelicals say that this one's ok ... but with some caveats - ie. it has to be mutually agreed and not imposed by one partner against the other's will etc.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Which should, surely, be the case with any sexual practice.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've also heard evangelicals say that this one's ok ... but with some caveats - ie. it has to be mutually agreed and not imposed by one partner against the other's will etc.
Did the evangelical in question not consider consent to be a necessary prerequisite for any and all sexual acts? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
EDIT: ninja'd
[ 29. July 2014, 10:50: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, of course, what I think they meant was that blokes shouldn't try to coerce or pressurise their wives into giving them head.
There was a kind of unspoken - and sexist - assumption, perhaps, that it would be the fellas who were more likely to 'demand' sexual favours against their partner's consent or against their reluctance.
On the other hand there is that notorious example of the US pastor who gloatingly related that he'd advised a congregant to go down on her non-Christian husband - contrary to her own repugnance at the prospect - in order to show him unconditional love and thereby win him to Christ. He later boasted that the woman had taken his advice and the husband had become converted ...
This was discussed and the pastor excoriated here aboard Ship - and rightly so in my view.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But it’s very much NOT just about what they ARE; the point is that they want to live out what they ARE by actually DOING THINGS. And to be blunt, other human beings are surely entitled to question those DOINGS.
Firstly, we're talking about wanting to do certain things where those certain things are things that only a particular class of people want to do. People talk about a spectrum of sexuality, but there are substantial numbers of people who not only largely don't want to do those things (at any conscious level) but can't even imagine being tempted. So the link between being and doing is rather closer than it is usually.
Furthermore, sexuality is fairly central to most people's life goals. Even within certain conservative religious traditions where it is a second-best to celibacy, the appropriate use of sexuality is regarded as an important fulfilment for those who aren't called to celibacy. So there again, we're not talking about something incidental to a person, but as something that is widely considered to be integral to what we consider a good life worthy of respect. And therefore, the desire to perform the relevant class of acts under appropriate romantic circumstances is far closer to who the person is.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I must admit, I'm rather surprised to hear of evangelicals advocating anal sex in a heterosexual context....
I've heard evangelical preachers denounce oral sex in any context.
I've also heard evangelicals say that this one's ok
In my observation, age tends to be the most relevant factor, simply because social norms have changed. I would say that if you went to almost any evangelical Christian couple today under 35 or so and tried to tell them that oral and anal sex were bad they would look at you funny, because they are probably doing oral regularly and anal occasionally. While if you said the same thing to someone 55 or older they would probably nod in agreement because they probably aren't. (Data - a US 2010 study found 90% of women aged 25-29 reporting having done oral sex, and up to 46% of certain age groups reporting having done anal)
These changes to social norms affect both what evangelical Christians are doing (eg I happen to have been told by my best friends, an evangelical heterosexual couple aged around 30, that they do anal regularly) and what gay people are doing (eg Stephen Fry, age 56 and gay, is on record saying he doesn't do anal and thinks it's icky). So, yes, old people could do their usual outraged rants about the moral decline of modern society, but I suspect they would actually find it rather difficult to mount a biblical case against oral/anal sex acts within heterosexual Christian marriage, so it's hard to prove that this change in social norms towards having more varied and enjoyable sex is morally wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Did the evangelical in question not consider consent to be a necessary prerequisite for any and all sexual acts?
Well substantial numbers of conservative Christians have historically read 1 Cor 7:3 as meaning that no Christian wife ought ever deny her husband's desires, and concluded that therefore there is no such thing as marital rape. I guess we could chalk up ~1700 years worth of the legalization of marital rape, and the countless such rapes thus legitimized by it, as yet more examples of the very questionable morality that Christianity brought to the world.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You're being very silly. When we talk about "the Law" we means the laws Moses sets out in Leviticus etc. For most here that is the accepted definition of "the Law".
I'm not being silly at all. Jesus was a Jew, and when Jews talk about the Law, they mean more than what is set out in Leviticus, etc. What is the accepted definition for most here is irrelevant to what Jesus, whom you were quoting, and his hearers understood.
Regardless, your attempt to set Albertus straight by use of this quote to show that Christian understanding comes from the Gospel falls flat. Law or not, Jesus is quoting the OT, and his answer is firmly rooted in the OT. That dog you're trotting out won't hunt.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Law is dead. It was for a specific people for a specific time.
Really? Even though Jesus said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law"?
I'll make a note, then, that the Ten Commandments are dead and we needn't worry about them. Glad I finally got the memo.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
You know, it could just as easily be argued that the Genesis narrative says God wants us to fuck every other person in the world. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
Okay this distinction between BEING and DOING has split so many philosophical hairs that I now need a metaphysical haircut. This for me is why Christianity falls down when it tries to hold any position apart from outright condemnation and outright acceptance (eg that this orientation is from God, natural but as a Christian you are held to the same moral standards as any straight person) You can't sit in the middle and make mealy-mouthed statements about acceptable levels of gayness before its sinful.
There is no way to separate BEING and DOING when it comes to sexuality. There is no line in the sand where you go from BEING gay to DOING gay. People's sexuality is an intrinsic and integral part of who they are. You cannot just switch it off when you don't want it. It's like one of those ballons, when you squash one bit it pops up elsewhere or else explodes very messily and noisily when over pressed.
Why is it that straight people are so happy to suggest this and never stop to think how ridiculous it sounds. I mean, try and apply it to BEING Straight (what does this even mean?) and DOING Straight (again - what? Is this man hunting in the woods home to little wife with fire going and squalling small humans?) At what point do you stray into DOING straight? When you look at someone and the hormones flow? When you hug someone in affection? When you have close daily with someone you might like but haven't said anything yet? When you flirt but don't touch? You're DOING straight, you're engaging in behaviours and reactions in accordance with your sexuality.
This whole compartmetalized, reductionist and mechanical approach to sex as slots and tabs is frankly really weird and odd.
[ 29. July 2014, 12:27: Message edited by: Macrina ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Amen to that!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Jesus was a Jew, and when Jews talk about the Law, they mean more than what is set out in Leviticus, etc.
What did they mean, then, and what's your evidence for it?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Jesus was a Jew, and when Jews talk about the Law, they mean more than what is set out in Leviticus, etc.
What did they mean, then, and what's your evidence for it?
When Jesus talks about the Law and the Prophets he means the Torah and the Prophets. I thought that was well known.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
When Jesus talks about the Law and the Prophets he means the Torah and the Prophets. I thought that was well known.
i thought so, too.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
And what does the Apostle mean when he speaks of "the Law"? This is important, because he is speaking in a Christian context.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
[...] This whole compartmetalized, reductionist and mechanical approach to sex as slots and tabs is frankly really weird and odd.
I'll take Albertus' "amen" and raise it a "Testify!"
It's the worst kind of legalism, especially coming from fecund preacher-men basking in the glow of their wife and family. Bizarrely, when I've asked them to empathize, they've been baffled. Guess that level of dogma really does slam on the blinkers.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
Two points:
1. I'm totally on board with fighting for laws that allow same sex marriage and prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, selling services, etc., on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. I do believe, however, that any individual person's belief that same sex sexual activity is sinful should be something that they should feel free to talk about publicly without fear of legal repercussions or of becoming a pariah at work and in society. Granted, it is wrong to speak about a belief in the sinfulness of homosexuality in a way that is harassing (Repent now or burn! Repent now or burn!), vulgar and cruel (Piss off you cockswallowing pilowbiter!), hateful to the point of inciting violence (you perverts want to recruit our children into your disgusting sexual games and are terrorists out to destroy western civilization) or scientifically inaccurate (AIDS doesn't come from the HIV virus - it comes from anal sex even among people who don't have the HIV virus, so anal sex is a threat to the human race - as one person running for congress in Texas believes, forgetting that straight people have anal sex too ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
). Some people make a living by being representatives of the image of public and private institutions (celebrities, CEOs, politicians, etc.), so if they lose fans, shareholder confidence, votes, political contributions, etc., from sharing their moral beliefs on homosexuality then that is not a "bad" thing - that is just the social marketplace functioning. We still have public figures (not all of whom are religious ministers) who make a career about talking about how awful homosexuality is.
2. I will note a very important difference between being gay and being black. Having dark skin is something you cannot hide and that causes people to (unfairly) make assumptions about you the moment they see you. It usually means being born into a family that has experienced the same discrimination that you face, and therefore is tied to systemic socioeconomic inequality. LGBT people are also paid less, denied work, denied professional connections, etc., because of their sexual orientation and gender identity (plus there are lots of people who want to kill us), but being gay is not linked with a likelihood of being born into systemic social inequality in the way race is. The discrimination facing gay people - even if being gay is something you are born with - is not something that usually begins before a gay child is even born, unless they themselves are born to same sex parents. Straight parents have gay kids all the time, and gay parents have straight kids all the time.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I do believe, however, that any individual person's belief that same sex sexual activity is sinful should be something that they should feel free to talk about publicly without fear . . . of becoming a pariah at work and in society.
Why not? This seems to give an unfair advantage to bigots. They're free to express their opinions ([disliked group] is horrible, sinful, and criminal) but no one else is allowed to express their opinions of them in turn ([specified bigot] is a horrible person and unfit for decent society). If you wear a swastika armband everywhere you go and enthusiastically pepper your conversation with quotes from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion you're likely to "becom[e] a pariah at work and in society", and justifiably so! Freedom of speech (i.e. the state won't inflict "legal repercussion" on you) is not the same as freedom from criticism (i.e. people recoiling in horror at your hate screed), though an increasing number of people seem confused on this point.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This seems to give an unfair advantage to bigots. They're free to express their opinions ([disliked group] is horrible, sinful, and criminal) but no one else is allowed to express their opinions of them in turn ([specified bigot] is a horrible person and unfit for decent society). If you wear a swastika armband everywhere you go and enthusiastically pepper your conversation with quotes from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion you're likely to "becom[e] a pariah at work and in society", and justifiably so! Freedom of speech (i.e. the state won't inflict "legal repercussion" on you) is not the same as freedom from criticism (i.e. people recoiling in horror at your hate screed), though an increasing number of people seem confused on this point.
Exactly.
In particular, some Christians seem to think that as long as the position they are expressing is a sincerely held religious belief then their position and expression of it are somehow legitimized and that other people ought to refrain from all criticism and condemnation of them for expressing their views.
In practice what it boils down to is they think they should be able to say all sorts of false, nasty, and hurtful things about me and other gay people that hurt my feelings and the feelings of those I care about, and they think that I shouldn't be allowed to criticize them in return because such criticism hurts their feelings.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
And celibacy?
Eh?
Bit of a failing with the cleaving...
Ah! I see. Well, both our Lord and the Apostle address the question of celibacy. Some are called to it for the kingdom of God, others are not.
I'm gay and am definitely not called to celibacy. I tried it for a few years as an evangelical Christian and it was a disaster. It distorted my relationships with God and neighbour to a degree of unhealthiness that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Now I'm happily partnered and far more emotionally healthy. What about us?
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
And BTW, while I was celibate (but still self-identified as gay because being gay is more than what you do, it's what you think, how you relate to others and how you see the world), the hostility I received from fellow Christians didn't go away. I was still considered a threat to men and children and a poor role model.
I would agree that there are differences between being gay and black. One huge advantage racial minorities (in whatever context have) is that they are born into families of the same racial group. No family member questions their right to exist. They have family traditions, rituals and support networks that assist in growing up and becoming comfortable with their differences. They have role models to help guide them.
With very very few exceptions gay people are born into straight families and lack all of these things. In most cases, they have to deal with a certain degree of misunderstanding and hostility from their closest loved ones. There are no familial role models. There are no familial rituals or traditions that reinforce their identity. They have to emotionally detach themselves from their families to form their identity.
[ 29. July 2014, 21:19: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I'm gay and am definitely not called to celibacy. I tried it for a few years...and it was a disaster.
Perhaps you weren't doing it correctly? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
I've deliberately let this thread run a bit before re-appearing, so that I could get a 'picture' of overall opinion on the ship. I'll be considering what's been said and trying to produce some sort of response – but with over 80 posts to deal with already, please don't expect something both quick and comprehensive.
One issue I would like to deal with straightaway; and I've picked a post by Oscar the Grouch to base my comments on because he made the point succinctly and overall fairly.
by Oscar the Grouch;
quote:
I find it deeply offensive that people who have spent a huge amount of effort in seeking to oppress gay men and women turn round and cry "persecution" the moment that they don't get their own way. It is childish behaviour.
On this one I agree with you, Oscar; and it's not only about the gay issue but a wider area as well. However that's not, I think, the kind of attitude I'm taking. For those contributing on this thread who may not have come across me before on the Ship, although in my 1950s-mid60s youth I was vaguely Anglican, these days I am pretty much 'Anabaptist' and a key part of Anabaptism is that we reject the idea of a 'Christian country' and other kinds of favoured position for Christianity in the state, and the idea that the state has any obligation to uphold a specifically Christian morality. Therefore we would not want gay people to be legally persecuted.
Current Anabaptists (eg, US/Canadian Mennonites) are somewhat divided on whether gay sex is acceptable Christian conduct; but what the state allows or doesn't allow in areas like same-sex-marriage would be regarded as 'not our business'. To express an opinion, perhaps a strong one, and try to persuade, maybe; but no more.
As I said, I agree about the 'childishness' of many current Christian protests about 'persecution' which do amount to little more than suddenly finding that in a modern plural society they're no longer getting things their way. And I understand that as the dominant but nominal Christianity of my youth dies away, atheists and agnostics are pushing hard to destroy the last remnants of that improper dominance, and I can't say I blame them.
I do feel that, although minor compared to real persecution as suffered by the Apostles and, say, Christians in Stalinist Russia and some other countries, there have been occasions when the 'politically correct' (or people claiming to be so) have in fact over-reacted and can be realistically said to have improperly harassed Christians over various issues. And if my OP point is correct, that the issues surrounding gay sex are not simply the same as racism, then there would be a reasonable argument that calling it the same and demanding that people who don't just agree with the gay case should be treated like racists would be a form of improper persecution.
My aim is absolutely NOT that gay people be persecuted; but that some of the discourse might be more closely examined in the interests of a reconciling approach.
Sorta PS; I've just found on another thread a link to Benjamin L Corey's blog – interesting and so far it seems I agree with a lot of it....
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
(waits for Steve Langton to clarify what he's basically asking/talking about)
(still waiting)
(Oh wait there you are! Never mind...)
[ 29. July 2014, 22:02: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
(lots of stuff)
Can we import your kind of Anabaptists to the US? We have some deeply scary people here who are aggressive about wanting to turn the US into a theocracy.
Indeed, I think something which should be considered is the context in which a lot of this tends to come up--it so often has been in the context of persecution of gay people that after a while anything which is not overtly affirming of both identity and behavior starts sounding like an argument for persecution.
Perhaps a good parallel might be the ministry to non-Christian Jews. As I understand my own Christian faith, we are indeed called to preach the Gospel to everyone--but the treatment of Jewish people for centuries has been so horrible that it's hard to broach the subject without stepping on emotional/cultural land mines, and various groups out there have already poisoned the well, so there needs to be a lot of "I don't agree with those people who have been jerks about it." (I have such an interesting life; not only the gay stuff above, but by blood I'm Jewish (down the mother's line etc.) but since I am also a Christian it means I don't get to fit in with most Jewish people, but the "Jewish Christian" groups/ministries out there tend to be Fundamentalist, which I'm not...)
[ 29. July 2014, 22:14: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
[...] My aim is absolutely NOT that gay people be persecuted; but that some of the discourse might be more closely examined in the interests of a reconciling approach. [...]
Crucial are the terms of reconciliation. Is it contingent on advocates of homophobia admitting they're wrong?
There's a world of difference between the Andrew Marin "elevating the conversation" riff (i.e., giving bigots license to continue their bigotry) and people asking forgiveness after they've renounced their homophobia. Marin likens himself to Martin Luther King (!), but the bumptious clown ignores the fact that King detested the white moderates who refused to take a stand.
Reconciliation without change perpetuates harm.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
hosting
Can I remind people that getting personal with accusations eg "You are being very silly' "You are picking and choosing" and threats of Hell calls is contravening Commandment 4? If you want to get personal, you need to actually make the Hell call and move any spat with another poster off this board. Otherwise people need to rein themselves in and stop short of making personal accusations.
Thanks!
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
My aim is absolutely NOT that gay people be persecuted; but that some of the discourse might be more closely examined in the interests of a reconciling approach.
Then you should closely examine the logic of tying sexuality to actual sex. I've already pointed out how illogical it is. I was not asexual for the first 33 years of my life. I was a virgin. There's a massive difference.
[ 29. July 2014, 23:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And if my OP point is correct, that the issues surrounding gay sex are not simply the same as racism, then there would be a reasonable argument that calling it the same and demanding that people who don't just agree with the gay case should be treated like racists would be a form of improper persecution.
Why? Could you expand on why anti-gay discrimination is okay but racial discrimination isn't?
Most of the arguments along those lines usually involve the idea that gays have the option of "passing" in a way not available to most racial groups. While I'm sure this would be just as non-controversial in the LGBT community as it is for various racial groups (i.e. not at all), my major issue is that it seems like an attempt to blame the oppressed for their own oppression; essentially arguing that if only they'd been better closeted they wouldn't have a problem. Or, to put it another way, racism is okay if some limited number of people have a way to beat the system.
And once again I think you've confused "persecution" with "criticism".
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Could you expand on why anti-gay discrimination is okay but racial discrimination isn't?
He appears to think he has spotted a being vs doing distinction that he thinks differentiates the two. I find myself slightly more prepared than other posters on this thread to grant that his distinction is somewhat valid (and would suggest to Steve therefore that a more apt analogy is between being against gay marriage and against interracial marriage because both involve "doing" something - choosing to marry a person from a particular group of people - but I'd note that most people would regard being anti-interracial marriage as racism and wrong despite it being about "doing" rather than "being"). However Steve seems to have totally failed to supply any reasoning why a being/doing distinction is relevant to making racism unacceptable and being anti-gay acceptable.
In my view, anti-gay discrimination and racial discrimination are both equally unacceptable because they cause serious psychological and physical harm to the people that are discriminated against. Hurting people hurts people. Therefore it's bad. Period.
I stand against racism for the same reason I am against anti-gay views, because both hurt people. It is not because of anything to do with "being" vs "doing", it is about me not wanting to see other people harmed. That is why we have anti-discrimination laws - to try to limit the harm that a prejudiced and ignorant majority occasionally tries to inflict on harmless minority groups which they happen to have taken a dislike to.
In certain Christian circles there seems to be a belief that such anti-discrimination laws represent "persecution" of Christians (which I presume is what Steve is referring to), since the laws prevent Christians inflicting the level of harm on gay people that they wish to inflict. Christians are therefore "victims" of these laws because they are not allowed to hurt other people as much as their religious beliefs lead them to want to do.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
And what does the Apostle mean when he speaks of "the Law"? This is important, because he is speaking in a Christian context.
My understanding is that he is sometimes speaking of Torah, which in Greek and English is translated as "law," but which in Hebrew has more the sense of "teaching" or "instruction," but sometimes speaking of the Levitical Code, which is also translated in Greek and English as "law." Paul is indeed speaking in a Christian context, but he is also speaking from a Jewish background.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
I absolutely think that people should have the right to express their opinions freely. I also absolutely think I have the right to debate those opinions, show why (in my opinion) they are completely wrong-headed and ensure that people who may be harmed by those opinions are not harmed by them.
I am a gay person who has been harmed by these opinions. I have felt myself unable to engage in meaningful and close relationships with people that I have loved and do love sincerely because of internalised fear and loathing about my love for others and its expression. This is something I am angry about. It has taken me until now to realise that I have the right to be angry about it and to fight the Church on it.
As I said before I believe that sexuality is intrinsic and that you cannot separate the being and doing aspects of the intrinsic parts of yourself. With this in mind I interpret what Steve Langton is actually saying to be that certain kinds of DOING are not okay but other kinds of DOING i.e existing and living day to day are. This is why I think his argument is flawed and why I disagree so strongly with it. I would be happy for him to outline what forms of expression for gayness and gay sexuality are acceptable to him.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I do feel that, although minor compared to real persecution as suffered by the Apostles and, say, Christians in Stalinist Russia and some other countries, there have been occasions when the 'politically correct' (or people claiming to be so) have in fact over-reacted and can be realistically said to have improperly harassed Christians over various issues. And if my OP point is correct, that the issues surrounding gay sex are not simply the same as racism, then there would be a reasonable argument that calling it the same and demanding that people who don't just agree with the gay case should be treated like racists would be a form of improper persecution.
My aim is absolutely NOT that gay people be persecuted; but that some of the discourse might be more closely examined in the interests of a reconciling approach.
Sorta PS; I've just found on another thread a link to Benjamin L Corey's blog – interesting and so far it seems I agree with a lot of it....
So you belong to a sect that doesn't want to oppose legal homosexuality or same-sex civil marriage but doesn't think homosexuals can be valid practicing members of your denomination?
Are any of these non political Christians the Christians who are being harassed? Most of the harassment in the United States goes against people who organized initiatives against gay marriage or preached from the pulpit against constitutional amendments or who have allowed gay children to be bullied and attacked violently or fund ministers in Africa to get jail and capital punishment for being a homosexual.Are these the people you're worried about being harassed? If you're representing them, I would point out the saying about beams and motes.
I'll also point out that your magical different between being and doing applies here. It's ok to criticize these Christians because it's what they do, rather than what they are. If they didn't go to church or get baptized or fund raise for Christian laws none of them would be harassed as Christians.
The remaining "harassment" will be popular dislike of your exclusion of Gays from your church as sinners. Consider the 1960 Mormons who wouldn't let Black men be full members of the church. I think they were racists even though they claimed their scripture made them do it. Reconciliation with such a racist theology doesn't seem like a worthwhile effort. For me, reconciliation with a homophobic theology doesn't seem any better.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
It's not the homosexual gay people's fault- it's the fart demons.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Meaning 'gaydar' is in truth a well developed sense of smell?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Palimpsest;
quote:
Are these the people you're worried about being harassed?
On the list you've given, they sound as if they brought their harassment upon themselves by being what Peter would have called "self-appointed-managers-of-other-people's-affairs" ('allotriepiskopoi', I Pet 4; 15), trying to impose their view via state law rather than persuade to voluntary acceptance as members of a voluntary body.
The problem is that the issues have become so heated that at times there is also harassment of people who aren't like that.
by Palimpsest;
quote:
So you belong to a sect that doesn't want to oppose legal homosexuality or same-sex civil marriage but doesn't think homosexuals can be valid practicing members of your denomination?
NOT a complete response, but to make you think about it; try "has serious doubts whether aggressively practicing homosexuals can be accepted as members". That is, making the distinction between 'being' and 'doing' which your way of expressing it doesn't make. We would, I hope, be open to demonstration that we've got that biblically wrong. Thus far many of us are not convinced on that point.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I don't think "self-appointed-managers-of-other-people's-affairs" refers to state action, otherwise it wouldn't be "self-appointed". It more refers to things like the community enforcement of strict Sabbatarianism in Lewis - when some people decide they know what is best for others and involve themselves in private decisions. The sort of "persuasion" directed at gay people by churches that think they should be celibate or pretend to be straight comes out of the same oppressive playbook. It's the same sort of coercion that results in FGM and forced marriage.
BTW I'd love to know how you practice homosexuality "aggressively".
[ 30. July 2014, 11:42: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Yes, that's interesting. Do you mean, Steve, that if an actively gay couple in a stable relationship were fairly discreet about who they were and what they did, they would be acceptable to you and to your church?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I don't think "self-appointed-managers-of-other-people's-affairs" refers to state action, otherwise it wouldn't be "self-appointed". It more refers to things like the community enforcement of strict Sabbatarianism in Lewis - when some people decide they know what is best for others and involve themselves in private decisions. The sort of "persuasion" directed at gay people by churches that think they should be celibate or pretend to be straight comes out of the same oppressive playbook. It's the same sort of coercion that results in FGM and forced marriage.
BTW I'd love to know how you practice homosexuality "aggressively".
Surely a Church has the right impose certain conditions upon membership? If one happens not to like the conditions then one doesn't have to join, surely?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I think that aggressively practising gays shout a lot, don't use KY jelly, and make love on the kitchen table, to the sound of 'Killing in the Name'.
But none of this seems incompatible with Christianity, does it?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Now you do what they told ya ...
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I don't think "self-appointed-managers-of-other-people's-affairs" refers to state action, otherwise it wouldn't be "self-appointed". It more refers to things like the community enforcement of strict Sabbatarianism in Lewis - when some people decide they know what is best for others and involve themselves in private decisions. The sort of "persuasion" directed at gay people by churches that think they should be celibate or pretend to be straight comes out of the same oppressive playbook. It's the same sort of coercion that results in FGM and forced marriage.
BTW I'd love to know how you practice homosexuality "aggressively".
Surely a Church has the right impose certain conditions upon membership? If one happens not to like the conditions then one doesn't have to join, surely?
Depends. Why should any church have such a downer on certain sins while not taking such a hardline on others?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Surely a Church has the right impose certain conditions upon membership?
Of course they have the right to. Should they? Absolutely not. It is not the job of the church to decide who is unacceptable to God.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
try "has serious doubts whether aggressively practicing homosexuals can be accepted as members".
We would, I hope, be open to demonstration that we've got that biblically wrong.
Let me be the first to express immense skepticism that you are applying your exclusionary criteria to all types of sin equally. Do you exclude the greedy, the hypocrite, the lover of money, the drunkard, the glutton, the liar, the adulterer etc with as much conviction as you do gay people? I doubt it. This almost never happens. Instead Church preachers find gay people a convenient third party that can be labelled as a sinner and condemned in their absence and the congregation can then shake their heads in disgusted judgement of "those evil gay sinners" and feel self-congratulatorily smug about themselves for not being sinners (like the Pharisee was about the tax collector). Meanwhile the sins that the congregation are committing are ignored and glossed over and felt to be excusable and irrelevant and not worth mentioning compared to the evils of those gay people over there.
From a theological point of view, it strikes me as a bit unusual to exclude people from membership because they are sinners. Usually the teaching is that we are all equally sinners and so all equally need the blood of Jesus, so there's not a lot of point trying to label some as worse sinners than others since we'd all be going to hell without blood of our saviour anyway, etc. But, hey, if your particular church doesn't believe that and believes something different and does have the theological teaching that its important to hold members up to a certain standard of living, okay good for you.
I don't personally agree with your biblical interpretation of the bible as teaching against homosexuality, but this thread is not the place for detailed discussion of that.
As far as your concern that you feel you / your group is being unfairly condemned for your actions to exclude homosexual people from your membership...
You're doing something, and other people want to judge it. Exactly like your OP suggested you should be able to do with gay people. Apparently you don't always agree with their judgement of your actions? Um, so what? People often have opinions, and they aren't always right or the same as yours or mine.
Are you being legally forced to accept gay members? That would be a slightly different situation, because clearly such a legal restriction would set a certain level of limit on your ability to live out what you feel your religion teaches and so is doing you some small level of harm. Overall I would tend to feel that the rather tiny dent in your ability to tell gay people they are bad and kick them out would be worth it to prevent the greater harm that you're inflicting on the gay people. And, meanwhile, you can enjoy kicking out those other 99 people you're kicking out for that giant list of 100 other sins that you're kicking people out of membership for, and then for the 100th you can sigh that the government has crossed off one of your list of a hundred sins that you're allowed to kick out people for. (But of course that isn't a realistic imagining because of course you aren't actually enforcing the hundreds of other sins the bible mentions with remotely as much enthusiasm as you've trying to kick out gays with, as I mentioned earlier.)
But the question of how strong anti-discrimination laws ought to be is clearly an open question around the world with different Western nations having struck different balances with regard to how they try and rule within the grey area to best limit the harms to both sides. (And which is why the wedding photography thread is many pages long) I would tend to have the opinion that it's probably best as a general rule to err on the side of a little bit of affirmative action in favour of the minority group to try and help them get past the prejudices that they have historically suffered from and bring them back up to a normal level of social acceptance. So I would tend to favour the strongest possible anti-discrimination laws, at least initially. Basically if Christians didn't have a 2000 year history of killing / imprisoning / castrating / denying fundamental human rights to gay people, then I would feel much more okay with letting Christians have whatever exclusion principles they wanted to have, be it excluding those people wearing funny hats or people born on a Monday or gay people.
In the same way, if there hadn't been a history of discrimination against black people in the world that had caused a great deal of historical suffering, then one small group in the present day wanting to exclude black people would likely have been tolerated. Whereas I think it's pretty clear to everyone that if your group tried to exclude black people from membership you wouldn't be allowed to get away with it. Even if your theology was that black people were descendents of Ham, and that their curse was a well-deserved consequence of Ham's actions (ie DOING and not BEING), and if you believed that sinfulness was inherited and that therefore the black people in the present were completely guilty before God as a result of Ham's doings which they themselves in spirit were participating in (think Augustine's version of Original Sin), and if you really and truly sincerely believed all that as core religious teachings of your organisation... then you wouldn't be tolerated for kicking out black people. There wouldn't even be serious discussion of whether your rights to religious freedom were being infringed, you just wouldn't be allowed to do it. I think the same level of protection ought to apply for gay people and for exactly the same reasons - prevention of harm in the present to a minority group that has a massive history of suffering harm from discrimination.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I can't remember the exact quotation now, it was six years ago, but in Bishop Gene Robinson's sermon at St Mary's Church, Putney he said that it isn't for the church to judge, the church is the welcoming committee opening doors to encourage people to meet God. It's for God to judge.
ISTM that many churches take upon themselves the judgement role of God. We cannot see into hearts and souls as mere humans, so what gives us the right to judge, measure and find our fellow men wanting?
ah well, cross posted with two others saying basically the same thing
[ 30. July 2014, 12:51: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Surely a Church has the right impose certain conditions upon membership?
Of course they have the right to. Should they? Absolutely not. It is not the job of the church to decide who is unacceptable to God.
We are all sinners, but that's not what we're discussing here, as far as I can see. Let's suppose someone wants to be baptised. The priest will ask them a series of questions, mainly if they believe what the Church believes, which also means do they repent of all their previous sins. If the answer to that is no, then the priest has an obligation to refuse baptism.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
No baptism I have ever attended has required assent to a list of what is or is not a sin.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Do not candidates go through a period of catechism?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
don't use KY jelly
How 1970s
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Do not candidates go through a period of catechism?
I didn't, and from what little I know of your religious history- correct me if I'm wrong- you may not have either,m for the perfectly good reason that we were babes in arms at the time. I was confirmed at 12, though, but at that stage I still don't think I was aware of a bat's squeak of sexuality in any direction.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Starlight;
quote:
From a theological point of view, it strikes me as a bit unusual to exclude people from membership because they are sinners.
No, we don't exclude people simply because they are 'sinners'; as you say, we all are. That is why I used the phrasing "aggressively practicing gays" to mean someone who is not only a sinner (accepting that between us that may be in dispute in this particular case) but doesn't admit he is. As with other sins, there's an expectation of repentance.
As a non-gay example, Paul recommended a man at Corinth be excluded from the church for what appears to have been an affair with his step-mother (something which he implies would have shocked even the notoriously licentious Corinthians). Presumably the exclusion would continue until he was willing to admit his fault and change his ways.
by Starlight;
quote:
Do you exclude the greedy, the hypocrite, the lover of money, the drunkard, the glutton, the liar, the adulterer etc with as much conviction as you do gay people? I doubt it.
I personally don't get to do excluding and personally would hope to be as generous and sympathetic as possible in such matters. Those becoming Christians generally would need to positively repent of their most evident sins before their conversion was credible, if you think about it. With sins after conversion, the usual practice is to try to deal with them as lovingly as possible and exclude only in fairly extreme cases where there is considerable unwillingness to repent.
If we believe the Bible says gay sex is wrong, and there are people loudly saying "We do that and we're going to insist on continuing to do it, but we expect you to accept us anyway", I think we'd reasonably say they are excluding themselves by such an attitude.
One of the problems in the gay issue is that it has acquired an excessive prominence because in churches like the CofE it has ended up as a 'last straw' kind of issue which has made people in those churches really dig in about it. The combination of that digging in with being a state church (or following the wider 'Christian country idea) even today implies a degree of their view being state discrimination and/or coercion of unbelievers by the church , rather than just a disagreement on the part of a voluntary body.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Do not candidates go through a period of catechism?
I didn't, and from what little I know of your religious history- correct me if I'm wrong- you may not have either,m for the perfectly good reason that we were babes in arms at the time. I was confirmed at 12, though, but at that stage I still don't think I was aware of a bat's squeak of sexuality in any direction.
I was baptised as a babe, yes. But then I also converted in my early adulthood. First to the RC and then to the Orthodox. Both involve a period of catechesis and then an affirmation that we believe what the Church believes. Of course, for those who are already members then the sacraments can be refused,in otherwords, minor excommunication.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
Why this obsession with volume - loudly this, loudly that?
*BEATS ME...*
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
Steve Langton, do you believe that having gay sex is the only conceivable way for someone to display their gayness?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
don't use KY jelly
How 1970s
I believe the taste led to a market slump.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Macrina;
quote:
Steve Langton, do you believe that having gay sex is the only conceivable way for someone to display their gayness?
I might rather be thinking that gay sex is in Christian terms a wrong way for people to express their feelings for someone of the same sex.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I might rather be thinking that gay sex is in Christian terms a wrong way for people to express their feelings for someone of the same sex.
My view on the Biblical texts (all six of them or whatever it actually is) is that they are much closer to condemning gay sex as a wrong way for people to express their feelings for someone of the opposite sex.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
don't use KY jelly
How 1970s
I believe the taste led to a market slump.
Who on earth uses KY for anal? (Sorry lesbians and bi girls, I assumed that as is usually the case when Christians debate gay sex, they mean men having anal sex, as if there is not any other kind of gay sex.)
I'm a pretty avid devotee of Astroglide, although I've heard there are better things out there. The 70's were the era of Vasoline, or so this person who was not alive then (and may not have survived had he been) has heard.
[ 30. July 2014, 16:54: Message edited by: stonespring ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Eh?
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
Thankyou for your response, where would you draw the line and why?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
don't use KY jelly
How 1970s
I believe the taste led to a market slump.
Who on earth uses KY for anal? (Sorry lesbians and bi girls, I assumed that as is usually the case when Christians debate gay sex, they mean men having anal sex, as if there is not any other kind of gay sex.)
I'm a pretty avid devotee of Astroglide, although I've heard there are better things out there. The 70's were the era of Vasoline, or so this person who was not alive then (and may not have survived had he been) has heard.
I think the hell thread devoted to you, is now going to just slide along, like a slippery eel on castors.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Iamchristianhearmeroar;
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I might rather be thinking that gay sex is in Christian terms a wrong way for people to express their feelings for someone of the same sex.
Iamchristianhearmeroar in reply;
My view on the Biblical texts (all six of them or whatever it actually is) is that they are much closer to condemning gay sex as a wrong way for people to express their feelings for someone of the opposite sex.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
Well, take Romans 1 26-27 as an example:
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
This, to me, is clearly describing a situation where otherwise straight people are turning to gay sex to satisfy their urges. It is not dealing with a situation where gay people are having gay sex to satisfy their urges. Some distinction.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Palimpsest;
The problem is that the issues have become so heated that at times there is also harassment of people who aren't like that.
For you, there's the Not All Like That Project
Can you tell me about more about real incidents of these poor non-political Christians being harassed? Give me two or three examples, I just haven't seen that in the United States.
You probably will get social contempt, if your theology leads you reject Gays as unworthy, just as racists do.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Palimpsest;
quote:
So you belong to a sect that doesn't want to oppose legal homosexuality or same-sex civil marriage but doesn't think homosexuals can be valid practicing members of your denomination?
NOT a complete response, but to make you think about it; try "has serious doubts whether aggressively practicing homosexuals can be accepted as members". That is, making the distinction between 'being' and 'doing' which your way of expressing it doesn't make. We would, I hope, be open to demonstration that we've got that biblically wrong. Thus far many of us are not convinced on that point.
Aggressively practicing homosexuals? Really? That is a rather loaded phrase. Who is the victim of this aggression? Should I refer to aggressively practicing Christians?
And to repeat what has been pointed out earlier, what about those Christians who have "serious doubts whether those aggressively practicing interracial marriage can be accepted as members". Is it ok to hold them in contempt as racists even if they're only criticizing doing and not merely being a member of a minority? Even if they're open to theological argument that they're wrong? Even if they think it will help correct the ungodly actions of others? I would certainly hold them in contempt. They may have the right to have such a church, but they're despicable racists in my opinion.
I'll also point out your desire to "reconcile" seems to be more about protecting yourself from criticism for your actions than actually ameliorating the damage you are doing. You mentioned a website in an earlier post that you liked. It actually had posts about "stop hurting gay people" and not "Poor us we're being oppressed when we hurt Gay people". By comparing the two as equivalent, you're adding insult to injury.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Iamchristianhearmeroar;
quote:
Well, take Romans 1 26-27 as an example:
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
This, to me, is clearly describing a situation where otherwise straight people are turning to gay sex to satisfy their urges. It is not dealing with a situation where gay people are having gay sex to satisfy their urges. Some distinction.
OK, see your point. Not at all sure it is a valid interpretation, though.
Romans 1; 26-7 is part of a long argument going back to v18 and going on to the middle of ch 2 as an argument about human sin in general; after that he moves on to consider the position of his fellow Jews who might be thinking this doesn't apply to them, and he argues (in a way meaningful to his then audience) that Jews are equally sinful before God. THe argument culminates in ch 3; 9-20 with a declaration that ALL have sinned; in v21ff he starts to show how this need is met by the gospel. That goes through to ch 9 where he starts a different line of thought about the place of the Jews in the 'New Covenant'. Finally from ch 12 he gives instructions on how Christians are to live in their world context.
Going back to ch 1, and paraphrasing for brevity, he starts with the basic idea that men rejected God and attempt to be their own god(s). Given human limitations that doesn't work so the actual result is they end up as idolaters, worshipping unreal gods of various kinds from the old idols to modern pop and other 'idols'. They thought they were being clever and asserting freedom, but actually end up as slaves.
Not only are they now 'disjointed' from God; they also become disjointed within themselves, which God allows, again expressing a fitting and appropriate judgement through the natural results of their rebellion. As a dramatic example of this disjointedness, Paul uses sexual dysfunction - the order God created becomes a disorder in which among other things, the male/female complementarity created by God turns into 'unnatural' urges such as same-sex acts.
Not only are men disjointed from God and within themselves, even to the depths of their sexual nature, they are also socially disjointed so that all kinds of things go wrong between men and in society, v28ff.
Finally (for this part of the thesis) in 2; 1-16 he makes the point that even Gentiles, who don't have the Jewish Law, have enough moral awareness to be judged by - in effect, even your own judgements, when God applies them to your own deeds, will condemn you as sinful.
Paul is not making the argument as you've understood it, Iamchristianseemeroar; he wouldn't really have accepted the idea of being 'gay' as we understand it, in his thought this is about people practicing sex wrongly. Having said that, I think his words can be interpreted to imply that wrong sexual urges are among the many such disjointed urges humans have due to what is sometimes called 'original sin' (though I don't necessarily accept Augustine's interpretation of it). Like those other wrong urges, by comparison with the way of life God intended, that we have such urges is not to be interpreted as meaning they are natural and OK to follow out.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
don't use KY jelly
How 1970s
I believe the taste led to a market slump.
It's those shortsighted Lutherans' fault. Anyone could have told them that it's not what you use to make jello salad, but no...
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
don't use KY jelly
How 1970s
I believe the taste led to a market slump.
Who on earth uses KY for anal? (Sorry lesbians and bi girls, I assumed that as is usually the case when Christians debate gay sex, they mean men having anal sex, as if there is not any other kind of gay sex.)
I'm a pretty avid devotee of Astroglide, although I've heard there are better things out there. The 70's were the era of Vasoline, or so this person who was not alive then (and may not have survived had he been) has heard.
I think the hell thread devoted to you, is now going to just slide along, like a slippery eel on castors.
What, you start a topic in DEAD HORSES. About gay identity vs. GAY SEX, and you don't get to talk about GAY SEX, even when someone has already made a joke about it, just because I'm gay? (Am I even gay?). I don't think you're one of the people upset by all this, quetz, but I find it humorous nonetheless.
Plus, STRAIGHT PEOPLE HAVE ANAL SEX TOO. And I don't think they should use KY for that either. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Thanks you.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Palimpsest;
quote:
Aggressively practicing homosexuals? Really? That is a rather loaded phrase. Who is the victim of this aggression? Should I refer to aggressively practicing Christians?
Explained above. Finding 'unloaded phrases' in this kind of context is almost impossible; there's always someone going to make out it was far more 'loaded' than you'd realised when you used it.
quote:
(a blog SL referred to said) "stop hurting gay people" and not "Poor us we're being oppressed when we hurt Gay people". By comparing the two as equivalent, you're adding insult to injury.
I'm not particularly complaining about 'us being oppressed when we hurt Gay people' - there have been a lot of petty examples in the UK of 'PC' behaviour at the expense of Christians in all kinds of areas; some I have thought the Christians were asking for it, others I didn't and thought the parties objecting had gone too far.
If even just disagreement with you constitutes being 'hurt', that's not a legitimate complaint.
As far as I'm concerned there are a lot of things Christians disagree with, including gambling. Imposing a law on the state to stop such conduct would be wrong; but believing things to be sinful and seeking to persuade people of that, and persuade them to voluntarily follow Jesus instead of the current beliefs of the society around them, is legitimate.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
See, I think gambling is demonstrably harmful and there should certainly be tight restrictions on it. The only reason not to have an outright ban is that the social consequences of prohibition tend to be worse than those of the thing being prohibited.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Paul is not making the argument as you've understood it, Iamchristianseemeroar; he wouldn't really have accepted the idea of being 'gay' as we understand it
My instinctive reaction to that is that if Paul really has nothing to say about being 'gay' as we understand it, then why on earth would we look to his writings for teaching about it? For if Paul is only writing about same-sex sex in the context of, of let's say, ritual sex acts in pagan worship and associated prostitution (which is another interpretation), why would we look to apply what he had to say about that to sex between consenting adults of the same sex?
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
OK, see your point. Not at all sure it is a valid interpretation, though.
Well, it's an interpretation, as your interpretation is also an interpretation. Another interpretation I've heard about the Romans 1 passage I mentioned is that the reference to women exchanging natural intercourse for unnatural refers to women having anal rather than vaginal sex with men (vide St Augustine and Clement of Alexandria). Nothing to do with same-sex sex (is one interpretation).
Still another interpretation (that I alluded to above) of the reference of men committing shameless acts with men is to sexual acts in the context of pagan worship. The men involved in these rituals would get themselves worked up into such a frenzy that some even ended up castrating themselves - Paul's reference to them having received in their own persons the due penalty for their error may allude to that. (vide Wisdom 14:23-28)
All interpretations, but no more and no less of an interpretation than your interpretation.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Romans 1; 26-7 is part of a long argument going back to v18 and going on to the middle of ch 2 as an argument about human sin in general
I get that.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I think his words can be interpreted to imply that wrong sexual urges are among the many such disjointed urges humans have due to what is sometimes called 'original sin'
That is if one thinks Paul is simply denouncing same sex attraction and same sex sex. I don't think it's as simple as that. I find the arguments that Paul is referring to things like temple prostitution convincing enough to doubt the "traditional" reading of this passage (which is not all as traditional as it may seem).
And this is before one even looks at the Greek original...
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Since we've addressed the critical "church rules should not be the same as secular law" issue, then perhaps the key issue might be how a church deals with its rules for its own members. May I suggest, for sexual conduct matters, just not singling out gay sex? I think that's a large chunk of the issue--being sexually active (in various senses, depending on the rules) with someone of the same sex is usually treated as some sort of freakish alien "other" thing while being sexually active outside of marriage (or even, in some churches, within second or later marriages) is treated as more OK, even a peccadillo. If a church just said "here are things we believe are not right" and included "sexual intercourse (defined as whatever) outside of faithful male-female marriage, presumed to be lifelong (or lifelong apart from certain kinds of divorce, etc.)" then the way gay people feel singled out might not be the kind of problem it is. Remember, regular old-fashioned male-female adultery, fornication, etc. have been capital offenses in some OT times, and in the NT Jesus says that people that get divorced and remarried (unless the marriage was itself broken by adultery) are themselves committing adultery. But for the most part churches don't treat "gay stuff" as being on the same level as teens losing virginity, or adults on their second or third spouse, or even adults just breaking their marriage vows. (Unless a pastor is involved.)
Just some thoughts here, but a double standard has gone on for so incredibly long now that this may be a major part of the problem.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Arethosemyfeet;
quote:
See, I think gambling is demonstrably harmful and there should certainly be tight restrictions on it. The only reason not to have an outright ban is that the social consequences of prohibition tend to be worse than those of the thing being prohibited.
I basically agree; my point is that if there are to be laws in the state, they need to be based on such a widely shared perception of harm, not just on the views of one religion which may include concerns that only that religion accepts. That is, ideally a democratic decision of the kind where even if you're the majority you're required to respect other beliefs. Not just "This is a Christian country, it's a sin in Christian terms, so ban it on our say-so".
And as was shown also by the example of Prohibition in the USA, there must be a willingness to recognise practicalities and the 'law of unforeseen consequences' so that your idealistic law doesn't end up doing more harm than good.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
hosting
Quetzalcoatl, please do not allude to Hell threads about other posters on this board in order to make jokes at their expense. It's a breach of C4. The Hell board exists to keep personal conflicts entirely separate from the other boards.
Stonespring could you please only to respond to Quetzalcoatl's post on the Hell board and not here? That post shouldn't have been made on this board.
I've had to warn other posters about this recently - could people please stop doing this? If you are calling someone to hell, a simple non-contentious link is fine, but otherwise people should not be discussing hell calls or hell threads about other posters anywhere except Hell.
thanks!
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Steve Langton - surely 'sexually active gay people' is quite an obviously less loaded term than 'aggressively practicing homosexuals'?
As others have said a lot on this thread, separating 'being' and 'doing' for non-straight people but not doing so for straight people is both weird and seriously problematic. It's just not something that's possible in the way you think it is. Aside from the fact that the OP (and most subsequent comments) entirely ignores non-monosexuals, you are aware that there is no sexual activity that gay people do that straight people don't also do, right? There is no list in the Bible of OK and not-OK sexual positions.
Also, what about queer (using queer as an umbrella term for non-straight people here, it's not just gay men who aren't straight) culture? Surely a celibate lesbian who is fully into her local queer community (volunteers at the local gay bookshop, drinks at the gay pub, names her cats Tegan and Sara) is more of a 'practicing gay' than a man who has sex with other men in secret and does not identify as gay? This isn't to repeat the tired idea that queerness is a lifestyle choice, just saying that for many queer people (admittedly mostly white middle-class urban queer people) there is a strong cultural/community aspect. It's partly why being queer but not identifying with your particular community can be really difficult when coming to terms with your identity (eg me being a queer woman but about as butch as Barbie caused me some identity issues as a teenager).
Also - reinforcing a binary view of sexuality (straight v gay, acceptable v unacceptable, quiet aka hidden v loud aka open/unashamed) is deeply harmful, not least because bisexual people and other non-monosexuals and our experiences get erased and ignored. We are still queer, we are not just super slutty straight people and we're not some kind of half-hearted homosexuality. Also viewing celibate queer people as OK because they're not as queer as sexually/romantically active is really awful, and is offensive to both groups. One's queerness is not defined by how sexually active one is.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Steve Langton - surely 'sexually active gay people' is quite an obviously less loaded term than 'aggressively practicing homosexuals'?
Yes, less loaded, but didn't quite convey the situation I was thinking of in which the people concerned are not just 'sexually active' but may be quite aggressively making a point of it - as explained above, "We're sexually active in a way you consider wrong, we have every intention of carrying on that way, and we still expect you to accept us regardless".
I did struggle to find a way of stating the point with reasonable brevity; and I accept I didn't entirely succeed. But I still can't think of a brief version that would make my point neatly. It's rather that kind of situation.
by Jade C;
quote:
As others have said a lot on this thread, separating 'being' and 'doing' for non-straight people but not doing so for straight people is both weird and seriously problematic.
I don't make that separation, it's just an aspect I haven't got round to yet. I don't have infinite time to be on the Ship, I've had a hectic week and the thread has attracted a great deal of comment in a short time; I need to breathe occasionally!
by Jade C;
quote:
you are aware that there is no sexual activity that gay people do that straight people don't also do, right?
Though I seem to recall that last time you made a similar assertion you also had to admit that doing those activities often involved 'marital aids' - which seems just a bit at odds with the claim that gay sexual activity is 'natural'?
bby Chastmastr;
quote:
Since we've addressed the critical "church rules should not be the same as secular law" issue, then perhaps the key issue might be how a church deals with its rules for its own members.
I pretty much agree with that and the rest of your post there; unfortunately public issues like SSM have rather singled the gay issue out and given it what I think is indeed undue prominence. I've recently seen an example locally where arguably a church wasn't quite positive enough about a case of adultery, and I think the church is still being hindered by the unsatisfactory way it was dealt with; and of course if gay people were dealt with differently by that church they would, I feel, have some cause for complaint.
Subject to the shenanigans of some council workmen tomorrow morning I hope to be back with a kind of summary of how I see things so far.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
Steve Langton,
Most gay people who have been involved in Christian churches have been led or forced to study carefully and in detail what the bible says about gay stuff. Usually they have ended up studying the relevant passages vastly more than even those straight church members who are interested in the subject, because it comes up for them over and over again. So a lot of people on this board have well-informed opinions about the pros and cons of different interpretations of the various passages. There are about 5 main ways to interpret Rom 1:26-27 alone, and then there are multiple ways of reading each of the other relevant passages. I don't know that it gains us anything much to argue the details - since for example I don't agree with you nor Iamchristianhearmeroar on Rom 1:26-27, nor agree with your overarching reading of Romans as a whole for that matter. But the fact that Christians often disagree about biblical interpretation is a rather obvious truism - there are a lot of different denominations for a reason!
Rather it's simply worth noting that even among well-informed people there is substantial disagreements about the meanings of the various passages in the bible that mention gay things... only a very few such passages have anything even approaching a consensus on them among well-informed people on this board (there is certainly no consensus on Rom 1:26-27). And that diversity of sincerely held biblical interpretations is fairly typical of the diversity of interpretations that are common in Christianity on other issues.
So I'm happy to grant for the sake of this discussion that you have an interpretation of the bible that you personally think is right and which you sincerely believe, but which other Christians don't necessarily agree with, and that interpretation leads you to believe that the bible says some anti-gay things.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Steve Langton - I didn't 'admit' anything. Why does the use of marital aids (not that they are compulsory...) make same-gender sexual encounters 'unnatural'? It doesn't. Many heterosexual couples use such things due to medication, illness etc, is their sexual activity unnatural? In any case, in my previous comment on this I was more thinking about heterosexual couples using them, though it works both ways.
Also, people really don't 'aggressively' make a point of saying they're sexually active - it's called just treating it as the normal thing it is. What would the acceptable alternative be to you, treating it as a shameful secret?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Really, talking about gay sexual encounters as not "natural" because of sexual aids is equivocating on "natural." It's using the word in two completely different senses. In the relevant sense of the word, "morally permissible" sex (for want of a better term) does not go from being physikos to aphysikos if the two people involved bring in a physical object. You'd have to argue that K-Y jelly, or pillows (if used say to prop the hips) were unnatural and (on an unnatural=sinful reading) therefore sinful.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
No, we don't exclude people simply because they are 'sinners'; as you say, we all are. That is why I used the phrasing "aggressively practicing gays" to mean someone who is not only a sinner (accepting that between us that may be in dispute in this particular case) but doesn't admit he is. As with other sins, there's an expectation of repentance.
So despite your generous and sympathetic suggestion to gay people that they get divorced, devote themselves to lifelong celibacy, and put their kids in the foster care system they display "aggression" by not obeying your dictates? How arrogant of them! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Yes, less loaded, but didn't quite convey the situation I was thinking of in which the people concerned are not just 'sexually active' but may be quite aggressively making a point of it - as explained above, "We're sexually active in a way you consider wrong, we have every intention of carrying on that way, and we still expect you to accept us regardless".
It's the last bit where you fall down. It's not so much "we still expect you to accept us regardless" as it is "your acceptance is irrelevant to us". I think that's the real sticking point for anti-gay folks; the idea that they are no longer universally accepted as the arbiters of morality. It's that rejection that's intolerable.
A similar observation from Fred Clark about a year and a half ago:
quote:
For decades, the religious right has been pre-occupied with two issues above all else: abortion and homosexuality. And on both of those issues, they have wielded power and influence by claiming the moral high ground — claiming to represent the godly, “biblical” truth of right and wrong. Anyone who disagreed with them on these issues was portrayed as less moral, less godly, less good.
That claim — that framing of these issues as right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, biblical vs. unbiblical, moral vs. immoral — was asserted and accepted for most of the religious right’s 30-year run.
But not any more. That claim is still being asserted, but it is no longer being accepted.
Part of what happened on Tuesday was that millions of people rejected that claim on moral grounds. This was not just a political or pragmatic disagreement that preserved their essential claim of godly morality. It was a powerful counter-claim — the claim that the religious right is advocating immoral, unjust and cruelly unfair policies on both of its hallmark issues. Knee-jerk opposition to legal abortion and to gay rights weren’t just rejected as bad policy, but as bad morals — as being on the wrong side of right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, biblical vs. unbiblical, moral vs. immoral.
Of course gay people still demand legal acceptance as full and equal citizens, but you claim not to oppose that.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Jade C;
quote:
you are aware that there is no sexual activity that gay people do that straight people don't also do, right?
Though I seem to recall that last time you made a similar assertion you also had to admit that doing those activities often involved 'marital aids' - which seems just a bit at odds with the claim that gay sexual activity is 'natural'?
First off, I'm not sure "natural" is synonymous with "good" or that "unnatural" necessarily means "bad". Vaccinations are "unnatural", but we don't regard them as evil because of that. Second, I'm pretty sure JC is right.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
unfortunately public issues like SSM have rather singled the gay issue out and given it what I think is indeed undue prominence.
I don't believe that gay people trying to attain equal legal rights (including SSM) can be blamed for churches mistreating and singling out gay people.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I'll happily accept a church taking issue with the sexual behaviours of gay and lesbian couples when it takes equal issue with the same sexual behaviours in heterosexual couples.
And I'll happily accept a church saying that the only good kind of sex is faithful monogamy in marriage when it either (1) recognises that same-sex marriages can meet that requirement or (2) excludes non-procreative heterosexual couples from being married.
I note that the number of Christians treating (2) as a serious option appears to be vanishingly small, despite the fact that it has a logical consistency.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
Crœsos,
If there was a Like / +1 / Amen button in these forums I'd be pressing it for your post. Well said.
I am always amused when I encounter people who believe that the word "moral" means something along the lines of "what God said in the Bible", and who thus struggle to mentally cope with the fact that increasing numbers of people in society now use the word "moral" to mean something along the lines of "that which is just, kind and loving, and which is beneficial to others and minimizes harm". I've met quite a few Christians who just can't get their heads around the fact that so many people now view bible-based Christian opposition to gay rights as immoral, because they think that by definition no bible-based position can ever be immoral and therefore they are confused and offended when other people claim the moral high ground.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, the other day I said to a fundie that his ideas on gay sex struck me as vile and depraved; I don't think he got the irony.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, the other day I said to a fundie that his ideas on gay sex struck me as vile and depraved; I don't think he got the irony.
Oh, now I'm madly curious about what he said! Do tell!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, the other day I said to a fundie that his ideas on gay sex struck me as vile and depraved; I don't think he got the irony.
Oh, now I'm madly curious about what he said! Do tell!
He said: "The back passage is exit only. So sex is only possible between one man and one woman. Anything else is misuse of the reproductive organs."
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
"back passage" ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
He said: "The back passage is exit only. So sex is only possible between one man and one woman. Anything else is misuse of the reproductive organs."
There... are so many... responses... one could give to this guy (not to mention that he seems to be... rather... "back passage focused," shall we say, and apparently with no imagination to speak of)...
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
So you're talking about the hardships of "Aggressive Christians"? To use your descriptive terms;
quote:
the people concerned are not just 'theologically active' but may be quite aggressively making a point of it - as explained above, "We're theologically active in a way you consider wrong, we have every intention of carrying on that way, and we still expect you to accept us regardless".
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
He said: "The back passage is exit only. So sex is only possible between one man and one woman. Anything else is misuse of the reproductive organs."
There... are so many... responses... one could give to this guy (not to mention that he seems to be... rather... "back passage focused," shall we say, and apparently with no imagination to speak of)...
Well, he should look after his own sexual organs, and let other people look after theirs. Prurience.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
you are aware that there is no sexual activity that gay people do that straight people don't also do, right?
Though I seem to recall that last time you made a similar assertion you also had to admit that doing those activities often involved 'marital aids' - which seems just a bit at odds with the claim that gay sexual activity is 'natural'?
I'm still chuckling at this.
Due to this comment, I don't think I can take anything else Steve says seriously. Although I am still eager to hear all about why gay sex is bad, a comedic treat that was promised in the OP.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Starlight;
quote:
I'm still chuckling at this.
Due to this comment, I don't think I can take anything else Steve says seriously.
I'm still chuckling a bit myself. I of course recall the original exchange where that came up, and the contrast between Jade C's first emphatic statement and then, in response to my query, the admission that "Doing everything straight people can do" did involve 'artificial aids' was a bit of an anti-climax.
Actually one of the problems of discussion in this area is that human language uses the word 'natural' ambiguously; even in the NT you're often dependent on context or going back to the Greek as best you can to be sure whether 'natural' means "As God intended" or "As is now natural for sinful men (but unnatural in the other sense)".
And yes, I do need to say a bit more about my own views, and I will. But I'm having one of those weeks, and even if that were not so the sheer volume of response so far would probably be beyond me to deal with all of it. Rightly or wrongly I felt it better to intervene rarely on the thread in order to get Shipmates' views.
Some people still seem determined to attribute to me views I don't necessarily hold; others are not really engaging with the OP but simply seem to believe that 'gay' is somehow beyond criticism and entitled to automatically take the moral high ground. I don't take such a view of my own position - I know that I can't expect my views to be just accepted; like Peter I think in terms of being obliged to have an 'apologia' not a weak 'apology' but 'fitting words' to justify my beliefs and practice.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm still chuckling a bit myself.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:
I of course recall the original exchange where that came up, and the contrast between Jade C's first emphatic statement and then, in response to my query, the admission that "Doing everything straight people can do" did involve 'artificial aids' was a bit of an anti-climax.
I understand artificial aids can help with problems of anti-climax.
quote:
others are not really engaging with the OP but simply seem to believe that 'gay' is somehow beyond criticism and entitled to automatically take the moral high ground.
It's beyond criticism in the sense that there don't happen to exist any valid criticisms of it. Most people here have heard all the various attempts at criticism before and know why they aren't valid. It's not that gay rights are automatically entitled to the moral high ground, it's just that they've clearly won the moral high ground very successfully through the merits of the issue over the course of several decades of discussion.
quote:
I don't take such a view of my own position - I know that I can't expect my views to be just accepted; like Peter I think in terms of being obliged to have an 'apologia' not a weak 'apology' but 'fitting words' to justify my beliefs and practice.
Sure. At the point where you get around to expressing a logical argument against gay sex, a lot of people will point out the flaws in it for you. (Spoiler alert: There's no valid argument against gay sex.) In the meantime, in some of my previous posts, I have explained to you the harm done to gay people by discrimination against them, which is my justification for standing against anti-gay views and actions.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[T]here is no sexual activity that gay people do that straight people don't also do, right?
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm still chuckling a bit myself. I of course recall the original exchange where that came up, and the contrast between Jade C's first emphatic statement and then, in response to my query, the admission that "Doing everything straight people can do" did involve 'artificial aids' was a bit of an anti-climax.
You seem determined to reverse the direction of JC's argument. So what is is that gay couples can do that straight couples can't/don't/won't?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Um, perhaps be less likely to turn 'that's not for me' into 'that's disgusting and sinful'?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Although I am still eager to hear all about why gay sex is bad
That's obvious. It leads to interior decorating. Interior decoration might involve graven images.
Will nobody think of the children?!
Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Um, perhaps be less likely to turn 'that's not for me' into 'that's disgusting and sinful'?
Haha so true!
It seems to me that male gay couples seem to be more commonly in open or semi-open ("monogamish") relationships.
That can be interpreted to mean they are more committed or less committed, depending on who you ask!
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
...and I've met more than one gay man who thinks that lesbians are (to quote one of them) 'like tortoises- they mate for life'(!)
A stereotype, then, but not really a condemnatory one.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Starlight;
quote:
I'm still chuckling at this.
Due to this comment, I don't think I can take anything else Steve says seriously.
I'm still chuckling a bit myself. I of course recall the original exchange where that came up, and the contrast between Jade C's first emphatic statement and then, in response to my query, the admission that "Doing everything straight people can do" did involve 'artificial aids' was a bit of an anti-climax.
Actually one of the problems of discussion in this area is that human language uses the word 'natural' ambiguously; even in the NT you're often dependent on context or going back to the Greek as best you can to be sure whether 'natural' means "As God intended" or "As is now natural for sinful men (but unnatural in the other sense)".
And yes, I do need to say a bit more about my own views, and I will. But I'm having one of those weeks, and even if that were not so the sheer volume of response so far would probably be beyond me to deal with all of it. Rightly or wrongly I felt it better to intervene rarely on the thread in order to get Shipmates' views.
Some people still seem determined to attribute to me views I don't necessarily hold; others are not really engaging with the OP but simply seem to believe that 'gay' is somehow beyond criticism and entitled to automatically take the moral high ground. I don't take such a view of my own position - I know that I can't expect my views to be just accepted; like Peter I think in terms of being obliged to have an 'apologia' not a weak 'apology' but 'fitting words' to justify my beliefs and practice.
Please stop saying I 'admitted' anything - I did not 'admit' anything in the sense that I said something which destroyed my argument, because the presence of marital aids does not somehow invalidate sex. Same-gender sex can indeed do all the things different-gender sex can, and vice versa - that some things involve marital aids doesn't change anything, I didn't 'admit' that it made it lesser somehow. That was all your prejudice. Many straight couples need marital aids because of medication, illness etc - so good to know that you view their sex lives as unnatural and inferior.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
'Marital aids'. Presumably until March this year, gay couples in England and Wales had to make do with 'civil partnership aids'.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Um, perhaps be less likely to turn 'that's not for me' into 'that's disgusting and sinful'?
I think the disgust thing (or "ick factor" as it's sometimes called) is an important thing to look at in the argument. I think it usually stands not on the conclusion side but on the premise side. In other words the argument is not "that's not for me, therefore that's disgusting and sinful" but rather "that's disgusting, therefore that's not for me, therefore that's sinful."
For me, the idea of french-kissing a guy is icky. I can't imagine so doing. But I do not conclude from this that it is sinful. There are a lot of things that I find icky, but do not conclude from that that they are sinful. I see no reason why gay sex isn't in the same category. But I think people confuse their personal comfort zone with some kind of God-given inner moral revulsion facility. Using this facility, they easily deduce that gay sex is sinful. They then cast about for arguments to support their conclusion.
Oddly, they do not conclude that eating raw oysters is sinful, even though they may have the exact same revulsion thereat. Okay, it's not so odd.
[ 31. July 2014, 17:13: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
others are not really engaging with the OP but simply seem to believe that 'gay' is somehow beyond criticism and entitled to automatically take the moral high ground.
The problem is that over the 30+ years I've debated this issue (yes, I'm old and need to get a life), I've never heard any criticism other than "It's icky and God doesn't like it."
From my perspective as a gay man here the the facts:
1) Gay people exist. With very few (mostly bisexual) exceptions, it's not chosen, nor can it be changed. Homosexuality is found among many species of animals including our closest cousins chimpanzees and bonobos. So it's not just a human perversion traced to depraved minds or bad upbringing.
2) Sexuality involves far more than sexual acts. If I had a dollar for each time someone has asked the eye-rolling question: "How did you know you are gay when you're celibate?" I could buy a new car. When people condemn homosexuality, it's hard as a gay man not to see that as a condemnation of me as a person. I'm still gay even if I never have sex again. It always amazes me that straight people can't see their sexuality as more than a sex act. Perhaps it's the same kind of blindness white people (like me) have about race. People, even those who are celibate, can't separate themselves from their sexuality.
3) There is nothing inherently harmful about gay intimacy. It isn't like murder, rape, adultery or theft in that it's not abusive, deceptive or causes physical pain. Things tend to be categorized as sinful because they cause harm. (See Romans 13:8-10). There are certain medical risks gay males could encounter at higher rates than straight people, but straight people have their own list of risks.
4) Gay intimacy is extremely pleasurable for those who do it. Kissing, touching oral and anal sex simply feel good. If it's with someone you're in an ongoing relationship with, it leads to greater emotional intimacy and fosters commitment, just like it does for straight married couples. It's life enhancing. It meets a basic need we have as human beings.
5) Christianity, unlike Islam and Judaism, tends to be wary of purity codes. Jesus spent a lot of his ministry exposing the harm of enforcing purity codes for the sake of enforcing purity codes. He healed on the Sabbath; he spoke out against the food and cleanliness laws, he touched the unclean and even praised unclean people for coming to the aid of other unclean people.
At best, gay relationships break a purity code. When people say "It's icky and God doesn't like it" but can't say how it causes objective harm, they are invoking purity. In my opinion the onus is on them to demonstrate why this purity code should remain in effect. I find that invoking Biblical prooftexts (Leviticus, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy) is unpersuasive because these prohibitions tend to be tied to certain specific contexts and most Biblical scholars would agree, the notion of innately gay people didn't exist in the ancient world.
So I don't engage the OP because it's the same OP I've read approximately 978,456 times over the past 30 years and I'm simply bored with the assertions. There are numerous threats in DH and across the internet where this has been engaged repeatedly.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Croesos;
quote:
You seem determined to reverse the direction of JC's argument. So what is is that gay couples can do that straight couples can't/don't/won't?
Must admit that Jade's comment had so reminded me of the previous occasion I didn't notice I was reversing it this time. In general the answer to all ways round that this point can be made is that by definition gay sex can't be exactly like straight sex because in straight sex there is naturally complementary equipment and in gay sex both partners have the same kit, which obviously can't be made to work in the same way together. It really isn't exactly the same. situation.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Croesos;
quote:
You seem determined to reverse the direction of JC's argument. So what is is that gay couples can do that straight couples can't/don't/won't?
Must admit that Jade's comment had so reminded me of the previous occasion I didn't notice I was reversing it this time. In general the answer to all ways round that this point can be made is that by definition gay sex can't be exactly like straight sex because in straight sex there is naturally complementary equipment and in gay sex both partners have the same kit, which obviously can't be made to work in the same way together. It really isn't exactly the same. situation.
But that's not the question. The question isn't about being but doing, according to the OP. Being equipped differently therefore isn't really relevant.
But even if we granted that is a relevant objection (which I don't), you're still arguing from straight people to gay people (straight people can have PIV sex and gay people can't, therefore something-or-other), whereas what is on the table is going the other way. What do gay people *DO* in bed that straight people don't? Fellatio? Nope. Cunnilingus? Nope. Sodomy? Nope. Fisting? Nope. Straight people do all those things.
[ 31. July 2014, 17:30: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
...and I've met more than one gay man who thinks that lesbians are (to quote one of them) 'like tortoises- they mate for life'(!)
A stereotype, then, but not really a condemnatory one.
It may even be a stereotype when applied to tortoises. A lot of the animals we think of as monogamous turn out not to be upon closer examination.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Mousethief;
quote:
But that's not the question. The question isn't about being but doing, according to the OP. Being equipped differently therefore isn't really relevant.
The OP is concerned with a contrast between 'being and doing' as applied to the issue of racism, and 'being and doing' as applied to gay people. And therefore an implication that a lot of current ways of construing the gay issue may be misled and misleading.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Mousethief;
quote:
But that's not the question. The question isn't about being but doing, according to the OP. Being equipped differently therefore isn't really relevant.
The OP is concerned with a contrast between 'being and doing' as applied to the issue of racism, and 'being and doing' as applied to gay people. And therefore an implication that a lot of current ways of construing the gay issue may be misled and misleading.
I'm still waiting to hear your explanation of whether being opposed to inter-racial marriage is despicable racism since it's doing rather than being or if it's fine if your theology tells you that God intended the races to stay pure. Does the being vs. doing excuse mean that such racism shouldn't be criticized as despicable?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Mousethief;
quote:
But that's not the question. The question isn't about being but doing, according to the OP. Being equipped differently therefore isn't really relevant.
The OP is concerned with a contrast between 'being and doing' as applied to the issue of racism, and 'being and doing' as applied to gay people. And therefore an implication that a lot of current ways of construing the gay issue may be misled and misleading.
I wrote two paragraphs. This one is almost a throwaway. Do you have any response to the second one?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The OP is concerned with a contrast between 'being and doing' as applied to the issue of racism, and 'being and doing' as applied to gay people. And therefore an implication that a lot of current ways of construing the gay issue may be misled and misleading.
Interestingly a lot of contemporary racists quibble over the same distinction. It's one of the reasons they prefer to be called "racial realists" instead of "racists" (though I see no need to humor them in this regard). They assert that they don't hate anyone, they just have a "realistic" view that there are important cognitive and behavioral differences between various racial and ethnic groups ("doings" rather than "being") which just happen to correspond exactly with historical racism. They also like to claim that they're being persecuted by the PC police simply for expressing the truth that everyone knows but are afraid to admit.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Croesos;
quote:
You seem determined to reverse the direction of JC's argument. So what is is that gay couples can do that straight couples can't/don't/won't?
Must admit that Jade's comment had so reminded me of the previous occasion I didn't notice I was reversing it this time. In general the answer to all ways round that this point can be made is that by definition gay sex can't be exactly like straight sex because in straight sex there is naturally complementary equipment and in gay sex both partners have the same kit, which obviously can't be made to work in the same way together. It really isn't exactly the same. situation.
Actually no, that's not true. There are plenty of same-gender (not everyone having sex with someone of the same gender is gay) couples where one partner is transgender and the 'equipment' involved is indeed what you would consider complimentary. I know it's not the point being discussed in the OP but I hope mousethief and the others don't mind me picking up on this, because it's a nasty bit of gender-essentialism that harms non-straight and straight people alike. Plenty of straight couples don't have strictly complimentary equipment for one reason or another, it doesn't make their sex lives invalid or unnatural. A dildo is functionally a penis and serves the same purpose wrt sex. Sex without artificial equipment and sex with it are no more dissimilar to each other than someone walking with legs they were born with and someone walking with an artificial limb.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Palimpsest;
quote:
I'm still waiting to hear your explanation of whether being opposed to inter-racial marriage is despicable racism since it's doing rather than being or if it's fine if your theology tells you that God intended the races to stay pure. Does the being vs. doing excuse mean that such racism shouldn't be criticized as despicable?
IF my theology told me the races are supposed to stay pure I might logically have a different position - of course I would also belong to a different religion!! (i.e., not Christian)
"In Christ" there is no 'this-that-or-the-other-race' so the 'doing' in this case would simply be an ordinary marriage - how would you find that a problem? The suggestion that such conduct is a specifically racial 'doing' is specious.
In other cases cultural differences in 'doing' could rightly be subject to moral question; in some cases you might find that there wasn't a real moral question but only disguised racism, in other cases, eg child sacrifice, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be letting worries about 'racism' get in your way in criticising the culture. The moral questions can't just be written out at square one by suggesting they're racist - plus the principle would apply both ways, both cultures would have to face the criticism.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Palimpsest;
quote:
I'm still waiting to hear your explanation of whether being opposed to inter-racial marriage is despicable racism since it's doing rather than being or if it's fine if your theology tells you that God intended the races to stay pure. Does the being vs. doing excuse mean that such racism shouldn't be criticized as despicable?
IF my theology told me the races are supposed to stay pure I might logically have a different position - of course I would also belong to a different religion!! (i.e., not Christian)
That seems like either a very historically ignorant view of Christianity or a very historically selective one.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
"In Christ" there is no 'this-that-or-the-other-race' so the 'doing' in this case would simply be an ordinary marriage - how would you find that a problem? The suggestion that such conduct is a specifically racial 'doing' is specious.
Historically a popular interpretation of that quote focused on the idea that these distinctions didn't matter "in Christ" but in more worldly matters certain Old Testament passages about the importance of separateness should be followed.
Sure you could argue that this is selective, but it's no more selective than you citing your favorite passage about how we shouldn't make distinctions between "Jew [and] Gentile" but completely ignore its admonition not to distinguish between "male and female". It would be just as easy to argue in favor of same-sex marriage thus:
quote:
Originally posted by [a more consistent] Steve Langton:
"In Christ" there is no 'this-that-or-the-other-[gender]' so the 'doing' in this case would simply be an ordinary marriage - how would you find that a problem? The suggestion that such conduct is a specifically [gendered] 'doing' is specious.
I'm not sure how you can proof-text Galatians to argue that there's no such thing as an improper ethnic mismatch in marriage and still argue that there is such a thing as a gender mismatch in marriage.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Except...
Saying in Christ there is no racial distinction is a restoration of the original purpose of God. IN Christ there is neither male nor female is also a restoration of the creation intent.
But there is no need of restoration about marriage. Marriage is part of the unspoiled, and Jesus said, quoting the creation story, that God made them 'male and female'. That still stands - like it or not!
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
If marriage is perfect, why will it not exist in heaven, as Jesus told the Sadducees? Surely all things that are perfect will survive the resurrection?
I read Galatians precisely as has been described - that God does not care about whether people are male or female, any more than he cares about their race or economic status.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Marriage is not needed in heaven. But it is still needed on earth, and as God designed, as Jesus confirmed it to be - not as we think we know better.
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Marriage is not needed in heaven. But it is still needed on earth, and as God designed, as Jesus confirmed it to be - not as we think we know better.
Marriage is a "doing" thing. What precisely do you feel is 'done' within it, and does it qualitatively change when "done" by same or different genders?
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
I'm slightly confused about what the main topic has become here at this point.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Saying in Christ there is no racial distinction is a restoration of the original purpose of God. IN Christ there is neither male nor female is also a restoration of the creation intent.
I see the Galatians passage as teaching that in God's eyes racial distinctions don't matter, nor do male-female distinctions. Sure, both things still exist on earth, but they just don't matter to God theologically. Therefore interracial marriage is okay with God, and therefore same-sex marriage is okay with God. He doesn't care about race and he doesn't care about gender, he's the God of all.
quote:
Jesus said, quoting the creation story, that God made them 'male and female'. That still stands - like it or not!
It's still true that people are male and female.* It's still true that people get married. Male and female people get married on a regular basis, this still happens. The passage doesn't say that those are the only kind of people that can marry, you're creatively inserting your own interpretation and limitations into it.
* except for intersex people of whom this was never true
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Saying in Christ there is no racial distinction is a restoration of the original purpose of God. IN Christ there is neither male nor female is also a restoration of the creation intent.
I see the Galatians passage as teaching that in God's eyes racial distinctions don't matter, nor do male-female distinctions. Sure, both things still exist on earth, but they just don't matter to God theologically. Therefore interracial marriage is okay with God, and therefore same-sex marriage is okay with God. He doesn't care about race and he doesn't care about gender, he's the God of all.
I would agree, though I think he may have been doing more. Paul may well have been responding to a theme that seems to have been common at the time. It took somewhat definitive form in the Birkhot Hashachar (morning blessings) of Jewish liturgy a century or so after Paul—"Blessed are you, O God, Ruler of the Universe, who has not created me . . . a Gentile, . . . a slave, . . . a woman." Forms of these three "has not created me" blessings existed earlier in Judaism, Zoroastrianism and Greek philosophy. Diogenes reported that Socrates considered himself blessed not to have been born a beast, a barbarian or a woman.
Paul is presenting the radical idea that the distinctions that not only mattered but were sources of pride and superiority in much of the ancient world were meaningless in Christ, and he appears to do it by echoing the three distinctions that would have been familiar to his audience.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I wrote two paragraphs. This one is almost a throwaway. Do you have any response to the second one?
Waiting.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
The only time that 'naturally complementary' genitalia mean anything is when you're trying to procreate. The notion that sexual pleasure can only be derived when a penis is inserted into a vagina is manifestly false, as is the notion that this is the only thing that constitutes 'sex'.
I'll say it again: I'm perfectly fine with a principle that says the only permissible kind of sex is the procreative kind, so long as you apply that principle to everyone.
The fact that there is a vast amount of non-procreative heterosexual sex going on is the elephant in the room that most conservative Christians simply refuse to talk about.
The idea that 'gay sex' is somehow a different kind of sex is true in one case, and one case only. In every other case, our DOING is exactly the same as your DOING. Which makes me suspect very much that it's not our DOING that you actually have an objection to, it's our BEING.
[ 01. August 2014, 03:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea that 'gay sex' is somehow a different kind of sex is true in one case, and one case only. In every other case, our DOING is exactly the same as your DOING. Which makes me suspect very much that it's not our DOING that you actually have an objection to, it's our BEING.
So, "having sex while gay." Which is remarkably parallel to "driving while black."
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So, "having sex while gay." Which is remarkably parallel to "driving while black."
Just imagine, having sex while driving while being both black and gay!
Arguably that would probably be dangerous for somewhat different reasons than social or legal disapproval, though.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Palimpsest;
quote:
I'm still waiting to hear your explanation of whether being opposed to inter-racial marriage is despicable racism since it's doing rather than being or if it's fine if your theology tells you that God intended the races to stay pure. Does the being vs. doing excuse mean that such racism shouldn't be criticized as despicable?
IF my theology told me the races are supposed to stay pure I might logically have a different position - of course I would also belong to a different religion!! (i.e., not Christian)
"In Christ" there is no 'this-that-or-the-other-race' so the 'doing' in this case would simply be an ordinary marriage - how would you find that a problem? The suggestion that such conduct is a specifically racial 'doing' is specious.
In other cases cultural differences in 'doing' could rightly be subject to moral question; in some cases you might find that there wasn't a real moral question but only disguised racism, in other cases, eg child sacrifice, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be letting worries about 'racism' get in your way in criticising the culture. The moral questions can't just be written out at square one by suggesting they're racist - plus the principle would apply both ways, both cultures would have to face the criticism.
It's interesting to hear that the 15 million Southern Baptists , one of the largest denominations in the Southern United States, were not Christians before the 1990's. I'm sure it will come as a surprise to them as well. I'm glad I didn't use the Mormons as an example.
I'm not saying your theology is racist. I'm saying that until the quite recent past, many groups of Christians in the United States were Racist. By your rules of engagement, an organization like Bob Jones University which in 1975 admitted Black students but prohibited inter-racial dating or marriage for theological reasons would be exempt from criticism because their rules of exclusion were for doing and not being. I'm saying this was racist and despicable. Do you think they should be exempt from criticism?
Note that he historic racism is not the current stances of these churches. They have all offered formal apologies which makes them good examples because there isn't any doubt of what they were doing prior to the recent past.
You keep providing excuses by personalizing the examples and saying they don't apply to you. It's not your theology, but your claim that a group of Christians is entitled to deference for discrimination for theological reasons based on doing and not being and the group shouldn't be subject to public criticism for doing so.
If they get the theology wrong, how are they going to get it right if they are above criticism.
It doesn't make a justifiable excuse for them, and it doesn't for you either.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The OP is concerned with a contrast between 'being and doing' as applied to the issue of racism, and 'being and doing' as applied to gay people. And therefore an implication that a lot of current ways of construing the gay issue may be misled and misleading. [/QB]
So I think there are some basic ethical and philosophical assumptions here that need to be unpicked.
On a fundamental level there is no reason why we should view the physiological differences of race and the physiological/psychological differences within the plurality of sexual expression as being in any way different from one another. They are, at their basic level, simply different expressions of humanity. They are neutral.
Where problems arise is when we attempt to attribute moral and ethical significance to these differing expressions of humanity.
The problem that I think exists between (pardon the oversimplification) Christians and LGBT supporters is that they are using basically opposing ethical and moral systems to interpret the world. Christian ethics is for the most part Deontological and operates within a system of moral absolutes (the commanded by God idea) whereas contemporary secular morality appears to be far more based in Virtue ethics which places more emphasis on the individual to evaluate and judge the appropriateness of behaviours and attitudes. Okay so it's not that simple but broadly speaking this is what I see to be happening and it seems to be a case of never the twain shall meet sometimes.
Going back to the specific question in the OP over the distinction between gay people and people who are victims of racism and viewing it in this light you are trying to compare apples and oranges.
There is no divine command by God (although people tried to read one into the Bible) to develop and maintain racist systems and so Christians and the rest of the world are in agreement that racism cannot and should not be supported. However, Christians believe that there is a command from God that gay actions are bad and so therefore feel compelled to campaign against it, meanwhile the rest of the world looks on slightly bemused operating from an entirely different ethical basis.
Those in support of LGBT rights DO feel very strongly that the behaviour of Christians IS like racism in that it is unjustified and illogical persecution of someone for an expression of their personhood that is just as natural as the colour of a person's skin or eyes.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea that 'gay sex' is somehow a different kind of sex is true in one case, and one case only. In every other case, our DOING is exactly the same as your DOING. Which makes me suspect very much that it's not our DOING that you actually have an objection to, it's our BEING.
So, "having sex while gay." Which is remarkably parallel to "driving while black."
Indeed. I didn't pick up that particular parallel, but it's a suitable one.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Macrina;
quote:
The problem that I think exists between (pardon the oversimplification) Christians and LGBT supporters is that they are using basically opposing ethical and moral systems to interpret the world.
I was wondering when someone was going to notice that one/whether they were going to notice it before I posted about it.
In my mind the big problem we currently have is that for centuries Christians have been failing to realise that such a difference is supposed to exist between church and world, and that which view you accept, and how you behave as a result, is supposed to be voluntary. Instead we have had the travesty of 'Christian countries' blurring the church/world distinction and imposing a wrongful conformity of belief and behaviour on all. The gay issues have been caught up in that and the arguments exaggerated and overheated as a result - especially in relation to the UK's established CofE in recent years.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Without wanting to junior-host, is there any way you can keep off your favourite hobby-horse, Steve? It's not really relevant to the questions being discussed.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I was wondering when someone was going to notice that one/whether they were going to notice it before I posted about it.
In my mind the big problem we currently have is that for centuries Christians have been failing to realise that such a difference is supposed to exist between church and world, and that which view you accept, and how you behave as a result, is supposed to be voluntary. Instead we have had the travesty of 'Christian countries' blurring the church/world distinction and imposing a wrongful conformity of belief and behaviour on all. The gay issues have been caught up in that and the arguments exaggerated and overheated as a result - especially in relation to the UK's established CofE in recent years.
No difference is 'supposed' to exist. Just because one does it does not follow that it should or should not. 'The Church and the World' all too easily becomes a way of justifying Christian wrong-doing against those it seeks to oppress by allowing it to hide amongst some idea that because it's separated it's better.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
There is no divine command by God (although people tried to read one into the Bible) to develop and maintain racist systems and so Christians and the rest of the world are in agreement that racism cannot and should not be supported.
I firmly believe that in less than a hundred years pretty much everyone will be saying the same thing about homophobia. The trouble is that we're still in the "people try to read such prohibitions into the Bible" stage right now.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, the homophobia currently permitted to the churches in the UK is surely a temporary phenomenon, although I suppose a rump (!) of ardent fag-bashers may survive in some form or other. But I would think that they will be seen rather like British Israelites.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
The Church cannot and will not ever change its teaching regarding this, otherwise it's just proof (probably just another one of a long list of proofs) that they're not the Church.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
There is no divine command by God (although people tried to read one into the Bible) to develop and maintain racist systems and so Christians and the rest of the world are in agreement that racism cannot and should not be supported.
I firmly believe that in less than a hundred years pretty much everyone will be saying the same thing about homophobia. The trouble is that we're still in the "people try to read such prohibitions into the Bible" stage right now.
I sincerely hope this is the case and that I might live to see it, extremely unlikely though this is.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Arethosemyfeet;
quote:
Without wanting to junior-host, is there any way you can keep off your favourite hobby-horse, Steve? It's not really relevant to the questions being discussed.
Are you being serious??
by Macrina;
quote:
No difference is 'supposed' to exist.
Try telling that to Paul; that difference is a key point in almost all his epistles.
by Macrina;
quote:
'The Church and the World' all too easily becomes a way of justifying Christian wrong-doing against those it seeks to oppress by allowing it to hide amongst some idea that because it's separated it's better.
Even that - which I wouldn't say is necessarily true anyway - is a great deal better than the oppression that arises when the church has tried to actually run the world.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Ad Orientem - the Church has already changed its mind on racism, slavery and anti-Semitism - think Luther's descriptions of the Jews and the justifications for driving Jews out of Europe through the Middle Ages - often with a religious basis. Paul's writings (and those of Deuteronomy and Leviticus) take the existence of slavery as understood. These days we read the Bible with a different lens and don't see racism, slavery or anti-Semitism as acceptable.
Many churches have already changed their minds on sexism and the role of women, although not all churches. And again that's through reading the gospels, reading about the roles of Mary Magdalene, Lydia, Priscilla and others.
Many people believe that the religious proscriptions on homosexuality will change in the next few years as they are based on a few verses that are in a context where much of the surrounding text is now ignored (Leviticus - shellfish, mixed fibres, etc) or are unclear and could be interpreted in a different way (Paul in Romans, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah)
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Church cannot and will not ever change its teaching regarding this, otherwise it's just proof (probably just another one of a long list of proofs) that they're not the Church.
Nonsense - they'll just redefine the homophobic teachings as "not a core part of the faith" and use the age-old "we are only guaranteed to be correct about core parts of the faith" tactic. Just as they have every other time they've changed their mind about something.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
There is also a de facto de-homophobization that is going on, surely? There are gay-affirmative churches which are Anglican, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are Catholic ones. Is an Anglican or Catholic priest really going to deny communion to somebody gay?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Ad Orientem - the Church has already changed its mind on racism, slavery and anti-Semitism - think Luther's descriptions of the Jews and the justifications for driving Jews out of Europe through the Middle Ages - often with a religious basis. Paul's writings (and those of Deuteronomy and Leviticus) take the existence of slavery as understood. These days we read the Bible with a different lens and don't see racism, slavery or anti-Semitism as acceptable.
Many churches have already changed their minds on sexism and the role of women, although not all churches. And again that's through reading the gospels, reading about the roles of Mary Magdalene, Lydia, Priscilla and others.
Many people believe that the religious proscriptions on homosexuality will change in the next few years as they are based on a few verses that are in a context where much of the surrounding text is now ignored (Leviticus - shellfish, mixed fibres, etc) or are unclear and could be interpreted in a different way (Paul in Romans, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah)
That at times Christians have acted in certain way, or that they have justified those acts using scripture, is not proof that that is what the Church has always taught. One would also have to define the Church, something that we will not agree on. So I don't accept that argument. neither do I accept the argument that the Christian prohibition of sexual immorality, which has always included same sex relations, is based on some arbitrary understanding of the Law, something which I argued earlier in this thread. The Law is dead. Christian understanding of sexuality is founded on the Gospel in which our Lord tells us God's intention for man and woman from the beginning.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That at times Christians have acted in certain way, or that they have justified those acts using scripture, is not proof that that is what the Church has always taught.
Your handwaving away of historical evidence about what Christians have believed and done, simply shows your whole view of Christianity and Christian history is based on wishful thinking and not on the actual realities. Your concept of this magical church that always gets everything right, never gets anything wrong, never changes its mind, and teaches exactly what you happen to wish it teaches, is purely fictitious and does not exist anywhere except your imagination. It seems to basically be a way for you to bolster your personal views and prejudices with appeals to the (non-existent) authority of this imaginary, idealized, and self-aggrandizing Church of which you are apparently the sole prophet of, who seems self-appointed to communicate the true teachings of this "Church" (ie you) to the rest of the Christians here who keep pointing out all the ways you're blatantly wrong in almost everything you're saying.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That at times Christians have acted in certain way, or that they have justified those acts using scripture, is not proof that that is what the Church has always taught.
Your handwaving away of historical evidence about what Christians have believed and done, simply shows your whole view of Christianity and Christian history is based on wishful thinking and not on the actual realities. Your concept of this magical church that always gets everything right, never gets anything wrong, never changes its mind, and teaches exactly what you happen to wish it teaches, is purely fictitious and does not exist anywhere except your imagination. It seems to basically be a way for you to bolster your personal views and prejudices with appeals to the (non-existent) authority of this imaginary, idealized, and self-aggrandizing Church of which you are apparently the sole prophet of, who seems self-appointed to communicate the true teachings of this "Church" (ie you) to the rest of the Christians here who keep pointing out all the ways you're blatantly wrong in almost everything you're saying.
I never said I was a prophet of anything. The Church has always taught the same faith. But as I said, that we both have a different understanding of what the Church is is why we disagree here. Our understandings are just too different. We can know these things because the Church is visible. A Church which is fallible on such things is not a Church through which we can be saved, which would make all those who belong to her rather pitiable.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So, "having sex while gay." Which is remarkably parallel to "driving while black."
Just imagine, having sex while driving while being both black and gay!
Wouldn't surprise me if there were one or two Shipmates who didn't have to imagine that...(something I'd only condemn on road safety grounds, BTW)
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Ad Orientem: The Church has always taught the same faith.
And we've always been at war with Eastasia.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
A Church which is fallible on such things is not a Church through which we can be saved, which would make all those who belong to her rather pitiable.
I am saved through Christ, not the C/church.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
A Church which is fallible on such things is not a Church through which we can be saved, which would make all those who belong to her rather pitiable.
What I find so compelling about the arguments for an infallible Church is the tender compassion and sheer, transcendent, grace with which they are invariably expressed. While my reason makes me hesitate, my heart cannot but feel that the fortunate adherents of these sects do have access to a fullness of the gospel that is denied to me.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What I find so compelling about the arguments for an infallible Church is the tender compassion and sheer, transcendent, grace with which they are invariably expressed. While my reason makes me hesitate, my heart cannot but feel that the fortunate adherents of these sects do have access to a fullness of the gospel that is denied to me.
If anyone can smell smoke it's because my sarcasmometer just exploded.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
A Church which is fallible on such things is not a Church through which we can be saved, which would make all those who belong to her rather pitiable.
I am saved through Christ, not the C/church.
A false distinction if one considers the Church to be Christ's body, in which case there is no salvation apart from the Church.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Looking just at the Orthodox Church (the RCC are more consistent on this, at least officially if not in practice), at one time remarriage after divorce was an absolute no-go; now it is permitted under ekonomia. Probably people back in the day were saying it could never be changed because if it were, the church would be abandoning its core faith. They were wrong; it was changed.
The core of the Christian faith is not sexual morality, and anyone who says it is completely fails to understand the Christian faith.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
A Church which is fallible on such things is not a Church through which we can be saved, which would make all those who belong to her rather pitiable.
What I find so compelling about the arguments for an infallible Church is the tender compassion and sheer, transcendent, grace with which they are invariably expressed. While my reason makes me hesitate, my heart cannot but feel that the fortunate adherents of these sects do have access to a fullness of the gospel that is denied to me.
Very droll. However, if one considers the Church to be a merely human institution and fallible, then one also has to admit that we actually know nothing, that we cannot trust the scriptures or anything else of the sort that has been handed down to us through the Church. Sounds like the blind leading the blind if you ask me, and yet if we are to believe the scriptures then our Lord said that precisely such a thing will not happen, which is why he sent the Holy Spirit.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
... if one considers the Church to be a merely human institution and fallible, then one also has to admit that we actually know nothing, that we cannot trust the scriptures or anything else of the sort that has been handed down to us through the Church...
Shame Finland's not competing in the Commonwealth Games. That sentence would win you Gold in the Logical Long Jump.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Mousethief;
quote:
The core of the Christian faith is not sexual morality, and anyone who says it is completely fails to understand the Christian faith.
Agreed - but that doesn't mean that Christian sexual morality is anything we happen to feel like....
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Looking just at the Orthodox Church (the RCC are more consistent on this, at least officially if not in practice), at one time remarriage after divorce was an absolute no-go; now it is permitted under ekonomia. Probably people back in the day were saying it could never be changed because if it were, the church would be abandoning its core faith. They were wrong; it was changed.
The core of the Christian faith is not sexual morality, and anyone who says it is completely fails to understand the Christian faith.
Seeing as our Lord does give an exception regarding divorce then Orthodox ekonomia in that context can be defended. And no, I don't think anyone is trying to put sexual morality at the core of the faith, whatever that's supposed to mean. However, that does not mean it's something the Church can change.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Very droll. However, if one considers the Church to be a merely human institution and fallible, then one also has to admit that we actually know nothing, that we cannot trust the scriptures or anything else of the sort that has been handed down to us through the Church.
Sure, but that doesn't mean they're completely useless. The Church and the Bible are guides, rather than lawmakers - and just like any guide book, when the facts on the ground change the book becomes out of date and has to be rewritten to take into account the new way of things.
I don't understand why the idea that the C/church can be wrong about some things scares people so much. It's as if they don't trust God to make things right at all.
quote:
Sounds like the blind leading the blind if you ask me, and yet if we are to believe the scriptures then our Lord said that precisely such a thing will not happen, which is why he sent the Holy Spirit.
The scripture to which you refer says that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. It says nothing about how long it will take to get there, or how much untrue crap we'll believe, preach and declare anathemas against each other because of in the meantime.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
... if one considers the Church to be a merely human institution and fallible, then one also has to admit that we actually know nothing, that we cannot trust the scriptures or anything else of the sort that has been handed down to us through the Church...
Shame Finland's not competing in the Commonwealth Games. That sentence would win you Gold in the Logical Long Jump.
Seems a pretty straightforward conclusion if you ask me. If the Church cannot be trusted on such matters how can we be sure that what has been handed down to us is actually the Apostolic faith?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If the Church cannot be trusted on such matters how can we be sure that what has been handed down to us is actually the Apostolic faith?
I've got a better question - why does that even fucking matter? I'd rather get things right 2000 years after the fact than be forced to perpetuate a falsehood just because the Apostles said it, or because it happened to be the spirit of the age back then.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Very droll. However, if one considers the Church to be a merely human institution and fallible, then one also has to admit that we actually know nothing, that we cannot trust the scriptures or anything else of the sort that has been handed down to us through the Church.
Sure, but that doesn't mean they're completely useless. The Church and the Bible are guides, rather than lawmakers - and just like any guide book, when the facts on the ground change the book becomes out of date and has to be rewritten to take into account the new way of things.
I don't understand why the idea that the C/church can be wrong about some things scares people so much. It's as if they don't trust God to make things right at all.
quote:
Sounds like the blind leading the blind if you ask me, and yet if we are to believe the scriptures then our Lord said that precisely such a thing will not happen, which is why he sent the Holy Spirit.
The scripture to which you refer says that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. It says nothing about how long it will take to get there, or how much untrue crap we'll believe, preach and declare anathemas against each other because of in the meantime.
Such an interpretation is essentially meaningless, that the Holy Spirit will lead his Church into all truth but in the meanwhile he'll let us wallow in grave error, that is, until this fickle God decides otherwise.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If the Church cannot be trusted on such matters how can we be sure that what has been handed down to us is actually the Apostolic faith?
I've got a better question - why does that even fucking matter? I'd rather get things right 2000 years after the fact than be forced to perpetuate a falsehood just because the Apostles said it, or because it happened to be the spirit of the age back then.
Or alternatively you just happen to have a rather low opinion of revelation, that is if you believe in it at all.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Seeing as our Lord does give an exception regarding divorce then Orthodox ekonomia in that context can be defended.
Oh. Well, if what our Lord says is the bottom line on sexual morality, seeing that our Lord says fuck-all about homosexuality, I don't see how being dogmatic about it can be defended.
quote:
And no, I don't think anyone is trying to put sexual morality at the core of the faith, whatever that's supposed to mean. However, that does not mean it's something the Church can change.
Hmm. The divorce rules changed. I completely fail to see why people before that change wouldn't have exactly said this:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If the Church cannot be trusted on such matters how can we be sure that what has been handed down to us is actually the Apostolic faith?
There may be a dominical exception, but the church ruled that it didn't matter. The RCC still says it doesn't matter. THE CHURCH CHANGED ITS MIND. You cannot get around that. And if the church can change its mind on divorce and remarriage, the church can change its mind on anythign that is not core to the faith, it seems to me. That doesn't mean the church isn't trustable. It means the church realizes that some things are for some times and no longer make sense in the world as now constituted. Because they're not core to the faith.
I can show you a metric buttload of rulings of councils that are no longer enforced or expected to be. Things change; things that make sense in one context do not make sense in another. Don't bring your typikon to my monastery isn't a new saying.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Such an interpretation is essentially meaningless, that the Holy Spirit will lead his Church into all truth but in the meanwhile he'll let us wallow in grave error, that is, until this fickle God decides otherwise.
Who said error was "grave"? Maybe - and I realise this may be dificult for you to understand - it doesn't actually matter. Get the big things right - the fruits of the spirit, the love we have for one another - and that'll be enough.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I've got a better question - why does that even fucking matter? I'd rather get things right 2000 years after the fact than be forced to perpetuate a falsehood just because the Apostles said it, or because it happened to be the spirit of the age back then.
Or alternatively you just happen to have a rather low opinion of revelation, that is if you believe in it at all.
I have a perfectly reasonable view of revelation, thank you very much. I just don't think it's stopped yet, or that every single teaching of the C/church is a result of it.
On the current issue of discussion, for example, it's perfectly possible that there hasn't actually been a Revelation From The Lord about it yet, and the teachings thus far have been entirely the product of prejudiced human minds. Or maybe prejudiced human minds thought those teachings up in the first place, but when the Holy Spirit appeared with the Revelation that they were wrong they ignored Her and/or persecuted Her prophets. Maybe what's going on right now is the Holy Spirit trying desperately to get that Revelation through to the C/church leaders, who are busily blocking their ears and saying "we can't be wrong, we can't be wrong" over and over again until the nasty thoughts go away.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Seeing as our Lord does give an exception regarding divorce then Orthodox ekonomia in that context can be defended.
Oh. Well, if what our Lord says is the bottom line on sexual morality, seeing that our Lord says fuck-all about homosexuality, I don't see how being dogmatic about it can be defended.
quote:
And no, I don't think anyone is trying to put sexual morality at the core of the faith, whatever that's supposed to mean. However, that does not mean it's something the Church can change.
Hmm. The divorce rules changed. I completely fail to see why people before that change wouldn't have exactly said this:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If the Church cannot be trusted on such matters how can we be sure that what has been handed down to us is actually the Apostolic faith?
There may be a dominical exception, but the church ruled that it didn't matter. The RCC still says it doesn't matter. THE CHURCH CHANGED ITS MIND. You cannot get around that. And if the church can change its mind on divorce and remarriage, the church can change its mind on anythign that is not core to the faith, it seems to me. That doesn't mean the church isn't trustable. It means the church realizes that some things are for some times and no longer make sense in the world as now constituted. Because they're not core to the faith.
I can show you a metric buttload of rulings of councils that are no longer enforced or expected to be. Things change; things that make sense in one context do not make sense in another. Don't bring your typikon to my monastery isn't a new saying.
Apart from the fact that ekonomia isn't the same thing as saying that what was once immoral is now moral, wow! Really what you're saying here is that morality is determined by the Zeitgeist, it seems. I can hear a rumbling noise. No, wait! It's the saints turning in their graves.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Apart from the fact that ekonomia isn't the same thing as saying that what was once immoral is now moral, wow! Really what you're saying here is that morality is determined by the Zeitgeist, it seems. I can hear a rumbling noise. No, wait! It's the saints turning in their graves.
That may be what you want to read; it's not what I said. Perhaps you think women should not talk in Church? Paul said so. Perhaps you think Blutwurst is sinful? The council in Acts 15 said so. Or perhaps you think these kinds of decisions are decided by the Zeitgeist? Or perhaps what I said is correct, that certain things make sense in some places and times, and not in others.
And can you not quote hundreds of lines just to add two or three? Yeesh.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If anyone can smell smoke it's because my sarcasmometer just exploded.
Seconded. Eliab's post has now been quotesfiled.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
There is nothing in the bible about my clitoris nor, as far as I know, in any official doctrine of the the church - so what am I supposed to do with it Ad Orientam ? And who is allowed to touch it ?
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There is also a de facto de-homophobization that is going on, surely? There are gay-affirmative churches which are Anglican, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are Catholic ones. Is an Anglican or Catholic priest really going to deny communion to somebody gay?
Careful, you don't want to start Steve's little fan dance of Real, Unlike, Sinning but Real, Unreal and Non Christian categorization.
These affirmative churches just make the homophobic Christians look bad.The behavior of the affirming Churches is in fact the harassment and oppression of aggressive Christians that Steve is complaining about. Other people just judge them on their behavior and not the deep subtlety of their theology.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Palimpsest;
quote:
The behavior of the affirming Churches is in fact the harassment and oppression of aggressive Christians that Steve is complaining about.
Funny, I don't actually see it that way.
by Palimpsest;
quote:
These affirmative churches just make the homophobic Christians look bad.
In whose eyes? And anyway, aren't they the ones who are really scared?
by Palimpsest;
quote:
Careful, you don't want to start Steve's little fan dance of Real, Unlike, Sinning but Real, Unreal and Non Christian categorization.
Leave the poor fallacious Scotsman out of this! He was never appropriate anyway....
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
You brought in the Scotsman when you said if your theology encompassed racism you wouldn't be a Christian. As I pointed out huge numbers of Christians have been explicitly racist.
You say you don't see affirming churches as harassing your aggressive Christians. My surmise is due to your refusal to provide the examples of harassment that you said were unjustified due to torturous theological reasoning. If the rest of society thinks that homophobia is bad, they're not going to look warmly on aggressive Christian homophobia.
So why don't you give the examples of harassment you mentioned as unjustified in the original post? You've already said that people who try to pass laws against Gays don't count. I am still waiting for the other examples you think aren't justified due to your theological shenanigans. Is it anything more than the same contempt most people feel toward racists?
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
There is nothing in the bible about my clitoris nor, as far as I know, in any official doctrine of the the church - so what am I supposed to do with it Ad Orientam ? And who is allowed to touch it ?
But there is also nothing in Scripture to tell us why a penis is necessary for the performance of religious ritual...
or, for that matter, to tell us why a woman's prayers aren't real until a man has prayed for her.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Perhaps for extinguishing the candles ?
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Your concept of this magical church that always gets everything right, never gets anything wrong, never changes its mind, and teaches exactly what you happen to wish it teaches, is purely fictitious and does not exist anywhere except your imagination.
Actually I think it does exist--in Heaven. Here on Earth, of course, we have to muddle on...
Um, and isn't
quote:
...It seems to basically be a way for you to bolster your personal views and prejudices with appeals to the (non-existent) authority of this imaginary, idealized, and self-aggrandizing Church of which you are apparently the sole prophet of...
kind of, um, getting personal-attacky?
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The scripture to which you refer says that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. It says nothing about how long it will take to get there, or how much untrue crap we'll believe, preach and declare anathemas against each other because of in the meantime.
Indeed. Or for that matter how many ghastly sins we may commit in Christ's name. And certainly, I think pretty much any church that's been around a while has done that (Crusades, etc.).
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If the Church cannot be trusted on such matters how can we be sure that what has been handed down to us is actually the Apostolic faith?
Trusting Jesus when we have enough certainty to make the leap, I'd say.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
...seeing that our Lord says fuck-all about homosexuality...
He does?? That's AWESOME!!! And here all this time I've been holding off! Right, who's first in line? (rubs hands together gleefully)
...
Oh, wait. Not "fuck all" in that sense. Drat!
(I'm sorry, it was just there, calling out to me, and I had to...)
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Perhaps for extinguishing the candles ?
That would hurt.
...
Sign me up? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Jokes aside, I am thinking here that the main point of Steve Langton's concern here is thus:
(1) Getting away from any attempt by Christians to encode their beliefs in the laws, and indeed with the assumption that the laws should treat gay and straight people equally... (which I actually think is critical here, and I desperately wish we had this attitude here in the US)
(2) If Christians believe that gay sex is a sin...
(3) But treat those specific sexual actions like any other believed sexual sin...
(4) And do not regard the people involved, whether gay straight bi etc. as different from other people...
(5) Then it is not fair to call Christians who believe this way, based on their reading of Scripture and/or Tradition, "homophobic."
Steve, is this a correct summary of what you're trying to say?
(Because I think this thread has drifted all over the place, especially into the whole "is gay sex right or wrong" category that has been pretty much run into the ground on several other DH threads, and I think his specific concerns here deserve to be clarified rather than muddied into the rest of the DH threads on the subject.)
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
(5) Then it is not fair to call Christians who believe this way, based on their reading of Scripture and/or Tradition, "homophobic."
(5a) ... and not write them off the way one would write off a racist person, not engage them, look down on them as horrible people and haters, etc. Forgot to add that.
Steve, is this (with addendum above) a correct summary of what you're trying to say?
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Jokes aside, I am thinking here that the main point of Steve Langton's concern here is thus:
(1) Getting away from any attempt by Christians to encode their beliefs in the laws, and indeed with the assumption that the laws should treat gay and straight people equally... (which I actually think is critical here, and I desperately wish we had this attitude here in the US)
(2) If Christians believe that gay sex is a sin...
(3) But treat those specific sexual actions like any other believed sexual sin...
(4) And do not regard the people involved, whether gay straight bi etc. as different from other people...
(5) Then it is not fair to call Christians who believe this way, based on their reading of Scripture and/or Tradition, "homophobic."
Steve, is this a correct summary of what you're trying to say?
(Because I think this thread has drifted all over the place, especially into the whole "is gay sex right or wrong" category that has been pretty much run into the ground on several other DH threads, and I think his specific concerns here deserve to be clarified rather than muddied into the rest of the DH threads on the subject.)
You missed another thing in the original post in your summary.
(1) Getting away from any attempt by Christians to encode their beliefs in the laws, and indeed with the assumption that the laws should treat people of all races equally... (2) If Christians believe that interracial sex is a sin...
(3) But treat those specific sexual actions like any other believed sexual sin...
(4) And do not regard the people involved, of any race as different from other people...
(5) Then it is just fine to call such Christians who believe this way, based on their reading of Scripture and/or Tradition, "racist."
[ 01. August 2014, 22:13: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
But that's not what he said, is it? And anyway I am asking Steve himself to confirm, or change if needed, whether I've got his position right here.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr
(5) Then it is not fair to call Christians who believe this way, based on their reading of Scripture and/or Tradition, "homophobic."
Can we please not have another thread arguing over the meaning of the word "homophobic"? It derails everything into endless arguments over what that particular word means in English, and distracts from the relevant discussion. Steve didn't use it in his original post, for which I am grateful.
Modified version:
(5) Then it is not fair for people to judge and condemn Christians who believe this way, based on their reading of Scripture and/or Tradition.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Looking just at the Orthodox Church
My go-to favourite screw-up by the Orthodox Church was the 4th ecumenical council that caused the schism with the Oriental Orthodox. Now all sides have realized that the council was a massive error and that the schism should never have happened. But no one quite knows how they can undo it, because they presumably need an ecumenical council to undo a previous ecumenical council, but their theology tells them that the Church can never be wrong in it's ecumenical councils. So they're stuck in the state of knowing that the Church got it horribly wrong and wanting to reunite but being unwilling to formally legislate this fact given it contradicts their ongoing and ridiculous assertions of infallibility.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Hosting
Chastmastr and Arethosemyfeet, it's up to hosts to call personal attacks or whether people are 'riding their personal hobby horses'. If you think something is a personal attack or crusading and that a host hasn't spotted it, then please let the hosts know by email or PM. Please do not start accusing other posters of making personal attacks/crusading in the thread or drag in annoyances with posters from their posting on other parts of the boards.
Robust critiques of arguments are allowed, Starlight, but they should not flow over into personal attacks ie. accusing people of acting like 'sole prophets' of a 'self-aggrandizing Church' - the place for negative personal characterisations of other posters is the Hell board.
thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
Hosting off
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Palimpsest;
quote:
You brought in the Scotsman when you said if your theology encompassed racism you wouldn't be a Christian. As I pointed out huge numbers of Christians have been explicitly racist.
I'm planning, when I have some relief from this thread (and short-term from a quite severe summer cold, longer-term from a lot of my time being taken up by medical tests) to do a thread on the Scotsman fallacy. Leave him till then.
Meantime, as last time we (or more accurately you) got mazed by that one, yes in terms of ideal theology any attempt to justify racism is unChristian; in a non-ideal world in which Christians are still sinful human beings and may not get out of bad cultural habits as quickly as we'd like, there may still be Christians who misguidedly get such issues wrong and I can judge their theology, but not the individuals. This trapping in local culture is especially likely when church and state are more entangled than they should be.
by Palimpsest;
quote:
You've already said that people who try to pass laws against Gays don't count.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this in the context; my apologies if I've confused you. My actual point is simple it is not the Church's job to run society in alliance with the worldly power of the state. It is the Church's job to show an alternative based on faith in God and faith in the salvation brought through Jesus. Taking for a moment the assumption that Christianity does reject the legitimacy of gay sex, it is not the Church's job to be imposing that belief on people who are not Christian - persuade by argument, yes, coerce by state power,no. The acceptance of Christian moral standards is a matter of voluntary acceptance by those who choose to become Christians. Again this is confused, to say the least, where churches have adopted some form of 'Christian country' such as CofE 'establishment'.
by Palimpsest;
quote:
your aggressive Christians.
My kind of Christian, not so very aggressive.
by Chastmastr;
quote:
Jokes aside, I am thinking here that the main point of Steve Langton's concern here is thus:
(1) Getting away from any attempt by Christians to encode their beliefs in the laws, and indeed with the assumption that the laws should treat gay and straight people equally... (which I actually think is critical here, and I desperately wish we had this attitude here in the US)
(2) If Christians believe that gay sex is a sin...
(3) But treat those specific sexual actions like any other believed sexual sin...
(4) And do not regard the people involved, whether gay straight bi etc. as different from other people...
(5) Then it is not fair to call Christians who believe this way, based on their reading of Scripture and/or Tradition, "homophobic."
Steve, is this a correct summary of what you're trying to say?
Maybe not absolutely correct or complete, but pretty close as far as it goes.... Thanks.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Louise (hosting);
quote:
whether people are 'riding their personal hobby horses'.
I probably do lay myself open to this with my concern about the issues of state/church relations. At the same time, I believe that issue is often genuinely relevant. Please jump on me if you think I'm going too far.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Palimpsest;
quote:
You missed another thing in the original post in your summary.
(1) Getting away from any attempt by Christians to encode their beliefs in the laws, and indeed with the assumption that the laws should treat people of all races equally... (2)You missed another thing in the original post in your summary.
(1) Getting away from any attempt by Christians to encode their beliefs in the laws, and indeed with the assumption that the laws should treat people of all races equally... (2) If Christians believe that interracial sex is a sin...
(3) But treat those specific sexual actions like any other believed sexual sin...
(4) And do not regard the people involved, of any race as different from other people...
(5) Then it is just fine to call such Christians who believe this way, based on their reading of Scripture and/or Tradition, "racist."
(3) But treat those specific sexual actions like any other believed sexual sin...
(4) And do not regard the people involved, of any race as different from other people...
(5) Then it is just fine to call such Christians who believe this way, based on their reading of Scripture and/or Tradition, "racist."
The argument here is significantly about whether racial and gay issues are comparable, and I'm waiting for the arguments....
by Palimpsest;
quote:
If Christians believe that interracial sex is a sin...
Why is this relevant to the case I'm making in which I've already made clear I have no problem with interracial marriage (and any problem I had with it outside marriage would be about the 'outside marriage' aspect, not the racial issue) In some ways the point is exactly that I'm not suggesting such racial discrimination because I see the issues as logically different.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
It's a concern people can either word more carefully ie. by showing how something being argued is not relevant, or which they should take up in Hell, if they're just fed up with how a poster posts from encounters on the other boards.
cheers,
L
DH Host
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The argument here is significantly about whether racial and gay issues are comparable, and I'm waiting for the arguments....
It is very simple. Both are things to which one is born. One can no more separate gay sex from straight sex than one can black sex from white sex.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
Steve,
Your church wants gay people to stop having gay sex. I'm presuming that means you and your church endorse one or more of the following:
1) Gay people remaining single and celibate for life.
2) Gay people marrying a person of the opposite sex.
3) Ex-gay conversion therapy.
The thing that people object to is that those things are all harmful to gay people.
Humans need companionship, we're most of us wired for it - Adam needed a mate but couldn't find one among all the animals. In a similar way, getting a pet is not enough for most of us, we need a human mate. A small few people have the gift of celibacy, but to the vast majority of people, God has not given that gift. The rest of us have a deep psychological need for love and intimacy, and need someone to share our lives with and have sex with. To do otherwise leads to loneliness and depression. Forcing the 'gift' of celibacy onto people to whom it hasn't been given hurts them, and at that point it stops being a gift and becomes a life sentence.
Encouraging gay people to commit to heterosexual marriages was a popular strategy in decades past, but has proven pretty disastrous. Making a marriage work can be hard, and making it work when one person feels no physical attraction to the other person has repeatedly proven to be all but impossible. The result becomes loveless marriages where everyday is a struggle, and which seem to almost inevitably end in divorce within ten years. This is even worse than celibacy, because it puts the person's spouse through the pain of it all, and potentially the kids also.
Ex-gay therapy has been pretty thoroughly proven to not work at this point in time. And it has been extensively shown to be psychologically damaging for those who take part in it. For this reason major medical and psychological associations around the world recommend against it and are campaigning to see it banned entirely.
So essentially your church is demanding gay people choose from a list of harmful life choices, and if instead the gay person chooses to make the non-harmful choice of a loving and committed same-sex marriage, you will respond by kicking them out of their faith community, thus harming them in your own little way. The one harmless choice available to them - of them committing to a loving committed Christian same-sex marriage - is precisely the one choice you are trying to deny to them.
People are upset because you're hurting gay people. You're not doing it as badly as what gay people have suffered in the past at the hands of Christians, when in centuries past they were routinely executed, or in the last century where they were imprisoned or castrated, or when Christians campaigned against their rights, which I am pleased to hear you do not approve of. But as a Christian group that is harming gay people you nonetheless are situating yourself within the historical context of ongoing Christian harm to gay people, and thus though you yourself see a huge difference between you and the Christians that came before you, you are nonetheless continuing their sins of hurting gay people and in doing so you are pulling their guilt down upon your own head in the eyes of the rest of society.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Maybe not absolutely correct or complete, but pretty close as far as it goes.... Thanks.
Steve, I can accept that line of reasoning to be logically consistent. So I will say to you what I say to my Catholic friend. I support your right to hold your views (as presumably you do mine) but I strongly disagree with them and believe they do significant harm to people (As Starlight has so clearly outlined) but I will allow that they are not done out of hatred but ignorance in many cases.
Edit: Must not muck up code!!
[ 02. August 2014, 02:33: Message edited by: Macrina ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Meantime, as last time we (or more accurately you) got mazed by that one, yes in terms of ideal theology any attempt to justify racism is unChristian; in a non-ideal world in which Christians are still sinful human beings and may not get out of bad cultural habits as quickly as we'd like, there may still be Christians who misguidedly get such issues wrong and I can judge their theology, but not the individuals. This trapping in local culture is especially likely when church and state are more entangled than they should be.
It's this kind of special pleading that's particular irritating. Everyone else's theology is "bad cultural habits", but your own is the word of God Himself. I guess it's fortunate that, unlike the rest of us, you live in an ideal world and are thus immune to cultural influences.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
No, we don't exclude people simply because they are 'sinners'; as you say, we all are. That is why I used the phrasing "aggressively practicing gays" to mean someone who is not only a sinner (accepting that between us that may be in dispute in this particular case) but doesn't admit he is.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Palimpsest;
quote:
your aggressive Christians.
My kind of Christian, not so very aggressive.
So I'm guessing that your kind of Christian spends a lot of time going on about how Christianity is wrong and probably sinful?
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The argument here is significantly about whether racial and gay issues are comparable, and I'm waiting for the arguments....
Mostly it's the way anti-gay folks seem to keep recycling segregationist arguments from half a century ago. You didn't even bother to comment on that pamphlet I linked to with those Bible quotes from the White Citizen's Council. You just applied special pleading (again!) as to why "[t]here is neither Jew nor Gentile" is something that can be interpreted in a straightforward, literal manner as being against racial divisions but "nor is there male and female" is some kind of super-secret metaphor you need the decoder ring to realize it means the exact opposite of the anti-racist text.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Chastmastr;
quote:
Steve, is this a correct summary of what you're trying to say?
Maybe not absolutely correct or complete, but pretty close as far as it goes.... Thanks.
Ah! Thank you. I have no problem with this, myself, then.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I have no problem with this, myself, then.
And I should also add--with the critical caveat of all of those things on that list being relevant--that I do not see it--in and of itself, if it is based on actual reasoned theology and understanding of Scripture and Tradition--as being the same thing as someone being against people of different ethnicities getting married. (I think there are people for whom that mindset is indeed true, alas--who are really just squicked by the images of gay people going at it like bunnies--and who happily turn a blind eye to every other sexual thing involving straight people--but that does not seem to me to be what Steve is talking about here.)
[ 02. August 2014, 03:52: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
And I should also add--with the critical caveat of all of those things on that list being relevant--that I do not see it--in and of itself, if it is based on actual reasoned theology and understanding of Scripture and Tradition--as being the same thing as someone being against people of different ethnicities getting married.
Even in the case of those who are opposed to inter-racial marriage "based on actual reasoned theology and understanding of Scripture and Tradition"? Bob Jones University comes to mind as the classic example of theologically-based racism.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Even in the case of those who are opposed to inter-racial marriage "based on actual reasoned theology and understanding of Scripture and Tradition"? Bob Jones University comes to mind as the classic example of theologically-based racism.
Yes. Bob Jones University was a modern Fundamentalist thing. Their approach to race was not exactly something going back very far.
We don't have (as far as I can tell) Church tradition going back as far as, say, the fourth century for instance, saying, "Yes, verily, those whose skin is of different hues and whose ancestors came from far-distant parts of our disintegrating Roman Empire must never marry and beget offspring, lest it anger our Lord," or anything like that at all. There is no sense that St. So-and-so from Ethiopia was worse or better or higher or lower or different in any significant way than so-and-so from St. Such-and-such from the isle of the Britons, or whatever. The closest we really get is Jew vs. Gentile (and there was some ghastly anti-Semitism as the years rolled by), but if both are followers of Jesus, it's a non-issue.
[ 02. August 2014, 04:04: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Even in the case of those who are opposed to inter-racial marriage "based on actual reasoned theology and understanding of Scripture and Tradition"? Bob Jones University comes to mind as the classic example of theologically-based racism.
Yes. Bob Jones University was a modern Fundamentalist thing. Their approach to race was not exactly something going back very far.
How far back does something have to go to qualify as capital-T tradition? The approach taken to race-mixing by BJU goes back several centuries in the U.S. (and its precursor political entities). And what about the other leg of your argument? Were their arguments "reasoned theology"?
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The approach taken to race-mixing by BJU goes back several centuries in the U.S. (and its precursor political entities).
Precisely.
quote:
And what about the other leg of your argument? Were their arguments "reasoned theology"?
I imagine there were some people who might have been genuinely mistaken, though again, I'd be very tempted to say that they didn't read their Bibles very well. It even seems to be a primarily US-specific anomaly--my quick look at Wikipedia says that there was a little in France but it didn't last very long (1778-1792, with occasional on-again off-again flirtations with it till 1833).
I can't find anything from, say, the Roman Catholic church saying that people of different ancestries could not marry.
Indeed, some more poking around seems to list the three countries which mainly did this were Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa... and the United States. My God, what must the rest of the world have thought of the US?
But I can't find anything saying that, say, in the UK, the Church of England ever forbade it or taught it as doctrine. That seems to be a weird recent anomaly and mainly US-specific.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Palimpsest;
Why is this relevant to the case I'm making in which I've already made clear I have no problem with interracial marriage (and any problem I had with it outside marriage would be about the 'outside marriage' aspect, not the racial issue) In some ways the point is exactly that I'm not suggesting such racial discrimination because I see the issues as logically different.
I'm not saying you are against inter-racial marriage. What's bogus is your logical difference argument that it's fine to be homophobic because you're being critical of what people do, rather than what they are where as you think the racisms are contemptible because they criticize what people are.
I have pointed out a historical racist policy of Bob Jones University in 1975 which tolerated Black individuals but forbade inter-racial dating and inter-racial marriage by all students while permitting segregated dating and marriage.
It's an example of a form of racism that is discriminating on being rather than doing.
If you find it contemptible racism as I do how is it logically different than the toleration of gay homophobia?
So how about those Bob Jones racists? I am not asking if you agree with that segregation policy. Is it ok because they're discriminating racially based on doing? If not, what makes the same excuse valid for tolerating homophobia?
As for why racism and homophobia seem alike, in the United States it's often the same racist Christian twaddle. The long history of segregation and anti-miscegenation law and theology is remarkably similar. Here is a short and funny example.
Missouri Minister gives surprising anti-gay speech The long and lamentable Christian defense of segregation gives many incidents that seem similar.
Finally, the "no one can criticize the Gays" isn't realistic. There's been ongoing criticism forever that's been thoroughly refuted over and over again in the last thirty years. It's the same garbage that is used to propose ways to damage the lives of Gay Christians and to justify governmental interference in the lives of all gays. If contempt for those who do this damage bothers them, that's fine with me.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As for why racism and homophobia seem alike, in the United States it's often the same racist Christian twaddle. The long history of segregation and anti-miscegenation law and theology is remarkably similar. ... It's the same garbage that is used to propose ways to damage the lives of Gay Christians and to justify governmental interference in the lives of all gays.
This is why I find Steve's explicit rejection of that a breath of fresh air, and wish that all those in the US who have such beliefs (regarding what kind of sexual intercourse is permissible to Christians) were like what he's described.
If people simply said, "My religion forbids me to have sexual intercourse outside of lifelong male-female marriage, but I believe in equal rights for everyone," then it would be vastly, vastly different than what we've been struggling with in the US with laws and such.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If contempt for those who do this damage bothers them
Surely you mean contempt for the actions and attitudes in this case, rather than the actual people? Or do you mean contempt for the actual people?
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If contempt for those who do this damage bothers them
Surely you mean contempt for the actions and attitudes in this case, rather than the actual people? Or do you mean contempt for the actual people?
Both the people and the acts. I have contempt for racists and acts of racial bigotry. But logically it's about doing not being, so it should just be fine.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Both the people and the acts. I have contempt for racists and acts of racial bigotry. But logically it's about doing not being, so it should just be fine.
Oh. Um... To paraphrase my example above, my religion forbids me to have contempt for other human beings, even (or perhaps especially) my enemies, but... well, there's really no "but," that's just it really.
(I personally suck at loving my enemies. God have mercy...)
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
ChastMastr: quote:
(I personally suck at loving my enemies. God have mercy...)
Join the club.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
my religion forbids me to have contempt for other human beings, even (or perhaps especially) my enemies, but... well, there's really no "but," that's just it really.
I think this is being a bit disingenuous, because Christianity doesn't just label the actions that people take as sinful actions, it actually labels the people taking those actions as sinners. So it's not about "actions and attitudes... rather than the actual people" - Christianity does hold the people accountable for their wrong actions and does not just focus on the actions.
So when wrong actions (eg anti-gay ones) are being criticized, it's not exactly outside the bounds of Christianity to hold the people themselves to account for their actions. If you and/or Steve insist on doing things that other people perceive as harmful to gays then it is entirely reasonable for them to criticize and condemn your actions and to hold you accountable for your actions.
If you don't like the fact that other people are getting upset at you, maybe you should consider stopping doing the things that are getting them upset with you. But the defense of "It's unchristian of you to condemn me at all, therefore I should be able to get away with being as mean to gays as I like" isn't going to fly. It's particularly not going to fly with non-Christians.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
Doesn't fly with this Christian either.
I start from the Irenaean position. A human being's sexuality is central to their being fully alive. Unless a person has a separate calling to celibacy, expressing their sexuality is essential to their being fully alive. Therefore, the glory of God requires the expression of homosexuality.
speaking personally, my lack of sexual activity seriously hampers my being fully alive. It is therefore deeply painful, and not a little offensive, to find it described as virtue.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Oh. Um... To paraphrase my example above, my religion forbids me to have contempt for other human beings, even (or perhaps especially) my enemies, but... well, there's really no "but," that's just it really.
(I personally suck at loving my enemies. God have mercy...)
I'm not a Christian. That's probably why I have seen a lot of actions by Christians which I see as contempt without appreciating the subtleties.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
[That at times Christians have acted in certain way, or that they have justified those acts using scripture, is not proof that that is what the Church has always taught.
Your faith is a marvellous thing. It is perfect and impregnable.
It is also utterly useless for wrestling with any practical question of ethics whatsoever. Because it is always right, until in hindsight it turns out to be wrong.
And when in hindsight it turns out to be wrong, you will wring your hands and apologise profusely for all the damage that was caused by what was, it turns out after all, wrong, while confidently telling everybody that it's right NOW.
A more self-serving, circular, logic-free, history-rewriting worldview could not possibly be dreamed up. I'm well aware it's a worldview that quite a few Christians have, and why wouldn't they? IT'S ALWAYS RIGHT!
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If the Church cannot be trusted on such matters how can we be sure that what has been handed down to us is actually the Apostolic faith?
I've got a better question - why does that even fucking matter? I'd rather get things right 2000 years after the fact than be forced to perpetuate a falsehood just because the Apostles said it, or because it happened to be the spirit of the age back then.
"Custom without truth is but ancient error." - Cyprian
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Oh. Um... To paraphrase my example above, my religion forbids me to have contempt for other human beings, even (or perhaps especially) my enemies, but... well, there's really no "but," that's just it really.
(I personally suck at loving my enemies. God have mercy...)
I'm not a Christian. That's probably why I have seen a lot of actions by Christians which I see as contempt without appreciating the subtleties.
I was thinking that veiled contempt is a bugger, since one can keep it just beyond the threshold of one's awareness. I think some Christian homophobes have a veiled contempt for gays, but I suppose they can comfort themselves by pretending otherwise. I sometimes wonder if they are just homophobes, and the Christian clobber passages are a useful hook.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Oh. Um... To paraphrase my example above, my religion forbids me to have contempt for other human beings, even (or perhaps especially) my enemies, but... well, there's really no "but," that's just it really.
(I personally suck at loving my enemies. God have mercy...)
I'm not a Christian. That's probably why I have seen a lot of actions by Christians which I see as contempt without appreciating the subtleties.
I was thinking that veiled contempt is a bugger, since one can keep it just beyond the threshold of one's awareness. I think some Christian homophobes have a veiled contempt for gays, but I suppose they can comfort themselves by pretending otherwise. I sometimes wonder if they are just homophobes, and the Christian clobber passages are a useful hook.
Or it could just be that such genuinely consider it something sinful, it being plainly clear from the scriptures and the continuous teaching of the Church. Gordon Bennett! I mean, we can disagree about these things, can't we, without attributing dodgy motives to the other side?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't why such motives are dodgy, they are normal human ones.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Should be, 'I don't know why ...'.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Dodgey, or however you spell it, but you knew what I meant and decided to dodge the point.
[ 02. August 2014, 09:29: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
You haven't answered my question
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
What question?
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
There is nothing in the bible about my clitoris nor, as far as I know, in any official doctrine of the the church - so what am I supposed to do with it Ad Orientam ? And who is allowed to touch it ?
[ 02. August 2014, 09:39: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
There is nothing in the bible about my clitoris nor, as far as I know, in any official doctrine of the the church - so what am I supposed to do with it Ad Orientam ? And who is allowed to touch it ?
Does there need to be anything about your clit? I would give the same argument as I did earlier regarding God's intention for man and woman. I would argue that human sexuality as it is meant to be can be understood from that.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
That requires a fairly large layer of interpretation, and I am not convinced as to its origin.
When I asked you about intersexed people you replied that they were explained by the fall of man. You would, I assume, make the same attribution about homosexuality.
Jesus statement about man cleaving to woman, was made *after* the fall of man. But he did not add a caveat, but some of you are born neither man nor woman therefore you should do x. So it is reasonable to hold that he was saying something akin to; the majority of people who are male or female and heterosexual should seek to have a monogamus permanent relationship and within this raise their children.
I don't see why we derives the parallel to this to be - if you don't fall into these categories don't marry.
You would have a strong case for arguing the most likely parallel would be, don't be promiscuous, form a monogamous permanent relationship - you have a duty to raise abandoned orphans who have no family to claim them.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doublethink;
quote:
Jesus statement about man cleaving to woman, was made *after* the fall of man.
Yes, but it's not Jesus' original statement. He is quoting from a passage in Genesis which does go back before the Fall and his point is that that passage does represent God's original intention which is still valid today.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Oh. Um... To paraphrase my example above, my religion forbids me to have contempt for other human beings, even (or perhaps especially) my enemies, but... well, there's really no "but," that's just it really.
(I personally suck at loving my enemies. God have mercy...)
I'm not a Christian. That's probably why I have seen a lot of actions by Christians which I see as contempt without appreciating the subtleties.
How do you account for actions you don't approve of by persons of other faiths and of no faith whatsoever? After all, there are non-Christian homophobes.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
[crosspost replying to Steve Langton]
It has to relate to after the fall, Adam and Eve did not have parents to leave (yes I know it is an allegory, but by definition the rules arose after the fall.). And anyway Jesus is preaching to people *after* the fall, in a world in which intersexed people already exist. Therefore I don't think your response adequately answers my point.
When he spoke Jesus did not give explicit guidance to non-standard people who existed at that time - therefore we have to infer, and I don't think my suggested inference makes less sense than your inference. Why do you think it does ?
[ 02. August 2014, 12:07: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I think this is being a bit disingenuous, because Christianity doesn't just label the actions that people take as sinful actions, it actually labels the people taking those actions as sinners.
That would be... all of mankind, I believe.
quote:
So it's not about "actions and attitudes... rather than the actual people" - Christianity does hold the people accountable for their wrong actions and does not just focus on the actions.
Of course people are accountable for their wrong actions. But we're still supposed to love and forgive even or especially our enemies. And yes, this is indeed very hard for me.
quote:
So when wrong actions (eg anti-gay ones) are being criticized, it's not exactly outside the bounds of Christianity to hold the people themselves to account for their actions.
Again, please see above re forgiving one's enemies.
quote:
If you and/or Steve insist on doing things that other people perceive as harmful to gays then it is entirely reasonable for them to criticize and condemn your actions and to hold you accountable for your actions.
Huh? In my own gay-specific interactions, I definitely try to avoid actual harm--this it where SSC, and establishing limits and boundaries, come in handy.
quote:
If you don't like the fact that other people are getting upset at you, maybe you should consider stopping doing the things that are getting them upset with you.
Who... what... other people don't seem all that upset with me. Well, OK, the old friends who dropped me when I came out were, probably, but they were already going down that sort of "angry conservative" path, and in at least one case it was probably more over politics because I liked Clinton and that friend had gotten really into Rush Limbaugh...
(Now there's someone it's hard for me to try to not hate... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
)
quote:
But the defense of "It's unchristian of you to condemn me at all, therefore I should be able to get away with being as mean to gays as I like" isn't going to fly. It's particularly not going to fly with non-Christians.
Um... how... should I... explain this?
My, I have been away for a while!
Pleased to meet you... ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
The idea that we're all fallen, but that God decides to knit some people in the womb so that they're intersex and therefore a little bit more obviously fallen, is repulsive.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'm not a Christian.
Ah.
quote:
That's probably why I have seen a lot of actions by Christians which I see as contempt without appreciating the subtleties.
Alas, there are a lot of Christians who do treat other people with contempt. But I believe we are not supposed to do that.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I sometimes wonder if they are just homophobes, and the Christian clobber passages are a useful hook.
Some people are, I think, though I don't believe all are. I think part of the problem is that when there are a lot of people who are carrying a sort of toxic "church culture" which is genuinely nasty (but with a pious overlay), then someone for whom it really is a matter of theology, held without malice and with charity for all concerned, may get painted with the same brush by association if they don't stand up against the nasty stuff.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Or it could just be that such genuinely consider it something sinful
He did say some, not all.
quote:
Gordon Bennett!
I had to look this guy up. So it's like "good grief!" or a similar expression of astonishment? (Interjections! Show excitement! And emotion! They're generally set apart from a sentence by an exclamation point, or by a comma when they feeling's not as strong...)
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea that we're all fallen, but that God decides to knit some people in the womb so that they're intersex and therefore a little bit more obviously fallen, is repulsive.
Well, yes, but I am trying to debate this on Steve and Ad's terms.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea that we're all fallen, but that God decides to knit some people in the womb so that they're intersex and therefore a little bit more obviously fallen, is repulsive.
Well, yes, but I am trying to debate this on Steve and Ad's terms.
So am I. By saying that if that's the kind of God they believe in, then God is randomly vindictive. Although I believe it's only Ad Orientem that has put forward that explanation.
Conservative Christians do tend to struggle with the existence of intersex people, because the reality of them is physically observable and the whole 'choice' line of thinking that's applied to homosexuality clearly doesn't work.
But I'd also query how on earth it fits with Jesus' clear rejection of the association of a disability with sin of any kind. Why was this man born blind?, he is asked.
[ 02. August 2014, 12:42: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea that we're all fallen, but that God decides to knit some people in the womb so that they're intersex and therefore a little bit more obviously fallen, is repulsive.
Has anyone said that?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea that we're all fallen, but that God decides to knit some people in the womb so that they're intersex and therefore a little bit more obviously fallen, is repulsive.
Has anyone said that?
You have, in my view. You've said that it's a result of the Fall. Is not then a sign of the Fall?
Does it not logically follow that most people manage to get bodies that look just like pre-Fall bodies, but a few unlucky souls get bodies that reflect the Fall?
[ 02. August 2014, 12:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
I'd assume -- and welcome correction if I am mistaken here -- that the notion of "being born intersex is a result of the Fall" does not carry moral judgement of intersex people themselves -- that it is perceived as some sort of birth defect.
Certainly, there are trans* people who regard themselves as being born in the wrong body, and I would imagine that some trans* Christians would see that as a result of the Fall as well. (Again, not as something sinful, just something that needs to be corrected.) Intersex is actually a bit different than trans*, and much more information can be found here.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
but a few unlucky souls get bodies that reflect the Fall?
I... kind of thought we all did.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea that we're all fallen, but that God decides to knit some people in the womb so that they're intersex and therefore a little bit more obviously fallen, is repulsive.
Has anyone said that?
You have, in my view. You've said that it's a result of the Fall. Is not then a sign of the Fall?
Does it not logically follow that most people manage to get bodies that look just like pre-Fall bodies, but a few unlucky souls get bodies that reflect the Fall?
Why precisely some people are born with both male and female reproductive organs or some are attracted to the same sex, yet others not, we don't. All we know is that such things belong to a fallen world, just as death and decay does as well. We know this because this is not how the world was created according to the scriptures. It's because Adam and Eve sinned that creation went tits up, so to speak.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I'd assume -- and welcome correction if I am mistaken here -- that the notion of "being born intersex is a result of the Fall" does not carry moral judgement of intersex people themselves -- that it is perceived as some sort of birth defect.
I think that's right. It's not meant as a condemnation.
The trouble is that characterising someone's sexual identity or orientation in this way is rather more personal than, for example, pointing out that my bad eyesight, asthma and defective aortic valve are the result of the fall. It's not at all offensive to suggest to me that in the resurrection, my eyes, lungs and heart will work better. I'm not at all confident that telling a gay or inter-sex person that in the resurrection they'll be regularly-gendered and straight will always be received as a neutral observation. There seems to me to be a real risk of appearing to say "if you are ever saved, then you won't be you anymore". That must be an error. When redeemed, we will be more truly ourselves than we are now.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
We know this because this is not how the world was created according to the scriptures.
...so if the Bible had a description of Adam and Eve's skin colour, would other skin colours be 'as the result of the Fall'?
That's where your logic is heading. It's saying that there are 2 archetypal people and any variation from those 2 archetypal people is 'fallen'.
The logic of applying the characteristics of a world with 2 people to every individual in a world of 7 billion people escapes me, not least because God granted us sexual reproduction rather than cloning.
[ 02. August 2014, 14:16: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Adam and Eve were created in unique (non-sexual) manners (Adam from the dirt and Eve from Adam's rib), but the Bible seems very clear that sex and childbirth are themselves a consequence of the fall. (Genesis 3:16) "To the woman God said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children."
I might agree with the assertion that sex itself (and the consequences thereof) are a consequence of our fallen nature, but I don't see anything in scripture that says that homosexuality, per se, is.
[ 02. August 2014, 14:36: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Adam and Eve were created in unique (non-sexual) manners (Adam from the dirt and Eve from Adam's rib), but the Bible seems very clear that sex and childbirth are themselves a consequence of the fall. (Genesis 3:16) "To the woman God said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children."
I don't think you can conclude from that that sex was a result of the fall; this doesn't say anything about the beginnings of sex, only the beginnings of labor pains. And in Genesis 1:28 he tells them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, rather strongly implying sexual reproduction since no other method is suggested and we all know that's how it works.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Point taken.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Though the beginning of sex seems have happened after the Fall.
"Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living." Genesis 3:20
"Adam had sexual relations to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, 'With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.'" Genesis 4:1
We're working with two creation stories so it seems unclear how they relate together. Was God's command to multiply given to humanity while in the Garden or after? I don't know.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Such an interpretation is essentially meaningless, that the Holy Spirit will lead his Church into all truth but in the meanwhile he'll let us wallow in grave error, that is, until this fickle God decides otherwise.
But even the most literal reading of the bible says God takes 4 thousand years to get to the definitive statement. And there is statement and reversal with no theological reasoning. So your consistency isn't. What then would be the logical approach? Start with the falling action* and work backwards.
*Avoid the stuff
after the denouement, it gets a bit weird. God could have used a good editor.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Doublethink;
quote:
Jesus statement about man cleaving to woman, was made *after* the fall of man.
Yes, but it's not Jesus' original statement. He is quoting from a passage in Genesis which does go back before the Fall and his point is that that passage does represent God's original intention which is still valid today.
As came up earlier: Jesus quotes the bit about the man leaving his father and mother in order to cleave to his wife. The leaving father and mother is as much a part of the Bible passage as the bit about a man and a woman. But the 'man and woman' bit is treated as essential to the passage while the leaving father and mother is treated as a bit of poetic elaboration.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Though the beginning of sex seems have happened after the Fall.
"Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living." Genesis 3:20
He named her after the fall? Or before?
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
That's after the fall.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Interestingly we're getting a bit of thread convergence here. He named her after the fall, but the bit about leaving your mother and father and cleaving to your wife is from before the fall. So if that verse is about sex, one can't also argue that sex came after the fall. Contrariwise, if sex only came into it after the fall, then that verse can't be about sex.
But that verse clearly says "one flesh" which Paul harps on a bit, and equates it to having sex.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Dafyd;
quote:
But the 'man and woman' bit is treated as essential to the passage while the leaving father and mother is treated as a bit of poetic elaboration.
I believe that in ancient society it was a bit more literal than sometimes in our world; the newly married man would become a 'head of household' in his own right, and be released from much if not all parental authority, even if he continued to live in the proverbial 'ancestral home'. There are those who say a bit more 'leaving' might be helpful in our world....
It doesn't change the essentially heterosexual implications of the situation, or the reasonable assumption that Jesus chose to quote that text because it represented his view of the matter.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
You haven't answered my question Steve.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Dafyd;
quote:
But the 'man and woman' bit is treated as essential to the passage while the leaving father and mother is treated as a bit of poetic elaboration.
I believe that in ancient society it was a bit more literal than sometimes in our world; the newly married man would become a 'head of household' in his own right, and be released from much if not all parental authority, even if he continued to live in the proverbial 'ancestral home'.
So if that bit only literally applies to the ancient world, then presumably the man and wife bit only literally applies to the ancient world too?
quote:
It doesn't change the essentially heterosexual implications of the situation, or the reasonable assumption that Jesus chose to quote that text because it represented his view of the matter.
Jesus chose to quote that text because it represented his view of divorce. As to whether it represented his view of same-sex relationships the record is silent.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Dafyd;
quote:
So if that bit only literally applies to the ancient world, then presumably the man and wife bit only literally applies to the ancient world too?
Not quite what I said. Ancient custom tended to follow that way of thinking, that on marriage a man would 'leave' parents; we don't follow that custom so often. That doesn't invalidate the basic meaning of the original. I'm intrigued by the way that just about any feeble excuse will do to evade what are rather plain meanings. Why does Jesus pick texts about male and female and becoming 'one flesh' except because he means the idea is important?
Which brings me to an answer to this
by Croesos earlier;
quote:
By Croesos;
You just applied special pleading (again!) as to why "[t]here is neither Jew nor Gentile" is something that can be interpreted in a straightforward, literal manner as being against racial divisions but "nor is there male and female" is some kind of super-secret metaphor you need the decoder ring to realize it means the exact opposite of the anti-racist text.
As another shipmate pointed out, what Paul is opposing here (in both cases) is people thinking they are superior (as in the traditional Jewish prayer 'I thank God I was not made a woman') – In Christ people must not think that they matter more to God because they are Jewish, or Greek, or Roman, or whatever, or because they are free rather than a slave, or that they matter more to God because they are male. It's not about the rather obvious and unchanging fact that men and women are different in rather important ways! Of course in terms of racial equality this also implies that, for example, Christians may make interracial marriages; in Christian terms the problem would be a marriage with a non-Christian, which would have potential practical problems. But equal status of male and female is still seen in terms of traditional relationships. He's not saying all differences have been abolished.
Working this out is not about some 'decoder ring' – it's about something called “reading in context”. The Galatians context is about all being equally 'sons of God' (including even the women having what would previously have been the status of males only – a point obscured by fussy gender-neutral translations, by the way).
A further clue that Paul cannot have intended what you suggest is the wider context – Paul's epistles as a whole. It is known that Galatians is one of the earliest of Paul's letters that have come down to us; but it is in the later ones that Paul says all kinds of things affirming the traditional view of marriage, including Romans 1; 26-7 and the other passages clearly disapproving of gay relationships. At least credit the guy with being consistent....
I'd add another point here – Paul is a guy who in Jewish eyes had driven a cart and horses through the OT Law (if not as whole battalion of heavy tanks!); he is the guy who in the 'circumcision' controversy said something on the lines of “If cutting bits off you is so important, why don't they go the whole hog?” As I read it, Paul is the kind of person that if he had meant that 'same-sex-marriage is OK', he would have said it openly, not left it to be dubiously deduced from silence and putting questionable limitations on what he's supposed to have said/meant.
Much the same point applies to Jesus' words – do you really believe that the Jesus who shocked people by saying stuff like “You have heard it was said... but I tell you” would have avoided being clear if he had intended to radically change the existing ideas about marriage to allow it to same-sex-couples? But asked about divorce, yes, again he shocked people by saying “Divorce wasn't really God's ideal; it was a concession made through Moses because of human 'hardness of heart' which means marriages don't always work out”. But still he affirmed that divorce shouldn't happen and called his followers to live out the proper meaning of marriage. And how did he illustrate that? By going back to Genesis and to a passage explicitly saying “God made them male and female and that is the meaning of marriage”.
Again I have to ask – if Jesus, who was so happy to shock conventional thought on so many issues, had intended to change the implications of that text by approving same-sex-marriage, do you really think he wouldn't have said so openly, not left it to weak weaselly words like “It's about divorce so it's not relevant....” or “Jesus didn't say anything (or to quote an earlier post, “Jesus said fuck-all...”) so we can fill in his silence with what we'd like to believe about it”. Instead he chooses a text which could hardly more emphatically confirm the traditional interpretation.....
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
How do you account for actions you don't approve of by persons of other faiths and of no faith whatsoever? After all, there are non-Christian homophobes.
Oh I'm an equal opportunity condemner. I haven't had a lot of close up experience with Islamic condemnation for example, but their sincerity and theology don't impress me either. As you mention it's not just the religious; growing up I had several unpleasant experiences with Freudian Psychiatrists. I judge by actions rather than how sincere someone is when they are damaging others. But since I don't believe in the religions, theological explanations are not an acceptable excuse for me.
In this thread, the poster is saying he doesn't want to have government interference with the rights of Gays to live and be married.
He's "not like that" like the other Christians who do want to do that. So he's not going to damage me personally much other than presenting some tired ancient rationales for damaging gay members of his church. I've had a enough friends who were badly damaged by such theological marvels to find them contemptible. If a blind man is leading the blind and shouting "I can see perfectly" he deserves contempt even if he is ever so sincere.
[ 02. August 2014, 19:45: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
*snip*
You still haven't tried to answer my question Steve.
[ 02. August 2014, 20:22: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doublethink;
quote:
You haven't answered my question Steve.
I had to backtrack on this a bit as you seem to have originally asked it during an exchange with Ad Orientem which I skimmed through because I've been through most of it with him on earlier threads - all the 'authority of the Church' stuff.
Your question is about 'intersex', I gather; and I honestly don't know what the full answer is. One obvious thing about it is that it's a very variable phenomenon, so I'd be inclined to deal with each such case individually, rather than give a blanket answer.
As I understand it such conditions are rare even today, and would be even rarer in Jesus' time because before modern medicine survival into adulthood would be uncommon. So hardly surprising Jesus didn't explicitly deal with it. I would be hesitant to draw inferences either way from that.
I'm broadly with 'Ad' in saying that such anomalies are a result of 'sin in general', the dislocation of human life which results from first being at odds with God. And I'm with Jesus in saying, as he did of the 'man born blind' that the ultimate detail causes and reasons are none of our business - doing what we can to support people and put things right, that's our business. And I can see what you might say there in the context of this thread, but I think 'putting things right' means doing it God's way, not just to suit our own wishes.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
No that was not my question.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
[crosspost replying to Steve Langton]
It has to relate to after the fall, Adam and Eve did not have parents to leave (yes I know it is an allegory, but by definition the rules arose after the fall.). And anyway Jesus is preaching to people *after* the fall, in a world in which intersexed people already exist. Therefore I don't think your response adequately answers my point.
When he spoke Jesus did not give explicit guidance to non-standard people who existed at that time - therefore we have to infer, and I don't think my suggested inference makes less sense than your inference. Why do you think it does ?
This was my question.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
That requires a fairly large layer of interpretation, and I am not convinced as to its origin.
When I asked you about intersexed people you replied that they were explained by the fall of man. You would, I assume, make the same attribution about homosexuality.
Jesus statement about man cleaving to woman, was made *after* the fall of man. But he did not add a caveat, but some of you are born neither man nor woman therefore you should do x. So it is reasonable to hold that he was saying something akin to; the majority of people who are male or female and heterosexual should seek to have a monogamus permanent relationship and within this raise their children.
I don't see why we derives the parallel to this to be - if you don't fall into these categories don't marry.
You would have a strong case for arguing the most likely parallel would be, don't be promiscuous, form a monogamous permanent relationship - you have a duty to raise abandoned orphans who have no family to claim them.
And this is the inference I was referring back to.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Doublethink;
quote:
You haven't answered my question Steve.
I had to backtrack on this a bit as you seem to have originally asked it during an exchange with Ad Orientem which I skimmed through because I've been through most of it with him on earlier threads - all the 'authority of the Church' stuff.
Your question is about 'intersex', I gather; and I honestly don't know what the full answer is. One obvious thing about it is that it's a very variable phenomenon, so I'd be inclined to deal with each such case individually, rather than give a blanket answer.
As I understand it such conditions are rare even today, and would be even rarer in Jesus' time because before modern medicine survival into adulthood would be uncommon. So hardly surprising Jesus didn't explicitly deal with it. I would be hesitant to draw inferences either way from that.
I'm broadly with 'Ad' in saying that such anomalies are a result of 'sin in general', the dislocation of human life which results from first being at odds with God. And I'm with Jesus in saying, as he did of the 'man born blind' that the ultimate detail causes and reasons are none of our business - doing what we can to support people and put things right, that's our business. And I can see what you might say there in the context of this thread, but I think 'putting things right' means doing it God's way, not just to suit our own wishes.
Please explain why intersex people existing are a result of sin/the Fall? I honestly don't understand. It's not a disability, it's not harmful, it's just a difference. Not all people are male or female - why is that a problem?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As I understand it such conditions are rare even today, and would be even rarer in Jesus' time because before modern medicine survival into adulthood would be uncommon. So hardly surprising Jesus didn't explicitly deal with it. I would be hesitant to draw inferences either way from that.
Yet you're quite happy to draw inferences about lifelong monogamous same-sex couples, that would have been about as common (in the open) as intersex folk in Jesus' time, from vague references to Genesis that don't address the issue even in the slightest.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Chast, when you said, "I personally suck at loving my enemies," I'm sure we all nodded in sympathy. However, I couldn't help wondering if you meant to write "when" instead of "at". ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
(I tried to send this as a PM, but your box is full.)
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doublethink;
quote:
It has to relate to after the fall, Adam and Eve did not have parents to leave (yes I know it is an allegory, but by definition the rules arose after the fall.). And anyway Jesus is preaching to people *after* the fall, in a world in which intersexed people already exist. Therefore I don't think your response adequately answers my point.
When he spoke Jesus did not give explicit guidance to non-standard people who existed at that time - therefore we have to infer, and I don't think my suggested inference makes less sense than your inference. Why do you think it does ?
1) Yes, I know Genesis' early chapters are not a modern scientific academic historical account. For what it's worth I often use the example of comparing a hypothetical multi-volume account of the Russian Revolution (an academic version) with the more accessible but far less academic account presented by Orwell in “Animal Farm”. As I understand it Jerome, the early translator into Latin, gave a literary judgement that those chapters are 'after the manner of a popular poet' – but of course a poet inspired by God to give us helpful info.
2) On that basis I think the idea that “God created them male and female....” is intended to represent a reality, God's original intent. The comment “For this reason a man will leave....” clearly doesn't refer directly to the parentless (and anyway not entirely literal) Adam and Eve, but of course is drawing a consequence from the basic idea of that 'creation male and female'.
3) My previous post answers the next – the chance of Jesus meeting someone with such a problem was very limited anyway. Inferring anything from this is pretty much impossible.
My best assessment is that Jesus quotes the Genesis passage as "what marriage is about" and therefore why divorce is wrong even if in OT terms it had to be allowed. But Jesus' re-assertion of the principle is valid for his people (which remember according to the NT is a voluntary church of serious believers, not a 'Christendom' of nominal believers).
I am aware, by the way, that (a) Jesus was the guy who was willing to eat with 'harlots and tax-collectors' - but also (b) when forgiving the woman taken in adultery he said 'Go and sin no more'. I would try to get that balance of generous forgivingness with clear understanding of right and wrong.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Dafyd;
quote:
So if that bit only literally applies to the ancient world, then presumably the man and wife bit only literally applies to the ancient world too?
Not quite what I said. Ancient custom tended to follow that way of thinking, that on marriage a man would 'leave' parents; we don't follow that custom so often. That doesn't invalidate the basic meaning of the original. I'm intrigued by the way that just about any feeble excuse will do to evade what are rather plain meanings. Why does Jesus pick texts about male and female and becoming 'one flesh' except because he means the idea is important?
Which brings me to an answer to this
by Croesos earlier;
quote:
By Croesos;
You just applied special pleading (again!) as to why "[t]here is neither Jew nor Gentile" is something that can be interpreted in a straightforward, literal manner as being against racial divisions but "nor is there male and female" is some kind of super-secret metaphor you need the decoder ring to realize it means the exact opposite of the anti-racist text.
As another shipmate pointed out, what Paul is opposing here (in both cases) is people thinking they are superior (as in the traditional Jewish prayer 'I thank God I was not made a woman') – In Christ people must not think that they matter more to God because they are Jewish, or Greek, or Roman, or whatever, or because they are free rather than a slave, or that they matter more to God because they are male. It's not about the rather obvious and unchanging fact that men and women are different in rather important ways! Of course in terms of racial equality this also implies that, for example, Christians may make interracial marriages; in Christian terms the problem would be a marriage with a non-Christian, which would have potential practical problems. But equal status of male and female is still seen in terms of traditional relationships. He's not saying all differences have been abolished.
Working this out is not about some 'decoder ring' – it's about something called “reading in context”. The Galatians context is about all being equally 'sons of God' (including even the women having what would previously have been the status of males only – a point obscured by fussy gender-neutral translations, by the way).
A further clue that Paul cannot have intended what you suggest is the wider context – Paul's epistles as a whole. It is known that Galatians is one of the earliest of Paul's letters that have come down to us; but it is in the later ones that Paul says all kinds of things affirming the traditional view of marriage, including Romans 1; 26-7 and the other passages clearly disapproving of gay relationships. At least credit the guy with being consistent....
I'd add another point here – Paul is a guy who in Jewish eyes had driven a cart and horses through the OT Law (if not as whole battalion of heavy tanks!); he is the guy who in the 'circumcision' controversy said something on the lines of “If cutting bits off you is so important, why don't they go the whole hog?” As I read it, Paul is the kind of person that if he had meant that 'same-sex-marriage is OK', he would have said it openly, not left it to be dubiously deduced from silence and putting questionable limitations on what he's supposed to have said/meant.
Much the same point applies to Jesus' words – do you really believe that the Jesus who shocked people by saying stuff like “You have heard it was said... but I tell you” would have avoided being clear if he had intended to radically change the existing ideas about marriage to allow it to same-sex-couples? But asked about divorce, yes, again he shocked people by saying “Divorce wasn't really God's ideal; it was a concession made through Moses because of human 'hardness of heart' which means marriages don't always work out”. But still he affirmed that divorce shouldn't happen and called his followers to live out the proper meaning of marriage. And how did he illustrate that? By going back to Genesis and to a passage explicitly saying “God made them male and female and that is the meaning of marriage”.
Again I have to ask – if Jesus, who was so happy to shock conventional thought on so many issues, had intended to change the implications of that text by approving same-sex-marriage, do you really think he wouldn't have said so openly, not left it to weak weaselly words like “It's about divorce so it's not relevant....” or “Jesus didn't say anything (or to quote an earlier post, “Jesus said fuck-all...”) so we can fill in his silence with what we'd like to believe about it”. Instead he chooses a text which could hardly more emphatically confirm the traditional interpretation.....
Steve,
We may not agree on many things, but that at least is well said.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Doublethink;
quote:
It has to relate to after the fall, Adam and Eve did not have parents to leave (yes I know it is an allegory, but by definition the rules arose after the fall.). And anyway Jesus is preaching to people *after* the fall, in a world in which intersexed people already exist. Therefore I don't think your response adequately answers my point.
When he spoke Jesus did not give explicit guidance to non-standard people who existed at that time - therefore we have to infer, and I don't think my suggested inference makes less sense than your inference. Why do you think it does ?
1) Yes, I know Genesis' early chapters are not a modern scientific academic historical account. For what it's worth I often use the example of comparing a hypothetical multi-volume account of the Russian Revolution (an academic version) with the more accessible but far less academic account presented by Orwell in “Animal Farm”. As I understand it Jerome, the early translator into Latin, gave a literary judgement that those chapters are 'after the manner of a popular poet' – but of course a poet inspired by God to give us helpful info.
2) On that basis I think the idea that “God created them male and female....” is intended to represent a reality, God's original intent. The comment “For this reason a man will leave....” clearly doesn't refer directly to the parentless (and anyway not entirely literal) Adam and Eve, but of course is drawing a consequence from the basic idea of that 'creation male and female'.
3) My previous post answers the next – the chance of Jesus meeting someone with such a problem was very limited anyway. Inferring anything from this is pretty much impossible.
My best assessment is that Jesus quotes the Genesis passage as "what marriage is about" and therefore why divorce is wrong even if in OT terms it had to be allowed. But Jesus' re-assertion of the principle is valid for his people (which remember according to the NT is a voluntary church of serious believers, not a 'Christendom' of nominal believers).
I am aware, by the way, that (a) Jesus was the guy who was willing to eat with 'harlots and tax-collectors' - but also (b) when forgiving the woman taken in adultery he said 'Go and sin no more'. I would try to get that balance of generous forgivingness with clear understanding of right and wrong.
You still haven't explained why the inference of celibacy is more probable than the inference of the pursuit of monogamy.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Arethosemyfeet;
quote:
Yet you're quite happy to draw inferences about lifelong monogamous same-sex couples, that would have been about as common (in the open) as intersex folk in Jesus' time, from vague references to Genesis that don't address the issue even in the slightest.
Again “don't address the issue even in the slightest” is a big-time 'argument from silence'; and an argument rather defeated by the simple fact that Jesus quotes just about the most pro-heterosexual-marriage text in the whole Bible. This isn't a matter of 'not addressing the issue' – it's a matter of saying something so clear one way that the other issue doesn't have to be addressed.
by Doublethink;
quote:
You would have a strong case for arguing the most likely parallel would be, don't be promiscuous, form a monogamous permanent relationship - you have a duty to raise abandoned orphans who have no family to claim them.
Is it necessary to have a sexual relationship in order to do that??
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Please explain why intersex people existing are a result of sin/the Fall?
Often it's not a great problem, sometimes apparently it even goes unnoticed; but from the Wiki article I just looked up intersex is generally a problem, often a severe one. In the days before modern medicine some forms of intersex could be fatal because of complications in the... er... 'plumbing'.
Due to sin (in general) we live in a spoiled world,this is just one aspect of that to which I wouldn't normally give great prominence except that it's been explicitly raised in this post. As someone else said back upthread, it doesn't imply the intersex person is unusually sinful compared to the rest of us. How we react to the challenge does matter, of course.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doublethink;
quote:
You still haven't explained why the inference of celibacy is more probable than the inference of the pursuit of monogamy.
If marriage is about God having created them 'male and female' anything else would not be marriage/monogamy. The alternative would seem to be celibacy...?
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
You see I don't get that leap of logic. Seems like celibacy is not intended either.
So given the original intention is not possible for the minority we are discussing, would it not make more sense to try and form a pairbond and possibly raise children ?
In other words, to me, celibacy seems further from the original intention than a same-sex relationship.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Arethosemyfeet;
quote:
Yet you're quite happy to draw inferences about lifelong monogamous same-sex couples, that would have been about as common (in the open) as intersex folk in Jesus' time, from vague references to Genesis that don't address the issue even in the slightest.
Again “don't address the issue even in the slightest” is a big-time 'argument from silence'; and an argument rather defeated by the simple fact that Jesus quotes just about the most pro-heterosexual-marriage text in the whole Bible. This isn't a matter of 'not addressing the issue' – it's a matter of saying something so clear one way that the other issue doesn't have to be addressed.
I'm pro-heterosexual-marriage. So much so that I'm participating in one (which Jesus didn't do, to the best of our knowledge). Being pro-heterosexual-marriage doesn't mean being against gay marriage any more than it means being against celibacy (which clearly Jesus wasn't). It is you who are making the argument from silence and reading your own prejudices back into Christ's words.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
I don't think Jesus addressed same sex marriage or same sex couples because long term, monogamous same sex couples didn't exist, at least not in any great number.
For the most part, the social and economic system didn't support them. Before the advent of industrialization and the modern welfare state, it was up to each family to provide their own livelihood and protect themselves and having as many children as possible provided for the greatest amount of income and security.
The ancient world depended on subsidence farming and small craft industry for income. More children could herd more cattle, plant more crops, build more furniture or tents, etc., and provide better defence against those who might want to steal land or possessions. In a land of frequent drought and famine, large family networks were the key to survival. As soon as children were old enough to walk, they were put to work. Children also were expected to take care of the elderly and infirm who couldn't continue to be productive. In this context, choosing to forgo heterosexual marriage and children to be in a same sex relationship meant not doing one's fair share to contribute to the the welfare of the family (while relying on others to do so) which would have been seen as a betrayal.
Once industrialization occurred and welfare, social security and police protection was outsourced to the State from from the family unit, things started to change. Once child labour was abolished in favor of mandatory education, having as many kids as possible stopped being an income provider and started (again purely from an economic POV) to be a drain. It was only then when people were freed from these economic pressures that more homosexually-inclined people, who undoubtedly always existed, could pursue long term, same sex relationships.
Also, the ancient world didn't divide people into "gay" or "straight". Instead people were divided into "tops" (inserters) or "bottoms" (insertees). In ancient Greece, Rome and throughout the Middle East it was perfectly acceptable (and expected) for a freeman to be the penetrator of women, slaves and boys but not acceptable (with legal sanctions) for him to be the insertee. So the whole concept of sexual orientation and egalitarian same sex as opposed to opposite sex relationships just didn't exist.
As much as all this is interesting, it seems to me that the Bible is speaking to a very different sexual context. And arguing from silence isn't going to be very persuasive to those who aren't already persuaded. No doubt, marriage within scripture was male/female(s), but it doesn't make much sense for the Bible to make all kinds of provisions for things that didn't exist at the time of writing. No doubt Jesus overturned many OT laws, but He didn't speak to how one should behave on the internet, or whether one should text while driving, or how to manage road rage. I look to the Bible for guidance on how to conduct my same sex relationship (agape love and fidelity) even if it doesn't mention them specifically.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Chast, when you said, "I personally suck at loving my enemies," I'm sure we all nodded in sympathy. However, I couldn't help wondering if you meant to write "when" instead of "at".
(I tried to send this as a PM, but your box is full.)
I thought of making a horrible joke about it but decided it mightn't be appropriate... (As well as perhaps giving people the wrong impression about where my limits lie, but that's a long story which has already been told before... )
Will clear out that inbox right away by the way.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And I'm with Jesus in saying, as he did of the 'man born blind' that the ultimate detail causes and reasons are none of our business
No, I'm sorry, that is a wild mischaracterisation of what Jesus said!!
He did NOT say "it's none of our business". He flat out said that people were wrong to attribute sin as the cause of the man's blindness.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm intrigued by the way that just about any feeble excuse will do to evade what are rather plain meanings. Why does Jesus pick texts about male and female and becoming 'one flesh' except because he means the idea is important?
And I'm intrigued by the way anti-gay people find just about any feeble excuse to read anti-gay ideas into texts when the plain meaning is talking about something else. Jesus is having an argument about divorce. He says "man should not separate what God has joined together". So what's important and relevant to his argument is that marriage is a God ordained joining. He quotes the one-flesh passage to prove this. So the plain meaning of the text as used by Jesus is that marriage is a God-ordaining joining.
Jesus is not quoting the passage to say that the married couple need to move out of their parents' houses and ought not to live with their parents. Jesus is not quoting the passage to say that it's really important that there is one male and one female in every marriage and that he therefore objects to gay marriage. Both those ideas are coincidentally present in the text of the quoted passage, but they're not the reason Jesus was quoting it.
quote:
Of course in terms of racial equality this also implies that, for example, Christians may make interracial marriages; ... But equal status of male and female is still seen in terms of traditional relationships. He's not saying all differences have been abolished.
I find it utterly inconsistent that you think "There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female" legitimizes interracial marriage but does not legitimize same-sex marriage. Nothing you wrote makes that apparent inconsistency seem any less bizarre to me.
quote:
Paul says all kinds of things affirming the traditional view of marriage, including Romans 1; 26-7 and the other passages clearly disapproving of gay relationships.
I don't personally agree. I don't think Paul at any point in his writings condemns same-sex relationships. I think that in Romans Paul has a long dialogue with an opponent, and in Rom 1:18-32 the opponent is speaking (who is condemning same-sex relationships), and Paul responds critically in Rom 2. I think that the words Paul uses in the passages 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1 are mistranslated when they are rendered as anti-gay - Paul's society was very familiar with same-sex activities and they had words for it which Paul never uses, instead Christians have come up with hand-waving explanations to defend their anti-gay translations which just don't fly.
quote:
Paul is the kind of person that if he had meant that 'same-sex-marriage is OK', he would have said it openly...
Much the same point applies to Jesus' words – do you really believe that the Jesus who shocked people by saying stuff like “You have heard it was said... but I tell you” would have avoided being clear if he had intended to radically change the existing ideas about marriage to allow it to same-sex-couples?
You're making a massive and wrong assumption here. You're assuming that the world Jesus and Paul lived in was a world in which everyone rejected same-sex sex and same-sex marriage and considered it a clear biblical teaching that same-sex anything was not allowed. That is every kind of not true. Same sex sexual activities were rampant in the Roman world. They weren't just confined to what we would think of as gay people. But, also, men we would think of as straight, would regularly have sex with teenage boys (the best explanation I've seen for this is that masculine features are quite late-developing and so prior to the growth of body hair around the age of 22ish a teenage boy actually still has a lot of feminine characteristics which a straight man can find attractive). Same-sex activity was particularly prevalent in Greece and Rome, and was part of a history that went back centuries in Greece.
As far as I am aware, there is no surviving information concerning the frequency of same-sex relationships among Jews at the time of Jesus or whether they were considered acceptable in Judea. However, we can presume that any Greeks and Romans living in Judea were probably practicing such relationships with their usual frequency.
So your suggestion that if Paul had wanted to challenge the existing social norms that he would have said something, is true but backwards. The existing social norms in Greece allowed for same-sex relationships. If Paul had wanted to challenge those, he would probably have said a lot about it. For starters he would have mentioned at least once even one of the words that the Greeks used to talk about such relationships, but he doesn't.
Jesus is a much, much more difficult case to judge. Because we just don't know enough about exactly what was going on in Judea at that time and the level of influence different ideas were having. We do know that the area Jesus lived in had been extensively "Hellenized" - Greek style cities had been deliberately built there, and Jesus could have walked to one in less than a day from Nazareth. But we also know that the native population resented the intrusion of Greek culture. Judea at the time was a huge mishmash of people with different ideas and cultures and views, and so Jesus and the people who he was talking to could have fallen anywhere on the spectrum of thinking same-sex acts were totally fine through to thinking they totally weren't. There's not anything overly much in the gospels on this subject, though there's a couple of passages that are a little suggestive...
When Jesus is asked to heal a Roman Centurion's "beloved slave", Jesus would have every reason to ask the question "um, are you guys, um, y'know? In a kind of relationship that some devout Leviticus-following Jews might disapprove of?" but he doesn't ask that question. Instead he holds the Centurion up as an exemplar of faith. (It's also not at all clear whether law-following Jews at the time would have interpreted the Leviticus passages as binding on Gentiles. eg would God-fearing gentiles who were attending Jewish religious ceremonies be expected to avoid same-sex relations, or was that regarded as just another one of many parts of the law that were assumed to not apply to gentiles?)
Jesus also talks about those who "become eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven" - ie will refrain from normal marriage due to dedicating their lives to focus on God's goals, and compares them with those who were "born eunuchs" which may well be meaning "born gay".
Far more controversially, the gospel of John's entire portrayal of the "beloved disciple" who rests his head on Jesus' breast etc would have struck the Greek audience as being somewhat reminiscent of the ancient Greek tradition where the teacher-student relationship could include a sexual component.
Basically, we don't have good data on Jesus' society, and while we know that the Greek and Roman influences were strong, we don't know to what extent their pro same-sex activity viewpoints had influenced Jewish society, and we have little or no data as to whether Jews were following the Leviticus same-sex activity prohibitions or not or whether they were trying to enforce them on gentiles or not.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Agreed. I find it utterly baffling that people insist on using the Bible as some kind of divine lawbook without any cultural context, nuance or understanding of the linguistic differences.
The Bible is a sacred text as it uses a variety of genres to give us an understanding of who God is and how He acted in the world. As an Anglican it makes sense for it to be prominent in worship.
But good grief! The rules in the Bible are contradictory, unclear and often presented as advice rather than law (Acts 15). Jesus contradicts the OT and on occasion the Apostles (Paul, etc) contradict Jesus. People try to make rules out of passages that aren't presented as law (like Romans 1:26-27, which is descriptive, not proscriptive and hinges on v. 23 and v. 25 which seems awfully narrow to me).
If God wanted to create a divine rulebook He did a lousy job at it with the Bible. At least in Islam, there is Shari'a, which may seem primitive but is true legal code. It seems to me that many Christians wish we had a version of it in our religion.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
Actually Roman law was fairly clear that a man remained under the control of his father as long as his father was alive even if he married. This wouldn't have applied to non-Romans. In addition the older custom of wives becoming part of her husband's family was becoming uncommon in Rome (so much so that Augustus some years previously had taken measures because certain priests of the state cults had to be married under the old style).
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
If God wanted to create a divine rulebook He did a lousy job at it with the Bible. At least in Islam, there is Shari'a, which may seem primitive but is true legal code. It seems to me that many Christians wish we had a version of it in our religion.
It's not that they wish we did. They think we do.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
On the subject of Jesus and what he said:
I am struck by a Star Trek sketch in which Captain Picard can be found trying to write an inclusive version of 'No man has gone before' and ends up with some massive long 'No creature with any sentient characteristics whatsoever has ever gone before' clearly for rhetorical effect this is a bit rubbish (in the end they went for No one)
I think most of what Jesus says in the gospels is like this, poetic and rhetorical devices to make the same strong point. There is a gap between humans and God and that we need to align our lives to God in order to close it before the proverbial hits the fan.
Rhetorical devices fail when you have to say things like 'Male, female he created them though some of them had a few differences like that dude with fragile X syndrome, a couple with 5 alpha reductase syndrome and that one there with congenital adrenal hyperplasia syndrome' so I imagine he was more concerned with the message (which applies to all these people) than being absolutely technically correct about including every aspect of the broad spectrum that is humanity.
Why are people so happy to unpack 'Neither male nor female, Jew nor Gentile, Slave nor Free' to include every nationality and creed - St Paul obviously did not mean us all to become agender and obviously did not mean that salvation is not available outside of those prescribed categories. We know what St Paul meant and that he was using a rhetorical device that basically meant 'everyone' so why is it so hard to see those rhetorical devices elsewhere?
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Yes, I would agree.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Starlight;
quote:
I don't personally agree. I don't think Paul at any point in his writings condemns same-sex relationships. I think that in Romans Paul has a long dialogue with an opponent, and in Rom 1:18-32 the opponent is speaking (who is condemning same-sex relationships), and Paul responds critically in Rom 2.
I hope I will eventually recover from the damage inflicted by me pinching myself to convince myself that your statement here was no weird dream but had actually been written in the real world! This is seriously bizarre interpretation.
I'm fairly well at home in Romans 1 – it's quite a basic evangelistic text. I've been back looking at the Greek (in which I'll admit I'm not fluent, but I have a good interlinear text and a decent dictionary) and I can't find in it any trace of 1; 18-32 being a separate bit attributed to an opponent at all. All the 'fors' and 'therefores' and so on are there as you'd expect if it was Paul's main line of argument, and it does in fact make a coherent argument with what precedes and what follows. Further, the following argument does not seem anywhere near as coherent if you take ch 1 out of it.
Indeed, you have to ask what in this passage is 'opposing' Paul's position? Which bits of this exposition of the nature and workings of sin are you suggesting Paul would disagree with so much? I know you want to claim he disagrees with vv26-7; but the problem is if he'd disagreed with only that point, he'd either have left the issue out altogether or (less likely) made it very clear indeed that it was an opposing position. The rest of the passage – well why would Paul disagree?
Actually I think your interpretation here contains (unintended on your part, no doubt!) two rather key admissions about the text.
Firstly, that you have found yourself unable to fragment these verses; you've had to accept that ch1;18ff is a connected and coherent argument, all one chunk, and that the controversial vv26-7 are an integral part of that chunk. Indeed on the face of it your interpretation of the passage must be pretty similar to mine; it's just that you don't want to accept the implications of that being Paul's view so you've had to resort to an extreme reconstruction to avoid that conclusion. However, if that extreme reconstruction cannot be justified (and I don't see how it can be)....?
Secondly, it seems that despite all the shilly-shallying, evasions, fine distinctions and so on of other interpreters, you've had to admit that these verses are indeed after all 'condemning same-sex relationships'. Again, you don't want to admit that this is Paul's view and therefore the true Christian view, and so you've had little choice but a drastic reconstruction to artificially attribute that view to a supposed opponent. But again, if it actually is Paul's view...?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Paul's view? Really? Paul is no fan of heterosexual sex either.
Paul's view is if you must fuck, fuck one person. This, crudely but accurately, represents Paul's view on sex.
Kinda contrasts with the whole, "be fruitful and multiply" bit, yes? So, we demonstrably see Paul is bringing in his own baggage.
Reading the bible is one massive irregular verb.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Paul's view? Really? Paul is no fan of heterosexual sex either.
Paul's view is if you must fuck, fuck one person. This, crudely but accurately, represents Paul's view on sex.
Kinda contrasts with the whole, "be fruitful and multiply" bit, yes? So, we demonstrably see Paul is bringing in his own baggage.
Reading the bible is one massive irregular verb.
That's a dandy post. I want to keep it and frame it. Go, girl.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
I hope I will eventually recover from the damage inflicted by me pinching myself to convince myself that your statement here was no weird dream but had actually been written in the real world! This is seriously bizarre interpretation.
It's not that bizarre given that Starlight's interpretation shows up in a lot of respectable theological journals and is mentioned here, here, here, and here, to name a few.
I find it intriguing though I think Jeramy Townsley's interpretation where Paul is describing cult prostitution found in the Attis/Cybele cult is a bit more convincing.
In any case, the link between "them" worshiping images made to look like "mortal man, and animals and birds and reptiles" (v.23), repeated again in serving "created things instead of the creator" (v. 25)being linked to God "giving them over" to a lustful punishment is far too narrow to use against all forms of homosexuality.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm fairly well at home in Romans 1 – it's quite a basic evangelistic text. I've been back looking at the Greek (in which I'll admit I'm not fluent, but I have a good interlinear text and a decent dictionary) and I can't find in it any trace of 1; 18-32 being a separate bit attributed to an opponent at all.
The crucial verses are Romans 2:1-4, which is where the argument turns round.
The Jewish addressee argues that the Gentile idolatry and sexual irregularity of 1:18-27 leads to the catalogue of wrongdoing in 28-32. But, says Paul, you Jews also engage in all the wrongdoing of 28-32 as well. Therefore, you have no grounds for saying that God will judge the Gentiles any more harshly than he will judge the Jews. Rather all have fallen short of the glory of God, and all will be redeemed.
It's arguable to what extent Paul rejects the argument in its entirety, or merely its application to Gentiles alone. What is clear is that any attempt to use the passages in Romans 1 to condemn homosexuality must take into account Romans 2:1.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Steve Langton - so what about celibacy (in people of any sexual orientation)? Genesis says bad, Paul says good. What do you say?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Steve Langton - so what about celibacy (in people of any sexual orientation)? Genesis says bad, Paul says good. What do you say?
And Jesus says something inbetween with a comment about 'eunuchs for the kingdom's sake'. I think the answer is "Sometimes in a sinful world celibacy is a good thing". But I would reject the view that being celibate is somehow 'super-spiritual', and I regard it as particularly dubious in the context of RC clergy, given that the NT clearly intends elders/episkopoi to be normally married people.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Steve Langton - so what about celibacy (in people of any sexual orientation)? Genesis says bad, Paul says good. What do you say?
And Jesus says something inbetween with a comment about 'eunuchs for the kingdom's sake'. I think the answer is "Sometimes in a sinful world celibacy is a good thing". But I would reject the view that being celibate is somehow 'super-spiritual', and I regard it as particularly dubious in the context of RC clergy, given that the NT clearly intends elders/episkopoi to be normally married people.
But Paul says clearly that being married is second best to being celibate. I thought you believed everything that Paul wrote was the word of God?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
cough cough
x-post with Atmf
[ 03. August 2014, 21:17: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by anne (# 73) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Steve Langton - so what about celibacy (in people of any sexual orientation)? Genesis says bad, Paul says good. What do you say?
And Jesus says something inbetween with a comment about 'eunuchs for the kingdom's sake'. I think the answer is "Sometimes in a sinful world celibacy is a good thing". But I would reject the view that being celibate is somehow 'super-spiritual', and I regard it as particularly dubious in the context of RC clergy, given that the NT clearly intends elders/episkopoi to be normally married people.
In this context, which would you prioritise as a guide for Christian life? What Jesus said (as you quote above) or what Jesus did (lived an unmarried life in a culture where that may have been out of the ordinary). I ask as an unmarried, celibate anglican priest, wondering exactly where my failings lie.
Am I wrong for failing to marry? Is it OK if that's because people stopped asking? Am I right to be celibate? Is that less OK if it's only because people stopped asking?
And finally the most important questions of all. Is this really the most important thing that we can talk about? Are all the hungry fed? All the naked clothed? Every prisoner visited? Have all the rich people of the world (including me) sold all that we have and given it to the poor*? And if not, where are the pages of posts about these failures to follow the clear directions of Christ? Is it perhaps easier for us to condemn other people for actions that we ourselves do not commit than to risk having to confront the failings that we all share?
anne
*I may have a get out clause here, because a literal interpretation of the text implies that only rich men need to sacrifice their wealth. Unless you think that the message applies equally to women, even though Jesus didn't mention them.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Arethosemyfeet;
quote:
But Paul says clearly that being married is second best to being celibate. I thought you believed everything that Paul wrote was the word of God?
And I'm also aware that various interpreters have all kinds of various views on exactly what Paul meant and whether he refers to an immediate circumstance or something longer term; so I don't have a definitive view myself on what Paul meant.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
It's interesting that Paul may be speaking to an immediate circumstance when it comes to celibacy but he couldn't do that when it comes to homosexuality, just... because.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
@Anne;
First, I'm sorry but I don't feel able to answer the more personal questions you ask there. I think those are matters firstly between yourself and God, and secondly for discussion with Christian friends who know you better than I possibly can. I could only give you a partial and academic answer which might not be the right one for you personally.
Secondly;
quote:
Is this really the most important thing that we can talk about?
Definitely NOT; but I'm rather taking the attitude I take to another question, that of 'church-and-state-issues' - that it's not the most important thing but right now it has ended up prominent in ways that are hindering the more important things, so it needs dealing with.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by ToujoursDan;
quote:
It's interesting that Paul may be speaking to an immediate circumstance when it comes to celibacy but he couldn't do that when it comes to homosexuality, just... because.
Yes, and actually I find the uncertainty frustrating too. But I do know that one of the reasons commentators think that way is that Paul only seems to mention this in one epistle, while in the others he talks about marriage without making such a suggestion.
Now if only in all his discussions about marriage he'd also clearly mentioned how what he said applied to same-sex-relationships... I mean, you could think he didn't accept such relationships, couldn't you...?
Posted by anne (# 73) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
@Anne;
First, I'm sorry but I don't feel able to answer the more personal questions you ask there. I think those are matters firstly between yourself and God, and secondly for discussion with Christian friends who know you better than I possibly can.
You are absolutely right. It's none of your business. Those matters are between me and God, with my confessor and spiritual director in the loop.
Why is that true of my sex-life and not true of the sex-life of a lesbian bishop in a civil partnership? Or a gay priest who has married his partner? Or any other Christian minister of any sexual orientation or none who is not breaking the law, outraging public decency (by having sex in the churchyard or during the coffee hour on Sunday) or bringing the church into disrepute (by sleeping with the organist or breaking up a marriage)?
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
but I'm rather taking the attitude I take to another question, that of 'church-and-state-issues' - that it's not the most important thing but right now it has ended up prominent in ways that are hindering the more important things, so it needs dealing with.
It's prominent because we keep talking about it. If we talked about the evils of poverty this much, that's what would be prominent. We are not 'dealing with it', we are pruriently speculating about people's lives in ways which at best do nothing to advance the Gospel and at worst are harmful and show a lack of love for our neighbour.
The pages and pages of this thread show at the very least that there is honest difference of opinion on this issue. Different interpretations of scripture are possible, different weight might be given to different parts of the Bible, different understanding of the text may be honestly held by devout, honest, careful scholars. So in an area where the will of God can be debated, we should be very careful about assuming that any of us have the one true answer.
The feeding the poor thing, that whole 'neighbour as myself' business? There is really no doubt at all about Jesus' desire. We know exactly what he wanted us to do. Scholars are really not divided about Jesus' views here. So if there's any dealing with things to be done, let's deal with that.
anne
I was reminded of the Stonewall bus campaign "some people are gay - deal with it".
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
Steve,
My interest in Paul's writings and in the interpretation of Romans and Rom 1:18-32 actually predated my interest in biblical passages about homosexuality by several years. My interpretation of Rom 1 thus is entirely based on biblical scholarship and the logic of Paul's arguments, and actually owes zero to the gay bit. ToujoursDan has linked to some of the scholarship on the subject.
My preferred exposition of the view is Calvin Porter's 1994 article. Though Campbell and Stowers both add something in their more recent books. Here is an entire blog dedicated to analyzing this position by someone who's not entirely favourable to it. Note that gay issues are not mentioned in most of these sources because they are discussing the interpretation of Paul's writings and not at all motivated by sexuality issues.
quote:
I hope I will eventually recover from the damage inflicted by me pinching myself to convince myself that your statement here was no weird dream but had actually been written in the real world! This is seriously bizarre interpretation.
I understand why you say that. It must seem bizarre to someone who has not encountered it before, and who is familiar only with the standard evangelical reading of Romans. Nonetheless there are quite a number of respected biblical scholars who have advocated this reading in recent years, and again I emphasise, have done so purely as scholars of Paul's epistles and not out of any interest or consideration of gay rights issues.
The arguments for it can get quite complex (Campbell's tome on why this reading is right and the standard evangelical one is wrong is 1248 pages), so I will say only a few words in it's defense.
1. Everybody agrees that there is some sort of dialogue in Romans. Whether you want to call it "rhetorical questions" or just call it dialogue, a series of questions get asked and answered in Rom 3 and Rom 10. You could say that Paul is asking questions he thinks a reader might ask, or that he's asking and answering challenging questions he knows his opponents ask, or that he's presenting a dialogue between himself and an imaginary (or real) third party.
2. We know from Galatians etc that Paul had opponents in his ministry. They visited some of his churches and taught them different things to Paul regarding Jew/Gentile issues. Scholars struggle to reconstruct the theology of these opponents entirely, but it is clear they believed the Christians in Paul's churches ought to be following more of the Jewish law than Paul thought they should.
3. Words and ideas from the jewish book Wisdom of Solomon keep cropping up in Paul's letter to the Romans. Most interestingly the entire passage Rom 1:18-32 is a paraphrase of Wisdom of Solomon chapters 13 and 14. It's basically the single longest quotation in the bible.
4. The theology of Wisdom of Solomon is heavily focused on Jew-Gentile issues and particularly on how awesome Jews are and how awful gentiles are. This is not Paul's theology - Paul teaches the exact opposite, namely that Jews and Gentiles are equal. Wis Sol 13-14 is a massive anti-gentile rant by the author of Wisdom about how truly and utterly awful the gentiles are. Whereas Jews, by comparison, don't sin (Wis Sol 15:1).
So why does Paul keep referencing Wisdom of Solomon in his letter to the Romans when the entire thrust of the referenced work is completely antithetical to Paul's own view and the parts he quotes most from are the most antithetical of all? Why does Paul of all people quote extensively what is possibly the single most vehement anti-gentile rant found in all of ancient Jewish literature? The simplest answer is that this is Paul's opponent's view. To their anti-gentile rant quoted in Rom 1:18-32 Paul replies with his view, repeating 3 times in the course of 2 sentences in Romans 2:9-11 that there is no difference in God's eyes between Jews and Gentiles. And then he goes on a little rant against his opponent in 2:17f. And the dialogue between them continues throughout much of the rest of the letter.
The main argument usually made against this entire reading is that the letter to the Romans as we have it does not explicitly say "This bit is the opponent speaking" and "This bit is Paul speaking". However, surviving rhetoric textbooks from the ancient world tell us that it was acceptable to quote your opponent without clearly warning your audience who you were quoting and have them puzzle it out. Dialogues were also a common form of rhetorical style - popular in philosophical writings in particular (eg Plato) - and most of these dialogues do not appear to have originally had clear markings as to whom the speaker was at any particular occasion (such markings were usually added in in subsequent centuries) as it was usually presumed that the reader could infer who was speaking from what was being said. Several of Paul's letters mention that he is sending a friend to carry the letter. Presumably upon arriving at the destination church the friend would then read the letter to them (reading was not a universal skill back then). We can presume the friend knew exactly who the speakers were at which points in the dialogue and could act out the dialogue by reading each person in a slightly different voice so as to make it 100% clear to the original hearers exactly who was speaking at any given time. Paul did not necessarily have the expectation that his written worlds would be treasured for centuries and studied as scripture, rather he probably thought of his letter primarily as something his friend would read once or twice to the church in Rome. Ancient rhetorical textbooks give various instructions on how to read a dialogue so that the audience can distinguish who's who. It makes sense that Paul might use a dialogue format when writing to the church in Rome whom he had never met and over whom he has no authority - unlike the churches he has founded he can't just tell them what to do or order them about, but rather he has to show them what his viewpoint and arguments are without arguing with them.
There are various other subtler clues in the text, eg changes from 3rd person to second person singular to first person between different passages, use of the second person singular (this often gets overlooked in English where we don't have a second person singular) where Paul is clearly speaking to a single person (eg his opponent) and not a group (eg the Roman Church), stylistic and theological differences between Rom 1:18-32 and Rom 2, etc
quote:
Indeed on the face of it your interpretation of the passage must be pretty similar to mine; it's just that you don't want to accept the implications of that being Paul's view so you've had to resort to an extreme reconstruction to avoid that conclusion.
As I mentioned at the start of my post, you have this backwards. Since I don't think any of Rom 1:18-32 is Paul speaking, I don't overly much care what 1:26-27 has to say about homosexuality if anything.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Starlight;
just quickly to say I may have misjudged your personal position and if so, sorry. I will be following up some of the links you've provided. Whether I'll be convinced may be a different matter, of course....
Thank you.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Steve Langton - so what about celibacy (in people of any sexual orientation)? Genesis says bad, Paul says good. What do you say?
And Jesus says something inbetween with a comment about 'eunuchs for the kingdom's sake'. I think the answer is "Sometimes in a sinful world celibacy is a good thing". But I would reject the view that being celibate is somehow 'super-spiritual', and I regard it as particularly dubious in the context of RC clergy, given that the NT clearly intends elders/episkopoi to be normally married people.
So is it wrong for celibate people to join the clergy or otherwise lead churches?
Surely the view that celibacy is sub-spiritual is as harmful as the view that celibacy is super-spiritual? Some people are called to celibacy, and some of those people may also be called to the priesthood.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Starlight;
quote:
From a theological point of view, it strikes me as a bit unusual to exclude people from membership because they are sinners.
No, we don't exclude people simply because they are 'sinners'; as you say, we all are. That is why I used the phrasing "aggressively practicing gays" to mean someone who is not only a sinner (accepting that between us that may be in dispute in this particular case) but doesn't admit he is. As with other sins, there's an expectation of repentance.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
@Anne;
First, I'm sorry but I don't feel able to answer the more personal questions you ask there. I think those are matters firstly between yourself and God, and secondly for discussion with Christian friends who know you better than I possibly can. I could only give you a partial and academic answer which might not be the right one for you personally.
Sorry, but this strikes me as coyly false humility. What happened to the certainty where you felt comfortable not only in pointing out other people's sins but demanding their repentance as if you were God's personal envoy?
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So is it wrong for celibate people to join the clergy or otherwise lead churches?
And does it matter if they're "aggressively" (i.e. unapologetically) celibate?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Ah, chapter divisions. You've got to love them.
What a pity that when someone inserted them after the fact, they sometimes did so in places that totally disrupted the flow of the text.
The division between 'chapters 1 and 2' of Romans being one of them.
Steve Langton, all I can add to Starlight's comments on this passage is that if you stop at the end of Chapter 1, you're reading it wrong, in a way the original author never intended. Telling me how much you've studied Romans 1 doesn't fill me with any confidence that you've grasped that the first several 'chapters' of Romans are one vast argument that starts with listing all the stereotypical Gentile sins that Jewish readers would rattle off, before turning on those Jewish readers and saying 'you're not so hot yourself', then saying that all have sinned and fallen short and then discussing what God has done about the situation.
If you stop at rattling off the stereotypical Gentile sins, including idolatrous homosexual sex, you've missed the point completely. You're at stage 1. Paul only repeats stage 1 so that all his self-righteous Jewish readers will be nodding their heads in agreement before he hits them in the solar plexus.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by ToujoursDan;
quote:
It's interesting that Paul may be speaking to an immediate circumstance when it comes to celibacy but he couldn't do that when it comes to homosexuality, just... because.
Yes, and actually I find the uncertainty frustrating too. But I do know that one of the reasons commentators think that way is that Paul only seems to mention this in one epistle, while in the others he talks about marriage without making such a suggestion.
Now if only in all his discussions about marriage he'd also clearly mentioned how what he said applied to same-sex-relationships... I mean, you could think he didn't accept such relationships, couldn't you...?
Honestly, I don't know what Paul would think about same sex marriage by gay Christians.
I do know that even unequivocal statements by Paul are not taken as binding by modern Christians.
Paul says:
quote:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honour to whom honour is owed.
---Romans 13
Yet, I doubt most Christians today would expect believers to live in total submission to secular authorities and pay taxes without protest. (I KNOW this isn't the case in North America.) After what the Nazis and communist authorities did to believers in the 20th Century, to do so would be absurd.
Paul also said:
quote:
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife[a] is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should have her hair cut off. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels
Yet almost every church allows women to pray and prophesy without covering their head.
So perhaps Paul was or was not, against monogamous same sex relationships, but he was for and against all kinds of things every mainstream denomination ignores today.
The onus is on conservative Christians to show why Paul's views on submission to secular authorities or what women are to wear is time-bound, yet the passages that may, or may not deal with homosexuality aren't, particularly when Paul spoke to a place and time where assumptions about homosexuality are far far different than they are today. Where do Paul's own opinions end and where do God's begin?
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Further, the following argument does not seem anywhere near as coherent if you take ch 1 out of it.
It's not just a matter of cutting out 1:18-32 and leaving the rest btw, it's a large scale rereading of the first several chapters of Romans as a dialogue.
I also have a fundamental disagreement with your basic idea that the common evangelical reading of Rom 1-4 is coherent. The idea of Paul showing that each and every individual is sinful and therefore needs Christ sounds perfectly logical, and to most modern evangelicals is "the gospel in its purest form". Except... it's not what the text of Rom 1-4 actually says, or alternatively, if it is what the text is supposed to be saying, then Paul's doing a downright terrible job of saying it.
The motivation that a lot of scholars have had for trying to find an alternative reading of Rom 1-4 (such as the dialogue reading) is that they have been unable to make any sense of what Rom 1-4 says in the straightforward reading. There are bits that contradict other bits. There are premises that are missing entirely. There are logical non-sequiturs. Thus one either has to play a game of "let's pretend that what Paul wrote here was a nice logical portrayal of the gospel as we understand it today, and read our premises into the text all over the place and gloss over and ignore any bits that confuse us or which say the opposite" which is the game many evangelicals today play with the text. Alternatively scholars can opt for honesty, and go with "this is a complete disaster of an argument". J C O'Neill was one of the first to be bluntly honest about this, and his commentary on Romans (1975) is interesting reading because he basically says "I can't make any sense of the argument in the text without deleting large parts of it. So I'm going to assume that one of the early copyists inserted large chunks of text into Romans." And so the commentary proceeds with "this bit's not by Paul", "and neither is this bit", "this is an interpolation too" etc.
A second scholar to approach the subject with blatant honesty was E.P. Sanders, who in an excellent chapter in his book Paul and the Law (1983), outlines what he sees as a large series of logical inconsistencies and incoherencies in Rom 1-3. He doesn't like O'Neill's strategy of appealing to interpolations left right and center, but neither can Sanders see any way of making sense of the text as written. He concludes that it looks as if Paul's grabbed a sermon straight out of some local Jewish synagogue and pasted it into the text of his letter with minimal reflection about the fact that the ideas contained therein aren't really consistent with the rest of his argument, and the result is an argument that makes no sense and a letter that's incoherent. And to this problem, Sanders can't think of any solution. (I admire Sanders both for his extremely clear and insightful writing style that expresses the problems he sees with the text so precisely, and also for the fact that he is completely open and honest about the fact that he doesn't have a solution to the problem and can't think of one and that he's not peddling any particular way of reading the text because he can't think of a way of reading it that makes sense.)
I completely agree with the assessment of O'Neill and Sanders that Romans 1-4 is incoherent if read as Paul's argument, and that the logical argument that evangelicals try to force it to say doesn't actually match the text. This view has been held by a lot of people in recent decades. What naturally emerges from this concern is a need to find a way to say that some sections of the text are not part of Paul's argument. Not many people liked O'Neill's "it was all added later by a copyist" view, neither was Sanders' "well it was probably all copy+pasted in by Paul from a sermon by a third party, and Paul clearly didn't think much about what he was doing because it makes no sense" overly inspiring, which leaves us with the option of Paul deliberately putting third-party material into Rom 1-4 that is indeed inconsistent with his own view and doing so in order to critique it. Thus, various versions of the idea that Rom 1-4 contains expressions of both Paul's own view and a viewpoint to which he is opposed is now a view that is quite popular among those who don't think the usual reading of Rom 1-4 makes any sense. eg Campbell's ridiculously overlarge tome lays out over two dozen reasons (some good, some awful, all overly convoluted) why he thinks the usual reading of Rom 1-4 is nonsense.
quote:
Originally quoted by ToujoursDan:
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should have her hair cut off. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels
IMO the fact that Christians ignore this passage out of hand today is particularly interesting, because in the passage Paul uses a theological argument that appeals to the original creation story. It's an identical sort of logic as is used by Jesus in the "In the beginning God made them male and female..." quote about marriage. And evangelicals say that we can't possibly ever consider ignoring those particular words of Jesus because he appeals to the original order and intent of creation and that makes it especially binding so we therefore absolutely have to be anti-gay, but of course women don't have to cover their heads because that's just not important. Both biblical passages appeal to the creation narrative as a theological justification for their present day practices, but in one case it is ignored entirely by modern evangelicals and in the other case it is defended to the last as core to the Christian faith.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Good point.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Jade Constable;
quote:
So is it wrong for celibate people to join the clergy or otherwise lead churches?
Actually I said the opposite, pretty much. I think it is wrong for a church to impose celibacy on its clergy. I think the normal expectation about elders is that they will be married, as the NT indicates. 'Elders' as I understand it are not, I think, 'Clergy' as you understand it, so I'm talking of a somewhat differently organised church with a different style of leadership. You need to sort out what kind of 'leadership' the 'clergy' are supposed to be before sorting out some of these other issues.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by ToujoursDan;
(after quoting Romans 13 at length);
quote:
Yet, I doubt most Christians today would expect believers to live in total submission to secular authorities and pay taxes without protest. (I KNOW this isn't the case in North America.) After what the Nazis and communist authorities did to believers in the 20th Century, to do so would be absurd.
As an Anabaptist (albeit not from one of the traditional groups) I believe we should follow Romans 13. 'total submission' is a misinterpretation (though one that has often suited the supposedly Christian rulers of 'Christendom').
The words Paul uses are carefully chosen (and connected by root) to set careful boundaries. We are to 'be subject' on the one hand, but also not to violently/militarily oppose the authorities. The crucial question is, do you think Paul would agree with Peter's point in Acts 5; 29 - that we must 'obey God rather than men'? Clearly if we accept that we will not be 'totally submissive', and the authorities may find us awkward citizens.
On the other hand Paul, and Peter in his first epistle, clearly reject the idea that when we cannot obey we should become rebels and fight the authorities; and both say that we should instead follow the example of Jesus in being willing to accept the state's unjust punishment of our obedience to God and necessary disobedience to the state - i.e., become martyrs, not Zealots or similar rebels.
To do otherwise is tempting; and there are those who have tried to come up with limits and exceptions to justify fighting back. You will find one such argument in Ian Paisley's commentary on Romans - the refusal of him and his fellow Protestants to 'be subject' has cost thousands of deaths just in my lifetime, and worse has caused many Christians to become killers and justify hatred.
On that one, we definitely should take Paul seriously; and, BTW, as I recently put it on my blog, "Romans 13 starts in Romans 12" - it does not stand in isolation but is part of another of the serious and useful logical arguments which Starlight and the people he's quoting seem to want to deny.
On that wider point I'm still checking things out - don't expect a hurried reply. One comment I do have is that I've long considered Romans to be a 'paste-up' done by Paul probably with a secretary's help to serve a slightly different purpose to his usual letters to a church he had founded and knew personally, and I think such a 'paste-up' explains much of the detail unevenness in the epistle.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Orfeo;
quote:
Ah, chapter divisions. You've got to love them.
What a pity that when someone inserted them after the fact, they sometimes did so in places that totally disrupted the flow of the text.
The division between 'chapters 1 and 2' of Romans being one of them.
With you on the general point - you'll note above that I'm critical of the way the chapter division interrupts an argument that starts in Romans 12.
The division between Romans 1 & 2 does seem nevertheless to reflect a shift in direction. And yes, it's a shift broadly in the direction of "And don't you Jewish leaders go thinking you're an exception and that God won't be angry at you too..."
This doesn't answer a point I've already hinted at; What is there in 1; 18-32 that Paul would actually disagree with? And why therefore can't it be an expression of his actual view on the things he deals with therein? Why would he be 'setting it up' as a supposed other view that he critiques? It's not just a rant; it's quite focused and logical. As I said in the earlier post, I'm still checking things out, but that aspect of this new interpretation looks really questionable to me.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Orfeo;
quote:
Ah, chapter divisions. You've got to love them.
What a pity that when someone inserted them after the fact, they sometimes did so in places that totally disrupted the flow of the text.
The division between 'chapters 1 and 2' of Romans being one of them.
With you on the general point - you'll note above that I'm critical of the way the chapter division interrupts an argument that starts in Romans 12.
The division between Romans 1 & 2 does seem nevertheless to reflect a shift in direction. And yes, it's a shift broadly in the direction of "And don't you Jewish leaders go thinking you're an exception and that God won't be angry at you too..."
This doesn't answer a point I've already hinted at; What is there in 1; 18-32 that Paul would actually disagree with? And why therefore can't it be an expression of his actual view on the things he deals with therein? Why would he be 'setting it up' as a supposed other view that he critiques? It's not just a rant; it's quite focused and logical. As I said in the earlier post, I'm still checking things out, but that aspect of this new interpretation looks really questionable to me.
If you'd quoted the second half of my post as well as the first, you'd already know my answer to that.
EDIT: And also, as far as I'm concerned, it's not a matter of "why can't it be?", more a matter of "why should we assume it IS?". It's a shift of onus, not a proof. I'm faced with two alternative interpretations of this passage. One of those interpretations makes my life a living hell as a result of an innate characteristic I have no control over. The other doesn't. I'll leave you to figure out which one I think is more likely to be the correct expression of the will of a loving Creator.
[ 04. August 2014, 11:08: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Orfeo;
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Sorry, not sure what happened then; trying again
by Orfeo;
quote:
If you stop at rattling off the stereotypical Gentile sins, including idolatrous homosexual sex, you've missed the point completely. You're at stage 1. Paul only repeats stage 1 so that all his self-righteous Jewish readers will be nodding their heads in agreement before he hits them in the solar plexus.
Which still doesn't answer my question about why Paul is supposed to consider 'stage 1' invalid in itself? Yes, he wants to challenge his self-satisfied Jewish readers, and he does - but I repeat, what in 1; 18-32 is he supposed to be disagreeing with? This letter is not written to aJew, or an all-Jewish church - so why can't he simply straightforwardly believe himself the critique of paganism that he starts off with?
It is perfectly consistent that he starts with a critique of paganism which he fully means and intends, and then turns to deal with Jewish readers/hearers who might get smug about their non-paganism and criticise their smugness. And as I said, it's not just an anti-pagan rant anyway, it's a discussion of sin in general, where it comes from and how it works - where is the bit that says Paul disagrees with that presentation about sin?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
This letter is not written to aJew, or an all-Jewish church
My NIV study Bible (hardly a bastion of liberal thinking) says that there are other parts of the letter that are quite clearly directed at Jewish believers. That doesn't mean that the entire Roman church is Jewish, but it does mean that Paul was conscious that the letter would have, among others, a Jewish audience.
quote:
where is the bit that says Paul disagrees with that presentation about sin?
Where is the bit that says he AGREES with it? Again, you're asking me for proof I'm not claiming to have.
[ 04. August 2014, 11:27: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
ADDENDUM: And Starlight has already set out for you the fact that Paul quotes extensively from a book that he's generally considered not to agree with, theologically. It's widely accepted that in other places he is presenting arguments he doesn't agree with before refuting them. All I am saying is that it's thoroughly plausible the same thing is happening here.
[ 04. August 2014, 11:31: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Sorry, not sure what happened then; trying again
by Orfeo;
quote:
If you stop at rattling off the stereotypical Gentile sins, including idolatrous homosexual sex, you've missed the point completely. You're at stage 1. Paul only repeats stage 1 so that all his self-righteous Jewish readers will be nodding their heads in agreement before he hits them in the solar plexus.
Which still doesn't answer my question about why Paul is supposed to consider 'stage 1' invalid in itself? Yes, he wants to challenge his self-satisfied Jewish readers, and he does - but I repeat, what in 1; 18-32 is he supposed to be disagreeing with? This letter is not written to aJew, or an all-Jewish church - so why can't he simply straightforwardly believe himself the critique of paganism that he starts off with?
It is perfectly consistent that he starts with a critique of paganism which he fully means and intends, and then turns to deal with Jewish readers/hearers who might get smug about their non-paganism and criticise their smugness. And as I said, it's not just an anti-pagan rant anyway, it's a discussion of sin in general, where it comes from and how it works - where is the bit that says Paul disagrees with that presentation about sin?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
First, sorry about the double-post just now, I'm doing this through a distracting heavy cold and among other things lost a part-finished post. I think after this one I'd better give up for the day...
by Orfeo;
quote:
EDIT: And also, as far as I'm concerned, it's not a matter of "why can't it be?", more a matter of "why should we assume it IS?". It's a shift of onus, not a proof. I'm faced with two alternative interpretations of this passage. One of those interpretations makes my life a living hell as a result of an innate characteristic I have no control over. The other doesn't. I'll leave you to figure out which one I think is more likely to be the correct expression of the will of a loving Creator.
Again sorry I somehow missed this edit completely; I've a feeling I may actually have viewed the post before the edit - hosts, is that possible? As it then ended up bottom of page I hadn't gone back to it. I'm not going to try a full answer now.
by Orfeo;
quote:
My NIV study Bible (hardly a bastion of liberal thinking) says that there are other parts of the letter that are quite clearly directed at Jewish believers. That doesn't mean that the entire Roman church is Jewish, but it does mean that Paul was conscious that the letter would have, among others, a Jewish audience.
I'm not arguing that none of it is aimed at the Jews of the church. I'm querying the proposition that Paul would write to a certainly-by-that-time mixed church in the city which was the capital of the pagan world, and apparently the only thing he says about paganism is to lay out an argument he disagrees with in order to slag off his fellow Jews for believing that argument?!?!?!
by Orfeo;
quote:
ADDENDUM: And Starlight has already set out for you the fact that Paul quotes extensively from a book that he's generally considered not to agree with, theologically. It's widely accepted that in other places he is presenting arguments he doesn't agree with before refuting them. All I am saying is that it's thoroughly plausible the same thing is happening here.
Does Paul 'quote extensively' or is it just that he shares much of Wisdom's view of paganism because it's also common Jewish belief? What Paul says is a very different product to the two chapters of Wisdom to which I was directed. And please note that part of the point here, as I read it, is that he doesn't appear to refute what he says in 1;18ff. Why would he need to, it makes perfect sense? All he needed to do - and does - is make sure the Jewish readers can't think they're any better off because God kept them from that particular error.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Sorry, not sure what happened then; trying again
by Orfeo;
quote:
If you stop at rattling off the stereotypical Gentile sins, including idolatrous homosexual sex, you've missed the point completely. You're at stage 1. Paul only repeats stage 1 so that all his self-righteous Jewish readers will be nodding their heads in agreement before he hits them in the solar plexus.
Which still doesn't answer my question about why Paul is supposed to consider 'stage 1' invalid in itself? Yes, he wants to challenge his self-satisfied Jewish readers, and he does - but I repeat, what in 1; 18-32 is he supposed to be disagreeing with? This letter is not written to aJew, or an all-Jewish church - so why can't he simply straightforwardly believe himself the critique of paganism that he starts off with?
It is perfectly consistent that he starts with a critique of paganism which he fully means and intends, and then turns to deal with Jewish readers/hearers who might get smug about their non-paganism and criticise their smugness. And as I said, it's not just an anti-pagan rant anyway, it's a discussion of sin in general, where it comes from and how it works - where is the bit that says Paul disagrees with that presentation about sin?
Exactly. I'm not really sure what the others are arguing here. Are they say that the Apostle is arguing that they're not sins? If not, what then are they saying?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Well, in Romans, there's a big question what the sin is - is to do with prostitution? or homosexual sex? or a particular cult? The actual word used is very ambiguous.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Ad Orientem, they are saying that Paul is setting up an argument so that he can then knock it over. Something that the Ship should be extraordinarily familiar with!!!
(And also that the argument is about stereotypical Gentile sins such as idolatrous rituals, which is a world away from a modern same-sex relationship.)
[ 04. August 2014, 13:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Yet, I doubt most Christians today would expect believers to live in total submission to secular authorities and pay taxes without protest. (I KNOW this isn't the case in North America.) After what the Nazis and communist authorities did to believers in the 20th Century, to do so would be absurd.
I don't believe that we were ever supposed to live in TOTAL submission to the secular authorities--render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, not what is God's--which would, I believe, mean for example not obeying if told to worship the Emperor in ancient Rome, nor to murder innocent children, etc. I do think that many in the modern US -- bluntly, the scary extreme right-wing crowd -- have gone terribly far the other way, and the "store up guns in case we have to overthrow the government" crowd positively terrifies me.
(I'm also a political heretic here in the US, actually, in thinking that the colonists were not justified in the Revolutionary War--if they had allied themselves with the rightful nations who were already here I'd feel very differently, but the popular "they taxed us too much so it was morally right to break away using bloodshed" is not something I agree with.)
I'm actually a big fan of taxes. It's how we have roads, schools, and basic infrastructure. But this is moving a tad off-topic from gay sex...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
By the way, Steve, while you're pondering the interpretation of Romans 1, I'd be grateful if you could consider just what terrible thing I had done by the age of 14 that led God to hand me over to shameful lusts.
I'm not quite sure at what point I failed to glorify God or give thanks to him. What kind of worshipping and serving of created things did I do that was so much worse than all the other kids?
It could have been that one awful Sunday in 5th or 6th grade where I told Mum I couldn't go to church because I really, really needed the time to finish my school project on Switzerland.
Lest you think I'm just taking the piss, I'd like to point out that I spent many years of my life wondering exactly that: what had I done? What dreadful thing had I done to be made like this? And how had I been so careless as to miss it at the time?
If you think the passage is a true and accurate description of homosexuality, then you ought to be able to provide me some insight what dreadful and devilish things I might have done while conning myself into thinking I was a pretty well-behaved kid who was doing well in school. Let me cross a couple off the list for you - no drugs or smoking, no sex, I can't recall any truancy. One litter detention for getting into a fight. I did throw a tomato into a girl's lap, but I'm pretty sure that came after the attraction to boys.
Cheers.
PS Oh wait, was it the fact that I tended to be very excitable and often talked too loud? Or maybe that I cried easily - that could be it, as it was a frequent occurrence, hadn't actually realised that one might be sinful.
[ 04. August 2014, 15:00: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
(((orfeo)))
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
I'm a raving Swedish style socialist so I would agree. I tried to use two examples of of Paul's counsel that are generally rejected by most Christians today to show that most mainstream Christians agree that some of Paul's moral counsel is bound by time and place and his other counsel is timeless. The question is, even if he thought same sex activity as immoral, is it time bound or timeless, particularly if the understanding and structure of these relationships are completely different today?
On the one hand I rather agree with Steve that one can't assume from the text that if Paul was using an common rant in 1:18-32 as a set up to Romans 2:1-4, it doesn't necessarily mean that Paul agrees or disagrees with the rant.
At the same time I agree with Starlight that same sex activity was common and accepted in ancient Rome; Paul was ministering to Gentiles who would not think anything of it; Paul wasn't above calling out immoral relationships (like the incestuous relationship in 1 Corinthians 5) when he saw them, so why aren't there many straightforward condemnations of homosexuality? The argument by silence doesn't help the anti-gay crowd, it hurts it, IMHO.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Ad Orientem;
quote:
Exactly. I'm not really sure what the others are arguing here. Are they say that the Apostle is arguing that they're not sins? If not, what then are they saying?
This goes back a bit. Other Shippies assorted have sprung on me an interpretation of Romans I was unaware of, which inter alia supposes that in ch 1, Paul is not stating what he believes himself, but is putting forward - well, not entirely clear in some ways, but - somebody else's view about paganism and idolatry which he then contradicts from ch 2 v1 onwards. Not his own view but a Jewish view that he then rubbishes. The interpretation seems to generally suppose an epistle which is more of a dialogue than generally recognised.
I have reservations ... but if you track back upthread various people have left links and references about this interpretation to check for yourself.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by ToujoursDan;
quote:
On the one hand I rather agree with Steve that one can't assume from the text that if Paul was using an common rant in 1:18-32 as a set up to Romans 2:1-4, it doesn't necessarily mean that Paul agrees or disagrees with the rant.
For clarity I'm not myself saying Paul in Romans 1 is using a mere 'rant' - I think he is actually putting forward something more focused and thoughtful and addressing wider issues about human sinfulness and how it works than just paganism. And 'common', well, maybe - in the sense that he is expressing, though more thoughtfully, ideas which he would have in common with much Jewish ideas about paganism.
I'm then saying I don't understand why, in this interpretation, they are so determined to suggest that Romans 1 would not represent Paul's own view. I don't see why he can't both be expressing his own opinion in ch 1, and then going on to remind Jewish readers that just because they aren't pagans doesn't mean they are automatically OK with God - they are sinners too.... (oh no - a 'both/and' statement; am I turning into Gamaliel?)
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm then saying I don't understand why, in this interpretation, they are so determined to suggest that Romans 1 would not represent Paul's own view.
Given that you don't think Paul can maintain a consistent argument over the length of a single sentence, why should we expect coherence over multiple paragraphs?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Croesos;
quote:
Given that you don't think Paul can maintain a consistent argument over the length of a single sentence, why should we expect coherence over multiple paragraphs?
In the case you appear to be linking to, yes, Paul maintains a serious consistent argument over the sentence in question; he just didn't happen to be arguing what you want him to, but arguing a different issue - consistently! I'm sure I mentioned the importance of something called 'context'.
Anyway, what's going on about Romans 1 is a question whether a particular passage represents Paul's own view or someone else's he has set up to rubbish in a subsequent chapter. There seems nothing in the immediate text to support the latter case; and the wider context would also suggest that Romans 1 is indeed Paul's own view. Especially as the text is clearly much more than just an anti-pagan rant.
This supposed new interpretation needs proving; and I'm not seeing the proof....
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
what's going on about Romans 1 is a question whether a particular passage represents Paul's own view or someone else's he has set up to rubbish in a subsequent chapter. There seems nothing in the immediate text to support the latter case;
Except that he paraphrases Wisdom 14, even quoting from Wisdom verbatim.
quote:
And it was not enough for them to err about the knowledge of God, but whereas they lived in a great war of ignorance, they call so many and so great evils peace. 23 For either they sacrifice their own children, or use hidden sacrifices, or keep watches full of madness,
24 So that now they neither keep life, nor marriage undefiled, but one killeth another through envy, or grieveth him by adultery:
25 And all things are mingled together, blood, murder, theft and dissimulation, corruption and unfaithfulness, tumults and perjury, disquieting of the good,26 Forgetfulness of God, defiling of souls, changing of nature, disorder in marriage, and the irregularity of adultery and uncleanness.
27 For the worship of abominable idols is the cause, and the beginning and end of all evil.
Wisdom 14
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Croesos;
quote:
Given that you don't think Paul can maintain a consistent argument over the length of a single sentence, why should we expect coherence over multiple paragraphs?
In the case you appear to be linking to, yes, Paul maintains a serious consistent argument over the sentence in question; he just didn't happen to be arguing what you want him to, but arguing a different issue - consistently! I'm sure I mentioned the importance of something called 'context'.
"You have to take it in context" is a bit of a dodge when you're claiming that the first half of a sentence has one meaning ("[t]here is neither Jew nor Gentile" means Christians shouldn't distinguish by race or ethnicity in any context) while a parallel phrasing from the same sentence ("nor is there male and female") means the opposite (Christians should still discriminate by gender when they want to). As for what issue Paul was arguing, you were the one who claimed it was applicable to marriage, not me.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm faced with two alternative interpretations of this passage. One of those interpretations makes my life a living hell as a result of an innate characteristic I have no control over. The other doesn't. I'll leave you to figure out which one I think is more likely to be the correct expression of the will of a loving Creator.
There are other interpretations though. eg you could follow one of the many variants of the view that ToujoursDan's has been expressing that the kind of acts the writer is thinking of are not the sort of loving monogamous same-sex relationships we know today but were cultic sex-acts or were exploitative inegalitarian relationships or heterosexual people doing homosexual acts or were something else that was cultural to that time and place and were indeed bad then; or you could view it as an interpolation a la J C O'Neill; or you could just say that Paul is a giant misogynistic douche who elsewhere says that women should STFU in church, wear their hair long and covered, not wear jewelry, and never deny their husbands sex, and thus ask yourself whether you want to take his opinions particularly seriously on gender and sex issues... especially given the church blatantly ignores him on virtually all these things now, even when he backs up his statements with theological appeals to the creation order.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Agreed. I find it utterly baffling that people insist on using the Bible as some kind of divine lawbook without any cultural context, nuance or understanding of the linguistic differences.
The Bible is a sacred text as it uses a variety of genres to give us an understanding of who God is and how He acted in the world. As an Anglican it makes sense for it to be prominent in worship.
But good grief! The rules in the Bible are contradictory, unclear and often presented as advice rather than law (Acts 15). Jesus contradicts the OT and on occasion the Apostles (Paul, etc) contradict Jesus. People try to make rules out of passages that aren't presented as law (like Romans 1:26-27, which is descriptive, not proscriptive and hinges on v. 23 and v. 25 which seems awfully narrow to me).
If God wanted to create a divine rulebook He did a lousy job at it with the Bible. At least in Islam, there is Shari'a, which may seem primitive but is true legal code. It seems to me that many Christians wish we had a version of it in our religion.
This is what baffles me. Even if Paul is saying that gay sex is wrong, why not disagree with him? Is there some idea that he could not be wrong?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm sure I mentioned the importance of something called 'context'.
Context is exactly what I have been arguing this whole time. And what I generally argue with Christians. Read the Bible for context and consistency.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
A couple of points to address what has been said by various posters...
The textual relationship between Rom 1:18-32 and Wisdom of Solomon 13-14 is not exact and I would describe Rom 1 as a "paraphrase" of it (and frankly you have to paraphrase when you want to quote two entire chapters). The paraphrased version has numerous matches in the words used and ideas mentioned. There are other ancient Jewish texts that contain some similarities also, but they are not as close matches.
I am not saying that Paul had the written version of Wisdom of Solomon in front of him when he wrote. Rather, I believe that (1) anti-gentile rants like that which are found in Wisdom of Solomon and Rom 1:18-32 were widespread in the Judaism of Paul's day and short anti-gentile tracts probably circulated widely; (2) Paul knew this anti-gentile rhetoric would be familiar to the church in Rome and he and they were both familiar with the general theological position that accompanied such rhetoric; (3) Paul had opponents that he combatted in his ministry who were less gentile-friendly than he was and who wanted to see his churches be more law-observant, who we might well presume viewed this sort of rhetoric favorably and spouted it themselves on a regular basis and that they adhered to to this general strand of Judaism.
Wisdom of Solomon provides our best window into the worldview and theology of an anti-gentile strand in Jewish thinking of the time period, which the anti-gentile rant in Rom 1:18-32 stems from. Pg 360-362 (viewable on google books) of Campbell's book provide an excellent summary of the textual relationship between the two passages.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
What is there in 1; 18-32 that Paul would actually disagree with?
Orfeo has done an excellent job of pointing out that the content of Rom 1:18-32 is empirically false. We should hope Paul didn't agree with Rom 1:18-32 because it's obvious to all of us that Rom 1:18-32 is not true.
The simplest and most glaring example of this being not true, is, as Orfeo has pointed out, the numerous Christians in the present day who are gay. I spent the first twenty-something years of my life as a Christian in a Christian family and attending Christian churches weekly. According to Rom 1:18-32 the reason I'm gay is because I rejected God and worshiped animals...?! That's hilariously false. Were there gay Jews in Paul's time? Of course there were, just as there are gay Jews in the present. The notion that wrong worship causes gay sex was no more true back then than it is true now.
A second thing that's obviously false about the passage is that it suggests the gentiles engage in moral sins as a consequence of them worshiping the wrong God. If that were true then it would mean that Jews (and Christians), who worship the right God, therefore don't engage in moral sins. (And Wisdom 15:2 embraces exactly that position) Jews (and Christians) don't sin? Do you think that is true? In both our readings of Romans Paul goes on to insist that Jews do sin and sin badly (contra Wis Sol 15:1-4). But if Jews sin, then the gentile sins aren't a consequence of their incorrect worship! In Rom 2:1 Paul writes that "you (sing.) are doing the very same things." He can't simultaneously be saying that gentile mis-worship causes gentile sins and yet also be saying that the Jews who worship god correct do "the exact same" sins. If it's true that Jews do the exact same things, then it's blatantly obvious that the method of worship isn't the cause of sin. If 2:1 is factually true that Jews do the same sins, then the causal relationship endorsed in 1:18-32 about what causes sin is factually false.
Another thing that is false in Rom 1:18-32 is that it's just absolutely and obviously not true that all non-Jews/non-Christians are "filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless." I don't think I've ever met a person that could be accurately described by the above. (Dick Cheney is the only one that comes to mind, but he's supposedly Christian.) I've met a lot of Christians and I've met a lot of atheists, and neither group are noticeably nicer or better as people in my personal experience. The long list of evils in Rom 1:29-31 simply isn't true - people empirically are not that awful. Nor was it true of gentiles in Paul's day. On that list is "faithless", yet faithfulness was regarded as one of the greatest virtues among the pagan Romans. Calling them "faithless" in general is just not a charge that can even be taken seriously, it's so far from being true as to just be humorous - it's like saying Americans are unpatriotic or that the French are terrible cooks or that Swiss manufacturing is of poor quality. You could critique a lot of things the Romans and their empire did (eg slavery) but questioning their faithfulness is a joke - the Roman armies were renowned for their faithfulness, eg Jesus noting how the Roman centurion knows all about faithfulness. A number of things on that vice list are likewise core pagan Roman virtues that were taught by Roman philosophers, and regulated by the Roman state... ie the Romans weren't committing those listed vices, far from it. I suspect the original hearers of this letter in Rome would have been laughing by the time the reader reached Rom 1:32, because it's so ridiculously false and over the top that it's just silly. Of course Gentiles are not ridiculously over the top evil villains in the ways described here, and some of the things they are being accused of doing are things that they of all peoples in the world are doing least.
Add to the above the fact that Josephus sheepishly recounts in Antiquities 18:81-84 the fact that a big Jewish scandal by a popular Jewish preacher (involving stealing temple money and implied adultery) led the Emperor Tiberius to expel all Jews from Rome in 19AD. So a rant to Jews in Rome about how evil and immoral the gentiles are has comedy value. Paul points out in Rom 2 that anyone who thinks Jews are sinless only needs to look as far as the fact that the Gentiles think Jews are horrible sinners because Jews have been known to steal from temples and commit adultery. We could speculate that the errant Jewish preacher in Rome of adultery-theft fame in 19AD is Paul's dialogue opponent in Romans, and is the target of the "you" singulars that Paul keeps using and who Paul says in Rom 2:17f calls himself a teacher and a light and guide to the blind but is in fact an adulterous temple-robber, but it need not be him specifically, only a generic imaginary opponent of that general ilk that Paul targeting his dialogue at.
Another thing that can be seriously questioned about the Rom 1:18-32 passage is: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness"... is it? How? That seems like the rantings of a doomsday preacher, but not something actually based on any evidence. How exactly is God's wrath revealed? Rom 1:18-32 implies natural revelation, that these things can been known by looking at creation. But the Roman pagan citizens surely weren't seeing it. They were living in a thriving empire that had conquered the world. I doubt they were really feeling that wrath when they looted the provinces and conquered endlessly more territory. They would have said the blessings of God for them had been revealed when they looked at the world. So is the wrath of God not part of natural revelation then and instead something that's revealed in the gospel? That's a stretch. The love of God, the mercy of God, the kindness of God, are all in the gospel, sure... the wrath of God not so much though! There's just no evidence and no basis for this idea that the wrath of God is revealed, and it has particularly not been revealed to the Roman gentiles through natural revelation since they are living in an extremely wrath-free and blessings-rich world!
So does Paul agree with Rom 1:18-32? I hope not, because it's obviously false. All of it. There's no natural revelation of God's wrath against gentiles. Mis-worship isn't what causes gay sex. Nor does worshiping wrong cause people to become the world's worst person and commit every kind of moral evil in great abundance. And the Romans in particular were, of all peoples in the world, the ones least committing some of the listed sins. So the passage is best read as a parody of rant by some crazed Jewish zealot who's frothing at the mouth and saying all sorts of dumb shit that would have had the audience cracking up laughing by the end of it, to which Paul responds in Rom 2:1 onward.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
If God wanted to create a divine rulebook He did a lousy job at it with the Bible. At least in Islam, there is Shari'a, which may seem primitive but is true legal code. It seems to me that many Christians wish we had a version of it in our religion.
I think you've hit the nail right on the head. Some people are looking for rules, rules and more rules. And yet Jesus didn't leave a rule book. In fact, he consistently opposed the Pharisees precisely on this point. They had created endless rules, which he dismissed and took great delight in mocking. So why should Christians try to go back to the way of the Pharisees?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
If God wanted to create a divine rulebook He did a lousy job at it with the Bible. At least in Islam, there is Shari'a, which may seem primitive but is true legal code. It seems to me that many Christians wish we had a version of it in our religion.
I think you've hit the nail right on the head. Some people are looking for rules, rules and more rules. And yet Jesus didn't leave a rule book. In fact, he consistently opposed the Pharisees precisely on this point. They had created endless rules, which he dismissed and took great delight in mocking. So why should Christians try to go back to the way of the Pharisees?
I'm not convinced of this argument, as if Christians aren't obligated to live a certain way. Christ's beef with the Pharisees was that they followed the letter of the Law but not the spirit. Of course, the Law is dead but for instance he nevertheless said to the woman caught in adultery, sin no more. The Apostle has much to say concerning such things also, that our freedom from the Law is not a licence to sin.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Ad Orientem, nobody is disagreeing that Jesus didn't want people to sin. The argument is whether a homosexual sexual relationship is a sin. The Bible is not that clear on it, however much people try to make rules on it.
The Leviticus verses could be seen as part of the Law, most of which is now ignored, examples of that being the proscriptions on eating shellfish or wearing mixed fibres.
The current discussion is considering the proscription in Romans and asking whether:
- Paul meant to say homosexuality was wrong, or whether it was part of a ridiculing of Wisdom's rant against the gentiles which is countered by Paul later in Romans;
- what the proscription in Romans actually describes - because the sexual mores of those times were so different to our times where we see monogamous homosexual relationships that last 40 years which have little in common with a society where men had sex with women and slaves without censure so long as they were the "active" partner.
Nobody is saying that people should be promiscuous or adulterous here, but that those who are homosexual should be allowed to be in loving monogamous relationships when that is their desire, rather than only given celibacy as an option.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm not convinced of this argument, as if Christians aren't obligated to live a certain way. Christ's beef with the Pharisees was that they followed the letter of the Law but not the spirit. Of course, the Law is dead but for instance he nevertheless said to the woman caught in adultery, sin no more. The Apostle has much to say concerning such things also, that our freedom from the Law is not a licence to sin.
But the argument is not about "Should Christians be moral?", a binary question that admits of a simple answer, but rather "What is moral and what is immoral for a Christian?", a much more multifaceted and difficult question.
The "sin no more" to the woman caught in adultery definitely answers the first question -- yes, Christians should be moral. It partially answers the second question -- it appears to be saying that adultery is immoral for Christians*. But it doesn't answer the third question, is a monogamous homosexual relationship moral for Christians? For what should be obvious reasons.
_____
*on a surface reading, at least.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm not convinced of this argument, as if Christians aren't obligated to live a certain way. Christ's beef with the Pharisees was that they followed the letter of the Law but not the spirit. Of course, the Law is dead but for instance he nevertheless said to the woman caught in adultery, sin no more. The Apostle has much to say concerning such things also, that our freedom from the Law is not a licence to sin.
But the argument is not about "Should Christians be moral?", a binary question that admits of a simple answer, but rather "What is moral and what is immoral for a Christian?", a much more multifaceted and difficult question.
The "sin no more" to the woman caught in adultery definitely answers the first question -- yes, Christians should be moral. It partially answers the second question -- it appears to be saying that adultery is immoral for Christians*. But it doesn't answer the third question, is a monogamous homosexual relationship moral for Christians? For what should be obvious reasons.
_____
*on a surface reading, at least.
You know how I, at least would answer that and how, until relatively recently, Christianity has always answered it. It is an obvious answer.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You know how I, at least would answer that and how, until relatively recently, Christianity has always answered it. It is an obvious answer.
Not the issue I was addressing. If you think the woman-caught-in-adultery pericope addresses this issue, you are mistaken. Why are you changing the subject?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You know how I, at least would answer that and how, until relatively recently, Christianity has always answered it. It is an obvious answer.
Not the issue I was addressing. If you think the woman-caught-in-adultery pericope addresses this issue, you are mistaken. Why are you changing the subject?
I was referring to your third question.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Ad Orientem, Romans 1 doesn't simply say homosexuality is a sin. It says that homosexuality is a PUNISHMENT for sin.
If it had just said that homosexuality was a sin, then I guess I would have spent my younger years feeling guilty about sinning, but then heck, everybody sins.
No, Romans 1 - if you read it as literal and true and correct - says that people are handed over to homosexuality because of something else that they've done.
Which, as I've already indicated, led to me thinking that (1) I must have done something truly awful, and (2) even more worryingly, I had completely missed the fact that it was awful while doing it. I had somehow gone beyond the pale before I was even an adult.
That's so far beyond "homosexuality is a sin" that it's not funny.
If you think it's 'obvious' that some outwardly God-fearing, church-attending children have in fact rejected God so badly that he hands them over to unnatural sexual desires as a punishment for their rejection of Him, then I simply don't agree with you. I spent a long time trying to find the 'obvious' idolatrous rejection of God that I'd committed without finding it.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ad Orientem, Romans 1 doesn't simply say homosexuality is a sin. It says that homosexuality is a PUNISHMENT for sin.
If it had just said that homosexuality was a sin, then I guess I would have spent my younger years feeling guilty about sinning, but then heck, everybody sins.
No, Romans 1 - if you read it as literal and true and correct - says that people are handed over to homosexuality because of something else that they've done.
Which, as I've already indicated, led to me thinking that (1) I must have done something truly awful, and (2) even more worryingly, I had completely missed the fact that it was awful while doing it. I had somehow gone beyond the pale before I was even an adult.
That's so far beyond "homosexuality is a sin" that it's not funny.
If you think it's 'obvious' that some outwardly God-fearing, church-attending children have in fact rejected God so badly that he hands them over to unnatural sexual desires as a punishment for their rejection of Him, then I simply don't agree with you. I spent a long time trying to find the 'obvious' idolatrous rejection of God that I'd committed without finding it.
The Apostle is speaking of mankind in general, that because having in the beginning known God and then departing from him, beginning with the sin of Adam, mankind has abandoned himself to these sins.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
Well if all of mankind is given up to sin in those terms then why isn't everyone gay? Why does God only pick certain people to be especially mean to?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Well if all of mankind is given up to sin in those terms then why isn't everyone gay? Why does God only pick certain people to be especially mean to?
We went through this somewhere earlier in the thread.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Apostle is speaking of mankind in general, that because having in the beginning known God and then departing from him, beginning with the sin of Adam, mankind has abandoned himself to these sins.
Um, no, he is CLEARLY speaking about Gentiles.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Steve Langton - I am familiar with the concept of elders. Why, though, should marriage be compulsory for them? I agree that compulsory celibacy is a bad idea, but so is compulsory marriage - they are surely as bad as each other. What if someone is called to celibacy, but also eldership? Also, there is a difference between lifelong, vocational celibacy and being celibate because you haven't met the person you want to marry yet. The former is something people are called to, and is less common, but I don't see why anyone should be excluded from eldership for either kind of celibacy.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Well if all of mankind is given up to sin in those terms then why isn't everyone gay? Why does God only pick certain people to be especially mean to?
My understanding of "given up to X" is not that God makes people do X, but rather people say "I want to do X" and God, rather than stopping them from doing so, says, "Fine. Knock yourself out". This is contrasted from hardening Pharaoh's heart, which made it impossible for him to change his mind.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But the argument is not about "Should Christians be moral?", a binary question that admits of a simple answer, but rather "What is moral and what is immoral for a Christian?", a much more multifaceted and difficult question.
Exactly!
And the point I was making was that some (many?) Christians seem to want to have a rule book to answer the question of what is or is not moral, just as the Pharisees had their rule book. But Jesus pointed in a very different direction - one which has far less clear cut answers, but which is much more adaptable to all contexts and circumstances - the way of love. This way requires that, instead of simply reading the "right" answer from a book, we have to think deeply about what is truly loving in all circumstances. And this affects how we see all sorts of issues - from homosexuality to assisted dying and from resistance to injustice to how we deal with terrorists.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You know how I, at least would answer that and how, until relatively recently, Christianity has always answered it. It is an obvious answer.
Not the issue I was addressing. If you think the woman-caught-in-adultery pericope addresses this issue, you are mistaken. Why are you changing the subject?
I was referring to your third question.
I know. But my third question wasn't the point of what I wrote. I could have used any act that humans do. Probably should have referred to something asexual such as murder, so that nobody would try to make what I said into something other than what I said.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Steve Langton - I am familiar with the concept of elders. Why, though, should marriage be compulsory for them? I agree that compulsory celibacy is a bad idea, but so is compulsory marriage - they are surely as bad as each other. What if someone is called to celibacy, but also eldership? Also, there is a difference between lifelong, vocational celibacy and being celibate because you haven't met the person you want to marry yet. The former is something people are called to, and is less common, but I don't see why anyone should be excluded from eldership for either kind of celibacy.
A bit of a tangent from this thread; Obviously there should be neither compulsory marriage nor compulsory celibacy. The NT does imply that normally you will be choosing 'elders' from among married persons, and one of the reasons it gives is that you will judge a person's fitness for the role of elder by their ability in managing their family life.
Also when thinking of eldership 'calling' is viewed in a slightly different way, not that the person feels a call to eldership but that the (local) church feels led to call that person. The whole issue is somewhat different to the usual way that 'high church' priesthood is considered.
In my experience of a church run by a plural eldership there were not only the 10-12 formal elders but at least as many more people in the church who developed gifts and participated in preaching and pastoring in various ways, providing a pool from which replacements for the formal eldership would be chosen. Thus it was not a "sit back and leave it to the 'ordained' bloke" situation, but an encouragement to everybody to work on their various abilities.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
A bit of a tangent from this thread; Obviously there should be neither compulsory marriage nor compulsory celibacy. The NT does imply that normally you will be choosing 'elders' from among married persons, and one of the reasons it gives is that you will judge a person's fitness for the role of elder by their ability in managing their family life.
It does no such thing. It quite plainly says an elder MUST be the husband of one wife. Interpreting it to say anything else requires a hermeneutic which could also interpret passages about homosexuality to not say what the "conservatives" want it to say. Or in other words, the application of this hermeneutic is used inconsistently and perhaps hypocritically.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Fair comment, MT. I was trying to avoid opening up too many separate 'cans of worms' by recognising that there are other interpretations around. One of those interpretations basically says Paul's primary concern here is to stress one wife as opposed to polygamy. But yes, Paul is expecting an elder to be a family man.
But equally, from my viewpoint this version of a 'presbyter' is nothing much like an RCC, Orthodox, or high church Anglican 'priest'; and as Jade C's question was phrased, I thought it best for my answer to stress that different view. For example, about the different way 'calling' is looked on where such 'eldership' is practiced.
quote:
Interpreting it to say anything else requires a hermeneutic which could also interpret passages about homosexuality to not say what the "conservatives" want it to say.
Actually I believe that Jesus' example in interpreting the OT does allow considerable flexibility in the NT also - but requiring us to very much consider the original purpose of the text we are interpreting; as when Jesus points out that the Sabbath was made for man rather than the other way round. I'm not a supporter of strict Sunday observance....
At the same time it's important to beware of turning that into total licence to interpret however we want. In the case of the homosexuality texts I think that the confirmation of OT teaching on marriage by Jesus and Paul, plus Paul's words about homosexuality, make a prima facie case that we shouldn't be changing in that area.
This goes along with my attitude to tradition; that yes we must have new ideas beyond the Bible, but must constantly return to the biblical base and be sure we are genuinely developing and not contradicting.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Determining the "original purpose" of a passage is very much a matter of interpretation. Return to which Biblical base? You can only mean the traditional one, if you reject alternate parsings of Scripture. Thus, setting tradition against scripture is an exercise in setting tradition against tradition. Which will win? Very often, the one we wanted to from the outset.
Anyway my point is simply if you are going to use one hermeneutic to interpret one verse and another to interpret another, you had better have a good, non-question-begging reason for doing so. (generic "you")
[ 05. August 2014, 18:17: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
To take this back to the OP, what counts as sex here? Frequently, only penetrative sex is considered 'real' sex, so lots of sex between queer people (of various genders but especially sex between two cisgender women) is not considered sex in the first place.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
To take this back to the OP, what counts as sex here? Frequently, only penetrative sex is considered 'real' sex, so lots of sex between queer people (of various genders but especially sex between two cisgender women) is not considered sex in the first place.
Hmmm. Sounds like a suitable thread for
this possible new board?
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
To take this back to the OP, what counts as sex here? Frequently, only penetrative sex is considered 'real' sex, so lots of sex between queer people (of various genders but especially sex between two cisgender women) is not considered sex in the first place.
Yeah, I did raise the what to do with my clitoris issue earlier in the thread - I was told it all comes under the rubric of sex. But I am unconvinced the patriarchs gave it any thought.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Woman, cleave to your man. The clitoris doesn't make babies.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
To take this back to the OP, what counts as sex here? Frequently, only penetrative sex is considered 'real' sex, so lots of sex between queer people (of various genders but especially sex between two cisgender women) is not considered sex in the first place.
Shades of Bill Clinton.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Woman, cleave to your man. The clitoris doesn't make babies.
Quotes file.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
To take this back to the OP, what counts as sex here? Frequently, only penetrative sex is considered 'real' sex, so lots of sex between queer people (of various genders but especially sex between two cisgender women) is not considered sex in the first place.
Hmmm. Sounds like a suitable thread for
this possible new board?
I'm slightly baffled by this being requested - sex gets discussed rather a lot on the Ship IME!
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
One of those interpretations makes my life a living hell as a result of an innate characteristic I have no control over. The other doesn't. I'll leave you to figure out which one I think is more likely to be the correct expression of the will of a loving Creator.
The Orthodox and Conservative Jews (who believe the Law is binding) would invoke the concept of Kevod HaBeriyot in situations like this. Kevod HaBeriyot means that the dignity of a human being comes first. If the application of a law leads to suffering or humiliation to God's people, it must not be interpreted or applied correctly.
quote:
If celibacy for homosexuals were merely considered unfeasible, then our topic would be amenable to individual dispensations rather than challenging the entire structure of the law. However, there is a second halakhic principle that is undermined by our current policy*: human dignity. The halakhic status quo is deeply degrading to gay and lesbian Jews. Quite apart from social and literary trends that have taught contempt for homosexuals, legal norms that either ignore them or cruelly demand the absolute suppression of their libido create an environment of humiliation. At this point it is impossible for responsible poskim to ignore this dynamic.
In Hilkhot Teshuvah (4:4), Maimonides lists five sins from which it is difficult to desist since they are treated casually by most people. Among them is dignifying oneself through the humiliation (even passive) of another. Because most people are indifferent to the humiliation of others, there is little social motivation for the offender to repent and restore respect to his neighbor. This description helps explain the great reluctance of many religious authorities to reconsider the dilemma of homosexuals.
Rabbinical Assembly: Homosexuality, Human Dignity and Halakhah (Warning PDF download!)
When Conservative Jews looked at the prohibitions on homosexuality, they invoked Kevod HaBeriyot and decided that while they couldn't override the Biblical prohibition found in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 the prohibitions could be reinterpreted (using the principle of "Dor dor v’doroshav" or "each generation demands its own interpretation of the law", based on Deuteronomy 17:9.) So they interpreted the law in the most literal way possible. Lesbian and gay couples are welcomed into Conservative Judaism, gays and lesbians could be ordained as rabbis, relationships can be blessed, but "to lie with a man as with a woman" (which is universally understood to be a euphemism for male-to-male anal sex) continued to be considered sinful. All other forms of intimacy, companionship and relationship-building were allowed and even celebrated.
Now I only wish more Christians who invoke Biblical (OT or NT) law were as compassionate, nuanced and solution-oriented as the Jews who wrestle with their law. But as the Conservatives said above "[M]ost people are indifferent to the humiliation of others, there is little social motivation for the offender to repent and restore respect to his neighbor" so these Christians quote away.
That document I linked to above is a good read. They put much more thought and struggle into understanding their law than we do with ours.
*mandatory celibacy for LGBT Conservative Jews
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
ToujoursDan;
the Conservative Jewish position you outline is actually quite close to my own.... I perhaps get there by a different route.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
ToujoursDan;
the Conservative Jewish position you outline is actually quite close to my own.... I perhaps get there by a different route.
That seems unlikely. I'm not sure believing gays owe you some kind of groveling apology is compatible with most notions of human dignity.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The Orthodox and Conservative Jews (who believe the Law is binding) would invoke the concept of Kevod HaBeriyot in situations like this. Kevod HaBeriyot means that the dignity of a human being comes first. If the application of a law leads to suffering or humiliation to God's people, it must not be interpreted or applied correctly.
Well then I have great respect for them.
It seems to me that the biggest problem with ideologically entrenched positions on this subject (or indeed any subject) is a lack of empirical testing. What are the fruits of the position, or interpretation? Does that theory actually work?
So I give a sincere round of applause to any bunch of people who actually do a bit of observation and go 'hang on, that can't be right, look what happens when you try to apply that'.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It seems to me that the biggest problem with ideologically entrenched positions on this subject (or indeed any subject) is a lack of empirical testing. What are the fruits of the position, or interpretation? Does that theory actually work?
Yeah, context. Does an interpretation fit with the overall message?
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Lesbian and gay couples are welcomed into Conservative Judaism, gays and lesbians could be ordained as rabbis, relationships can be blessed, but "to lie with a man as with a woman" (which is universally understood to be a euphemism for male-to-male anal sex) continued to be considered sinful. All other forms of intimacy, companionship and relationship-building were allowed and even celebrated.
That's... awesome. And it is essentially my own position and how I live my own life, as I have posted elsewhere (on a dedicated thread back in T&T, in fact, lo those many years ago).
Speaking of celebrating relationships, I have been dithering on the Ship too long so I need to go back and watch TV with Cubby.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
As a side note (before I go out to watch Drunk History with Cubby, which is awesome) there is an editorial in the latest issue of the Advocate -- yes, that Advocate -- called "In Defense of Celibate Gay Christians."
[ 06. August 2014, 05:30: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
If it's not clear, one doesn't have to be celibate to be meet the halakah requirement in Conservative Judaism. Kissing, hugging, mutual masturbation, toys, whatever are all acceptable. Just the penis-in-anus act is prohibited. And they even recognize that that one prohibition may be difficult:
quote:
We are aware that the continued biblical ban on anal sex may be extremely difficult for some gay men to observe, and that this ban is in some ways more challenging than the ban on menstrual intimacy for heterosexual couples for 7-14 days per month. However, this responsum provides gay men with other options for sexual intimacy, with full social acceptance in the observant Jewish community, and with a feasible path to a life of Torah observance.
[ 06. August 2014, 05:42: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
I do think that there is a huge amount to be said for the Conservative/Orthodox Jewish approach to Biblical law/ethics - I may not agree with all of it (and I do disagree with them here that somehow penetrative anal sex between men is somehow mysteriously forbidden but everything else is fine - smacks of straight 'saving sex for marriage' types who somehow see anything that's not penis in vagina sex as not real sex and therefore allowed) but I do appreciate the rigorous and compassionate amount of scrutiny and also Biblical context that is applied - and do wish that conservative Christians would do the same.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
If it's not clear, one doesn't have to be celibate to be meet the halakah requirement in Conservative Judaism. Kissing, hugging, mutual masturbation, toys, whatever are all acceptable. Just the penis-in-anus act is prohibited.
My reaction to hearing that was to ask why the penis-in-anus act is so bad when the rest is fine... except I then realized we're dealing with Jews who follow the Levitical laws here, so I guess they're all about the following of reasonless rules, as that's their thing.
However, Christians tend to reject anything in the levitical law that can be called reasonless and instead insist that the only levitical laws that are still relevant are moral ones that have a clear rationale. Which brings us back to the fact that if Christians want to say certain levitical laws are still relevant they need a clear rationale for them. The anti-gay levitical laws just don't seem to have a good rationale.* No one seems to be able to come up with any sensible explanation as to what harm committed gay Christian marriages (with sex implied) do to anyone.
* They don't have a good rationale in the present day. I accept however that they were somewhat justified in ancient times for the following reasons: (1) Certain cultures the Israelites interacted with practiced sex-rituals as part of idolatrous worship, so severe limitations on sex are possibly justifiable to stamp out idolatory. (2) Economic realities in ancient times among the Israelites of certain periods meant that men needed to have children, and that meant having a wife, which meant that male-male sexual interactions would be extra-marital and hence non-monogamous, and could be potential sources of uncontrolled STD outbreaks in pre-condom pre-medicine times. However, in the present, where same-sex activity is not related to idolatry, where it is economically plausible to be in a committed same sex relationship due to the lack of an economic need for children and/or the ability to adopt children, where condoms exist and where medicine is decent, there is no longer any rationale for excluding same-sex activities as there is not a single harm that can be pointed to.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
The reasoning of Halacha may not be your reasoning, but that doesn't mean it's 'reasonless' Starlight. Generally speaking, Talmudic logic is pretty reasonable in comparison with most non-Thomist Christian theology.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
that doesn't mean it's 'reasonless' Starlight.
I'm more than happy to be corrected, so go for it: Supply me with a reason.
How can anyone justify on logical and/or evidential grounds the banning of anal sex between men, but allowing anal sex between a man and a woman and allowing all other forms of sex between men? They can't of course.
It is clear that from reading the supplied links that their line of argument is, "um, the bible has this rule in it, and we can find no reason or logical justification for it, so we'll do our best to interpret it in a way that is minimalist and reduces the impact on people of this reason-less rule."
It's nice of them to try and interpret the reasonless rules that are harmful to people out of existence as much as possible, but they are still ultimately following reasonless rules that they admit are harmful to people.
quote:
The reasoning of Halacha may not be your reasoning
Logic is objective. You don't get to have your own subjective version of it.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Do they permit anal sex between men and women ?
(Rationale being, just think about the practicalities in a desert society without running water or condoms. Not necessarily relevant now though.)
[ 06. August 2014, 22:34: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Do they permit anal sex between men and women ?
Yes.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
As I understand it, given that they--and indeed most (many? Some?) Christians--believe that revelation is involved, it's more a matter of trying to make sense of the rules within the context of the rules being given by God. Trying to figure out the details of why the rules were given does not always mean we can find complete answers within this world.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Do they permit anal sex between men and women ?
Yes.
As long as the woman is the "bottom" (the penetratee). What is not allowed is for a man to be penetrated.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
Really, we're coming back to Ingo's position. If Revelation is about the revealing of rules, then the "why" questions are irrelevant. A Rule has been given and that's all we need to know. It doesn't have to make sense to us. We simply have to obey it,unthinkingly.
If, on the other hand, Revelation is about the revealing of God's nature and purpose, then we are in a very different position.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
I don't think it means the "why" is irrelevant; as I said,
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Trying to figure out the details of why the rules were given does not always mean we can find complete answers within this world.
Words like "always" and "complete" are pretty critical here, I think. It doesn't have to be a binary thing of "absolutely unquestionable rules that don't seem to make sense but must be followed to the letter" vs "only those things that make immediate sense to us already." Indeed, it seems to me that the position of the Jewish group mentioned above involves a lot of wrestling with things within the context of revelation without just blindly nodding or pitching it out.
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Really, we're coming back to Ingo's position.
OMG IngoB and I slightly overlap on something?? This will not do!!! ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
I would hope that all of us here share some notions in common to some degree, after all.
[ 07. August 2014, 02:48: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Really, we're coming back to Ingo's position. If Revelation is about the revealing of rules, then the "why" questions are irrelevant. A Rule has been given and that's all we need to know. It doesn't have to make sense to us. We simply have to obey it,unthinkingly.
If, on the other hand, Revelation is about the revealing of God's nature and purpose, then we are in a very different position.
Perhaps my professional context is colouring my thinking, but does anyone really think 'the rules are the rules and I must follow them without understanding why they are the rules?'
The people I draft rules for have to provide explanatory material as to what the rules are trying to achieve. Even if they weren't legally required to, surely they should. Surely people are more likely to obey rules if they understand the purpose of those rules.
(And in fact they have to explain their thinking to me at great length, so that I can assess whether the rules are actually going to achieve the intended policy. Anyone who thinks that drafting is basically typing up of their instructions finds out very quickly that isn't how it works! I'm less interested in the words they've chosen, and far more interested in what they think those words are going to DO.)
I suppose it's possible to conceive of God as basically being capricious and creating rules because he feels like it and can, for no particular reason and with no particular goal in mind, but it's not a version of God I'm very comfortable in conceiving.
Nor, I would suggest, is it a version of God that most conservative Christians are comfortable with, because most of them frequently point out how wise and clever God is and how the commandments he's issued are for our own good. The notion that "it's just a rule we have to follow, we don't have to know why" generally only comes into play when someone is faced with a rule they CAN'T see the rationale for, or a rule that appears to have a negative effect.
Either the character of God is that of a good and careful planner who creates rules that are beneficial to our interests, or His character is that of a capricious Master who creates policies purely for Himself. It could be one or the other, but I don't see how it can change based on the particular rule under discussion.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I suppose it's possible to conceive of God as basically being capricious and creating rules because he feels like it and can, for no particular reason and with no particular goal in mind, but it's not a version of God I'm very comfortable in conceiving.
I definitely don't believe He's like that. Though I do like the version of that character in My Little Pony, voiced by the inimitable John DeLancie.
(Yes. Q was on My Little Pony, which is a great show by the way.)
quote:
The notion that "it's just a rule we have to follow, we don't have to know why" generally only comes into play when someone is faced with a rule they CAN'T see the rationale for, or a rule that appears to have a negative effect.
And I think sometimes it's hard to figure out. In my own case, it took me years of study and prayer and research to conclude circa 2003 that masturbation was not, in fact, in itself a sin. (And if I am wrong, then of course may God forgive me!)
quote:
Either the character of God is that of a good and careful planner who creates rules that are beneficial to our interests, or His character is that of a capricious Master who creates policies purely for Himself. It could be one or the other, but I don't see how it can change based on the particular rule under discussion.
Well, I believe that God is a good and careful planner and Master Who creates rules which are indeed benefical to us, and that stem from His essential nature as Love--but that doesn't mean absolutely everything has to make complete sense (I beg people to note the words "absolutely" and "complete" and such other critical qualifiers) for me to obey the rules that I understand to have come from Him. (And of course when it might free one up to do things that are enjoyable, etc., one has to be very careful to not let the desire for that sway one's reasoning, or so I also believe.)
Heh, maybe we do need the T & T board to come back.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Really, we're coming back to Ingo's position. If Revelation is about the revealing of rules, then the "why" questions are irrelevant. A Rule has been given and that's all we need to know. It doesn't have to make sense to us. We simply have to obey it,unthinkingly.
If, on the other hand, Revelation is about the revealing of God's nature and purpose, then we are in a very different position.
If the former is true, then most of the bible is completely unnecessary and certainly the incarnation was a waste of time.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The Orthodox and Conservative Jews (who believe the Law is binding) would invoke the concept of Kevod HaBeriyot in situations like this. Kevod HaBeriyot means that the dignity of a human being comes first. If the application of a law leads to suffering or humiliation to God's people, it must not be interpreted or applied correctly.
This is very much how I reached my current theological position on homosexuality.
I believe that following Jesus will, in all ways, cause me to be more loving towards those around me. Therefore, if I'm becoming less loving than I would be were I not trying to follow Jesus, then I am clearly interpreting how I should follow him incorrectly.
...and my actions in opposing homosexuality were clearly less loving than they could be. So I looked around to find out if there were plausible ways to interpret scripture that were more loving than the way I was interpreting it, and there were!
I'm not a great theologian, so I couldn't give nearly the detailed defence of my position that some people here can. But that position can be defended by Christians I respect, and it appears to be a very loving - and thereby very Christlike - position, so I'm happy.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Starlight wrote:
quote:
They don't have a good rationale in the present day. I accept however that they were somewhat justified in ancient times for the following reasons: (1) Certain cultures the Israelites interacted with practiced sex-rituals as part of idolatrous worship, so severe limitations on sex are possibly justifiable to stamp out idolatory. (2) Economic realities in ancient times among the Israelites of certain periods meant that men needed to have children, and that meant having a wife, which meant that male-male sexual interactions would be extra-marital and hence non-monogamous, and could be potential sources of uncontrolled STD outbreaks in pre-condom pre-medicine times. However, in the present, where same-sex activity is not related to idolatry, where it is economically plausible to be in a committed same sex relationship due to the lack of an economic need for children and/or the ability to adopt children, where condoms exist and where medicine is decent, there is no longer any rationale for excluding same-sex activities as there is not a single harm that can be pointed to.
This would definitely be the position of Reform and Reconstructionalist Jews. Male anal sex was banned primarily because it associated with paganism (as evidenced by Leviticus 18:3 which comes before the list of banned acts - "You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices.") It no longer is so this law is no longer in effect.
Conservative Jews may acknowledge the context but believe that the law would remain binding anyway, though its interpretation and application can change as times change. Orthodox Jews tend to disregard the context altogether.
[ 07. August 2014, 14:22: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Do they permit anal sex between men and women ?
Yes.
As long as the woman is the "bottom" (the penetratee). What is not allowed is for a man to be penetrated.
See, that just points to it being a misogynist and homophobic law. What they really object to is the idea of a man being treated as a woman.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
And also leaves the little side issue that, in the UK at least, while anal sex is OK between consenting male adults it is actually against the law between a man and a woman...
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
I think that that was superceded by the 2003 sexual offences act, in that a lot of older legislation was repealed at the same time.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Yeah, definitely not illegal in the UK. I believe Northern Ireland has a separate age of consent for male/female anal sex.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Doublethink: I think that that was superceded by the 2003 sexual offences act
(Oops. Was that before or after March 2003?)
[ 07. August 2014, 20:28: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Do they permit anal sex between men and women ?
Yes.
As long as the woman is the "bottom" (the penetratee). What is not allowed is for a man to be penetrated.
See, that just points to it being a misogynist and homophobic law. What they really object to is the idea of a man being treated as a woman.
Exactly so.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
This is the homophobia aisle. You'll find misogyny in aisle 3.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This is the homophobia aisle. You'll find misogyny in aisle 3.
I think they're closely related. Homophobes hate gay men because they're too much like women -- letting down the side, so to speak.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Yeah, I know. Hence the slightly flippant form of my remark.
There are definitely links between perceiving the sexes as unequal and being against a coupling of two people of the same sex. I remember realising on a Dead Horses thread a few years ago (with, I think, some able assistance from our esteemed Host, Louise) that it was actually the change in a woman's role in marriage that had made same-sex marriage logical.
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There are definitely links between perceiving the sexes as unequal and being against a coupling of two people of the same sex. I remember realising on a Dead Horses thread a few years ago (with, I think, some able assistance from our esteemed Host, Louise) that it was actually the change in a woman's role in marriage that had made same-sex marriage logical.
Me too! Louise's posts was one of those that seemed so obvious when she pointed it out but I had not worked it out for myself (despite being in such an equal marriage).
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Surely a Church has the right impose certain conditions upon membership? If one happens not to like the conditions then one doesn't have to join, surely?
I thought you recited the Nicene Creed... One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Surely a Church has the right impose certain conditions upon membership? If one happens not to like the conditions then one doesn't have to join, surely?
I thought you recited the Nicene Creed... One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Indeed.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
It seems to me that male gay couples seem to be more commonly in open or semi-open ("monogamish") relationships.
That can be interpreted to mean they are more committed or less committed, depending on who you ask!
Interesting point! (Or, actually two interesting points.) However they do it, I understand that male-male partnerships are statistically more stable than heterosexual. I was pleasantly surprised by these findings, having grown up with the propaganda that they were inherently unstable. The latter was easy to believe years ago, because the main way to meet and begin relating to other gay men was the bar scene, populated largely by those in the market, many of them promiscuous. It's the same phenomenon whereby psychiatrists once quite plausibly thought that homosexuality was a mental illness. After all, every homosexual who came to see them was mentally ill, and they never kwowingly met any others.
The success stories existed even then but were low profile: not only did they have no need to frequent the bars, but tended to avoid them as a bad influence. The darkness... the noise... the exhibitionism and narcissism of disco dancing... None of these conditions existed by accident, of course. The operators, as well as the original legal constraints, subtly arranged everything they could to minimize the possibility that participants would actually find a long-term compatible mate. Gotta keep 'em coming back for more. A successful match = two satisfied former customers.
Disco was a gay art from the word go, having originated as lemonade creatively squeezed out of the lemons of ordinances forbidding men from touching each other on a dance floor, or even having identifiable partners. And what lemonade! By the late 70s, heterosexuals wanted a taste of it, too, and it became quite the rage with them. Thus of their own free will, they made their own pairing-off prospects just as unpropitious as those of gays (sweet revenge!).
It must have been about ten years ago that Public Radio's This American Life reported on a federally funded study which observed conversations and body language of a sample of married couples, to learn what clues might be given off as to the success of the relationship. They were also able to study a few same-sex couples, thanks to a bit of subterfuge in the grant application. This was during the Bush Jr. administration, you see: had it mentioned in so many words that the study would include gays as well as straights, the proposal would have been rejected immediately. (Mustn't give science the remotest chance of disturbing popular stereotypes.) What the researchers noticed surprised even them: the interactions of the same-sex couples were off the charts. Their ability to communicate with each other clearly and frankly augured better for a successful relationship than with the vast majority of husbands and wives.
Perhaps straight couples can learn something from gay couples. This possibility alone should persuade those truly interested in defense-of-marriage to acknowledge same-sex partnerships.
Other statistics: For a group that lays such stress upon marriage for life, the divorce rate of evangelicals is a dirty little secret. If you want to stay married, it's better to be a Catholic. Better still to be an atheist.
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
However they do it, I understand that male-male partnerships are statistically more stable than heterosexual.
AIUI, the key statistic is that women are more likely to end a relationship than men are, so lesbian relationships are the least stable pairing and heterosexuals are in the middle.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Now I only wish more Christians who invoke Biblical (OT or NT) law were as compassionate, nuanced and solution-oriented as the Jews who wrestle with their law. But as the Conservatives said above "[M]ost people are indifferent to the humiliation of others, there is little social motivation for the offender to repent and restore respect to his neighbor" so these Christians quote away.
That document I linked to above is a good read. They put much more thought and struggle into understanding their law than we do with ours.
I daresay that this approach (as well as the Babylonian Talmud) is partly the almost inevitable result of thousands of years of experience in actually trying to live according to the Torah.
It may also flow from the Jewish precept that, even antedating the Torah, was the Noahchic Covenant, one of whose points was that God commanded mankind to establish courts of justice. This expectation implies considerable faith on God's part that man is able
to make a decent job of it by using his head. If God's ways are not man's ways, they are at least comprehensible enough that human judges can imitate the divine Judge by adminstering justice in a way that the people can appreciate as justice, not merely issue decisions and edicts out of an inscrutable black box.
By contrast, Christian reconstructionists would ignore all this experience, and apply the Old Testament law literally and with full rigor. They apparently assume that the Holy Spirit will enable them to wing it <groan>. How arrogant.
I'd add dangerous if I thought that they had a chance of gaining the upper hand politically.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
the interactions of the same-sex couples were off the charts. Their ability to communicate with each other clearly and frankly augured better for a successful relationship than with the vast majority of husbands and wives.
I don't think that really would be that surprising to most people. In the thinking of many people 'Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus' after all, and the profound differences between the sexes and how they (mis)communicate with each other are widely perceived as being a major factor making heterosexual marriages very difficult. Also, men and women are widely perceived as generally desiring different rates of sex, and this is often perceived as a common factor of contention within marriages.
As a result, I get the impression from some anti-gay people, that they perceive homosexual relationships as 'unfair' because they are 'too easy'. Heterosexual guys who are struggling to communicate with women and struggling to convince women to have sex with them, sometimes come across as envious of the assumed ease with which they think gay men can communicate with other guys and have sex at the rate they want. The idea then becomes that we have to ban gay relationships "otherwise everyone would be gay" since gay relationships are perceived as easier / less contention-filled. I tend to see this view expressed most among men who are really misogynistic - they're sexually attracted to females but they don't like females - so though they want a wife for sex, they would much prefer to hang out drinking beer with their male friends and never have to go near a nagging wife or deal with her endless emotional issues or let her spend all their money.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
However they do it, I understand that male-male partnerships are statistically more stable than heterosexual.
AIUI, the key statistic is that women are more likely to end a relationship than men are, so lesbian relationships are the least stable pairing and heterosexuals are in the middle.
This treats women as an undifferentiated lump. I would want to disaggregate the data. Perhaps lesbians leave their partners at a much lower rate than heterosexual women leave their men.
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
However they do it, I understand that male-male partnerships are statistically more stable than heterosexual.
AIUI, the key statistic is that women are more likely to end a relationship than men are, so lesbian relationships are the least stable pairing and heterosexuals are in the middle.
This treats women as an undifferentiated lump. I would want to disaggregate the data. Perhaps lesbians leave their partners at a much lower rate than heterosexual women leave their men.
I'm sorry but I can't remember where or when I read that, so I can't go back and check but, IIRC, there was no major difference between the two groups of women. Obviously any study of 1,000s of relationships reduced to a single sentence is going to generalise massively but my original post was, I believe, as accurate as any such generalisation can be.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Well, that was my question. If you just look at "women," since the vast majority of women are hetero, what happens between Lesbians would be obscured. But if they kept numbers separate so the two (or more, but it's probable they were working on a binary gender assumption) could be compared, then I withdraw my objection.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I had seen this statistic before and dug a bit (pdf):
quote:
The number of dissolutions granted varies by sex. Of all dissolutions granted in England and Wales up to the end of 2010, 62 per cent have been to female couples despite only 44 per cent of formations being to female couples. The proportion of dissolutions to female couples differs by year. In 2007, 70 per cent of dissolutions granted were to female couples whereas in 2010 this was only 60 per cent. Higher numbers of dissolutions among female than male partnerships are also seen in other countries with same-sex partnership laws, such as Norway and Sweden.
Office of National Statistics (ONS) considering civil partnerships 5 years on
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
There is a graph contained therein which tracks age difference. Of the SSM relationships tracked, women had a greater difference. This might be a factor.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
bumping up for housekeeping reasons
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0