Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: T&T: Sex, lies and church
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Why would I enforce an intermediate link to a page with the word "orgasm" on it when the word is in several messages on this thread? That makes no sense. If that's too explicit, so is this thread.
-------------------- Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Okay, you're missing the point. The two click rule is not to do with what people can see on your monitor, it's to do with what triggers net nanny curtains which alert IS security. So I don't care about the font size.
-------------------- Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
It seems perfectly simple to me - if you shouldn't be reading this stuff at work, don't do it, and if you do, don't complain if you get tod ff.Right, back to the subject. I agree that the church shouldn't keep quiet about sex, but neither should it be condemnatory. A few months ago I had to preach on the passage telling us that remarriage after divorce was effectively committing adultery. This was difficult for me and I was aware that as an unmarried man I was walking on eggshells. The church I attend takes a fairy liberal line on this sort of thing for various reasons. First of all, we are of the catholic wing of the Church of England which it would be fair to say attracts more members of the gay community than any other Christiab tradition and we have a number of members who are gay. In fact, it's not been unknown (shock horror) for a gay priest to preside at the Mass. A lot of this also has to do with our location. Part of the parish consists of a large run down council estate. Quite a lot of our congregation are single parents. It would be easy to say that it was their own fault for getting themselves into that situation, but that's not what they need to har as they're probably well aware of that already. So no, we don't condemn people for having children out of wedlock. Instead we offer them support. So it's rum for Erin on this one.
-------------------- "May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
Actually. What I want to know, is did Erin get deluged with offers and email after revealing her pan-orgasmic nature? I know it gave me a thrill.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
brodavid
Shipmate
# 460
|
Posted
A sorrowful push off the plank.Erin, you can rant all you want about the church "not getting it", but the truth is that the church has a moral obligation to teach biblical moral values, even if you blithely dismiss them, and the bible does have clear teachings about the proper place of sex. These teachings are not intended to make sex "dirty", but rather to prevent sex from being tainted by our animal lusts. I know what you said about "because the Bible says so" arguments, but if one does not accept the Bible's moral teachings, then how can one accept the Bible's teachings on other matters, like salvation? As for the argument that sex is a basic need, I think Paul addressed that one quite effectively: "Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything. "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"--but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. - 1 Corinthians 6:12-13 Bottom line: There ARE standards of morality, including sexual morality, and the church has a duty to teach these standards. The facts that some leaders of the church have not lived by these standards and that some leaders of the church have over-emphasized the topic of sex do not change the text of the Bible.
-------------------- Brodavid
"Prayer can do anything that God can do." - E.M. Bounds
Posts: 702 | From: Mississippi, USA | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Gill
Shipmate
# 102
|
Posted
The church I attend takes a fairy liberal line on this sort of thing for various reasons. LOLOL Did you mean FAIRLY? [B]These teachings are not intended to make sex "dirty", but rather to prevent sex from being tainted by our animal lusts. [/B} Dear God... isn't that the whole point of what Erin is saying? Our 'ANIMAL LUSTS' are exactly what sex IS about. How can passion and emotion TAINT an expression of love? No, this isn't good enough. I take your point, all of you who uphold Biblical teachings as taught by the church... But I don't agree with you. Because I have been there and been horribly damaged by the low view of sex taught by my church. I made choices which were ill-informed and frankly stupid. I denied myself love because I thought the animal passions I felt meant that it was a sinful relationship ()and no, we never had sex) - and chose to live in a chaste and lonely marriage for many years. Erin - you've had enough rum. A magnum of champagne is on its way over. I'm with you.
-------------------- Still hanging in there...
Posts: 1828 | From: not drowning but waving... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Erin: 1. The church has never, in my experience, differentiated between sexual activity and orgasm.
*blink* I never heard that wet dreams were sinful...
-------------------- My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by nicolemrw: getting this back to the rant for a moment, a query:if sex is as basic a need as food and shelter, and someone isn't getting enough, or any at all... how far are they justified in going to get some? if someone is in a marriage where for whatever reason theres sexual problems leading to one partner being deprived, is adultery justified?
That is entirely up to the individuals in the marriage. I will not marry again, as I know now that I could not stand up there and make that vow. At the same time, though, when my ex and I were in a particularly rough patch, he cheated and I was not upset about the act itself. I've known people who are otherwise compatible in every way, but simply cannot cross the sexual divide. Is it better for them to divorce? Is it better for them to seek that one piece outside of the relationship if everything else is working? Would I have a better marriage if my (theoretical, I am not doing that again) husband and I had fantastic, mind-blowing sex twice a day, but shared nothing else? Which is the true marriage? In my opinion, it'd be the first one.
-------------------- Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Esmeralda
Ship's token UK Mennonite
# 582
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Erin: Had you bothered to read my other posts in the thread, you would have known that I sometimes don't have a choice in the matter. If I don't make something happen, my body makes it happen anyway, and yes, my attitude is inherently different if I do not have that physical release. Just the same way I am not able to be patient, kind, blah blah frickin' blah if I have a migraine.I really don't know why you people have such a hard time grasping this.
Erin, I did read your other posts, and the link. I still have a problem though. Point one: we all know that body and mind are inextricably linked - which is why you (and I) find it hard to be civil when we have a migraine. But the link goes two ways: what occupies your mind will affect your body. Which way is the influence going for you? Point two: Subject to point one, I have no problem with you having spontaneous orgasms (I simply question whether their origin is entirely physical and unalterable). What I do have a problem with is your implication that your behaviour is dependent on whether or not you 'get' them. I also detect an undertone saying something like: 'I am a polymorphous, multi-orgasmic bisexual, therefore I have the right to get my self-proclaimed "needs" met through another person of whatever sex regardless of the quality of relationship or degree of commitment.' Forgive me if I exaggerate. It's just what I'm reading between the lines. On the main point of the rant, I agree the church has talked too much about sex to the detriment of other important subjects. What I disagree with is that we should therefore shut up about sex. I think rather we should start to talk about the other subjects too. SoF is a case in point. We have 'the sex edition' - when are we going to get 'the money edition', 'the power edition', ' the justice edition', 'the peace edition'?
-------------------- I can take the despair. It's the hope I can't stand.
http://reversedstandard.wordpress.com/
Posts: 17415 | From: A small island nobody pays any attention to | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Gill: Sadly, I've heard it mooted.Anyway I'm now even MORE confused about your beliefs re orgasms or avoidance thereof..
Well, notice I say deliberate stimulation to orgasm. (I suppose technically my jury is out regarding how much of our will is involved in dreams, erotic or otherwise.) quote: Originally posted by Esmeralda: We have 'the sex edition' - when are we going to get 'the money edition', 'the power edition', ' the justice edition', 'the peace edition'?
But we have them -- we talk about that kind of thing all the time without worrying about stepping over the line. Sex is something else; perhaps it oughtn't have to be that way, but it is. It's very difficult to talk about sex without people reacting in horror about the subject matter, no matter how delicately handled, so a new board (which I hope stays beyond two months! God knows we need a forum to discuss this in a religious context like this) and the "sex edition" are very helpful things for a lot of us, I believe! quote: Originally posted by Esmeralda: the 'animal lusts' expression (a very male viewpoint I thought
How is it more or less male or female an expression? I'd be tempted to think it a Gnostic expression, but not gender-focused one way or the other.
-------------------- My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gill
Shipmate
# 102
|
Posted
Point taken re chastity Esmerelda - but I don't think you were fair on Erin.As i and i seems to be saying (just in case I sunmmarize you wrongly!) there is simply no way to find middle ground. When I was a card-carrying evangelical, that was fine. Because there WAS no middle ground. However, to my first, shock and then surprise, I have discovered lots of Christians who can argue for sex not being the black and white issue I was first taught. For heaven's sake, you can't argue chastitiy in marriage from a lot of out OT heroes/heroines... and God is unchanging, no? See how easy it is! Another thing - and this has disturbed me for YEARS because I've seen it so often... What the HELL are we saying to older people who've had lots of wonderful sex who feel a call to God but are doomed, logically, to remain secpnd-class christians? Sorry, it SIMPLY WON'T DO to be simplistic.
-------------------- Still hanging in there...
Posts: 1828 | From: not drowning but waving... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Divine Outlaw:
[QUOTE][QB] Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey: - Failure to distinguish between the message (the Bible) and the messenger (the Church).
But, the New Testament was written by the Church (albeit in embryonic form)! And the Old Testament arose out of God's People. Church and Bible go together, and whilst I would want to (ultimately) take a cautiously progressive line on sexuality, it is not as simple as "evil Church has distorted pure biblical message". [/QB][/QUOTE] The members of the Church who preach from the Bible today, however, are not the same people who wrote the Bible, and it is true that many of the current members of the Church mangle the messages from the Scriptures, and not just on the topic of sex. "evil Church has distorted pure biblical message" is simplistic; "current Church distorted meaning of biblical message" is not. quote:
In any case, I was under the impression that the message was Jesus rather than the Bible. The Incarnate Word rather than the written word...
The written word, though, is what we have to work with. It is what reports to us what Jesus said and did. In short, the written word is a record of the Incarnate Word, and cannot be dismissed simply on the grounds that it isn't the Incarnate Word itself.
-------------------- I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Esmeralda
Ship's token UK Mennonite
# 582
|
Posted
Erin - OK, I admit I'm responding more to your posts on the ensuing discussion than to the original rant. However I still disagree with latter. I also disagree that 'the church' whom you accuse doesn't include yourself. You are a member of the church - if you don't like it, change it (not always easy, but should be possible for an assertive person like yourself...) I do apologise for the aggressiveness of my tone; I know I have to work hard at not being judgmental. You had so many tots of rum that I thought you could take a little walk down the plank. ChastMastr, the reason I classed the 'animal lusts' phrase as a male response was purely based on experience. In my experience it is only men who talk about 'lust' (though this is changing) and also they seem to make no distinction between 'lust' and 'desire'. I don't generally find this kind of dismissive and self-condemnatory language amongst women (maybe Gill is an exception). Gill, I don't understand what you are saying about treating 'older people who've had lots of wonderful sex' as second class citizens in the church. I have never encountered this. How much older? Are you talking about mature converts who have had a sexually active lifestyle but are not in a partnership? Or the divorced? Or is this something that occurs in a Catholic context? (don't know what brand of Christian you are). Please elucidate. As an older (one year to Saga motor insurance) person who hasn't had lots of wonderful sex, I'd like to understand.
-------------------- I can take the despair. It's the hope I can't stand.
http://reversedstandard.wordpress.com/
Posts: 17415 | From: A small island nobody pays any attention to | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jlg
What is this place? Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
Enough, everybody! This is turning into a lot of personal attacks!Back to what I remember as the main piont of Erin's Rant, which was that the Church has done a pretty poor job talking about sex and maybe it should just shut up for a while. (I'm sure I will be corrected by Erin and/or everybody else if my memory has distorted what she said. ) Based on that understanding, I vote her the tot of rum. Whether the Bible is clear or not is irrelevant; whether we as individuals choose to follow the teachings of the Bible or the Church is irrelevant. The point is that the Church has treated sex as a black and white issue and has over-emphasized it and generally made a hash of it. Which is why we are ALL so eager to argue about it! I know lots of churches that preach all sorts of specific and often restrictive things about how I should conduct my sex life, and they follow through with a vengeance. On the other hand, they also preach about loving one's neighbor, the virtues of poverty, proper stewardship of our 'dominion over the earth', etc., but somehow I never hear a thunderous statement from the pulpit that "YOU! Yes, you! You know who you are! You had better quit your job, sell your possessions, and devote yourself to caring for the poor in the slums. I don't care if it's difficult and will cause pain to your loved ones. That comfortable home and well-paid job are EVIL in the eyes of the Lord..." I think you get my point. When the church can get sex back in perspective as just one of the infinite multitude of ways we sin, then they can start talking about it again.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
No correcting from me, cause you got it exactly right.
-------------------- Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Linux Rose
Shipmate
# 2257
|
Posted
Rum, and plenty of it, for me.What I would like, and I have a vested interest, is for the Church to get off the fence and take a lead on the issue of those of us who are, er, chromosomally- and hormonally-challenged and therefore not permitted under English law to marry. (Here I confess, I was born XXY, had the op two and a half years ago). If sex is only to be permitted within marriage, then does this mean we are called to celibacy? And if I am called to celibacy, why did God make me so frisky? I feel that this is the reductio ad absurdam that shows the Church's dogma on sex to be the muddle it is. A couple of years ago, I wrote to the leaders of a number of Christian and other faith groups, asking if they recognised that marriage could exist in the eyes of God, even if not within the eyes of the State, and whether they would be prepared to perform a spiritual marriage ceremony where one of the partners was in a similar position to myself. The answers, or lack of them, were interesting. The Methodists were deeply sympathetic. The Quakers sidestepped the issue and said it was up to the prayerful consideration of individual Monthly Meetings (this is a characteristic Quaker response!) Both the Church of Scotland and the Episcopalian Church of Scotland replied saying they were sympathetic in principle but feared that deeply entrenched conservatism within their numbers would oppose the idea. The Liberal & Progressive Synagogues offered to bring my letter to the attention of the Rabbinical Council. Someone on behalf of the Bishop of Bristol said that the matter would be considered. As far as I know it is still being considered. Someone on behalf of the (RC) Bishop of Clifton said the Bishop was indisposed and I would hear from him in due course (I never did). Nothing from Lambeth Palace, The Archbish of Westminster, the URC, the Orthodox or Reformed Synagogues, or any of the Islamic groups. So, am I damned whatever I do, or what?
-------------------- Rosie - Worrier Princess
"Swans sing before they die, 'twere no bad thing Should certain persons die before they sing" [S T Coleridge]
Posts: 160 | From: Reading, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Atticus
Shipmate
# 2212
|
Posted
I see no reason why people who commit sexual sins(in the churches view) should be any less accepted than people who commit sins of pride(which is also an abomination to the lord, somewhere in those strict old books) or who lie, or for that matter who drive over the speed limit(if you wish to be legalistic about the issue). More rum from me. Even by using the churches standards they should shut up about it.(or at least be up at arms about fast drivers as well)
-------------------- This time it's for real, I'm really gone until August. For real. Gone. Bye.
"My life would be a lot simpler if I were gay."
Posts: 321 | From: off the deep end | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
An alternative point of view.The church, by it's puritanical attitudes has contributed to making sex feel naughty. The kinkier the naughtier. Sex's naughtiness is for many one of the most enjoyable aspects. What a shame if the church were to shut up now, depriving us of that forbidden fruit we all crave (and in our souls know is good for us). Seriously though, sex has historically become taboo in so many faiths and cultures because it so often led to unwanted, unsupported children. The rules surrounding sex in most faiths worldwide derived from this fact. Had modern contraception been available, perhaps such strict rules would never have evolved. Certainly the perceived magnitude of offenses would never have risen to their current level: we would not have the hangups we now, as a world, seem to have. What the church should be saying is that a liberal attitude to sex is fine, but whatever you are involved in , be it sex, power or money, think of others first and be sure your actions do not hurt other people. Sex is dangerous stuff. A single act of unfaithfulness can wreck a relationship. Where children are involved then it can wreck their lives too. Handle with care and love. Erin, I liked your rant even though I didn't agree that the church should shut up. I would rather it modifed what it most often seems to be saying. I agree with others that, for many, the act of sex is not a need. However for some (especially men) it is impossible to go through five minuites without thinking about it.
-------------------- Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Musta
Apprentice
# 2518
|
Posted
PlankSorry Erin but there's just too much of the smell of Hollywood, Playboy/girl, tabloid journalism, Rousseau's noble savage running innocent and naked through the forest, and first year university student historical revisionism in your rant. The church is too easy a target on this subject in our smarmy, western, post-Christian culture. And beginning any statement with "the church is too..." or "the church spends too much time and energy ..." is a bit like saying "the world is too..." I can't say whether I agree or not. The statement is simply meaningless, even allowing for its 'rant' context. Below is a bit of something I put on another thread trying to focus on the many positives in Christian and church teaching on sexuality (Yes, I accept it is a bit arrogant to quote yourself. But I say, the church for too long has forced us to be humble!! Let me be an arrogant prick if I like. Its my calling ..... [sorry Erin - couldn't help that bit of sarcastic diarrhoea - forgive me]): "I must say, as a new shipmate, I was relieved to see this particular thread! I was getting a bit sick of some of the lengthy diatribes, astonishingly naive and seemingly Hollywood-inspired generalisations about nasty old church teaching interfering with our beautiful, pure sexual desires. ....
And we have to ask from what standpoint do we look down and cast judgment on the history of Christian sexual ethics? Who gave us our moral high horse and how sturdy is it? Shall we talk seriously for a moment about sexuality in pre-Christian Europe? Shall we go into the realities of temple prostitution, castration, female circumcision, wife and concubine swapping, male chauvenism and child sexual exploitation in various cultures? (Of course those things aren't absent where Christianity has had an impact, but let's focus on church teaching and the big picture) Let's ask a few questions about the very origins of our moral judgments on child sexual exploitation, mutilation, prostitution etc. Where did we get the language and moral categories which enable us to even talk about consensuality and abuse in sexual (and other) relations? The church's record on sexuality is pretty awful but let's do a bit of an honest historical comparison. A sort of before and after shot might be enlightening. Many of the perspectives on other threads in the discussion so far might also benefit from some non-western perspectives. [I'm reminded of the good bishop Spong's enlightened and helpful response to our African sisters and brothers who took a "traditional" stand on homosexuality. "Neanderthals", was it??] There are many, many churches and para church organisations which have promoted a healthy sexuality. Many theologians, male and female have taught and continue to teach that sexuality was created good, was frustrated and subjected to futility (to use St Paul's phrase) like every other created reality, but has been redeemed by Christ through the cross and resurrection. The thrust of biblical teaching on sexuality, as with so many subjects, is teleological and eschatological. God discloses his design for the amazing things he creates, that design has been frustrated in the fall, but has been redeemed, re-made and renewed through Christ. Can I recommend a little gem of a book by Marva Dawn, published by Eerdmans, entitled "Sexual Character: Beyond Technique to Intimacy". She writes as a wheelchair bound person with several debilitating illnesses, and has some fascinating things to say about how our sex-obsessed culture has elevated sexual fulfillment to the level of a fundamental human right. She makes a rather cumbersome but helpful distinction between genital and non genital sexuality and expression and questions the idolatry of the former at the expense of the latter. She has some amazing, clear headed reflections on sexuality and friendship, homosexuality, masturbation, marriage etc. She is deeply influenced by Jacques Ellul and Stanley Hauerwas, both of whom are also strongly recommended on this subject. Theirs is often a virtue based approached, placing sexuality in the context of cultivation of Christian character within the unique communal and political bonds of the church." Also, what's all this crap about the church not being allowed in the bedroom? Hasn't feminism and good ol' Karl of the Marx brothers reminded of the biblical vision that the personal is political and the "private" is public! Christian faith makes public claims about the real world. Its not the boy scouts. Just when Ananias thought his money and his little white lies were his own private business, a little public reminder was dished out about whose world and whose church this is.
As a wicked, carnal male, whose mind is prone to think about sex with people other than my wife about once every 6 minutes (or so the Freudians tell me, bless 'em), I'm glad I belong to a group of Christians to whom I regularly have to confess my failings and weaknesses. I'd have cheated on my wife too many times to mention without that external, public check (the still, small voice is either too easy to ignore, or its my own perfect HS impersonation). Let's recover a robust vision of ecclesial accountability and love. I am not made "free to be me", but freed from me to be a slave of Christ. The church is 'polis', and my pecker is not my own (thank Christ)! So, if I can summarise that, how can we say anything intelligible about the nasty old repressive bad smelly mean church's teaching on sex (or anything else) unless we have a bit of a clue as to where we are in relation to what we are questioning. Whose high horse are you riding Erin? From the steamy windows of whose bandwagon do you peep? Answer that for me and we might know where to go next. And please don't say you refuse to answer that question as well...
-------------------- "If we let ourselves drift along the stream of history, without knowing it, we shall have chosen the power of suicide, which is at the heart of this totalitarian world ..." - Jacques Ellul
Posts: 6 | From: cold and wet | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Movin
Apprentice
# 2531
|
Posted
I've just joined. Its been a great read so far. Yes that was a bit long and sanctimonious from Musta, and might have broken some of the rules I just read before registering.But the response about "commitment to your wife" is just as sanctimonious. Commitment is always communally grounded. Fidelity is only possible because of my wider belonging and commitments, not because of my mythical romantic heroism. I think there are some real issues about selling out to mostly pagan romantic individualistic notions of commitment and "love" in all of this. I have been stimulated by Stanley Hauerwas like no other theologian, particularly his view of the primacy of the church to our identity, including our sexual identity and expression. And just how offensive that is to our western individualistic sense of our own moral identity. So yes the church has stuffed this issue up, but so has everyone else. But the church shouldn't shut up because at its best it provides a context and language to make sexuality intelligible.
Posts: 1 | From: Very South West | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Thanks Movin for taking the trouble to read before posting! And welcome aboard.Hostly note/ It seems time for a small hostly reminder, especially to those who are completely new to the Ship, that before posting you should have read in their entirety and understood not only the Guidelines for this board (especially the bit about respect for others) but also the Ten Commandments for all boards on the Ship, which also apply here. If you are posting on this board and have not already read both these documents, please do so now, before posting anything else. In particular, I’d like to draw people’s attention to Commandment 3- "attack the issue and not the person" which also states "extreme or insensitive attacks on the beliefs or lifestyle choices of other shipmates are not tolerated." Louise TnT Host Host note off/ [tidied up] [ 21 March 2002: Message edited by: Louise ]
-------------------- Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Hmmm. Now I'm wondering about whether or not I should change my vote; because I believe that "tired old dogma" -- I just agree that the way this is expressed -- and strange limitations and assumptions, not dating back millennia, but just a century or two (three, max, if that), I wholly disagree with -- but not the basic doctrines about sex, as I understand them. Aiee! I want to vote both ways...On the flip side, to paraphrase Lewis, even if I disagree with Erin's frustration with the basic dogma, the fact of her frustration (and that of many others) is something to which we should give due weight. I don't think the basic doctrines should be changed at all -- but the method of expression, some of the assumed logical conclusions (which I think are not warranted) of the doctrines, and the mealy-mouthed unwillingness of the "religious" writers/publishing companies/etc. to be blunt or straightforward about sexual matters (thus leaving any frankness wholly up to non-Christians) -- desperately need changing. So... I still think a tot of rum, not at all because I don't believe in those old teachings, but because I think they need to be expressed better than they have been in recent times.
-------------------- My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Musta
Apprentice
# 2518
|
Posted
I think that was well put, and clarifies a few things for me in this discussion. I am sorry for overdoing the sarcasm (my wife actually agrees with your last comment Erin, and now I'm in trouble coz she read it ). I stretched the "devil's advocate" thing a bit far, but crikey, there's been too many tots of rum. Its all become a bit too self congratulatory. I still maintain its too easy a criticism to make in our cultural context, and the response to my argument is just a perfect illustration of it. I'd still like an answer Erin if you are still talking to me. From what perspective do you judge the church on this issue? What tacit assumptions lie behind the conversation-stopping accusations of "sanctimonious" and loaded phrases like "tired old dogma". Until we get that far, aren't we just throwing around cliches? Of course that opens up the wider issues I raised regarding the genealogy of our conceptual and linguistic tools for understanding sexuality. All ethical positions, including your stance Erin, require unpacking. Why should "tired old dogma" be under any greater scrutiny than the "freedom/fulfillment/need/basic human right" way of framing the issue. I'd like you to unpack your stance for us, or at least be a bit more open to others trying to have a go. Respectfully and obediently yours (although I can't see the consistency of needing strict rules for something like a bulletin board, whilst wanting a free for fall for something as breathtaking and dangerous as sex. But answering my question was the important thing)
-------------------- "If we let ourselves drift along the stream of history, without knowing it, we shall have chosen the power of suicide, which is at the heart of this totalitarian world ..." - Jacques Ellul
Posts: 6 | From: cold and wet | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Musta
Apprentice
# 2518
|
Posted
Here's the problem when trying to fall back on the Beatlesque "all we need is love" argument, though. Everything you just said, and most of what Erin has said on the subject so far, is wholeheartedly endorsed by the North American Man-Boy Lovers Association (NAMBLA). I have colleagues who represent child molesters convinced that what they do is loving, noble, consensual, beautiful and natural, and its just the church or Victorian values who have screwed the rest of us up so badly. They genuinely and articulately believe that that is the only reason it is still a crime for adults to seduce children and vice versa. Some of these guys have highly sophisticated historical and ethical arguments.And that is just it. They use the same words, but those words and concepts mean different things because they speak from outside the Christian tradition and from within a different tradition of rationality. So why do we assume that assertions of right and wrong, or better and worse, in expressions of sexuality, somehow run contrary to "love" and "justice". Is it that we have bought into a flabby, nebulous understanding of love that is alien to our faith? As Christians we have enormously rich traditions of theological and biblical reflection which make "love", including sexual love, intelligible for us (and maybe intelligible for others who might be interested). That tradition includes guidelines as to what is and is not God's design for sex. Its only possible to critique that tradition of thought and teaching either from within the tradition (by arguing for example that our interpretation of Scripture is gnostic or rationalistic, and trying to reclaim certain biblical emphases or teachings), or from outside the tradition (for example, if we say that "love" is inconsistent with there being rules about sex). We need to be clear about whether we are criticising church teaching from within or without. If from without, we then need to be clear about what tradition we have (perhaps uncritically and tacitly) adopted to make that criticism. We don't make criticisms from nowhere. There is no such thing as a neutral platform (including the platform from which I make that very statement). If we are buying into ways of understanding sex and our moral identity, for example, from an Enlightenment-based, rationalistic or romanticist perspective (available at every newstand and on every soap opera in the western world), we should be unsurprised when the church fails to drop to its knees in repentence at our shrine. If we don't like Christian or biblical teaching on sexuality, honesty requires that we either critique it from within, or accept we are evangelists for a different tradition. Likewise the church is only faithful when speaking about sex from within the church's tradition (but ensuring the tradition itself is constantly self critical, by calling itself back to biblical teaching). In the process, a robust conversation between our faith and other traditions will develop. Inevitably, there will be cross fertilisation of ideas, which help the various participants better understand their own tradition. There'll also inevitably be some blurring around the edges. That process means not only can we NOT shut up about sex, but we ought to talk a lot more about it (within the tradition) because we're still pretty confused. And I think I've just described the evolution of the church's (and its rivals') teaching on sexuality. That evolution will only continue if we keep talking about it. So I would argue that too much is at stake if we DON'T keep talking about sexuality at least as much as rival traditions talk about it. We definitely will need (and have had) the odd reformation here or there, but the teaching is not going to get better unless we keep talking about it self critically from within the tradition, rather than uncritically swallowing what rival traditions tell us. If we shut up we're at risk of doing precisely that. The church's job with sexuality is to gently bear witness to and serve the world in the Spirit of Christ by its teaching, caring, suffering with others, healing and its unique common life (which involves rules about sexual conduct). Its job is not to seek to rule or impose its rules on the world. Historically that is the problem. The Constantinian impulse to control the world in sexuality as with every other issue is ever present. I really do promise I'll be shorter next time.
-------------------- "If we let ourselves drift along the stream of history, without knowing it, we shall have chosen the power of suicide, which is at the heart of this totalitarian world ..." - Jacques Ellul
Posts: 6 | From: cold and wet | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Host mode firmly onMusta Attempting to liken the arguments of Shipmates to those of paedophiles is NOT acceptable on this board or on any other board of the Ship. Nowhere has any Shipmate argued that 'love' excuses statutory rape. Until or unless they do, by implying that their arguments do so you are making a grave and unjustified personal attack on other shipmates. I realise you are new and will be unaware that this sort of argument has been debated before and is not an acceptable debating technique round here. But that's the way it is.
You need to withdraw those remarks and apologise at once if you want to keep posting on this board. Louise host mode off
-------------------- Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Gill
Shipmate
# 102
|
Posted
I think any argument from 'tradition' is dicey. Whose tradition? Which religion? Which century? The people who taught Africans their religion also took them across the world and raped their daughters - didn't they? But that was okay cos they were only slaves...You get my drift. The cogently argued stuff, yes fine. I accept a lot of what you say - so... what AM I then? a) A failed or failing Christian? b) An excuse for a Christian? c) Something else altogether? I'm not IN another relationship. I may never be. But I can't rule it out. I know clergy who uphold this who slept with either their wives or (shock horror!) OTHERS before they got married. Isn't that just as much divorce? Why do we count marriage as the ceremony in church? It has a short history. I suspect we've been sidetracked here. The Rant was on the Church praclaiming on things it should perhaps leave alone. And I think a lot of what's on here rather proves Erin's point!
-------------------- Still hanging in there...
Posts: 1828 | From: not drowning but waving... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
host mode/Musta wrote quote: No one is likening anyone's position to that of a paedophile
You explicitly and by name likened the position of another shipmate to that of paedophiles. quote: and no one is "using the paedophile card".
You mention Erin by name and caricature her stance as a 'Beatlesque "all we need is love" argument' and say that all she has said so far has been "wholeheartedly endorsed by the North American Man-Boy Lovers Association (NAMBLA)." That is playing the paedophile card, as it is understood on these boards and the other host of this board who has read your posts concurs. Your post associates what Erin says with the apologetics of paedophiles without making a clear distinction. If you want to examine how paedophiles think and argue, fine, but you may not explicitly liken it to the views of other people on these boards - unless they have argued, as paedophiles do, that something excuses sex with children. I see that you say that your point is simply "that the same words and arguments can be used to reach starkly different conclusions, because they start from within a different perspective.", if so, that's fine - but you still need to explicitly dissociate Erin's views from those of paedophiles and to apologise for linking them in the first place. That's all we're asking for, and if it's truly the case that you don't want to liken Erin's views to those of paedophiles, then it shouldn't be a problem. Louise host mode off
-------------------- Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
I think society as a whole need to have a rational, adult debate about what constitutes the broad range of acceptable sexual conduct and, perhaps, what constitutes the narrower range of decent sexual conduct. And I don't think Christians (or people of any other faith persuasion) can contribute meaningfully to this essential dialogue if they fall back on the assumptions of faith, whether they are scripture-based or tradition-based. The church has made a complete hash of things and attempts to liberalise aren't helping - the rule book just gets crazier and more conoluted with every passing day. So, yes, I agree, "the Church" should shut up and perhaps the rest of us should go on talking. Maximum rum ration.P.S. Yes, it is possible that traditional teaching is 'wrong', because God-awareness often gets unhelpfully mixed up with cultural background. P.P.S. Linux Rose > Sorry to hear about your problem. Quakers were granted the right to hold weddings for the benefit of their own members, not for anybody who has a problem with other forms of wedding. Some meetings have chosen to do that and most will be happy to consider marrying attenders or the offspring of members and attenders. Saying that the Monthly Meeting has to decide is not "a typical Quaker get out" - the Monthly Meeting is where membership of the society resides and decisions about marriages are made at that level. There is no central body giving the orders. You will get a "Yes" or "No" answer from the Monthly Meeting.
-------------------- Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
Maybe you're right Qlib (and Erin), perhaps the church should shut up.Let me explain where I am coming from. I grew up in a Church of England church and attended that church till I was 26. During that time I had a good friend and neighbour who was a sunday school teacher. She had a boyfriend who moved in with her. The church found out, and told her that she could no longer teach sunday school if she persisted with the relationship. I am now part of a baptist church (not all baptist churches are the same), which generally takes the line which I have outlined previously. I like to think of the rest of the church eventually comming around to this point of view. I don't know if it will ever happen, but I pray that it will. You may be right if you believe that the whole church can never get it right, but will soceity as a whole have any more success? If attempts to liberalise aren't helping then we must try again. But aren't attempts to shut the church up probably even less likely to succeed or to help, however many tots of rum we award? I must say though, that I agree with far more of Erin's rant than I disagree with. Gnostic - is that a sort of glue?
-------------------- Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|