|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Leviticus on homosexuality - a temporary injunction?
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
Friedman responds to criticism
quote:
"You shall not lay a male the layings of a woman; it is a to'ebah" (offensive thing)
(Leviticus 18:22).
"And a man who will lay a male the layings of a woman: the two of them have done a to'ebah (offensive thing). They shall be put to death. Their blood is on them"
(Leviticus 20:13).
Friedman's view is that the use of to'ebah makes this a non-permanent injunction. That these things are offensive simply until they aren't.
quote:
The text identifies male homosexual acts by the technical term to'ebah, translated in English here as "an offensive thing" or in older translations as "an abomination." This is important because most things that are forbidden in biblical law are not identified with this word. In both of the contexts in Leviticus (chapters 18 and 20), male homosexuality is the only act to be called this. (Other acts are included broadly in a line at the end of chapter 18.)
.
.
When one examines all the occurrences of this technical term in the Hebrew Bible, one finds that elsewhere the term is in fact relative. [Examples and further analysis in the article, and the book the article Friedman wrote]
Your thoughts?
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
The argument is textually very weak.
quote:
24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
Leviticus 18: 24-28
The phrase in bold is a translation of the hebrew which is literally 'all these abominations' = toevah.
In other words, although in Leviticus 18 homosexuality is called an 'abomination' in 22 whereas bestiality is called a perversion (= tevel) in verse 23, the writer sums all up all these things (child sacrifice, homosexuality, bestiality etc.) as toevah.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
It's an interesting addition to the discussion I think, but not of itself something determining a specific conclusion. Their point is that to'evah is used in the context of something perceived to be offensive, and things can change from to'evah, to not to'evah and vice versa depending on cultural perceptions, time and place. While this is interesting, it doesn't solve the problem. The Torah is saying that, to their 'holy' society, these things are declared to be to'evah. They are not forbidding homosexuality because some other people might find it offensive (as in the case of shepherds being offensive to the egyptians or eating meat sacrificed to idols may be offensive to a 'weaker' brother as Paul argues), the Torah forbids it because it sees it as to'evah. The article mentions that it does not say that it is to'evah to God, but that does not remove the fact that the Torah explicitly declares it is to'evah, and does not qualify that statement, so we cannot add qualifiers to lessen its declaration.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Of course, pork and shellfish are also to'evah. so.....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Of course, pork and shellfish are also to'evah. so.....
They aren't though. (Sorry for typo in previous it should be to'ebah, not to'evah). The things in the previous chapters that are described as only 'clean' or 'unclean' (don't know the Hebrew for these) and the regulations for these are a different category, and uses different terminology from the commands about the sexual regulations in Chapter 18. The explicit use of to'ebah for the sexual sins is significant, and sets them aside from the cleanliness laws as more serious, especially since the passage makes clear that other nations do these things and they are to be expelled from their land explicitly because of them.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Of course, pork and shellfish are also to'evah. so.....
They aren't though. (Sorry for typo in previous it should be to'ebah, not to'evah). The things in the previous chapters that are described as only 'clean' or 'unclean' (don't know the Hebrew for these) and the regulations for these are a different category, and uses different terminology from the commands about the sexual regulations in Chapter 18. The explicit use of to'ebah for the sexual sins is significant, and sets them aside from the cleanliness laws as more serious, especially since the passage makes clear that other nations do these things and they are to be expelled from their land explicitly because of them.
Try Deuteronomy 14. And while you're at it, see the cross-dressing injunction in Deuteronomy 22.
But I'm sure Leviticus is much, much more important, given that the "homosexuality passages" are found there. Of course.
[ 09. August 2011, 14:23: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
Ah yes, the cross dressing one is listed next to the one assuring us of Big Trouble if we don't attach fringes to our cloaks. Anyone bother with much fringe-attaching these days?
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(Here's a list of the over 100 occurrences of "to'evah" in the Torah, for your reading pleasure.
To recap, it occurs: Twice in Genesis, once in Exodus, six times in Leviticus, seventeen times in Deuteronomy, five times in 1 & 2 Kings, three times in Isaiah, eight times in Jeremiah, once in Malachi, forty one times in Ezekiel, once in Psalms, twenty five in Proverbs, and throughout Ezra and II Chronicles.
In Genesis, it is to'evah for Egyptians to eat with Israelites. Shepherds are to'evah to Egyptians, too, BTW.
More here.)
[ 09. August 2011, 14:39: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Anyway, none of this matters. What DOES matter is that under the old regime - the understanding of homosexuality as "disordered" and "abominable" - great harm came to human beings. Gay people drank themselves to death and committed suicide at rates three times those of the rest of society. Gay people lived lives of desperation and self-hatred. Today, even, some gay people feel the need to attempt to become heterosexual, and many waste decades of their lives in this completely futile effort.
The problem, in fact, is the pigheadedness of people who can't or won't see this, and insist upon their own interpretation of Scripture in the face of this disaster.
It really doesn't matter what the compilers of the Torah thought or meant when they wrote it; what matters is what actually takes place. What matters is that people pull their heads out of the sand and recognize what their ideas are doing to others - and to recognize that a Law that torments people for no reason is not a decent Law and should not be followed.
That is "Torah." You are allowed - no, commanded - to ignore the Law in order to save a life. So: ignore it.
[fixed UBB code]
[ 10. August 2011, 13:31: Message edited by: TonyK ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
I agree, the textual arguments in these cases are always unconvincing and flawed IMO. It is the arguments appealing to a higher understanding of scripture than mere legalism that I find to be convincing, both intellectually and spiritually. The OP is another textual argument, trying to find a loophole in the law. Whether the loophole exists or not, it is is the wrong approach. We are no longer slaves to the law, we are slaves to Christ.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The problem, in fact, is the pigheadedness of people who can't or won't see this, and insist upon their own interpretation of Scripture in the face of this disaster.
It really doesn't matter what the compilers of the Torah thought or meant when they wrote it; what matters is what actually takes place. What matters is that people pull their heads out of the sand and recognize what their ideas are doing to others - and to recognize that a Law that torments people for no reason is not a decent Law and should not be followed.
That is "Torah." You are allowed - no, commanded - to ignore the Law in order to save a life. So: ignore it.
[fixed UBB code]
Precisely what Christ said when he was criticised for healing on the Sabbath. It is this essential point that the Phelpses, our Rev Fred Nile, and their like cannot see or accept. They have raised their interpretation of the Law above the mercies of Our Lord.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I agree, the textual arguments in these cases are always unconvincing and flawed IMO. It is the arguments appealing to a higher understanding of scripture than mere legalism that I find to be convincing, both intellectually and spiritually. The OP is another textual argument, trying to find a loophole in the law. Whether the loophole exists or not, it is is the wrong approach. We are no longer slaves to the law, we are slaves to Christ.
Yes, yes and ... yes.
(i.e. this [paper cited in OP] doesn't add anything to the debate either way.)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
That is "Torah." You are allowed - no, commanded - to ignore the Law in order to save a life. So: ignore it.
I think it's a pretty amazing stretch of logic to claim that homoerotic acts could "save a life".
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
What Tuba Mirum actually said was:
"What DOES matter is that under the old regime - the understanding of homosexuality as "disordered" and "abominable" - great harm came to human beings. Gay people drank themselves to death and committed suicide at rates three times those of the rest of society. Gay people lived lives of desperation and self-hatred."
Let me give you one example of someone abused and ultimately killed by this: Alan Turing. Without whom you might not be typing your thoughts at a computer, or even if some other great mind had made the key discoveries later, I might well be replying to you in German, such were Turing's contributions to the Allied victory in WW2.
The chemical castration, driving to despair, removal from his work and ultimately the suicide of someone who did so much good is just a tiny part of the enormous and evil price exacted by seeing gay people in terms of 'homoerotic acts' which must be stopped.
It's a case where Christianity and Judaism got something badly wrong but (all too often) can't or won't admit it, lest the fallible human beings they base their authority on should lose face. To hold onto the idea of an infallible church or tradition or scripture, some people apparently need human sacrifices, and still regard gay people as expendable.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
What Tuba Mirum actually said was:
"What DOES matter is that under the old regime - the understanding of homosexuality as "disordered" and "abominable" - great harm came to human beings. Gay people drank themselves to death and committed suicide at rates three times those of the rest of society. Gay people lived lives of desperation and self-hatred."
I understand this, but it's very abstract and indirect and open-ended; a far cry from committing a single particular act of Sabbath-breaking in order to rescue your donkey from a pit. You can't really point to someone and say "As a result of sharing sexual act X with Henry on August 11th, 2011, Jeff was saved from despair and suicide".
And there's a rather big difference between saying that a good law can in certain urgent cases be disregarded, and saying that the law itself is intrinsically wrong and should be tossed in the rubbish-heap.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
You can't really point to someone and say "As a result of sharing sexual act X with Henry on August 11th, 2011, Jeff was saved from despair and suicide".
And no one does: the preoccupation of the contras with individual sex acts is generally not one shared by the gay families under discussion themselves.
In the words of Sr Rosemary CHN, "Forced celibacy is as abhorrent as forced marriage."
[ 11. August 2011, 21:36: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
And no one does: the preoccupation of the contras with individual sex acts is generally not one shared by the gay families under discussion themselves.
In the words of Sr Rosemary CHN, "Forced celibacy is as abhorrent as forced marriage."
If they don't think those individual sex acts are very important, then surely they have no cause to complain when we call them immoral, now do they.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
No, I'm afraid I don't follow. My general impression of people who complain of the moral status of others' home life is that they must be very highly ascended masters indeed to have so thoroughly perfected their own salvation to have the time to do so.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
No, I'm afraid I don't follow. My general impression of people who complain of the moral status of others' home life is that they must be very highly ascended masters indeed to have so thoroughly perfected their own salvation to have the time to do so.
Maybe every single person who does such complaining is naught but a whitewashed tomb. It's possible. But that doesn't answer the question of if they are correct or no.
The very same sermon of Jesus which speaks against hypocritical judging also tells us that "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do..."
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
That is "Torah." You are allowed - no, commanded - to ignore the Law in order to save a life. So: ignore it.
I think it's a pretty amazing stretch of logic to claim that homoerotic acts could "save a life".
Actually what I talked about was suicide and alcoholism and self-hatred. Not a bit curious about all that, and why that happened, then?
Well, that's not too surprising; in fact, it's exactly what I was talking about above.
So: do please go on. I love having a living, breathing demonstration of my argument to point to. You make the case for us, without our having to say a word....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
No, I'm afraid I don't follow. My general impression of people who complain of the moral status of others' home life is that they must be very highly ascended masters indeed to have so thoroughly perfected their own salvation to have the time to do so.
Maybe every single person who does such complaining is naught but a whitewashed tomb. It's possible. But that doesn't answer the question of if they are correct or no.
The very same sermon of Jesus which speaks against hypocritical judging also tells us that "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do..."
Funny that you take it that they are right, not that God is merciful...
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Actually what I talked about was suicide and alcoholism and self-hatred. Not a bit curious about all that, and why that happened, then?
Well, that's not too surprising; in fact, it's exactly what I was talking about above.
So: do please go on. I love having a living, breathing demonstration of my argument to point to. You make the case for us, without our having to say a word....
Hm I certainly understand that various bad things tend to happen to homosexual persons. We should feel sorry for them, yes. But we shouldn't assume that it's all our fault for imposing those dreadful moral codes upon them, whose removal will make everything better.
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Funny that you take it that they are right, not that God is merciful...
Huh? Of course He is merciful. All I'm saying is that hypocrisy isn't an excuse to ignore someone if he's speaking the truth.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Hm I certainly understand that various bad things tend to happen to homosexual persons. We should feel sorry for them, yes. But we shouldn't assume that it's all our fault for imposing those dreadful moral codes upon them, whose removal will make everything better.
Shorter Bran Stark: Alan Turing had it coming.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Hm I certainly understand that various bad things tend to happen to homosexual persons. We should feel sorry for them, yes. But we shouldn't assume that it's all our fault for imposing those dreadful moral codes upon them, whose removal will make everything better.
Feeling sorry for someone isn't morally sufficient: all evil needs to continue is for people to feel sorry but do nothing. There is no "assumption" involved in reporting the complete empirical failure of the historic stance. Or do you think the outrageous levels of depression, addiction, and suicide are simply side effects of the orientation itself.
And if the moral code isn't dreadful, why is it only gays who are lucky enough to be bound by it? After all, when heterosexuals seek to form unions to give themselves wholly one to another spiritually and physically for lifelong mutual support and to foster new life, these which are considered "objectively immoral" when performed by gays suddenly experience a complete change in their "objective" moral character?
[ 12. August 2011, 20:14: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
Various bad things generally don't just "tend" to happen randomly to groups of people: systemic factors ensure that bad things happen disproportionately to certain groups and that they will continue to do so as long as those factors remain unchanged.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Actually what I talked about was suicide and alcoholism and self-hatred. Not a bit curious about all that, and why that happened, then?
Well, that's not too surprising; in fact, it's exactly what I was talking about above.
So: do please go on. I love having a living, breathing demonstration of my argument to point to. You make the case for us, without our having to say a word....
Hm I certainly understand that various bad things tend to happen to homosexual persons. We should feel sorry for them, yes. But we shouldn't assume that it's all our fault for imposing those dreadful moral codes upon them, whose removal will make everything better.
Except that it did make precisely those things better.
Funny, that.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
You know, some of Bran's comments can give some very amusing historical images, if you apply his reasoning to other sorts of religiously-sponsored persecution:
'Various bad things tend to happen to Catholic persons. We should feel sorry for them, yes. But we shouldn't assume that it's all our fault for imposing those dreadful Godly codes upon them, whose removal will make everything better.'
- O. Cromwell, Lord Protector,
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
You know, some of Bran's comments can give some very amusing historical images, if you apply his reasoning to other sorts of religiously-sponsored persecution:
'Various bad things tend to happen to Catholic persons. We should feel sorry for them, yes. But we shouldn't assume that it's all our fault for imposing those dreadful Godly codes upon them, whose removal will make everything better.'
- O. Cromwell, Lord Protector,
L.
Dearie me, a simple belief of moral disapproval does not translate into persecution. There actually are options between celebrating and lynching.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Dearie me, a simple belief of moral disapproval does not translate into persecution.
Very frequently it does, though.
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
There actually are options between celebrating and lynching.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Is it that anything short of lynching isn't really persecution?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Dearie me, a simple belief of moral disapproval does not translate into persecution. There actually are options between celebrating and lynching.
Dearie me, moral disapproval doesn't usually lead to hugs and puppies either. So since we're being all nuance-y now, what are those options between celebrating and lynching? Denying employment or housing? Restrictions on working e.g. for government or the military? Being jailed for what you do in the privacy of your home with another adult? Are those OK since they're not as bad as lynching? Just where in the sand is that line dividing "disapproval" from persecution? Is civil marriage (*not* religious) too celebratory? OliviaG
x-posted with Croesus
[ 13. August 2011, 02:10: Message edited by: OliviaG ]
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Dearie me, moral disapproval doesn't usually lead to hugs and puppies either. So since we're being all nuance-y now, what are those options between celebrating and lynching? Denying employment or housing? Restrictions on working e.g. for government or the military? Being jailed for what you do in the privacy of your home with another adult?
Believe it or not, I don't support any of those unjust practices.
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Are those OK since they're not as bad as lynching? Just where in the sand is that line dividing "disapproval" from persecution? Is civil marriage (*not* religious) too celebratory?
I don't think we should call it "marriage", but I have no objection to civil union thingies for those wanting them.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Hm I certainly understand that various bad things tend to happen to homosexual persons. We should feel sorry for them, yes. But we shouldn't assume that it's all our fault for imposing those dreadful moral codes upon them, whose removal will make everything better.
No, we should not feel 'sorry'. We should strive for justice and equality.
As for 'fault', it is in countries with Christian and Muslim heritages that LGBT folk have been most oppressed.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Funny that you take it that they are right, not that God is merciful...
Huh? Of course He is merciful. All I'm saying is that hypocrisy isn't an excuse to ignore someone if he's speaking the truth.
Quite frequently they weren't and it was and is ok to ignore them in those instances.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Dearie me, moral disapproval doesn't usually lead to hugs and puppies either. So since we're being all nuance-y now, what are those options between celebrating and lynching? Denying employment or housing? Restrictions on working e.g. for government or the military? Being jailed for what you do in the privacy of your home with another adult?
Believe it or not, I don't support any of those unjust practices.
Very carefully phrased! Of course the real question wasn't whether you support such things, or whether you'd even go further and oppose them, but whether they count as "persecution" according to you and, if not, does that make them okay?
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Are those OK since they're not as bad as lynching? Just where in the sand is that line dividing "disapproval" from persecution? Is civil marriage (*not* religious) too celebratory?
I don't think we should call it "marriage", but I have no objection to civil union thingies for those wanting them.
How magnanimous of you! Allowing gays to have (some of) the same rights under law as straights, just so long as they don't get uppity and imply that they're as good as you by using the same word to describe their "thingies". I'm sure referring to their life's most serious commitment as a "thingie" will catch on like wildfire, so thanks for that, too!
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Here's the Vatican on this topic, straight from the top:
quote:
Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.
Now, please tell us again about the vast difference you believe there to be between "celebration" and "persecution." Please do let us know, too, if this is an example of that benign middle ground.
Because I'm just not seeing it....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Maybe the torture inflicted by the Spanish Inquisition is celebratory - rejoicing that one sinner is being forced to repent in their last few seconds on earth and, thus, avoiding hell. Give me that old-time religion. It was good enough for Jesus.....oh, hang on, he said nothing about LGBTs and he chose to be tortured rather than to torture.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Quite frequently they weren't and it was and is ok to ignore them in those instances.
I've no quarrel with that.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Very carefully phrased! Of course the real question wasn't whether you support such things, or whether you'd even go further and oppose them, but whether they count as "persecution" according to you and, if not, does that make them okay?
Um I already said they aren't OK. So I'm not sure what you mean. As for the specific word "persecution" though, I think it's a bit over-dramatic to describe what homosexuals face in modern Western society.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
How magnanimous of you! Allowing gays to have (some of) the same rights under law as straights, just so long as they don't get uppity and imply that they're as good as you by using the same word to describe their "thingies". I'm sure referring to their life's most serious commitment as a "thingie" will catch on like wildfire, so thanks for that, too!
Oh I'm sure it's pretty obnoxious as far as they are concerned. I don't deny that. But people can surely live happy lives in the face of contempt; we Christians have been doing it for quite a while. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Um I already said they aren't OK. So I'm not sure what you mean. As for the specific word "persecution" though, I think it's a bit over-dramatic to describe what homosexuals face in modern Western society.
True, and that's because gay people have been working at it, fighting the church's and society's characterization of us as "evil" for 40+ years now. Believe me, that's the only reason.
Because four or five decades ago, "persecution" was exactly the right word. See the Turing incident above (1950s-era) - and there's plenty more where that came from. There's still plenty more of that elsewhere in the world, too.
You, of course, want it both ways; you want "homoerotic acts" to be viewed as evil - but you depend on us, too, to do the work to defeat the persecution that follows - that has followed - from that view. And you don't want to acknowledge that there real love can be involved, either, or to recognize that gay partnerships are not merely a serious of "acts."
In fact, the reason your point of view no longer holds much sway in at least some places is because most people started to realize how ridiculous the characterization was, and stopped paying any attention to religious authorities, on this and many other topics.
That's what's really at work here. So please don't attempt to lecture about how "persecution" doesn't describe situation in the West today; it's no thanks to you.
[ 13. August 2011, 18:36: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So maybe LGBTs, who have had it much harder than (other) Christians, are icons of Christ for us since they show us the way of the cross.
Maybe they are. I actually do find quite a bit to admire in the homosexual movement, both in terms of suffering endured and victories gained. It reminds one of the early Church, I suppose. If only it wasn't founded upon a lie, I would love to be a part of it.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And you don't want to acknowledge that there real love can be involved, either, or to recognize that gay partnerships are not merely a serious of "acts."
Oh I definitely believe that they can genuinely love each other. Tragically misplaced love, maybe, but love nonetheless. And sure I recognize they are more than those acts. So much more, in fact, that giving up those acts should be a small price to pay in return for acceptance.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Um I already said they aren't OK. So I'm not sure what you mean. As for the specific word "persecution" though, I think it's a bit over-dramatic to describe what homosexuals face in modern Western society.
Actually you were very careful not to say they aren't okay. You claimed to not support them, using the same terminology one would use for a sports team one doesn't follow. There's a vast gulf between "don't support" and "condemn as evil".
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
True, and that's because gay people have been working at it, fighting the church's and society's characterization of us as "evil" for 40+ years now. Believe me, that's the only reason.
Because four or five decades ago, "persecution" was exactly the right word. See the Turing incident above (1950s-era) - and there's plenty more where that came from. There's still plenty more of that elsewhere in the world, too.
This is why Bran's idiosyncratic definition of "modern Western society" seems so self-serving. I'm not sure why, for example, mid-twentieth century Britain doesn't qualify as modern or Western, but according to folks like Bran it might as well have been the Dark Ages or the Neolithic. I'm not sure there's any good reason to draw the line for modern society sometime in the mid-1990s, but I'd love to hear a justification.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Oh I definitely believe that they can genuinely love each other. Tragically misplaced love, maybe, but love nonetheless. And sure I recognize they are more than those acts. So much more, in fact, that giving up those acts should be a small price to pay in return for acceptance.
Whose "acceptance"? The Church's? Sorry, that's the tail wagging the dog at this point.
BTW, at what point do "homoerotic acts" actually become problematic? Is a fond hug over the line? A peck on the cheek? I mean, what's actually involved in this "giving up"?
It's all a bunch of B.S., anyway, as you well know. Your church won't accept gay men as candidates for the priesthood any longer; other churches won't permit celibate gay men to be bishops; still others don't want gay people in their churches at all, partnered or single.
And none of them did a damn thing to help us when the world was killing us; most did all they could to help, and couldn't care less even now. If you think "acceptance" by that crowd is what anybody's after, you're living in a fantasy world.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
y of the cross.
I actually do find quite a bit to admire in the homosexual movement, both in terms of suffering endured and victories gained. ... If only it wasn't founded upon a lie, I would love to be a part of it. [/QB][/QUOTE]
WTF is a movement? A bowel movement? A surge of the Holy Spirit?
'Founded upon a lie?
It seems to me that LGBTs are telling the truth but the churches cannot cope with their truth.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
others don't want gay people in their churches at all, partnered or single. nybody's after, you're living in a fantasy world.
That is now becoming commonplace in the C of E - LGBTs being refused Holy Communion simply because they are who God made them to be.
I don't tend to believe in judgement or hell but this issue is making me more orthodox - there must be a judgement for inhospitality. It was Sodom who was judged - not for anything to do with sex or even rape but for being inhospitable. Jesus told his disciples to brush off the dust from their feet. LGBTs are doing so, in judgement of the churches.
[ 13. August 2011, 20:24: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seraphim
Shipmate
# 14676
|
Posted
quote:
I'm not sure there's any good reason to draw the line for modern society sometime in the mid-1990s, but I'd love to hear a justification.
Because that's how we think about time with respect to whatever is generationally earlier than ourselves. Think of your perspective of time as a kid…mom and dad were old, but they may have only been in their late 20s or early 30s, and whatever things happened in their lives prior to you was "back in the olden days".
For example, I've had some very close acquaintances who were Japanese. I've visited Japan, and admire much about their artistic culture…but my parents, my mother especially her gut reaction to the Japanese was set at Pearl Harbor, not unlike many American's views of Islam were firmly fixed after 9/11. My mother's view of the Japanese are intellectually understandable to me, but not emotionally; my experience with them has been almost uniformly positive. Had I lived at the time of WWII I would probably feel differently…but the difference in time between how my mother feels and how I feel is less than 20 years. For me WWII was the Olden Days…ancient history, might as well keep holding a grudge against the Normans for invading England (OK…maybe bad example),…umm holding a grudge against the Vandels for invading Spain. That's how it feels. I don't emotionally categorize anything much earlier than my personal advent as "modern", though intellectually I know that's not the case.
Posts: 354 | From: Hattiesburg, MS | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Whose "acceptance"?
God's acceptance, of course! Didn't you know that, by pure coincidence, God likes and hates exactly the same things Bran does?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
others don't want gay people in their churches at all, partnered or single. nybody's after, you're living in a fantasy world.
That is now becoming commonplace in the C of E - LGBTs being refused Holy Communion simply because they are who God made them to be.
Leo, could you elaborate? In all C of E churches -- surely not! but where and how often is this done? I have often been told I have too dour a view of the present Church of England, but on your evidence I am not nearly dour enough. And if this is the case, what is left for AMiE to do?
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Grammatica, I have never heard of gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered persons being refused communion in the Church of England. I would like to see leo specify what churches he's talking about.
The fact is, it's just about unheard of for anyone to be refused communion in the Church of England. If this were happening to people 'increasingly' for reasons of sexual orientation, it would be known and publicized by Colin Coward, Benny Hazelhurst, the folks at Thinking Anglicans, and a large number of angry bloggers. It would be publicized in Jezebel's Trumpet and on the Radio 4 Sunday Programme.
[ 14. August 2011, 08:11: Message edited by: Amos ]
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
others don't want gay people in their churches at all, partnered or single. nybody's after, you're living in a fantasy world.
That is now becoming commonplace in the C of E - LGBTs being refused Holy Communion simply because they are who God made them to be.
Leo, could you elaborate? In all C of E churches -- surely not! but where and how often is this done? I have often been told I have too dour a view of the present Church of England, but on your evidence I am not nearly dour enough. And if this is the case, what is left for AMiE to do?
It would be pastorally inept to name either specific LGBTs or clergy but I know of 3 churches within a two mile radius of here. C of E clergy can quote the BCP about 'notorious and evil livers'.
Sharon Fergusson, who heads up LGCM as well as being an MCC pastor, now celebrates the eucharist as part of all their national meetings because that is the only opportunity some people have of receiving Communion.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
