Originally posted by Eutychus:
I recently turned this round to defend believers' baptism, to paedobaptists, as "confirmation with water"
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:It seems to me that the text has commanded a large majority (94-3) by presenting "blessing" in terms of inclusion and acceptance rather than in terms of endorsement of a principle.
Blessing involves offering a sign and a declaration expressing the love of God and his presence; it is not a magical act that somehow requires God to look on us with favour; nor does it automatically mean he approves of our undertakings... Blessing is a true source of peace and hope, opening up the future and establishing a dyanmic of renewed life... Blessing bears witness ot the presence of God with us in our successes, in our confident progress forward as well as in our wanderings. It does not grant us immunity from the uncertainties of human life, or the risks of our projects, but supports our trust in the benevolence of God.
quote:The upshot is that local presbyteral councils will be asked to decide policy on a case-by-case basis, with an opt-out possible.
We all receive the testimony of Scripture which presents the faithful love of a man and a woman as a parabole of the faithfulness of God towards his people, but we do not all draw the same conclusions: some believe only such couples may be blessed liturgically, while for others, God's blessing cannot be bound up with sexual orientation
quote:Oh I'm sure it has. What I'm wondering is whether it will please anybody as a result.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
To add: if one is being cynical (which I'm not), one could suggest that the definition of blessing has been written in such a way as to please parties of varying views on this DH issue.
quote:It's a big deal in France because it could, potentially, mark an unbridgeable semantic gap between 'protestant' and 'evangelical', all the more so in that the media take has basically been "French pastors allowed to bless SSM".
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I understand that French conservative Christians in other denominations have never been very keen on this organisation (perhaps the feeling has been mutual?), so their opinion is hardly a big deal.
quote:It must be hard for the growing evangelical churches to be expected to pay ongoing obeisance to the historical groups when these groups are, as you say, declining in numerical strength and presumably in presence.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:It's a big deal in France because it could, potentially, mark an unbridgeable semantic gap between 'protestant' and 'evangelical', all the more so in that the media take has basically been "French pastors allowed to bless SSM".
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I understand that French conservative Christians in other denominations have never been very keen on this organisation (perhaps the feeling has been mutual?), so their opinion is hardly a big deal.
One neo-pentecostal denomination has already rushed out a statement to the effect that they won't be doing any such blessing thank you very much.
My position has long been that French evos ignore their protestant older brothers and their heritage at their (long-term) peril.
quote:Most evangelicals see the RCC as anathema, but not a few top thinkers actually feel closer to it than to liberal protestantism, largely on issues of ethics.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
French evangelicals are regularly faced with the the dominant RCC, which they see sticking firmly to its guns on SSM; perhaps this gives them courage to maintain their own position on this issue?
quote:They are far more numerous and vociferous.
you say that the historical Protestants have a higher profile than the evangelicals in France, so it's not as if evangelicals are controlling things.
quote:Which may well reflect how they think about the definition of 'bleessing' that you translated for us. If you're a died in the wool memorialist then you're used to symbolic acts that don't actually have any ontological effect. So, a blessing as defined in your OP would make perfect sense. However, a blessing that effects ontological change would be a more 'sacramentalist' view.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My take is that French conservative evangelicals are functionally more sacramentalist than protestants.
quote:Fair enough ... but we Baptists would regard confirmation as something like "The way that baptism ought to be done, but sadly lacking the water, which really shouldn't have been used all those years ago"
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I recently turned this round to defend believers' baptism, to paedobaptists, as "confirmation with water"
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:You are a closet covenant theologian and I claim my £5.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But if you regard the Church as a group of believers who have intentionally covenanted together, then you can only Dedicated the children of its members.
quote:5 Euros, surely, in this context ... better make it 10, the exchange rate's not too hot these days, and that will cover the commission.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You are a closet covenant theologian and I claim my £5.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:Ecumenicalism in practice, then! You should be pleased about that at least.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Most evangelicals see the RCC as anathema, but not a few top thinkers actually feel closer to it than to liberal protestantism, largely on issues of ethics.
quote:I read French, and it didn't look all that 'threatening' to me. I think it's always for the best if conservative churches clarify their position; at least noone can then claim to have been misled. Moderate Protestant Christians will now know to avoid them, if this is an issue they judge to be of key importance.
The CNEF (National Council of Evangelicals in France), which claims to represent 70% of French evangelicals, has rushed out a declaration which embodies everything I can't stand about it in terms of kneejerkness. Flat-out, thoughtless rejection followed by an open threat of conflict. Idiots.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
. This (a) is utterly correct and true and (b) exploded the heads of the GLEs. Apparently our church also has some sort of certificate for us to sign for our wedding – we take the view that we don’t mind signing if it makes them happy but it’s basically palpable nonsense because the religious ceremony doesn’t make you married in any meaningful sense and said “we celebrated your wedding” certificate isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. If they give us one to take home, I may have to come up with some creative use for it ‘cause I sure ain’t going to be using to prove that I’m married ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. A minister of religion never marries anyone in France. quote:I agree broadly with much of what you say, but note it's the EPUdF, not the whole French Protestant Federation, that is going to do the blessing.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
And I think the Protestant Federation knows that. “We are going to bless gay couples” pretty much amounts to “we are going to celebrate gay weddings” in a lot of minds. Or so it seems to me.
quote:Not 'married in any meaningful sense'? I'm sure this is not what you mean, but you make it sound as if your religious ceremony was fairly pointless, as if you could have simply thrown a party and done without the meaningless religious words. This is a strange thing for a Christian to imply.... Most people, religious or otherwise, surely see a marriage as more than simply a legal arrangement.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Apparently our church also has some sort of certificate for us to sign for our wedding – we take the view that we don’t mind signing if it makes them happy but it’s basically palpable nonsense because the religious ceremony doesn’t make you married in any meaningful sense and said “we celebrated your wedding” certificate isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
quote:Apparently there was a case in the USA where a RC priest, perhaps a bishop, was given the authority to carry out a religious marriage ceremony for a disadvantaged RC cohabiting couple who discovered that they'd lose some of their benefits if they entered into a legal marriage. I don't know if such a situation would ever arise in France, or indeed anywhere else.
A Catholic priest who celebrated a nuptial mass without having checked the civil marriage certificate first would be in serious hot water in Rome.
quote:Gens du voyage (historic travellers) were formerly unable to marry legally because they were not allowed to remain in a municipality long enough for the banns to go through.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Off topic slightly (if we want to keep talking about the religious status of civil marriages, I suppose we need to go to Purgatory), but I can’t see why anyone would only have a religious ceremony. The French State still offers rather a lot of advantages to married couples in the tax and inheritance stakes, and it doesn’t make any sense to me to bypass them.
quote:I'm beginning to think of fudge as yummy rather than messy.
Like I said, I think talking about the meaning of blessing in ceremonies for same-sex couples is a bit of a fudge.
quote:To clarify my thinking on this point, Catholics are sacramentalists as regards marriage, and I think some Lutherans tend that way too (my local EPudF colleague is a Lutheran and was one of those who signed the petition pleading for no vote in the synod).
This arises precisely from the confusion about what part of the process results in a couple being married. I say it’s the legal bit at the Mairie. Religious believers often view the question differently.
quote:What I think about the declaration: Gay marriage is something about which Christians disagree. It is a good thing that those Christians who are gay, and wish to marry, and make that decision in good faith are able to do so in churches that believe that this is right and proper, and its right that those churches should exercise that ministry with awareness that large parts of the Church disagree. So I'm fully in favour.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Thus (translation mine):quote:I'd be interested to hear what denizens of DH have to say about this declaration and particularly this understanding of "blessing".
Blessing involves offering a sign and a declaration expressing the love of God and his presence; it is not a magical act that somehow requires God to look on us with favour; nor does it automatically mean he approves of our undertakings... Blessing is a true source of peace and hope, opening up the future and establishing a dyanmic of renewed life... Blessing bears witness ot the presence of God with us in our successes, in our confident progress forward as well as in our wanderings. It does not grant us immunity from the uncertainties of human life, or the risks of our projects, but supports our trust in the benevolence of God.
quote:So would you say that those who've only had a religious ceremony aren't really married in the sight of God? Or just not married in the sight of the almighty French state?
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I strongly disagree with the position that you aren’t married before God if you’ve only had a civil ceremony.
quote:Why 'of course'? One of the puzzles of this issue for me is that the pro-SSM camp is so keen to achieve something so many others, especially less conservative people, allegedly deem irrelevant. I can't believe that tax reasons alone are responsible for this passion, and suspect it shows legal marriage may indeed have some kind of higher, ill-defined importance in supporters' minds.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I can imagine that the popular indifference to the legal state of marriage might be mirrored, paradoxically, by various religious groups - although not by supporters of SSM, of course.
quote:As I understand it the States of Guernsey are or were hoping to do the opposite: remove the word "marriage" from civil unions of all kinds; those wanting "marriage" would have to find a church willing to do a religious ceremony.
However, to get back on topic, I suppose that viewing all religious ceremonies as mere blessings makes it harder for gay couples to argue that churches are discriminating against them by not engaging in same-sex 'marriage language'. After all, who cares what kind of liturgical language churches use if these ceremonies aren't considered to be weddings in the first place?
quote:That's interesting, as before the 2014 Parliamentary debate my local MP who is, I believe, a Catholic wrote to all religious leaders in the constituency and made the same distinction between "civil union" and "marriage". For him, it was a "no-brainer" that he should support the proposed legislation but this did not impinge on his religious beliefs.
As I understand it the States of Guernsey are or were hoping to do the opposite: remove the word "marriage" from civil unions of all kinds; those wanting "marriage" would have to find a church willing to do a religious ceremony.
quote:It is not just taxes but probably more importantly automatic legal rights and responsibilities. There are cases of the legal next-of-kin removing the partner from the hospital or the funeral (some times not even saying where the body is buried). Note that if a person dies the body is under the control of the next-of-kin unless the courts rule otherwise; a will does not change this (though it could say that those that failed to follow the decedent's wishes don't inherit anything). Now one can make legal arrangements now to emulate most of these but that costs money and time and are easier to challenge in court. However nothing can replace marriage in a variety of laws including international law (e.g., immigration) unless each law or treaty is modified (in which case it is probably easier just to extend legal marriage).
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Why 'of course'? One of the puzzles of this issue for me is that the pro-SSM camp is so keen to achieve something so many others, especially less conservative people, allegedly deem irrelevant. I can't believe that tax reasons alone are responsible for this passion, and suspect it shows legal marriage may indeed have some kind of higher, ill-defined importance in supporters' minds.
quote:One of the reasons why these admittedly negative comments don't disturb me very much is that I'm not sure what 'conflict' looks like in a French Protestant setting. Is it about not attending another church's fundraising do? Fisticuffs at the ministers' meeting? Smaller congregations at ecumenical services?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
"Promoting cheap grace"... "will definitely have a negative impact on relations"... "will complicate relations with other churches"... There are more nuanced ways of expressing disagreement.
quote:My sense is that supporters of SSM don't have a higher regard for marriage than anyone else; what they have is a high regard for equality. Access to marriage represents social acceptance and equality.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Why 'of course'? One of the puzzles of this issue for me is that the pro-SSM camp is so keen to achieve something so many others, especially less conservative people, allegedly deem irrelevant. I can't believe that tax reasons alone are responsible for this passion, and suspect it shows legal marriage may indeed have some kind of higher, ill-defined importance in supporters' minds.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I can imagine that the popular indifference to the legal state of marriage might be mirrored, paradoxically, by various religious groups - although not by supporters of SSM, of course.
quote:
some websites, both for and against, imply that SSM is just a staging post ...
quote:On Facebook, it looks like evos saying things about the EPUdF like "let them be cursed", "they are anathema".
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm not sure what 'conflict' looks like in a French Protestant setting. Is it about not attending another church's fundraising do? Fisticuffs at the ministers' meeting? Smaller congregations at ecumenical services?
quote:So I think there are at least two opposite strands at work in the issue of SSM. There is a strand, in which there are probably more believers, that seeks acceptance within the context of the institution of marriage; there is another which is promoting a far more radical remodelling of social relations.
My sense is that supporters of SSM don't have a higher regard for marriage than anyone else; what they have is a high regard for equality. Access to marriage represents social acceptance and equality.
Moreover, some websites, both for and against, imply that marriage is just a staging post on the road towards a much more thorough and radical re-working of our attitudes towards the family. Such expectations are probably not normative, but they do exist.
quote:The thought of Marriage Equality as an ideological agenda makes me shudder. Ideological agendas and the personal life of individuals make extremely poor bedfellows.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm broadly in favour of SSM as an accommodation, but much less so as part of an ideological agenda.
quote:You did say this earlier, but I'm not sure what you mean. In what sense will they be undone? And if they're such an unpleasant bunch, wouldn't that outcome be for the best?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And as I said earlier, wilful ignorance of the protestant heritage runs the risk of undoing the evos.
quote:By disconnecting themselves from the heritage that preserved the Scriptures and got them into the vernacular, they run the risk of shallow theological thinking, isolationism, sectarianism and millenialism; organisationally, they are likely to waste a generation or three reinventing the wheel; the heritage of the declining EPUdF runs the risk of being lost altogether.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In what sense will they be undone? And if they're such an unpleasant bunch, wouldn't that outcome be for the best?
quote:Presumably there is nothing in the law to stop a couple from getting a church marriage and not a civil marriage, though, is there?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In its synod this weekend it voted overwhelmingly in favour of allowing the liturgical blessing of same-sex marriages (all marriages in France are first and foremost civil marriages; there is no such thing as a church-only marriage).
quote:No. But has been pointed out above, they would not be married in the eyes of the law, and would be regarded as two single people living together, not as a couple with the rights of those who are married.
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:Presumably there is nothing in the law to stop a couple from getting a church marriage and not a civil marriage, though, is there?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In its synod this weekend it voted overwhelmingly in favour of allowing the liturgical blessing of same-sex marriages (all marriages in France are first and foremost civil marriages; there is no such thing as a church-only marriage).
quote:In the Church I served in West Africa, you could only get a "church" marriage (= blessing) if you had first had a civil (= legal) ceremony. That didn't seem at all strange, but logical.
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Presumably there is nothing in the law to stop a couple from getting a church marriage and not a civil marriage, though, is there?
quote:It's relevant in the sense that the issue of SSM and/or blessings highlights the general pattern of things quite well.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[Conservative evangelicals] run the risk of shallow theological thinking, isolationism, sectarianism and millenialism; organisationally, they are likely to waste a generation or three reinventing the wheel; the heritage of the declining EPUdF runs the risk of being lost altogether.
There are some fine evangelical minds out there, but in my experience people in historic protestant denominations actually take engaging with Scripture more seriously than many self-professing evos.
But all this is a tangent...
quote:I note what you say about approval, but the text does explicitly say
Originally posted by orfeo:
The reality is that same sex couples ARE seeking blessings as a sign of approval
quote:So won't same-sex couples feel they've been sold short?
neither does it imply his approval of our plans
quote:doth not approval make. I suspect not a few anti-SSM churches would do this with same-sex couples.
including people in social events and smiling
quote:Our church, being independent, doesn't have a position on SSM as yet, but I'd like to think that yes we would do all this.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Can you actually be an anti-SSM church if you never actually show any sign of anti-SSM behaviour?
I'm not only talking about including people and smiling. I'm talking about using words like "husband" and "married" and all the other little things that indicate acceptance that this is a couple, and a married one at not.
quote:Riiiight. An absence of any sign that SSM is not seen as socially legitimate would, to my mind, be pretty straightforward in our church. The presence of a sign that it is theologically legitimate (e.g. blessing a married couple) is more problematic for me (I'm just trying to be frank here).
Homosexuals are not mind readers. We're not actually going to be hurt by a private intellectual notion that same-sex marriage isn't legitimate, if there is no outward sign of this notion.
quote:By who?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I note what you say about approval, but the text does explicitly sayquote:So won't same-sex couples feel they've been sold short?
neither does it imply his approval of our plans
quote:I don't think you can separate "social legitimacy" and "theological legitimacy" in this fashion. A church is not a social club. It's not a high society gathering where one does not talk about impolite subjects like politics and religion.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Riiiight. An absence of any sign that SSM is not seen as socially legitimate would, to my mind, be pretty straightforward in our church. The presence of a sign that it is theologically legitimate (e.g. blessing a married couple) is more problematic for me (I'm just trying to be frank here).
Homosexuals are not mind readers. We're not actually going to be hurt by a private intellectual notion that same-sex marriage isn't legitimate, if there is no outward sign of this notion.
quote:That makes sense to me, but it wasn't what I was picking up from your entire post here.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea that it's somehow feasible for a church to be completely "socially accepting" of same-sex couples while being theologically against them makes about as much sense as saying that a church could be completely accepting of a German couple while holding the theological position that Germans are destined for hell.
quote:I already said I agree with La vie en rouge that it's a fudge. They're trying to have a bet each way in a manner that is not really coherent.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's also why I asked about your feelings on the declaration. Could it not be interpreted precisely thus? It goes a lot further than many con-evos like, but is doesn't read like a ringing endorsement either, does it? It rests on the provision that God can bless behaviour of which he potentially disapproves.
quote:This takes for granted that being 'gay' is the same kind of thing as an ethnic or racial difference. It ain't necessarily so....
The idea that it's somehow feasible for a church to be completely "socially accepting" of same-sex couples while being theologically against them makes about as much sense as saying that a church could be completely accepting of a German couple while holding the theological position that Germans are destined for hell.
quote:And I wonder whether fudges are all bad in the end, particularly perhaps in a transitional phase - e.g. Council of Jerusalem.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I already said I agree with La vie en rouge that it's a fudge. They're trying to have a bet each way in a manner that is not really coherent.
quote:Different question. I'm not going to comment on the political environment that a French church finds itself in, in relation to other churches, its own members and the general French public.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:And I wonder whether fudges are all bad in the end, particularly perhaps in a transitional phase - e.g. Council of Jerusalem.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I already said I agree with La vie en rouge that it's a fudge. They're trying to have a bet each way in a manner that is not really coherent.
quote:Where choice is involved in being 'gay', and is not involved in being black or German, is in choosing to perform certain acts. By definition actions are matters of choice and subject to moral critique of rightness, fitness, appropriateness, etc. Being black or German is not a moral act by the choice of the person concerned; sexual intercourse is a moral act by choice on the part of those involved.
But then, do any of these people act on the notion that choice is involved, and choose to become gay?
quote:Steve, that only works if you define gay as "indulges in gay sex". Before I was in a relationship, I was still just as straight as I am now.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Orfeo;
quote:Where choice is involved in being 'gay', and is not involved in being black or German, is in choosing to perform certain acts. By definition actions are matters of choice and subject to moral critique of rightness, fitness, appropriateness, etc. Being black or German is not a moral act by the choice of the person concerned; sexual intercourse is a moral act by choice on the part of those involved.
But then, do any of these people act on the notion that choice is involved, and choose to become gay?
quote:Spot on, Karl.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Steve, that only works if you define gay as "indulges in gay sex". Before I was in a relationship, I was still just as straight as I am now.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Orfeo;
quote:Where choice is involved in being 'gay', and is not involved in being black or German, is in choosing to perform certain acts. By definition actions are matters of choice and subject to moral critique of rightness, fitness, appropriateness, etc. Being black or German is not a moral act by the choice of the person concerned; sexual intercourse is a moral act by choice on the part of those involved.
But then, do any of these people act on the notion that choice is involved, and choose to become gay?
quote:Quotesfile.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A bit of fudge is good. A diet entirely of fudge is unhealthy.
quote:It's probable that such attitudes were forged as a result of generations of cultural conditioning.
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is in fact well established that conservative Christians tend to hear "gay" as meaning "having homosexual intercourse", whereas actual gays don't mean anything of the kind. There was an excellent survey on this a few years ago in the USA.
Why conservative Christians misread it in that way, I've no idea. It seems to tie into the related idea that homosexuality is all about sex, not love, whereas somehow straight relationships are about love.
quote:I at least am well aware of the passage where David refers to Jonathan's love as "greater than the love of women", yet it seems at least unlikely that they broke the Levitical prohibition on intercourse.
It is in fact well established that conservative Christians tend to hear "gay" as meaning "having homosexual intercourse", whereas actual gays don't mean anything of the kind. There was an excellent survey on this a few years ago in the USA.
Why conservative Christians misread it in that way, I've no idea. It seems to tie into the related idea that homosexuality is all about sex, not love, whereas somehow straight relationships are about love.
quote:Orrrrr are gay people talking about how they view their sexuality. You know, since they would know.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm still thinking through my response; I'm quite aware at this point that this is a debate with a lot of cross-purposes at work in it.
Much of current thinking about what it means to be 'gay' is based on what are essentially atheistic and materialistic interpretations of humanity which provides very different presuppositions.
quote:I honestly haven't got the slightest idea what that means. Materialistic? I've just pointed out to you that my identity as gay is about what goes on in my head, not what I do with my body.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Much of current thinking about what it means to be 'gay' is based on what are essentially atheistic and materialistic interpretations of humanity which provides very different presuppositions.
quote:I'm not sure what you mean by this, but it sounds negative.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Much of current thinking about what it means to be 'gay' is based on what are essentially atheistic and materialistic interpretations of humanity which provides very different presuppositions.
quote:Straight people do get and respect that.
Originally posted by Pomona:
Bottom line - gay people know much more about what being gay means than you or any other straight person does.
quote:Um well clearly not all straight people get and respect that as Steve's comments show.
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:Straight people do get and respect that.
Originally posted by Pomona:
Bottom line - gay people know much more about what being gay means than you or any other straight person does.
In an effort to understand each-other maybe the gay community need to realise just how much of a cultural straight-jacket straight people actually live in.
quote:Cultural straight-jacket means the way male and female are conditioned from birth upwards, something that has contributed greatly to antagonism the hetero establishment.
Originally posted by Pomona:
Please explain the cultural straight-jacket? Because that sounds awfully like explaining away straight privilege,
And it's not about an 'effort to understand each other', it's straight people needing understanding of when it's not about them and they need to shut up.
quote:Firstly, you're confusing gender roles with straight privilege - and in any case boys in blue and girls in pink is a fairly recent thing. Secondly straight privilege is a thing because of societal heteronormativity - that is straightness being the 'default'. It has nothing to do with privilege in a material sense but is a way of talking about overlapping spheres of oppression in a sociological sense. Given that even in the UK, LGBT suicide and homelessness rates far outstrip the cishet equivalent, straight privilege is a thing. Homophobia and heteronormativity are structural and institutional.
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:Cultural straight-jacket means the way male and female are conditioned from birth upwards, something that has contributed greatly to antagonism the hetero establishment.
Originally posted by Pomona:
Please explain the cultural straight-jacket? Because that sounds awfully like explaining away straight privilege,
And it's not about an 'effort to understand each other', it's straight people needing understanding of when it's not about them and they need to shut up.
Prior to divorce becoming common many male and female couples spent decades together in unhappy unions because the establishment decreed it. Even now that divorce has been made easy and socially acceptable there is still confusion in the hetero relationship. TMM this derives from the conditioning of 'boys in blue/girls in pink'.
OK maybe it was at one time a "privilege" to have sexual desires or encounters that didn't land a person in jail. However this hasn't been the case here, or other countries for 50 yrs thereabouts.
As for straight people knowing when to "shut up". Does that mean threads like this one are best conducted without input from us ignorant straights?
quote:I'm making the point that you get different answers in moral and practical areas depending on whether your world view starts from “I believe in the God revealed in the Bible and supremely in Jesus”, or whether you start from this kind of presupposition outlined in this case by one Richard Dawkins...
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:I honestly haven't got the slightest idea what that means. Materialistic? I've just pointed out to you that my identity as gay is about what goes on in my head, not what I do with my body.
Much of current thinking about what it means to be 'gay' is based on what are essentially atheistic and materialistic interpretations of humanity which provides very different presuppositions.
quote:
“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference … DNA neither cares nor knows, DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”
quote:Now you're not making much sense! What I wrote is not equivalent to any such thing. But your response does seem to illustrate the confusion possible when Christians don't think through the presuppositions properly....
I mean, what you're arguing seems to be the equivalent of saying that any young person who believes that they should be a virgin until they are married isn't "straight". This simply isn't true.
quote:Not exactly. Your Christian view may be different. Other people's Christian view may be the same. And still other people's Christian view may be a different thing altogether.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Put simply, I don't think 'straight' and 'gay' are Christian categories in the first place. Those are worldly categories based on the earthly materialist atheist presuppositions. The Christian view of what's going on is rather different....
quote:MY Christian view is that God, who is Trinity, made gay people and all soprts of other perople to reflect his diverse image.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The Christian view of what's going on is rather different....
quote:Is it blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to deny that God also made murderers, racists, thieves, and paedophiles to reflect his diverse image? At the very least this situation has to be a bit more complex than you are suggesting....
MY Christian view is that God, who is Trinity, made gay people and all sorts of other people to reflect his diverse image.
To deny that is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
quote:There's a world of difference between "this is a Christian view, one of several possible ones" and "all views are equally possible for Christians, and equally valid".
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
John Holding - I don't play the "My view's as good as your view and in turn anyone else's" game. Argue about "Is it true?" by all means, but your approach here simply destroys argument and debate.
quote:Are you trying to suggest that Christians don't believe in sexual attraction??
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Put simply, I don't think 'straight' and 'gay' are Christian categories in the first place. Those are worldly categories based on the earthly materialist atheist presuppositions. The Christian view of what's going on is rather different....
quote:On the first, point taken; I still don't like the kind of discussion-stifling response that tries to treat everything as a matter of opinion rather than engaging with the actual issues of where it is right or wrong/true or false. I'd rather get on with the substantive arguments than be distracted by the "that's just your opinion" game.
There's a world of difference between "this is a Christian view, one of several possible ones" and "all views are equally possible for Christians, and equally valid".
Your habit of writing 'gay' in quote marks every time is very annoying. People's identities are not conditional on your theology validating them.
quote:Don't be daft! I'm querying some of the ways sexual and other attraction are interpreted in the modern world, and querying whether Christians should be so readily accepting interpretations which are not based on Christian presuppositions.
Are you trying to suggest that Christians don't believe in sexual attraction??
quote:I'm trying to discuss what is the proper Christian interpretation of such facts. Which does not necessarily agree with the interpretation that comes from the non-Christian world....
I'm a man. I don't find women sexually attractive. Whether you think that's good or bad isn't what I'm talking about. I'm just talking about the fact.
quote:Did someone forget to send Steve the position paper about homosexuality that has been agreed upon by all Christians worldwide?
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm trying to discuss what is the proper Christian interpretation of such facts.
quote:I'm gay. That's a fact. It means I'm male and I'm sexually attracted to men. That doesn't need "interpreting".
This takes for granted that being 'gay' is the same kind of thing as an ethnic or racial difference. It ain't necessarily so....
quote:Equating gays with paedophiles etc. is an old trick and is highly insulting and dismissive.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by leo
quote:Is it blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to deny that God also made murderers, racists, thieves, and paedophiles to reflect his diverse image?
MY Christian view is that God, who is Trinity, made gay people and all sorts of other people to reflect his diverse image.
To deny that is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
quote:Yes they forgot - possibly because as you well know no such paper actually exists. Yes, currently Christians have lots of different positions; I'm trying to sort out what at least ought to be 'the Christian position' according to the original teachings rather than all the stuff we've made up later to accomodate the world.
Did someone forget to send Steve the position paper about homosexuality that has been agreed upon by all Christians worldwide?
quote:Prove me wrong - as opposed to just acting as if all positions are equally valid and subjective, which as I pointed out above is a discussion-killer.
People who talk about the Christian position usually mean their own.
quote:and your evidence for this was my statement
Steve, as far as I can see you challenged a statement that I was gay.
quote:No, not challenging that you are 'gay' - challenging whether that is exactly the same kind of thing as a racial difference. A lot of current discourse (not necessarily your position) assumes that, in order to then make the further assertion that 'being gay' means that it is perfectly all right to 'do gay' as in certain sexual acts. But the whole point about racism being wrong is precisely that racial difference does not also result in such differences of moral action.
This takes for granted that being 'gay' is the same kind of thing as an ethnic or racial difference. It ain't necessarily so....
quote:So why are YOU using an argument which implicitly makes that comparison?? Think about it....
Equating gays with paedophiles etc. is an old trick and is highly insulting and dismissive.
quote:Sorry on this one. I think I made the classic Aspie mistake of not realising the possibility that you might read my comment in a different 'tone of voice' to that in my mind as I wrote. This was intended as a fairly light-hearted 'Don't be daft' as in of course I believe in sexual attraction and regard that as a normal Christian idea, and wasn't sure how you'd got from my comments to the idea that I had other beliefs.
If you can't express yourself clearly, it does you no favours to come back with statements like "Don't be daft!" when I'm trying to figure out what the fuck you're talking about.
quote:It comes across us not believing queers when we relate our own experiences about our own identities.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
...I'm old-fashioned enough to seriously dislike the manipulation by which the beautiful word 'gay' has been reduced from dozens of delightful meanings to have only the one meaning of 'homosexual'. Unfortunately we're unlikely to ever get the proper meaning of the word back - but why shouldn't I protest a little?
And further, I am rather challenging the current usage and its implications; that seems to me to justify the questioning punctuation. In the comment about 'gay' and 'straight' not being Christian categories the inverted commas were partly about that but mostly just the normal picking out of the words I was commenting on.
quote:I don't understand
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by leo
quote:So why are YOU using an argument which implicitly makes that comparison?? Think about it....
Equating gays with paedophiles etc. is an old trick and is highly insulting and dismissive.
quote:Why can't gay meaning homosexual be a beautiful word?
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by teufelchen;
quote:On the first, point taken; I still don't like the kind of discussion-stifling response that tries to treat everything as a matter of opinion rather than engaging with the actual issues of where it is right or wrong/true or false. I'd rather get on with the substantive arguments than be distracted by the "that's just your opinion" game.
There's a world of difference between "this is a Christian view, one of several possible ones" and "all views are equally possible for Christians, and equally valid".
Your habit of writing 'gay' in quote marks every time is very annoying. People's identities are not conditional on your theology validating them.
On the second, I'm old-fashioned enough to seriously dislike the manipulation by which the beautiful word 'gay' has been reduced from dozens of delightful meanings to have only the one meaning of 'homosexual'. Unfortunately we're unlikely to ever get the proper meaning of the word back - but why shouldn't I protest a little?
And further, I am rather challenging the current usage and its implications; that seems to me to justify the questioning punctuation. In the comment about 'gay' and 'straight' not being Christian categories the inverted commas were partly about that but mostly just the normal picking out of the words I was commenting on.
quote:Actually in this case the change does appear to be a change deliberately manipulated by and on behalf of 'gay' people, rather than a natural change, and therefore does seem top be the 'fault' of gay people. Go look at a thesaurus to find all the things 'gay' used to mean and for which, for all practical purposes, it can no longer be used now that it has become so associated with homosexuality. Instead for many people it has actually become a word to use to mean something is pretty yukky (as in 'Euggh - that's gay!')- though I wouldn't use it that way myself.
And why are you protesting the change in meaning of the word 'gay' and not, say 'nice'? Words do not have specially defined 'proper meanings'; no committee, no king, no angel hands down their definitions. They are defined by how we use them. Language changes. Your discomfort with that is neither the fault nor the problem of gay people.
quote:I'd assume that was the intention - that is, to hijack a word with joyous associations to replace all the negative words like 'bent/queer/etc'. I don't feel it's worked quite as intended, and has caused a great deal of confusion on the way. Ideally 'gay' should mean all the things it used to without being limited to one particular usage in an attempt to imply that all those previous meanings apply to the one usage. I don't object when a word changes naturally - I'm not happy when there is rather clear manipulation.
Why can't gay meaning homosexual be a beautiful word?
quote:OK, come at it from a different end - paedophiles also often say that God 'made them' as they are. Do you agree with them?
I don't understand
quote:And I, and others, have told you repeatedly that "gay" is a reference to 'being', not 'doing'.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I am saying that when that transition is made from 'being' to 'doing' the issue has changed.
quote:So you're actually agreeing with me - can I point out that I made that very distinction in a DH thread some months back; and I don't just mean I contributed that to a thread, I mean I started a thread to discuss that very point. Why weren't you and the 'others' helping out with the discussion there?
And I, and others, have told you repeatedly that "gay" is a reference to 'being', not 'doing'.
quote:If it's so clear, I'm sure you'll be able to produce some reliable sources demonstrating that this 'manipulation' was a deliberate campaign on the part of the gay community.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by teufelchen;
quote:Actually in this case the change does appear to be a change deliberately manipulated by and on behalf of 'gay' people, rather than a natural change, and therefore does seem top be the 'fault' of gay people. Go look at a thesaurus to find all the things 'gay' used to mean and for which, for all practical purposes, it can no longer be used now that it has become so associated with homosexuality. Instead for many people it has actually become a word to use to mean something is pretty yukky (as in 'Euggh - that's gay!')- though I wouldn't use it that way myself.
And why are you protesting the change in meaning of the word 'gay' and not, say 'nice'? Words do not have specially defined 'proper meanings'; no committee, no king, no angel hands down their definitions. They are defined by how we use them. Language changes. Your discomfort with that is neither the fault nor the problem of gay people.
by Pomona;
quote:I'd assume that was the intention - that is, to hijack a word with joyous associations to replace all the negative words like 'bent/queer/etc'. I don't feel it's worked quite as intended, and has caused a great deal of confusion on the way. Ideally 'gay' should mean all the things it used to without being limited to one particular usage in an attempt to imply that all those previous meanings apply to the one usage. I don't object when a word changes naturally - I'm not happy when there is rather clear manipulation.
Why can't gay meaning homosexual be a beautiful word?
quote:The word "gay" has had sexual connotations for centuries, though originally a "gay man" was a womanizer and a "gay woman" was a prostitute. It has had connotations of homosexuality since at least the late 19th Century; as early as 1938, it was used in a Hollywood movie ("Bringing Up Baby") to mean homosexual. What you are decrying is the natural progression of language.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'd assume that was the intention - that is, to hijack a word with joyous associations to replace all the negative words like 'bent/queer/etc'.
quote:Given how little I actually said myself among the over 400 posts on that thread, I'd be interested to know what those were. I do recall ending up with the feeling that nobody had actually refuted my OP in the slightest.
Probably because there were other things you said in that thread that I completely disagreed with.
quote:There's no innuendo in being a womaniser?
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Occasional uses notwithstanding, well into my lifetime 'homosexual' was not the primary meaning of 'gay' and it could be and was regularly used in the wider senses without the titters and innuendo which such usage later attracted. A 'gay bachelor' would primarily, as you say, mean a womaniser rather than a homosexual.
quote:Paedophilia abuses and harms people.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by leo;
quote:OK, come at it from a different end - paedophiles also often say that God 'made them' as they are. Do you agree with them?
I don't understand
And why would I assume God 'made' anyone to 'be' what God himself has declared to be sinful?
(And BTW, I've not said much here of my own opinions - don't be too ready to assume what those are)
quote:Just so we know how the land lies:
Originally posted by leo:
Paedophilia abuses and harms people.
Consenting homosexuals do not.
So there is no comparison.
And I don't believe that God declared homosexuality as sinful. Scripture does not envisage or mention two people in love. The 6 'clobber texts' are open to interpretation.
quote:That may well be your experience, but it is not mine. I am 54 years old, and I can clearly recall that in the 70s in my culture (the American South), the primary meaning of "gay" was "homosexual." It was rarely used with any other meaning except by elderly people or perhaps in a phrase such as "the Gay 90s" or "Don we now our gay apparel." In regular conversation, it was never used to mean "bright" or "happy" or "carefree."
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Occasional uses notwithstanding, well into my lifetime 'homosexual' was not the primary meaning of 'gay' and it could be and was regularly used in the wider senses without the titters and innuendo which such usage later attracted.
quote:Yes, a too-often stigmatized group of people who were ridiculed and even punished for being themselves, and who were regularly the butt of slurs and insults, decided what words they wanted to use to describe themselves. But this specific word they chose already had the meaning; they didn't impose it on the word.
I don't pretend to understand or be aware of all the details of how things changed; but it does seem that the change started from the gay covgmmunity and I recall - though wasn't making notes at the time - occasions when homosexuals were quite pushy in seeking the use of the word 'gay' as a description.
quote:The USA is different from the UK, of course. American usage tends to influence British usage rather than the other way round, although there are exceptions.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I am 54 years old, and I can clearly recall that in the 70s in my culture (the American South), the primary meaning of "gay" was "homosexual."
quote:Gay was used in the twentieth century, often as slang or coded to mean Homosexual or libertine. It was deliberately used in the late 60's and early 70's as part of the name of groups and newspapers to mean Homosexual.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Occasional uses notwithstanding, well into my lifetime 'homosexual' was not the primary meaning of 'gay' and it could be and was regularly used in the wider senses without the titters and innuendo which such usage later attracted. A 'gay bachelor' would primarily, as you say, mean a womaniser rather than a homosexual. I don't pretend to understand or be aware of all the details of how things changed; but it does seem that the change started from the gay community and I recall - though wasn't making notes at the time - occasions when homosexuals were quite pushy in seeking the use of the word 'gay' as a description.
I don't regard this as 'sinister' - but nor do I feel it was realistically the 'normal progression of language'. And like it or not, it has had the effect of driving out pretty much all the previous usage. Which is all I intend to say about this tangent.
quote:Gay News was founded in London in 1972.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[Since we're on the tangential topic of vocab, can anyone tell me if the term 'gay' was being used to mean 'homosexual' in the South of England in the 70s?
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The fact that various people found homosexuality so odious that they stopped using other unrelated meanings of the word gay when it was widely used to mean homosexual just accelerated a language transition. But as a musician said when his German girlfriend complained that there were no good bagels to be had in Berlin, "Whose fault is that?" The withering of other uses was caused by intolerance of homosexuals.
quote:Seeing a Newspaper named "Gay" on the street pushes the mainstream vernacular. As pointed out by others, it's been in use for a long time. The difference in the 60's on was that there was a theory about being out and proudly claiming a name rather than continuing euphemisms. I don't see pop songs as leading the use of Gay. It was much to common to simply gender switch; the female Diva is singing a song about losing a man; the gay listener identified.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
That's all interesting and helpful. I suppose one could then ask when and how the word moved out of its subculture entered the mainstream vernacular. Pop songs would be a part of that.
quote:And I wonder if your list of 6 includes the text - words of Jesus himself - that I would regard as pretty definitive....
The 6 'clobber texts' are open to interpretation.
quote:Yes, but even that is, itself, open to interpretation! What I mean is that some scholars, based on good evidence and research etc., will say that a meaning of a passage is acceptable; others will disagree. My feeling is that you are most unlikely to accept any of the pro-SSM exegetes' interpretations because - like most of us - you will have made a priori assumptions about the limits of acceptability.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It is still necessary to do the work of showing that the interpretation is solidly founded.
quote:Which words of Jesus would those be? Because He never (in anything recorded in the Gospels) makes any reference to homosexuality at all.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by leo
quote:And I wonder if your list of 6 includes the text - words of Jesus himself - that I would regard as pretty definitive....
The 6 'clobber texts' are open to interpretation.
quote:I suspect Steve has in mind the bit where Jesus talked about a man leaving his father and mother and joining his wife... and then thumped the table and yelled AND ONLY HIS WIFE! for emphasis.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Which words of Jesus would those be? Because He never (in anything recorded in the Gospels) makes any reference to homosexuality at all.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by leo
quote:And I wonder if your list of 6 includes the text - words of Jesus himself - that I would regard as pretty definitive....
The 6 'clobber texts' are open to interpretation.
quote:1) Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by leo
quote:And I wonder if your list of 6 includes the text - words of Jesus himself - that I would regard as pretty definitive....I repeat; 'interpretations' have to be properly justified - simply to make glib comments about 'open to interpretation' does not in itself prove the validity of the interpretations.
The 6 'clobber texts' are open to interpretation.
quote:There's more to it than that. Sin - hamartia = missing the mark - what makes us less than fully human.
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:Just so we know how the land lies:
Originally posted by leo:
Paedophilia abuses and harms people.
Consenting homosexuals do not.
So there is no comparison.
And I don't believe that God declared homosexuality as sinful. Scripture does not envisage or mention two people in love. The 6 'clobber texts' are open to interpretation.
Sins. Are sins 'sins' because they harm people? Or are things 'not sins' because they no not harm people? Or is there simply an incidental correlation between "sinful things" and "things which harm people"?
quote:Given what else he said, he didn't need to. Clearly your list of clobber texts doesn't include Jesus' words - or the bit of the OT he very emphatically quoted.
Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality.
quote:Almost right; but go back to what hequoted about why that happens - and don't go adding unnecessary bits; table-thumping totally redundant, just pay serious attention to the actual words he did say.
I suspect Steve has in mind the bit where Jesus talked about a man leaving his father and mother and joining his wife... and then thumped the table and yelled AND ONLY HIS WIFE! for emphasis.
quote:Actually one of the things that makes Aspies like me good 'absent-minded professors' is that we generally don't make a priori assumptions as much as others do, and we tend to be unusually aware of when arguments are being messed about by that kind of thing.
My feeling is that you are most unlikely to accept any of the pro-SSM exegetes' interpretations because - like most of us - you will have made a priori assumptions about the limits of acceptability.
quote:I have. My point, actually, is that you shouldn't add bits either. You shouldn't add bits that say that the why is only achievable by a man and a woman.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by orfeo
quote:Almost right; but go back to what hequoted about why that happens - and don't go adding unnecessary bits; table-thumping totally redundant, just pay serious attention to the actual words he did say.
I suspect Steve has in mind the bit where Jesus talked about a man leaving his father and mother and joining his wife... and then thumped the table and yelled AND ONLY HIS WIFE! for emphasis.
quote:OK, I suppose this is the 'argument from silence', and everyone is supposed to say "...and since Jesus doesn't refer to it we can assume he's totally happy about anything we come up with...."
Because He never (in anything recorded in the Gospels) makes any reference to homosexuality at all.
quote:That's because he didn't quote any of them.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by leo;
quote:Given what else he said, he didn't need to. Clearly your list of clobber texts doesn't include Jesus' words - or the bit of the OT he very emphatically quoted.
Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality.
quote:Um; I didn't say Jesus did quote any of the 'clobber texts', However, see my latest post in an exchange with orfeo and Alan Cresswell, the words Jesus DID say that are clearly more than a bit relevant....
That's because he (Jesus) didn't quote any of them.
quote:But He did said some very specific things about loving one another, and about addressing our own faults before we condemn others for theirs.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by leo;
quote:Given what else he said, he didn't need to. Clearly your list of clobber texts doesn't include Jesus' words - or the bit of the OT he very emphatically quoted.
Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality.
quote:You're right. It would be proof of nothing, and therefore it would be impossible to say anything definitive. Which was my point, you had said "the text - words of Jesus himself - that I would regard as pretty definitive". Since there are no words of Jesus (recorded) that address the issue there is no definitive words of Jesus to reference.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I suppose this is the 'argument from silence', and everyone is supposed to say "...and since Jesus doesn't refer to it we can assume he's totally happy about anything we come up with...."
Reality check; even if true (and I'm not sure it is really true) all that this would actually prove would be that Jesus doesn't mention it.
quote:Or, He doesn't mention it because it was not an issue at the time. Jesus doesn't tell us anything about whether we should use genetic modification to improve crop yields, nuclear power to generate the electricity our modern life style demands or whether women should be allowed to vote. There was no way such things would have come up in conversation in Roman Palestine, and if He did talk about such things His disciples would have been even more confused than they were already.
And in that case we simply wouldn't know whether he doesn't mention it because he would agree with our modern views, or whether he doesn't mention it because he totally agrees with the traditional view.
quote:Or, at the time, it would not have been important at all and so He didn't mention it.
Of course if he did agree with the traditional view, he wouldn't need to mention it. On t'other hand, if he was disagreeing with the traditional view, surely he would very positively need to mention that fact - it would be quite important...!!
quote:And, the relevance of someone committing adultery, being unfaithful in a relationship, to the question of whether faithful monogamous relationships are OK is what, exactly? Adultery is wrong, breaking the commitments of faithfulness within a marriage is very damaging to the relationship and beyond. I don't actually know many gay Christians who would disagree. But, why should agreeing with that be something that prevents two men (or two women) getting married, intending to live together faithfully? Or, are you saying that because people sometimes sin and have affairs that therefore no one should ever get married?
However, there is also the weight of what he did say. ... we should not forget that his last word to the woman caught in adultery was "...and sin no more". He was not saying such conduct was actually right or God indifferent to it. Indeed what he does say implies a high reverence for marriage as God's ideal and no compromise about the wrongness of other sexual expression.
quote:In response to a question about marriage between a man and a woman, He goes back to that text. And, of course, that text also has relevance to same-sex marriages as well, the idea that marriage is a commitment to another person, complementary, forming a new family unit etc are all perfectly true no matter who the couple are.
So there he is being asked a question about marriage and divorce, and where does he go for an answer? He goes to a text that says "God 'made them male and female'" and expounds it in terms of that complementary partnership being the meaning of marriage.
quote:Yes, it is a big stretch. But, I for one am not taking that step. As far as I am aware, Jesus never contemplated marriage equality. He never sat down and thought about it. He never approved of it, nor did He disapprove.
It is more than a small stretch to go from that to the idea that 'same-sex marriage' is even contemplated by Jesus, let alone approved!
quote:For a start, of course, that would be entirely hypothetical as there was no concept of marriage equality anywhere at the time.
As a thought experiment, suppose that there was a Pharisee like Saul/Paul there, a 'Hebrew of the Hebrews' but from a diaspora setting such as Tarsus, and he were to ask about the pagan custom of SSM - is it really credible that Jesus says "Oh yes, that's fine!"? Surely it is massively more likely that he goes back to the same OT text again and repeats "God made them male and female"?
quote:Of course GM foods and nuclear power didn't 'come up in conversation in Roman Palestine', given that they were of course unknown. The issue of the proper relationships between men was hardly an 'unknown' in an age when homosexuality was relatively common among Gentiles up to and including Emperors. Agreed it wouldn't be discussed much in a society/culture (Judaism) which of course recognised the Levitical prohibition on gay sex. But these two situations are anything but comparable. SLOPPY THINKING, ALAN.
Or, He doesn't mention it because it was not an issue at the time. Jesus doesn't tell us anything about whether we should use genetic modification to improve crop yields, nuclear power to generate the electricity our modern life style demands or whether women should be allowed to vote. There was no way such things would have come up in conversation in Roman Palestine, and if He did talk about such things His disciples would have been even more confused than they were already.
quote:Please stop trying to use Asperger's to justify or support your views. I have Asperger's too and while I share a concern for truth I don't think your claim to be less vulnerable to assumptions stands up to scrutiny. Your neurological state is an irrelevance to your views on human sexuality, and your assumption that Jesus would agree with you because there is no record of him saying otherwise is an argument from silence, however you frame it.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Actually one of the things that makes Aspies like me good 'absent-minded professors' is that we generally don't make a priori assumptions as much as others do, and we tend to be unusually aware of when arguments are being messed about by that kind of thing.
As a 60s student I'm if anything pre-disposed to accept 'liberal' ideas (and for what it's worth, I have as much trouble with fellow Christians who are shocked at my 'liberalism' as those who find me 'fundamentalist'). Aspies come with a concern for 'is it true?'
quote:Excellent point, and one I have made from time to time in the last decade or so.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would hope and expect that, faced with the fact of same-sex relationships so clearly filled with the fruits of the spirit, neither Jesus nor Paul would have any more problem with them than with opposite-sex ones (recalling, of course, that Paul was none too keen on people marrying at all).
quote:The story of the woman caught in adultery is one of the less convincing pieces of evidence about Jesus as the more ancient Bible manuscripts do not include John 7:53-8:11. It was almost certainly not originally a part of St John's Gospel. Where the story comes from is a source of much speculation. It is the sort of story that should be a report of something Jesus did and a scribe somewhere added it in to their version but who knows if it was really Jesus, someone else or what.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
However, there is also the weight of what he did say. It is true that he was willing to eat with prostitutes and other sinners, as the Pharisees wouldn't, and he clearly rated Pharisaic self-righteousness a greater problem than sexual pecadillos. But we should not forget that his last word to the woman caught in adultery was "...and sin no more". He was not saying such conduct was actually right or God indifferent to it. Indeed what he does say implies a high reverence for marriage as God's ideal and no compromise about the wrongness of other sexual expression.
quote:That's a cop out, that is if you accept it as being part of the scriptures. If you do, then you have to deal with it.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:The story of the woman caught in adultery is one of the less convincing pieces of evidence about Jesus as the more ancient Bible manuscripts do not include John 7:53-8:11. It was almost certainly not originally a part of St John's Gospel. Where the story comes from is a source of much speculation. It is the sort of story that should be a report of something Jesus did and a scribe somewhere added it in to their version but who knows if it was really Jesus, someone else or what.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
However, there is also the weight of what he did say. It is true that he was willing to eat with prostitutes and other sinners, as the Pharisees wouldn't, and he clearly rated Pharisaic self-righteousness a greater problem than sexual pecadillos. But we should not forget that his last word to the woman caught in adultery was "...and sin no more". He was not saying such conduct was actually right or God indifferent to it. Indeed what he does say implies a high reverence for marriage as God's ideal and no compromise about the wrongness of other sexual expression.
quote:No, relationships between men were known. Although it should also be recognised that in a lot, probably the vast majority, of cases the relationships in the Roman era were radically different to the relationships today. In the Roman era these relationships were almost always adulterous (since at least one of the men would be married - which may be a reflection on a society that forced gay men to marry a woman for social reasons), often involved prostitution (in many cases associated with Roman religious practice), and often involved minors or non-consenting slaves.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The issue of the proper relationships between men was hardly an 'unknown' in an age when homosexuality was relatively common among Gentiles up to and including Emperors. Agreed it wouldn't be discussed much in a society/culture (Judaism) which of course recognised the Levitical prohibition on gay sex. But these two situations are anything but comparable. SLOPPY THINKING, ALAN.
quote:I'm not using AS to 'justify or support' my views. Just trying to explain, to a Shipmate's suggestion about my 'a priori' assumptions, that Aspies generally think in a slightly different way about things - which is indeed why so many of us are 'absent-minded professors' who contribute a particular kind of problem solving in many fields.
Please stop trying to use Asperger's to justify or support your views.
quote:Actually I tried quite hard to avoid that assumption. I made the point that where there is only silence, neither side can assume "Therefore he agrees with me..." I do give some weight, with a rabbi as unconventional as Jesus, to the notion that in a case like this his silence would likely reflect agreement with the prevailing view, especially as his other comments on sexual morality tend if anything to the stricter side. Note, BTW, that when challenged about his social contact with prostitutes and tax collectors he doesn't justify it by saying that those 'sinners' are perfectly all right, but by a comment that it is those who are ill who need a doctor.
your assumption that Jesus would agree with you because there is no record of him saying otherwise is an argument from silence, however you frame it.
quote:That in itself is a bigger argument (about the relationship of OT and NT) than I can tackle right now. I think above I cited Leviticus rather to point out that in Jewish culture, accepting that prohibition on gay sexual activity would be the norm. There are wider reasons than that one text to object to same-sex marriage for Christians.
I'm always amused by those who cite Leviticus as a reason to condemn same sex marriage but who still manage to eat bacon for breakfast.
quote:Which is an irrelevant tangent. The question (on this thread) is not about whether or not nation states legally recognise same sex marriages. The question is, in countries where the state legally recognises marriage should the Church "bless" (whatever that means) such marriages?
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
can I point out that as I don't believe in the concept of a 'Christian country', and also therefore don't believe in Christians using the law to impose their beliefs and moral standards on non-Christians ... I'm not opposing the legal provision of SSM in a religiously and philosophically pluralist state.
quote:He also made them intersex. Not many of them, admittedly, but some. Your exposition will need to deal with that.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
On the text about God making humans 'male and female' I'm aiming/hoping to be back later tonight with a more detailed exposition.
quote:I think that can be explained by the fall, so in the creation account we see the model which since has been corrupted to lesser or greater degrees.
Originally posted by orfeo:
He also made them intersex. Not many of them, admittedly, but some. Your exposition will need to deal with that.
quote:Yes, I am curious if conservative Christians see sex and gender in terms of basic templates, thus, men are male and masculine, from which divergences occur, thus, some men don't feel male, some don't feel masculine, some don't desire women, some don't desire anyone, some wear women's clothes, and so on. Is the template then some kind of divine archetype, from which it is sinful to diverge? On the other hand, we have, let a 100 flowers bloom.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:He also made them intersex. Not many of them, admittedly, but some. Your exposition will need to deal with that.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
On the text about God making humans 'male and female' I'm aiming/hoping to be back later tonight with a more detailed exposition.
It will also have to avoid treading on a vast number of landmine generalisations that risk alienating/invalidating any heterosexual man or woman that doesn't happen to match whatever characteristic you give to an archetypal male or archetypal female. Best of luck with that.
Because, fundamentally, "likes having sex with women" is just one characteristic attributed to an archetypal male. It happens to be one that I break. But there are other characteristics that some other male on the Ship will break.
quote:But being intersex is not a disability. It can involve disability or a greater risk of certain conditions, but that applies to all sexes, eg XY individuals being prone to prostate/testicular cancer.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:I think that can be explained by the fall, so in the creation account we see the model which since has been corrupted to lesser or greater degrees.
Originally posted by orfeo:
He also made them intersex. Not many of them, admittedly, but some. Your exposition will need to deal with that.
quote:I would say that there is a model, for sure. Whether or not any departure from that is sinful, or just the result of sin entering into the world, or both, is a different question.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Yes, I am curious if conservative Christians see sex and gender in terms of basic templates, thus, men are male and masculine, from which divergences occur, thus, some men don't feel male, some don't feel masculine, some don't desire women, some don't desire anyone, some wear women's clothes, and so on. Is the template then some kind of divine archetype, from which it is sinful to diverge? On the other hand, we have, let a 100 flowers bloom.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:He also made them intersex. Not many of them, admittedly, but some. Your exposition will need to deal with that.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
On the text about God making humans 'male and female' I'm aiming/hoping to be back later tonight with a more detailed exposition.
It will also have to avoid treading on a vast number of landmine generalisations that risk alienating/invalidating any heterosexual man or woman that doesn't happen to match whatever characteristic you give to an archetypal male or archetypal female. Best of luck with that.
Because, fundamentally, "likes having sex with women" is just one characteristic attributed to an archetypal male. It happens to be one that I break. But there are other characteristics that some other male on the Ship will break.
quote:One can see anything that one doesn't like as being "explained by the fall". That's not an explanation so much as a hand-waving excuse.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:I think that can be explained by the fall, so in the creation account we see the model which since has been corrupted to lesser or greater degrees.
Originally posted by orfeo:
He also made them intersex. Not many of them, admittedly, but some. Your exposition will need to deal with that.
quote:It's not an excuse. As I said, we have a model. As for the last part, either one of them is wrong or they're both wrong but they can't be both right.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:One can see anything that one doesn't like as being "explained by the fall". That's not an explanation so much as a hand-waving excuse.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:I think that can be explained by the fall, so in the creation account we see the model which since has been corrupted to lesser or greater degrees.
Originally posted by orfeo:
He also made them intersex. Not many of them, admittedly, but some. Your exposition will need to deal with that.
It's very easy to reason "that seems good, so it's from God, that seems not good, so it's not from God", which is in the very opposite of the reasoning process that should occur. What happens when two people look at the exact same thing, and one finds the thing "good" and the other doesn't?
quote:To the first question, yes. To the second, I don't know.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I'm curious, does this mean miscarriages are a result of the fall?
After all, living breathing intersex people are actually a success story of the human reproductive process, relatively speaking. There are a great many embryos that aren't even viable.
And how does this square with species that are known to change gender, as a matter of course? Is this natural phenomenon "fallen"? Of course, I accept that something being "natural" doesn't preclude it being "fallen", but if God created male and female and everything going on the Ark was in pairs because that's the way it was always intended, I now find myself speculating about whether God originally created clownfish male and female but it all went wrong afterwards.
quote:I would say they're both wrong in that the premise and the conclusion are the wrong way around.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:It's not an excuse. As I said, we have a model. As for the last part, either one of them is wrong or they're both wrong but they can't be both right.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:One can see anything that one doesn't like as being "explained by the fall". That's not an explanation so much as a hand-waving excuse.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:I think that can be explained by the fall, so in the creation account we see the model which since has been corrupted to lesser or greater degrees.
Originally posted by orfeo:
He also made them intersex. Not many of them, admittedly, but some. Your exposition will need to deal with that.
It's very easy to reason "that seems good, so it's from God, that seems not good, so it's not from God", which is in the very opposite of the reasoning process that should occur. What happens when two people look at the exact same thing, and one finds the thing "good" and the other doesn't?
quote:That's stretching a text - so there are males and females. And there are male homosexuals and female homosexuals.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I think the Son of God basing an argument about marriage on the fact of God creating them 'male and female ' goes a little beyond mere 'silence'.
quote:Sorry, I understood things like disability and other harmful things to be a consequence of the Fall - but I don't understand the idea that being intersex is. If it's not inherently harmful then why is it a result of the Fall?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Who mentioned disability?
quote:Then what is your reasoning? What basis do you have for connecting the existence of intersex people with the fall other than your own 'ickiness' over the concept of intersex people?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I agree that if something seems good it doesn't necessarily mean that it is, but that's not what I'm say at all and neither is it my reasoning.
quote:Totally agree on this. I was just trying to make sure everyone else was clear on that. Whether Christians feel it appropriate to 'bless' such a union depends on whether they believe it right in Christian terms. 'Bless' would appear to imply approval - the question is can we approve? Which in turn depends on whether we can show that God approves - which according to the Bible does not appear to be the case.
Which is an irrelevant tangent. The question (on this thread) is not about whether or not nation states legally recognise same sex marriages. The question is, in countries where the state legally recognises marriage should the Church "bless" (whatever that means) such marriages?
quote:As regards that last, I don't know of many people - indeed I don't think I know any - who think Jesus was suggesting that marriage in this age means unworthiness to enter the next age! The essentially trick question he was answering was about a completely different concept. This is not your first "You may as well say...." argument which doesn't make sense and has nothing to do with what I'm actually saying. I'm getting fed up of them.
That's stretching a text - so there are males and females. And there are male homosexuals and female homosexuals.
So what.
You may as well say
that married people aren't worthy to enter heaven.
quote:My reasoning is this: we have a model which is good, the creation account, how things should have been had our first parents not sinned. Male and female he created them, it says. Yes, I would understand all that much more literally than most here.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Then what is your reasoning? What basis do you have for connecting the existence of intersex people with the fall other than your own 'ickiness' over the concept of intersex people?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I agree that if something seems good it doesn't necessarily mean that it is, but that's not what I'm say at all and neither is it my reasoning.
You yourself rejected any equation of intersex with disability. So what other basis is there for labelling being intersex as a problem?
I'm trying to imagine what would happen if you actually walked up to an intersex person and said "your existence is evidence of the fall". I can't imagine they'd be pleased with you.
And the proposition is skirting terribly close to a theological proposition that gets rejected several times in the Bible. Maybe it's not QUITE the same as looking at a blind man and asking Jesus "so who sinned, him or the parents?" but it's still an uncomfortable proposition to me to look at someone's physical state and say "ah yeah, evidence of the fallen state of mankind generally". And unlike homosexuality we're talking about a situation where the notion of "choice" cannot possibly be raised (not that I think that's accurate for homosexuality anyway).
quote:I agree - the point is that when you stretch a text to justify something that isn't there, that is what you get.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by leo;
quote:As regards that last, I don't know of many people - indeed I don't think I know any - who think Jesus was suggesting that marriage in this age means unworthiness to enter the next age! The essentially trick question he was answering was about a completely different concept. This is not your first "You may as well say...." argument which doesn't make sense and has nothing to do with what I'm actually saying. I'm getting fed up of them.
That's stretching a text - so there are males and females. And there are male homosexuals and female homosexuals.
So what.
You may as well say
that married people aren't worthy to enter heaven.
As regards the rest, that doesn't make sense either. Go back to the gospel text and this time think it through properly.
quote:Awful as the RC Church sometimes is, I don't think even they actually teach "that married people aren't worthy to enter heaven." As far as I know, they also have the usual interpretation that, as the question to Jesus and his answer both imply, marriage in this life is totally worthy.
And there ARE people who interpret the text that way - like that very big church which enforces celibacy upon its clergy.
quote:If anything it's your attempts to twist Christ's words to fit a homophobic agenda that look desperate.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Honestly, this is getting rather desperate on your side. As I suggested, please pull out and rethink.
quote:To return to the OP, I think that accommodation is precisely what the EPUdF declaration is about.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm trying to sort out what at least ought to be 'the Christian position' according to the original teachings rather than all the stuff we've made up later to accomodate the world.
