Ship of Fools: Leviticus on homosexuality

Thread: Leviticus on homosexuality - a temporary injunction? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028603

Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :

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?

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

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.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

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.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

Of course, pork and shellfish are also to'evah. so.....

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

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.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

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 ]

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

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?

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

(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 ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

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 ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Great post.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

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.)

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

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".

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

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.

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

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.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

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 ]

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

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.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

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.

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

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..."

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

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....

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

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...

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

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.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

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 ]

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

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.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

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.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

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.

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

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.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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?

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

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 ]

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

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.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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.

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

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.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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!

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

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....

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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.

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

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]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
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.

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.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

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 ]

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

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.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

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.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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 ]

Posted by Seraphim (# 14676) on :

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.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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?

Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :

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?

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

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 ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

I don't believe you. It would help to have either specifics about churches or confirmation from someone in your diocese (I know there are several on the Ship).

I also think it conceivable that the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and the Metropolitan Community Church might have an interest in spreading scare stories of this kind about the CofE which, say, 'Changing Attitude' wouldn't have.

Grammatica, I know this wouldn't happen even in the conservative evangelical parishes of my acquaintance.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Oh I definitely believe that they can genuinely love each other. Tragically misplaced love, maybe, but love nonetheless.

Love that doesn't fit the right tab into the right slot is "tragically misplaced"? I did think we were talking about the homosexuals and the Christian Church. I'm sure there are plenty of objections you could make to homosexuality from the moral perspective of a Canaanite fertility cult. But most people I meet who try to sell me the line that same-gender families are immoral claim to be upholding true Christianity, so you'd think their reasoning would be somewhat recognizable as Christian tradition (ya know, the one with "neither male nor female?)

quote:
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.

Funny that those who insist that giving up married family life is no great thing aren't queuing up to make the sacrifice themselves. It's so easy to tell other people what's good for them isn't it?

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I don't believe you. It would help to have either specifics about churches or confirmation from someone in your diocese (I know there are several on the Ship).

Just wanted to say that I haven't come across any reports of this kind of thing happening in my area (and there are quite a few evangelical churches of all kinds around).

Also, I was under the impression that a minister couldn't just declare someone ex-communicant without some sort of "official" procedure being followed.

This is the relevant Canon (B16.1):

quote:
If a minister be persuaded that anyone of his cure who presents himself to be a partaker of the Holy Communion ought not to be admitted thereunto by reason of malicious and open contention with his neighbours, or other grave and open sin without repentance, he shall give an account of the same to the bishop of the diocese or other the Ordinary of the place and therein obey his order and direction, but so as not to refuse the sacrament to any until in accordance with such order and direction he shall have called him and advertised him that in any wise he presume not to come to the Lord’s Table: Provided that in case of grave and immediate scandal to the congregation the minister shall not admit such person, but shall give an account of the same to the Ordinary within seven days after at the furthest and therein obey his order and direction. Provided also that before issuing his order and direction in relation to any such person the Ordinary shall afford to him an opportunity for interview.

So if someone WAS being forbidden communion on the basis of being LGBT, they ought to be able to make a complaint to the Bishop. If the Bishop has upheld such a decision, then I think that it would be advisable to kick up a stink publicly.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I don't believe you. It would help to have either specifics about churches or confirmation from someone in your diocese (I know there are several on the Ship).

I have already said that it would be inappropriate to name names so you choose to believe me or not. Suffice is to say that my church is one of three in this diocese that has signed up to the Inclusive Church and Changing Attitudes statements (but not to LGCM's because it's too bureaucratic - though LGCM use our building). As a result, we have refugees from other churches - it is not for me to tell their stories because I have a degree of shared pastoral oversight.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
]So if someone WAS being forbidden communion on the basis of being LGBT, they ought to be able to make a complaint to the Bishop. If the Bishop has upheld such a decision, then I think that it would be advisable to kick up a stink publicly.

Both bishops here are evangelicals who describe themselves as 'hold[ing] the conservative view.'

The usual story is that a minister has told someone that they should not present him/herself at the rail until s/he leaves her partner or, in one case, undergoes 'therapy' I don't know whether any of these has actually gone up to the rail - only at that stage could one 'kick up a stink publicly.'

One story is likely to get into the public domain soon, if the person has the courage to make him/herself the centre of attention,. if it does, with that person's permission, I'll update you.

These ministers are actually following the church's teaching, that goes right back to Tony Higton. There doesn't seem to be the same urgency with regard to usurers.

[ 14. August 2011, 17:35: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I also think it conceivable that the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and the Metropolitan Community Church might have an interest in spreading scare stories of this kind about the CofE which, say, 'Changing Attitude' wouldn't have.

Changing Attitudes has more of a foot in the door than LGCM because Colin is not seen to be as 'shrill' or 'strident' as Richard Kirker was. It's in Colin's interest, not least for lots of Anglicans in Uganda and Nigeria to rock the boat too much.

I don't think that LGCM would invent scare stories. LGCM and MCC were suspicious of each other for a long time and the fact that LGCM has appointed an MCC person to be CEO suggests that they trust her not to poach people. Fergusson did not have an easy ride when she started celebrating eucharists (and she deputed an Anglican woman priest to do so once) at their events - two people that I know from this city made loud and long public objections:

one anglo-catholic on the basis that she is not episcopally ordained and is female

one Roman Catholic on the basis that there should not be ecumenical eucharists at all

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

I believe you even less, leo, when you aver that the Bishop of your diocese knows of and approves of the excommunication of gay Anglicans.

Nor do you seem now able to name any other diocese where you claim this to be happening.

I've met people who claim to have been taken up into alien space-ships and had their semen stolen. Doesn't mean it's true.

[ 14. August 2011, 18:17: Message edited by: Amos ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I believe you even less, leo, when you aver that the Bishop of your diocese knows of and approves of the excommunication of gay Anglicans..

Bear in mind that three diocese intersect in this city.

Believe what you want to believe but have you read some of the vitriolic stuff from some bishops in the Anglican Communion? Or, moving away from the local, the vicar of Jesmond (if Holloway is still there??

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
I don't think we should call it "marriage"

That reminds me of a moral dilemma I've got. Could I ask your advice on it?

One of my oldest friends has always called his parents by their Christian names. Never 'Mum' and 'Dad', he just uses their real names. To me, that's just weird.

And there's someone at work who addresses his as 'father' and 'mother', which I think is far too formal, even a little pompous.

And I know an American lady who calls her mum "Mom". It's like she can't even spell.

So here's my problem: what's the Christian thing to do? Should I tell all these people, loudly and often, that they ought to be using the names for close family members which I approve of? Or would it be better to compromise my principles, keep my mouth shut, and avoid looking like a colossal arsehole?

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :

Eliab [Overused]

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
But most people I meet who try to sell me the line that same-gender families are immoral claim to be upholding true Christianity, so you'd think their reasoning would be somewhat recognizable as Christian tradition (ya know, the one with "neither male nor female?)

Um are you seriously saying that my position is not "recognizable as Christian tradition"? This is news.

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Funny that those who insist that giving up married family life is no great thing aren't queuing up to make the sacrifice themselves. It's so easy to tell other people what's good for them isn't it?

Well not everyone would accept that "married family life" is a fair descriptor of what they're being asked to forsake... But anyhow, to be fair there is a certain rather well-known group of celibates who share my position on this matter.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
I don't think we should call it "marriage"
That reminds me of a moral dilemma I've got. Could I ask your advice on it?

One of my oldest friends has always called his parents by their Christian names. Never 'Mum' and 'Dad', he just uses their real names. To me, that's just weird.

And there's someone at work who addresses his as 'father' and 'mother', which I think is far too formal, even a little pompous.

And I know an American lady who calls her mum "Mom". It's like she can't even spell.

So here's my problem: what's the Christian thing to do? Should I tell all these people, loudly and often, that they ought to be using the names for close family members which I approve of? Or would it be better to compromise my principles, keep my mouth shut, and avoid looking like a colossal arsehole?

If you sincerely believe that the Creator of the Universe cares about the difference between mom and mum, then go ahead and be a C.A. I won't judge you for following your consicence. [Smile]

Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
]So if someone WAS being forbidden communion on the basis of being LGBT, they ought to be able to make a complaint to the Bishop. If the Bishop has upheld such a decision, then I think that it would be advisable to kick up a stink publicly.
Both bishops here are evangelicals who describe themselves as 'hold[ing] the conservative view.'

The usual story is that a minister has told someone that they should not present him/herself at the rail until s/he leaves her partner or, in one case, undergoes 'therapy' I don't know whether any of these has actually gone up to the rail - only at that stage could one 'kick up a stink publicly.'

One story is likely to get into the public domain soon, if the person has the courage to make him/herself the centre of attention,. if it does, with that person's permission, I'll update you.

These ministers are actually following the church's teaching, that goes right back to Tony Higton. There doesn't seem to be the same urgency with regard to usurers.

Leo, that is very interesting in light of the following from the Bristol Bishops' blog:

quote:
The challenge then and now, when disunity breaks out in the Church, is how we deal with it. Paul’s advice, and it is sound advice, is not to deal with broken relationships in the same way that the world deals (or doesn’t deal) with such situation.

Legal action against fellow Christians is a very serious matter. Vilifying our enemies is not edifying for Christ or His Church. Walking away is sometimes the only recourse, but it rarely sorts out the issue(s) at hand.

Surely the most serious outcome in all the Anglican Communion fall-out is the division of the Church in such a public and, at times, ugly way. Seeking to witness to the God who is love in a Church which can seem more characterised by hate, will simply not achieve much.

I have supported the Covenant process and will continue to do so, but without some careful reflection on all this, we shall end up witnessing not to the power of Jesus to unite, but to the power of humanity to divide – a mere replication of what we see happening so frequently in the wider world. The net result will be that we shall prove [to] those hostile to the Church, of whom there are many, that we are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

+Mike

Well, yes, I expect the Bristol bishops and clergy will be proving to everyone that they are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. That is, unless they manage to keep their exclusion of gay people on the downlow, while the public face of tolerant moderation remains intact.

And yes, I do believe you; it's exactly the sort of thing one would expect, in fact.

There is a word for that kind of thing.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

quote:
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.

So I guess I'm duty-bound by my Christian faith to dismiss my partner of five years to the guest bedroom with a brisk handshake (maybe) and an appointment for individual confession with our pastor so that we can each confess our sin as "evil livers."

Oh...wait...our pastor loves us and believes that our relationship is a good and holy thing; in fact, tells us that we're one of the more healthily functional couples in our flock. Our flock in which both of us are not only accepted without reservation but have been given significant lay leadership roles.

My goodness, Bran, the thought of all that apostasic sin aided and abetted by clergyfolk must make your head spin.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
And yes, I do believe you; it's exactly the sort of thing one would expect, in fact. There is a word for that kind of thing.

Bear in mon what I posted earlier, which I repeat here: "Bear in mind that three dioceses intersect in this city."

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Does that mean they compete with one another as to who can be the most bigoted?

Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on :

RE: LutheranChik's comment, "My goodness, Bran, the thought of all that apostasic sin aided and abetted by clergyfolk must make your head spin."

Yes, his head spins 360 degrees just like in "The Exorcist"! [Snigger]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Be very careful with that handshake LutheranChik. . There will necessarily be the physical contact you refer to. Physical contact may lead to desires for homoerotic behaviour. And the briskness is a worry also; be very careful to be a jolly maiden aunt off to look to the hound puppies, rather than being too masculine about it.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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 need to assume. I'm here to give you my personal testimony that removing those dreadful moral codes DOES make everything better.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

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 need to assume. I'm here to give you my personal testimony that removing those dreadful moral codes DOES make everything better.

As is anybody who lived under them. But of course, "personal testimony" is irrelevant to anybody who has a theory to defend.

It really doesn't matter what happens to actual people when the Authority of the Magisterium (or "the Authority of Scripture" - or "the Authority of Tradition") is at stake....

[ 24. August 2011, 15:00: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I wouldn't be too harsh. I mean, it took me personally about 17 years to be willing enough to let go of the theory so that I could find out the facts. It was God who told me to let go of it. I think he finally decided I wouldn't work it out for myself so he gave me an explicit cue - and then a second one at the point where I had doubts again and nearly backed in to my corner again.

Something that I very much enjoy saying on the Ship, because in many Christian circles AND in many gay circles, the entire idea of God telling someone that it's okay for them to be gay is from a different universe.

[ 24. August 2011, 16:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

It really doesn't matter what happens to actual people when the Authority of the Magisterium (or "the Authority of Scripture" - or "the Authority of Tradition") is at stake....

That's really the trouble with the "traditional" view: it has an empirical problem. All those pesky gay couples living the goods of marriage as set forth in the prayer book are so darn inconvenient when you're trying to convince people that that's definitionally impossible! Why can't they just be good sports and feign celibate vocations to keep our nice and tidy theology working?

Posted by anon four (# 15938) on :

LQ [Overused]

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

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 need to assume. I'm here to give you my personal testimony that removing those dreadful moral codes DOES make everything better.

Sure, maybe it's "better" in the sense of "personal temporal happiness of most homosexuals". I won't argue with that. But the personal temporal happiness of most homosexuals is but a drop in the bucket compared to "everything".

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
That's really the trouble with the "traditional" view: it has an empirical problem. All those pesky gay couples living the goods of marriage as set forth in the prayer book are so darn inconvenient when you're trying to convince people that that's definitionally impossible! Why can't they just be good sports and feign celibate vocations to keep our nice and tidy theology working?

I don't think my nice and tidy theology is at all disturbed by those pesky gay couples. The foulest sinner can live a happy and successful life; we all must come to terms with this fact.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
The foulest sinner can live a happy and successful life; we all must come to terms with this fact.

It would seem, from Jesus's teaching and fairly consistently in scripture that the foulest sin is inhospitality - therefore Christian homophobes can, seemingly,'live a happy and successful life.'

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Sure, maybe it's "better" in the sense of "personal temporal happiness of most homosexuals". I won't argue with that. But the personal temporal happiness of most homosexuals is but a drop in the bucket compared to "everything".

That's a very trivial way to sweep away thousands of years of broken families, addiction, and suicide. Providing ecclesiastical and community support to monogamous gay may not improve "everything" but it affords them a means of grace and a salvific alternative to serial intimacy, just as it does heterosexuals.

What does your model improve?

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
I don't think my nice and tidy theology is at all disturbed by those pesky gay couples. The foulest sinner can live a happy and successful life; we all must come to terms with this fact.

I didn't say anything about subjective happiness or success. I referred to the goods of marriage. Happy or successful gay couples could still of course be sinning and not disprove your thesis. Married gay couples are another matter. In what way are they "sinning" that all married couples are not? If the moral qualities of the two are alike then ultimately the distinction is made by fiat. The "anti" crowd has to find a way to say that Mr and Mr Brown are wicked for joining together for mutual joy, help, comfort, and (God willing) childrearing, while letting themselves off the hook for the very same "sins." That is the fatal contradiction of the argument. It has to uphold marriage while contriving a reason not to uphold it for some.

I call it the Oatmeal Crisp argument: "it's an honorable estate - but you wouldn't like it!"

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Sure, maybe it's "better" in the sense of "personal temporal happiness of most homosexuals". I won't argue with that. But the personal temporal happiness of most homosexuals is but a drop in the bucket compared to "everything".

Just out of curiosity, what is your desire to deliberately inflict personal temporal unhappiness supposed to accomplish? Why is it so important to you that gays be made miserable?

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

The bottom line is that there exist a certain number of people who have a vocation neither to heterosexual marriage nor to celibate chastity. There has to be a tertium quid. You can strain all you want at why they "should" be able to fit in one box or the other or why their predicament ought not to exist in the Church, but you're only going to end up with the same people in the same scenario - and outside the Church. And whose soul is that supposed to save?

And besides, Jesus thought differently - "Not all can keep this teaching: some are born eunuchs ..." For an argument supposedly based in Scripture the "contras" can be awfully ADHD when Scripture isn't so comfy for them. The law they cite against gays contains in the same paragraph an "asterisk" foreseeing exceptional situations. Talk about "arguing away the plain meaning of scripture!" the fact is that Jesus was always looking for the purpose of the Law in order to err on the side of bringing people into it. The Pharisees were the ones arguing for the interpretation of the Law best suited to keeping out the undesirables. And why would we want that to be our goal? Marriage was made for man [sic], not man for marriage.

But the anti crowd cannot come up with a recognizably Christian ethic of marriage that preserves penile-vaginal intercourse as its be-all-and-end-all, so they are always keen to avoid any such direction. Thus they patch together a pastiche of the bits of each strand of the narrative on marriage that appear superficially opposed to gays, but they can't stick to any one strand for too long or the bits that don't fit will raise their heads.

That's why it's impossible to argue with them. There's no way to frame their argument in positive terms. They don't appear to have anything to say about marriage at all. From the picture they give, it's some kind of Jungian union of opposites into a gnostic androgynous one-flesh. They can't talk about Genesis too long, or they'll be reminded that Adam's helpmate was chosen on the basis of similarity, not "complementarity" (the animals, after all, were rejected, and they were plenty different). They can't claim it's against the Church's "tradition" when the compiler's of that very tradition's formularies neglected to give a definition that excludes gays (unless you think we're incapable of joy/comfort/childrearing). They can't push the absolute need for procreation too hard lest they face the displeasure of their infertile loved ones. They can't lean too heavily on marriage as fulfillment of God's image, or the necessary conclusion will be that each person is only half an Image - and thus the person who chooses celibacy, as they typically recommend, is by their logic no better off than the one who flouts the commandment to such union by forming a gay parternship.

I'm reminded of high school maths when we charted points on a graph and had to draw an 'averaging' line that came as close to keeping an even number of dots on either side. The contras ultimately cannot draw a definitional line, whichever they pick (and far from being monolithic, there are several "Biblical marriages" on offer in the narrative, many decidedly un-Christian in formation) that leaves all hetero couples on one side and all gays on the other. yet rather than pausing to think, hey, what's up with my definition, they blame the gays for having the temerity to screw up their graph.

You have to let go of the need to make those the only two kinds of families: the existence of other kinds of families who are nevertheless manage to fulfil the Church's teaching belies it.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Sure, maybe it's "better" in the sense of "personal temporal happiness of most homosexuals". I won't argue with that. But the personal temporal happiness of most homosexuals is but a drop in the bucket compared to "everything".

It is nevertheless pretty important to the homosexuals themselves.
You can't dismiss something by saying that it's merely temporal. The temporal fate of the man who fell among thieves was a drop in the bucket compared to "everything". Yet we do not commend the priest and the Levite for considering that, nor condemn the Samaritan for considering the man's temporal fate important.
Dives is certainly happier than Lazarus in a temporal sense. But nobody suggests that Dives would have been condemned to permanent unhappiness had he shared more of his wealth with Lazarus. The greatest love is to lay down our lives for our friends, indeed, but there is no reason to suppose it commendable for us to ask our friends to lay down their lives for nobody in particular.

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
The bottom line is that there exist a certain number of people who have a vocation neither to heterosexual marriage nor to celibate chastity. There has to be a tertium quid. You can strain all you want at why they "should" be able to fit in one box or the other or why their predicament ought not to exist in the Church, but you're only going to end up with the same people in the same scenario - and outside the Church. And whose soul is that supposed to save?

Unrepentant sinners aren't saved, regardless of whether they are "outside the Church" or not.

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
They can't talk about Genesis too long, or they'll be reminded that Adam's helpmate was chosen on the basis of similarity, not "complementarity" (the animals, after all, were rejected, and they were plenty different).

They may have been similar but they were not identical and interchangeable. St. Paul says For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
They can't lean too heavily on marriage as fulfillment of God's image, or the necessary conclusion will be that each person is only half an Image - and thus the person who chooses celibacy, as they typically recommend, is by their logic no better off than the one who flouts the commandment to such union by forming a gay parternship.

Hm I haven't really thought about this argument. But I like it! And I don't see how it's hostile to celibates - surely giving up the chance to be more like God is still a wonderful sacrifice.

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The greatest love is to lay down our lives for our friends, indeed, but there is no reason to suppose it commendable for us to ask our friends to lay down their lives for nobody in particular.

Yeah because we all know that refraining from sodomy is morally equal to martyrdom, right?

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Yeah because we all know that refraining from sodomy is morally equal to martyrdom, right?

So let's get down to it, as I've asked once already.

What's actually involved in this "refraining from sodomy," in your estimation? Where's the bright line here? Is it the "act" itself - whatever that is - or does the "refraining" need to happen sooner?

IOW, it OK to kiss, or hold hands, or maybe send a risque love letter?

What's the actual deal? Let's just see if "refraining from sodomy" means what it seems plainly to mean - that is, giving up any possibility of any sort of physical intimacy (and the emotional intimacy that accompanies it) with another human being you love, for life.

Not only giving up the intimacy - but giving up any hope for it. For life, from childhood onward.

So: still feeling snide about it? Or is it just a monumental lack of imagination and/or empathy. Well, I can understand; nobody else on earth is expected to do this. I'm sure you can't imagine it for yourself; good thing you don't have to, eh?

[ 26. August 2011, 00:59: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Unrepentant sinners aren't saved, regardless of whether they are "outside the Church" or not.

Good God, we might as well pack up and go home then.

More seriously, what does "repentance" mean? Does it not mean "turning" (as to the will of God)? The question then becomes, how does the homosexual who wishes to follow God show that turning? Is a marital or marital-type relationship not, relatively speaking, a closer turn to God than many alternatives? Or do you envision a "pass/fail" soteriology?

quote:
They may have been similar but they were not identical and interchangeable.

And what two people are "identical and interchangeable," unless you strip marriage down to a biological exchange? This is the problem: these arguments all take us away from a Christian ethic of marriage in all their effort to exclude one superficial perceived departure. It almost doesn't matter what one believes: the argument is structurally doomed to defeat itself. I assure you there isn`t a variant I haven`t encountered.

quote:
And I don't see how it's hostile to celibates - surely giving up the chance to be more like God is still a wonderful sacrifice.

When an individual discerns a celibate charism and desires to serve God in that way more than the comforts of marriage, it is indeed a wonderful sacrifice. That sacrifice is cheapened when celibacy is imposed as a blanket prescription on an entire population, regardless of their gift for it, as St Paul himsel recognized many lack (again, not the conservative's favourite passage!)

quote:
Yeah because we all know that refraining from sodomy is morally equal to martyrdom, right?

Well, there's no need to drag angelic rape into the matter. But assuming you mean bugger you're, in fact, the first to raise the matter; I've said nothing about it. And personally, I'm inclined to think a stronger case can be made for Biblical prohibition thereof, for all couples (an accepted rabbinical position in American Masorti Judaism).

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Unrepentant sinners aren't saved, regardless of whether they are "outside the Church" or not.

That's something you really need to take heed of, then, because you're still supporting the tail-end of one of the big three late medieval church 'panics'/persecutions. The penny has already dropped about the sinfulness of witch-hunting and anti-semitism. Time for churches and believers to repent for carrying the 'anti-sodomite' panic into modern times, even in a more attenuated form.

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
They can't talk about Genesis too long, or they'll be reminded that Adam's helpmate was chosen on the basis of similarity, not "complementarity" (the animals, after all, were rejected, and they were plenty different).
They may have been similar but they were not identical and interchangeable. St. Paul says For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Unfortunately given the state of the art on the subject at the time, St Paul couldn't know anything much about human evolution and development. First of all neither men nor women were created as per Genesis but evolved from earlier non-human ancestors. Nobody was created 'for' anyone. Secondly the Y chromosome certainly didn't pre-date the X, nor did women develop from men. The tropes in Genesis about ribs/men predating women should not be taken as telling us useful basic information to use to determine our views about marriage.

Unfortunately, some Catholic/literalist Protestant views on sexuality suffer from a case of 'Garbage in- Garbage out' because they try to treat creation stories in Genesis and later quotes from it in the New Testament as saying something determinative and factual about men, women and sexuality. It's as if we took the Chinese story of the rabbit in the moon and tried to use it to tell us about the moon and its nature. St Paul can't tell us anything about modern gay marriages which have evolved from modern egalitarian heterosexual marriages, something he knew nothing about and something which tropes from Genesis can't shed any light on.

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Yeah because we all know that refraining from sodomy is morally equal to martyrdom, right?

So back to the dregs of the late medieval sodomy panic - no repentance necessary for signing up to a strain of doctrine as damaging as anti-semitism and witch-hunting. Lots of people were martyred because an action as normal, harmless and natural to them as praying was demonised by people who shared that sort of doctrine but didn't have a modern squeamishness about killing and imprisoning for it. Many people now are still suffering because these false views were and are promoted by churches, but there's not much sign of repentance from the churches for it. There should be.

I can quite easily imagine someone ignorantly sneering 'But we're just asking them to refrain from praying - since when has one act of prayer mattered? If they'd just give up this one noxious act we wouldn't need to discriminate against God Botherers. Why's it so important to them? Why can't they live their life alone? It's no big deal. They're just expressing love for some imaginary being they say loves them. It's sad and pathetic and barren and settling for less than they can be. It would do them good to get a Real Life Relationship. Have you heard some of the things they pray about? It's disgusting! Why can't they just abstain?'

If you demonise a harmless characteristic activity of a group, then you demonise that group. Demonise and sneer at catholics for 'idolatry' for venerating statues, always insist on using that word, pick out that one activity of veneration to define Catholics by, and relentlessly attack them for it... trivialise their objections, it works so well! Anyone can see what a Catholic-friendly society it created in 16th/17th century Scotland. Attack people in this manner, and then tell them they ought to be doing the repentance, while you're doing the kicking...

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Sure, maybe it's "better" in the sense of "personal temporal happiness of most homosexuals". I won't argue with that. But the personal temporal happiness of most homosexuals is but a drop in the bucket compared to "everything".
That's a very trivial way to sweep away thousands of years of broken families, addiction, and suicide.

Absolutely. And I'm glad you put it that way because I'm not sure I could have responded without spreading a lot of invective over it.

This is not about 'happiness' in some sort of twee, rainbow-infused 1950s sense. This is about escape from total despair.

quote:
What does your model improve?

Indeed. I find it galling that people are willing to support a particular interpretation of Scripture without considering the results of that interpretation. And when the results are so appallingly bad, I would have thought it would be reasonable for at least a THOUGHT along the lines of "Hmm, maybe I read that wrong" to cross one's mind.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

Indeed, it's funny how foresaking marriage is somewhere on a par with giving up chocolate for Lent as long as some other sucker's giving it up.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
They can't lean too heavily on marriage as fulfillment of God's image, or the necessary conclusion will be that each person is only half an Image - and thus the person who chooses celibacy, as they typically recommend, is by their logic no better off than the one who flouts the commandment to such union by forming a gay parternship.
Hm I haven't really thought about this argument. But I like it! And I don't see how it's hostile to celibates - surely giving up the chance to be more like God is still a wonderful sacrifice.

This doesn't seem to be an argument you're applying consistently.

Celibates are less like God* ---> Wonderful Sacrifice!

Homosexuals are less like God ---> Horrible Sacrilege!

------------
*Isn't the Christian deity supposed to be celibate Himself?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Unrepentant sinners aren't saved

Let's hope that homophobes repent, then.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
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.

This is the most shocking thing I've ever heard on the Ship. It's not just the theological incoherence of even considering such a such a measure without evidence of one's being an "open and notorious evil liver." Throughout my adult life I have celebrated the fact that my church has never made a personal issue of my sexual orientation, nor (apparently) that of a few of my most admired teachers and mentors, who had found a home in Anglicanism, loved the church deeply, and contributed to her-- in some cases spectacularly. If I had had such a confrontation in high school or college on top of all the other traumas of trying to come to terms with oneself at that age, I very well might not be alive today. What is happening to my holy mother?

quote:
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.

Even if it did have to do with sex, the fatal visitors were angels, not men. If I were God and a bunch of guys tried to mess with my angels before even bothering to get well enough acquainted to learn who they were, I might get teed off, too. But the moral of the story, bearing this in mind, is quite different. How people persist in ignoring this obvious factor boggles my mind.

persons Jesus told his disciples to brush off the dust from their feet. LGBTs are doing so, in judgement of the churches. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
giving up those acts should be a small price to pay in return for acceptance.

Given that these are acts in private, how would you know who has given them up? Would you believe those who told you so? Jeffrey John has stated that his relationship with his partner is non-physical. A lot of acceptance that declaration has gotten him.

Anyway, why do you think that it would be a small price for gays to pay when so many straight people have found it impossible? This is very common, judging from the number of folks who are married and claim to be living biblically, after St. Paul grudgingly allowed marriage for those who cannot control themselves.

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
giving up those acts should be a small price to pay in return for acceptance.
Given that these are acts in private, how would you know who has given them up? Would you believe those who told you so? Jeffrey John has stated that his relationship with his partner is non-physical. A lot of acceptance that declaration has gotten him.

Obviously we can't know; I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I won't condemn anyone unless his conscience moves him to admit his situation.

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

Anyway, why do you think that it would be a small price for gays to pay when so many straight people have found it impossible? This is very common, judging from the number of folks who are married and claim to be living biblically, after St. Paul grudgingly allowed marriage for those who cannot control themselves.

Oh I never said it would be a small price. I was just pointing that out to show the silliness of protesting that since homoerotic acts are only one aspect of their relationships, we should allow them.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Anyway, why do you think that it would be a small price for gays to pay when so many straight people have found it impossible? This is very common, judging from the number of folks who are married and claim to be living biblically, after St. Paul grudgingly allowed marriage for those who cannot control themselves.
Oh I never said it would be a small price.

Ahem.

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.

Leaving aside the question of why you don't think you can make your point without bearing false witness, why did you assume we can't read the transcript of your words?

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
I was just pointing that out to show the silliness of protesting that since homoerotic acts are only one aspect of their relationships, we should allow them.

I read your point, as fairly plainly written, that lifelong celibacy for homosexuals is a "small price to pay in return for acceptance" among the bigots who hate homosexuals. I disagree that a lifetime of chastity counts as a "small price" or that gaining the "acceptance" of such people is worth the effort.

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

Surely "should" and "would" mean rather different things.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Surely "should" and "would" mean rather different things.

But your assessment of lifelong chastity being a "small price" is the same regardless of what modifier you use.

For example, saying "you should be ashamed for using such a weak resort to cheap semantics" conveys a slightly different meaning than saying "I would be ashamed for using such a weak resort to cheap semantics", but it doesn't change the assessment of "a weak resort to cheap semantics" much at all.

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

All very well for you to set the standards. You don't have to live by them.

I'm perfectly fine with eating meat sacrificed to idols. Perhaps you aren't. Where does that leave any two Christians who find themselves at opposing poles of a non-essential issue?

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

afterthought --

Why should I even care for or want *your* acceptance?

I'm perfectly content with my savior's.

Posted by Persephone Hazard (# 4648) on :

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.

...why not? What should you assume, then?

Also, the othering language here makes my skin crawl.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Surely "should" and "would" mean rather different things.

That depends entirely on context. In this context, they probably don't and if they do mean different things that only makes your argument look even worse - it 'should' be a small price, but it won't be? Why's that? Something else that's wrong with us??

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Persephone Hazard:
...why not? What should you assume, then?

Also, the othering language here makes my skin crawl.

Well we should assume that doing what's right is more important than doing what's pleasurable.

And what in the world is "othering language"? It's homosexuals who delight in saying how they are "gay" and others are "straight", not me. I hate categorizing people like that.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Surely "should" and "would" mean rather different things.
That depends entirely on context. In this context, they probably don't and if they do mean different things that only makes your argument look even worse - it 'should' be a small price, but it won't be? Why's that? Something else that's wrong with us??

Of course there's something wrong with us! It's called "sin". Christ said that His yoke is easy and His burden light. But we don't always find it so...

[ 31. August 2011, 09:40: Message edited by: Bran Stark ]

Posted by Persephone Hazard (# 4648) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Well we should assume that doing what's right is more important than doing what's pleasurable.

I agree. I don't agree that living true to ourselves is not right, nor that it is merely pleasurable.

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
And what in the world is "othering language"?

Othering language is language that creates a divide, a sense of 'us and them'. It's not the same as labels - 'gay' and 'straight' is an example of labelling language, not othering language. (There may be other problems with labelling language, and other arguments that can be made. But that isn't relevent here.)

And I find it utterly repellent. It's dangerous, it's hurtful and it just makes it harder to work toward a time when people are loved for rather than defined by their differences. It's often just about the general atmosphere of a discussion, or the way that concepts are discussed with no nod to the real living people behind them, but every now and then a specific example comes along that makes my skin crawl. Like this one:

"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."

Immediately you've created a stark divide: WE and THEY. But people aren't a THEY. Nobody's a THEY. I personally believe that a completely central point of Christianity, probably the most important thing that Jesus ever tried to teach, was that everybody is WE. Even the people you don't really want to be 'we'.

Society doesn't ostracise people with leprosy any more. But I'm pretty certain that were Jesus to be coming along to people's dinner parties today he'd still be bringing uninvited guests - members of the Irish travelling community, gay men with HIV/AIDS, people who are homeless and sleeping in shop doorways, working class single mothers on benefits.

In this particular thread, see also "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.", "I don't think we should call it "marriage", but I have no objection to civil union thingies for those wanting them." and various other examples.

It's not just about sexuality, either. People use othering language abut women, about people of colour, about those in a different social class, about immigrants, about those of a different religion, about any group of people who anyone ever tries to seperate themselves from.

[ 31. August 2011, 12:49: Message edited by: Persephone Hazard ]

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
It's homosexuals who delight in saying how they are "gay" and others are "straight", not me. I hate categorizing people like that.

Well it's mighty noble of you to swallow your discomfort with making such distinctions and going ahead anyway. Look at the difference in language.

Straight: "Holy Scripture commends [marriage] to be honored among all people."
Gays: "Yeah because we all know that refraining from sodomy is morally equal to martyrdom, right?"

Straight: "intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity"
Gay: just "doing what's pleasurable."

Straight: "that they may know each other with delight and tenderness in acts of love"
Gay: "the silliness of protesting that since homoerotic acts are only one aspect of their relationships, we should allow them."

quote:
Of course there's something wrong with us! It's called "sin".

Who's "us"? You only consider it "sin" when done by others. Or are now going to treat all who "persist" without "repentance" in such relationships described above the same? In that case, my own bishop will fall afoul of the Windsor moratorium: his wife is a Quaker.

quote:
I haven't thought about that argument ...

The heterodox implications of complementarism are a central feature of Fr Haller's book. By admitting you haven't thought of it you're admitting to not having read it. I am frankly a little sick of dealing with people wringing their hands on the intertubes wondering "how can we square this with Scripture?" who haven't bothered to read "How to Square this with Scripture for Dummies." Why should we do your lot's homework for you?

Above, you got rather indignant/sarcastic at the idea that the creeping gnosticism implicit in your view was not "recognizably Christian." This, in my experience, is a common response. I take it a tacit concession, since presumably if your view were reconcilable with Christianity and my suggestion that it is not so demonstrably absurd, your response could easily show how that could be so, rather than simply laughing off the absurdity of such a suggestion.

Perhaps it would be edifying to take some time off from the discussion to find out what you are talking about before you spill forth your opinions on the basis of not much. I have to add on a personal note that some of the throwaway remarks you make are quite alarmingly thoughtless and crass, even by "reasserter" standards, and display a shocking lack of Christianity for one supposedly concerned with its preservation.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Out of 50 recent posts by Bran Stark, 23 are about homosexuality. Why this obsession?

The sort of stuff he writes is toxic to any gay people who are not self-assured and is likely to damage them if they take it seriously.

However, Bran Stark should not be taken seriously. On a 'favourite bible verse' thread in Heaven, he misquotes John 3:16, so anything he says about the teaching of the Bible is likely to be flawed.

Elsewhere, about prayer book revision, he says that he likes gloomy language. This does not sound to me to have the mark of a 'saved person' with 'blessed assurance'.

Most importantly of all, in my opinion, anyone who says that celibacy is the only option for gay people should be celibate themself. If Bran Stark is celibate, then his opinion might be worth listening to. I know quite a few celibates. Interestingly, none of them seek to impose it on to others. They see it as a personal calling to THEM and would not dream of advising others about THEIR callings.

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Out of 50 recent posts by Bran Stark, 23 are about homosexuality. Why this obsession?

However, Bran Stark should not be taken seriously. On a 'favourite bible verse' thread in Heaven, he misquotes John 3:16, so anything he says about the teaching of the Bible is likely to be flawed.

For someone who makes such an effort to stalk me, it's a pity you couldn't avoid mistaking me for another poster with the same avatar. [Smile]

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :

Host Mode [ACTIVATE]

Leo - your last post in this thread appears to me to be in breach of C3. You know better than this. If you wish to have a go at Bran Stark, take it to the Hell Board.

Host Mode [DEACTIVATE]

Yours aye... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses

[ 31. August 2011, 22:15: Message edited by: TonyK ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Out of 50 recent posts by Bran Stark, 23 are about homosexuality. Why this obsession?

However, Bran Stark should not be taken seriously. On a 'favourite bible verse' thread in Heaven, he misquotes John 3:16, so anything he says about the teaching of the Bible is likely to be flawed.
For someone who makes such an effort to stalk me, it's a pity you couldn't avoid mistaking me for another poster with the same avatar.

Apologies - I was wrong about the Bible favourite verse.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Othering language is language that creates a divide, a sense of 'us and them'. It's not the same as labels - 'gay' and 'straight' is an example of labelling language, not othering language. (There may be other problems with labelling language, and other arguments that can be made. But that isn't relevent here.)

And I find it utterly repellent. It's dangerous, it's hurtful and it just makes it harder to work toward a time when people are loved for rather than defined by their differences. It's often just about the general atmosphere of a discussion, or the way that concepts are discussed with no nod to the real living people behind them, but every now and then a specific example comes along that makes my skin crawl. Like this one:

"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."

Immediately you've created a stark divide: WE and THEY. But people aren't a THEY. Nobody's a THEY. I personally believe that a completely central point of Christianity, probably the most important thing that Jesus ever tried to teach, was that everybody is WE. Even the people you don't really want to be 'we'.

Society doesn't ostracise people with leprosy any more. But I'm pretty certain that were Jesus to be coming along to people's dinner parties today he'd still be bringing uninvited guests - members of the Irish travelling community, gay men with HIV/AIDS, people who are homeless and sleeping in shop doorways, working class single mothers on benefits.

May I use that quote? That is truly powerful.

Posted by Persephone Hazard (# 4648) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

May I use that quote? That is truly powerful.

Of course you may! And thank you [Big Grin]

I'm all grinning now!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0