|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Distressed by homophobia
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
'Homophobic', like 'racist', covers a a wide variety of faults. But with 'racist' we are mostly comfortable with that. I can, for example, describe a vulgar witticism as “a racist joke” without anyone thinking that I'm necessarily accusing the joke teller of the sin of hatred.
I think we cheapen the notion of racism by using the term in this careless way.
Then you're wrong. Morality, and the language we use to describe it, needs words that describe the quality of wrongness as well as the degree of wrongness.
"Unfair" includes the case of me taking one more M&M than you if we've decided to share a bag. It also includes me defrauding you of your pension. "Dishonest" includes me saying I'm too busy to go to your party, and it includes falsely accusing you of rape. "Racist" includes not sitting next to you on a train because of your colour, and it includes putting you in a gas chamber because of it.
Are those sins all seen as the same, because the same word is used? Of course not. But the suggestion that the greater offence is somehow diminished because there is a much lesser offence in the same class is an absurdly foolish one.
Personally, I prefer a morality which requires integrity in the small things. Selfishness in trivial things is still unfair, small lies are still dishonest, little prejudices are still racist, and, yes, discrimination against gays in ways that unthinking straights don't consider to be important is still homophobic. If our aspiration is to love our neighbours as ourselves, then we should not tolerate any injustice in the way we treat others.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Eliab
But what's the point of referring to a 'vulgar witticism' as a 'racist joke' if none of your friends are particularly bothered by your use of the word 'racist'? If none of them are shamed into reevaluating their thought processes then what's the big deal?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Eliab
But what's the point of referring to a 'vulgar witticism' as a 'racist joke' if none of your friends are particularly bothered by your use of the word 'racist'? If none of them are shamed into reevaluating their thought processes then what's the big deal?
I don't know about Eliab, but I will give you one killer example from work. If anyone uses some "vulgar witticism" that relies on some stereotype then they will get less say in future appointments, because they won't be on any interview panels for a while.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Eliab
But what's the point of referring to a 'vulgar witticism' as a 'racist joke' if none of your friends are particularly bothered by your use of the word 'racist'? If none of them are shamed into reevaluating their thought processes then what's the big deal?
I don't know about Eliab, but I will give you one killer example from work. If anyone uses some "vulgar witticism" that relies on some stereotype then they will get less say in future appointments, because they won't be on any interview panels for a while.
In other words it IS a big deal, as it should be. I simply feel that the word 'racist' should be meaningful. It should incite real change. It shouldn't be tossed about lightly, with no real consequences. I can't see how ethnic minorities (of which I am one) would benefit from that.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
I'm not interested whether they find my arguments persuasive or not, as I'm sure of the ground on which I stand.
When I read this I thought that you should be founding your own church rather than attending someone else's! You give the impression that they don't have anything to offer you.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
I'm not interested whether they find my arguments persuasive or not, as I'm sure of the ground on which I stand.
When I read this I thought that you should be founding your own church rather than attending someone else's! You give the impression that they don't have anything to offer you.
That sounds unfair.
Why not turn it around and say that DouglasTheOtter has something to offer this group but this group won't accept his contribution?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
leo
I think it's difficult to go to a church as someone who doesn't accept that church's theology (even at a basic level), and then teach and expect them to listen. It think it would be just as unlikely and as unrealistic as an evangelical Pentecostal going to a Quaker meeting, trying to 'teach' them and expecting them to take it on board.
An invited speaker is a special case, but here we're just talking about someone who attends the meetings like other people but without even having made any formal commitment of faith.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
DouglasTheOtter
Ship's aquatic mammal
# 17681
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
I'm not interested whether they find my arguments persuasive or not, as I'm sure of the ground on which I stand.
When I read this I thought that you should be founding your own church rather than attending someone else's! You give the impression that they don't have anything to offer you.
I don't want to break bread with homophobes.
--------------------
Need writing or copywriting? Visit me at...
www.rjpmedia.net
Posts: 171 | From: Twickenham | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
leo
I think it's difficult to go to a church as someone who doesn't accept that church's theology (even at a basic level), and then teach and expect them to listen.
Depends on the sort of church.
If a church is for people to SHARE their faith rather than merely a place to sit and be indoctrinated, then it should be.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
I'm not interested whether they find my arguments persuasive or not, as I'm sure of the ground on which I stand.
When I read this I thought that you should be founding your own church rather than attending someone else's! You give the impression that they don't have anything to offer you.
I don't want to break bread with homophobes.
So you think the 19 and half centuries of christianity before some mainline denominations in USA/Europe started to accept homossexuality was entirely composed of false churches and false christians? You wouldn´t want to be in communion with most of the saints of the past, including St. Paul, for example? How incredible that you believe "true" christianity merely started a few decades ago, and is still confined to a minority of churches in the northern hemisphere.... Why do you WANT to be a christian anyway, if that´s the case?
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
gorpo, you'll find that few of the churches of the past made such a song and dance about homosexuality. Then again, they were fairly happy for people to be imprisoned, enslaved or put to death for it, so there was little need to construct an entire doctrinal basis on a few half-forgotten verses.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But what's the point of referring to a 'vulgar witticism' as a 'racist joke' if none of your friends are particularly bothered by your use of the word 'racist'? If none of them are shamed into reevaluating their thought processes then what's the big deal?
![[Confused]](confused.gif) I hadn't said anything about how my friends might react to the word. FWIW, some of my friends would be mortified to learn that I thought something they said racist, and others wouldn't give a fart either way.
My point was that I can disapprove of racially motivated mockery, and racially motivated murder, without thinking that they are exact moral equivalents. I don't think it devalues the most horrible forms of racism also to refer to less serious forms of racism as racist. And in my experience that is hardly controversial.
But it does seem to be controversial amongst anti-gay campaigners to be called on their homophobia. They seem to think that because they aren't actually going out and physically assaulting gay people, it's somehow unfair to call them homophobes. Everyone else seems to get that 'homophobia', like racism and sexism, has gradations of seriousness.
The ideal, of course, is to treat people fairly. There isn't an acceptable level of unfair treatment of people because of their race, sex or orientation, which therefore doesn't deserve to be called racist, sexist of homophobic, even though some ways of being unfair are nastier than others.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
I had a long answer to the homophobia derail, but I'm simply going to say - etymological quibbling about the 'phobia' suffix as a tactic? Really?
You could post "I hold some anti-gay views and object to them attracting the same social stigma as racism and anti-semitism". It's much shorter and has the same effect in a more credible way.
Now, to turn to Douglas's query.
When I converted back to Christianity in my twenties after a rough time emotionally, I found myself in a very similar position. The popular evangelical church a few doors up from me was full of people my age and even some I went to university with, it ran a busy and attractive social programme for people my age.
It also quickly turned out to be keen on anti gay views. Coming from about the first generation of university students to go to uni with openly gay student friends and only coming back to Christianity after that, after having learnt first hand that gay people are just like anyone else, I was never able to swallow the anti-gay stuff. It appalled me in the same way that racism does, and it does to this day. Many churches are institutionally anti-gay which means you get the usual spread of good, bad and in-between people in them but they hold anti-gay views and think those views are correct. Many hold anti-gay views and deny that those views are anti-gay.
eg.
Person A "I am not anti-gay, our church teaches against all sex outside marriage. This applies to everyone."
Person B "Good news then! Our country is just legalising gay marriage!"
Person A "But we teach that marriage is only between a man and a woman - it's not for gay people!"
Person B "It doesn't apply to everyone then, does it?'
This is institutional anti-gay prejudice whether Person A is in every other respect nice to gay people or not.
If like me, you regard institutional anti-gay prejudice as wrong, then you need a different institution, one where subscribing to such beliefs isn't a public badge of right-thinking membership.
What happened for me was that I found somewhere old-fashioned where the issue wasn't on anyone's radar ( if you'd questioned people most of them would have held the old anti-gay view, and some of us wouldn't but it was live and let live) and where this was not a shibboleth of membership. This was a tiny old fashioned, as non happy-clappy as you could get, evangelical Church of Scotland group within a bigger very liberal church. It therefore didn't get in the way of worship and nobody campaigned on it. This meant worshipping with and befriending older people who were not my own age - and you know what? I enjoyed it. Nothing wrong with unaccompanied psalmody followed by scones.
Later in life, with a CofE partner I found that I also enjoyed High church anglo-catholic liturgy and could find congregations which weren't into institutional sexism. It can be surprising where you can find a prayerful space. It can also be surprisingly upsetting and jarring when people bring prejudices that upset you into that nourishing space for worship and contemplation.
I'd suggest trying different churches and different styles of worship, until you find one where stuff like this doesn't get in the way. If you're healing from a rough time, it's perfectly fine to find a prayerful and nourishing space where you don't have to deal with this. You can, if you feel so moved, make a habit of tackling it later when you feel stronger. As they say on the plane 'affix your own oxygen mask first, before trying to help others'
Best wishes,
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
I don't want to break bread with homophobes.
quote:
What's your view of slavery?
I couldn't be a Christian if I felt that Christianity was irrevocably tainted by the personal histories of many people in the church in the past, and indeed into the present. I want God to forgive me of my sins; I therefore have to believe that he can forgive others of theirs also. If this concept disgusts you then Christianity will be hard for you.
On the other hand, there should be no obligation to worship with people whose theology you abhor.
I write as a descendant of slaves.
[ 07. July 2013, 23:13: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
DouglasTheOtter
Ship's aquatic mammal
# 17681
|
Posted
A couple of things.
Christianity is hard for me but then my understanding is that it can, at various times, be hard for everybody, each in their own ways. We don't get to decide which bits are hard and which bits are easy. And writing 'I say this as a descendant of slaves' doesn't give your arguments or opinions extra value. They stand and fall on their own merits.
--------------------
Need writing or copywriting? Visit me at...
www.rjpmedia.net
Posts: 171 | From: Twickenham | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
DouglasTheOtter
Look, if you don't approve of these people's theology about homosexuality (or anything else) the answer is simple: move on and find a some other Christians whose beliefs align more closely with yours, or who are willing to come under your instruction. Plenty of folk before you have had to do this. This website is full of people who've moved from one church to another. Some of them spent years with evangelical outfits before realising that they had serious issues with evangelicalism. You're lucky it hasn't taken you so long!
By the way, you're the one who brought up slavery, not me. I've probably misunderstood how it's relevant to the conversation, but if you believe your thoughts on the subject are superior to mine, then please share them.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
It does seem like it's simpler to move on to a compatible group if the people you heard at dinner are typical. If you're not sure, the leadership will clarify that quickly.
It's more likely they are going to go through a long long struggle with this issue, in the same way that many racist churches in the U.S. took a century to move past their scriptural interpretation of the mark of Ham. You can see it here in this thread with the people who are busy claiming they aren't homophobic because there's no such thing as homophobia and besides the scriptures made them do it.
You should take care of yourself first in an environment that doesn't leave you as a participant in an organization that will leave you embarrassed. There are plenty of ships in the sea. Coming in as a newcomer to change this, even if leadership supports you seems like an un-needed stress on you.
Vote with your feet. If you feel super conscientious, let them know why you left, but don't stick around to argue or be cited as the snitch on bad behavior.
Regards
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
SvitlanaV2, I think the slavery issue was raised because of gorpo's claim that centuries of a belief in the inadmissibility of homosexuality as a good was more important and correct than the newer assessment, as a comparison. For the church for centuries accepted that slavery was OK, and even took part in delivering people into that state (such as the wives of priests in the early Middle Ages). When a contrary view arose, it was opposed in the same way as an acceptance of homosexuality is now being opposed, but that opposition has now vanished. It is accepted that the centuries before were wrong. And is it could be wrong over that, it is possible to consider that it might be wrong over other issues as well. The sanctity of centuries is not impregnable, and that is why slavery was referenced.
Given the number of slaves in the past, we of European heritage are probably all the descendants of slaves, or near slaves, just not so recently that it shows.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Penny S
Well, the Transatlantic slave trade has left its psychological mark on the descendants of both slaves and slave masters. The churches haven't escaped that.
As for homosexuality, it should become a theological matter like any other issue about sexual behaviour. Different churches take different theological approaches towards divorce and remarriage, pre-marital straight sex, celibacy, etc. There should be more church options for SSM-affirming people, but a new evangelical church plant isn't the best place to go for that, is it? If it were, then in this day and age that should be a big selling point, not something that requires detective skills to discover!
Churches are just people. People should develop the churches they need and want.
[ 08. July 2013, 21:17: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
DouglasTheOtter
Ship's aquatic mammal
# 17681
|
Posted
Homosexuality isn't a choice, though.
--------------------
Need writing or copywriting? Visit me at...
www.rjpmedia.net
Posts: 171 | From: Twickenham | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Homosexuality isn't a choice, though.
Depends if you're referring to the character or the act.
Unfortunately our language mixes the two. 'Homosexuality' means both the nature or character of being homosexual, as well as homosexual behaviour or activity. One isn't a choice. The other very much is.
Is it possible that there is just a disconnect between the way you and the people at your dinner table talked about this subject? Perhaps when you talk about gay people you refer to their nature and become offended when others decry gayness as you assume they are refering to the same thing. But they could be referring to behaviours that they disagree with rather than people's innate nature. You've quoted them as saying that "the holy spirit can make you straight". Are they referring to an adjustment in behaviour here and you have just misunderstood them to mean that their nature will be changed?
Of course this distinction may not make any difference to you. Perhaps you are equally offended at someone disagreeing with another's choice of behaviour as you are at them disagreeing with someone's innate nature.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
SvitlanaV2, I wasn't trying to diminish the effects of recent slavery (and there are people in my ancestry I suspect probably had investments in sugar that I'm not happy about - except that they lost all their money and their biggish house and lands), but to point out that there's no great "virtue" in not having been obviously the descendant of recent slaves (and there are some odd physiological features in the other side of my family that hint at the possibility of that, as well). I was somewhat horrified when some of the discussion of Obama seemed to find it better that he wasn't the descendant of slaves in the States. And when an Afro-Caribbean student on teaching practice at our school told us that Africans looked down on people of her heritage because they had been slaves.
As that's still going on, I can imagine how sensitive the subject can still be. I just don't always remember. Sorry.
Does the remark about slave masters also apply in the UK? There has been longer since they stopped having that status. quote:
Hawk quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Homosexuality isn't a choice, though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends if you're referring to the character or the act.
Does this imply you believe that all people who have the character of feeling love for the same sex are called never to act according to it? Seems a bit unfair if they are not also gifted with celibacy.
[ 09. July 2013, 13:41: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Hawk quote:
Depends if you're referring to the character or the act.
Does this imply you believe that all people who have the character of feeling love for the same sex are called never to act according to it? Seems a bit unfair if they are not also gifted with celibacy.
What do you mean by 'gifted with celibacy'? Do you mean that only some extraordinary people are capable of living celibately and others are free to rut like bunnies since they can't help themselves?
IMO God calls us all to obey his will, we are all capable of celibacy, just as we are all capable of sexual activity (barring accidents). It is our choice whether we choose one or the other according to God's will or not.
And yes, I do personally believe this means that those who feel same-sex attraction are called not to choose to act on those attractions. Is it unfair? I don't know. But I don't think life is very fair to anyone. Is it unfair that some people are born rich and some poor, some healthy and some disabled? That seems pretty unfair to me. But IMO we are called to follow God according to what He has given us, however jealous that may make us when we see others we think have got it easier, or have things we don't.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Homosexuality isn't a choice, though.
Depends if you're referring to the character or the act.
The 'act'?
What act?
What they do together? Shopping? Arguing? Hugging?
Or?
We're talking about homosexuality. The clue's in the name. Try to keep up.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
No it isn't. 'Sexuality' covers all our affections, desires, fantasies. So a sexual 'act' is anything done by a sexual being, including chatting someone up, flirting etc.
As for 'genital acts' - is 'the act' a reference only to anal sex? And if so, is a person who engages in mutual masturbation, fellatio, intracrural etc. NOT a homosexual? And does the Bible 'forbid' these acts as well as anal sex?
(Saying 'do keep up' is rude - what you mean is 'understand words the way i understand them, eve though I haven't defines them yet. You are supposed to be a mind-reader.'
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Does the remark about slave masters also apply in the UK? There has been longer since they stopped having that status.
One argument is that the Transatlantic slave trade reinforced (or even created) anti-black racism rather than being the product of it. Consequently, the end of the slave trade didn't mean the end of ideas about racial superiority and inferiority, but gave them a new life in a different form. It's in this sense that the descendants of slaves and of slave owning nations have been psychologically affected by slavery.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
DouglasTheOtter
Ship's aquatic mammal
# 17681
|
Posted
If I'm reading this correctly, then God, who makes us all, also makes some people gay. All fine so far. And if he makes you gay, then the answer to the problem, is for you not to have sex. Call me pedantic and all, but I've spotted a huge logical flaw in this argument.
--------------------
Need writing or copywriting? Visit me at...
www.rjpmedia.net
Posts: 171 | From: Twickenham | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
If I'm reading this correctly, then God, who makes us all, also makes some people gay. All fine so far. And if he makes you gay, then the answer to the problem, is for you not to have sex. Call me pedantic and all, but I've spotted a huge logical flaw in this argument.
But is God directly responsible for everything in our genetic make-up? For those with a tendency towards, for example, violence; did God make them that way? How about genetic disorders like cystic fibrosis; does God choose certain people to suffer from birth like this?
Personally, I don't think it works quite like this, which then makes it much easier to acknowledge a genetic component to homosexuality and still counsel people 'affected'* that abstinence is the only godly way for them.
*I'm not sure where I stand on homosexuality itself, but I'm just suggesting how that logical flaw you noted might perhaps be removed.
[ 09. July 2013, 21:24: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But is God directly responsible for everything in our genetic make-up? For those with a tendency towards, for example, violence; did God make them that way? How about genetic disorders like cystic fibrosis; does God choose certain people to suffer from birth like this?
Personally, I don't think it works quite like this, which then makes it much easier to acknowledge a genetic component to homosexuality and still counsel people 'affected'* that abstinence is the only godly way for them.
*I'm not sure where I stand on homosexuality itself, but I'm just suggesting how that logical flaw you noted might perhaps be removed. [/QB]
Classifying Homosexual attraction as a pathology isn't going to work anymore. There are too many homosexuals leading normal happy lives for that trick to work.
Now the brain failure that leads one to make such nasty scriptural interpretations is clearly a sign from God that you have been damaged and are counseled to silence on the subject lest you hurt others.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
I just meant that even if one grants that sexual orientation has a genetic component, it doesn't have to mean God approves of it. DouglastheOtter said holding any other view was logically flawed, and I explained why I disagreed. Apologies for not being clear, but I intended no equivalence between homosexual orientation and cystic fibrosis etc., except on the genetics point.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Indeed. Are 'forbidden sexual desires' (however one defines these) a (natural bi-) product of God's creative impulse or the Fall (without wishing to head off in the direction of another Dead Horse)?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Seems like it is time to remind everyone of this statement from 2001 . You might as well decide on your preferred number and quote that.
This discussion ain't going anywhere that hasn't been seen before, so don't get too excited.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But is God directly responsible for everything in our genetic make-up? For those with a tendency towards, for example, violence; did God make them that way? How about genetic disorders like cystic fibrosis; does God choose certain people to suffer from birth like this?
Personally, I don't think it works quite like this, which then makes it much easier to acknowledge a genetic component to homosexuality and still counsel people 'affected'* that abstinence is the only godly way for them.
*I'm not sure where I stand on homosexuality itself, but I'm just suggesting how that logical flaw you noted might perhaps be removed.
Classifying Homosexual attraction as a pathology isn't going to work anymore. There are too many homosexuals leading normal happy lives for that trick to work.
Now the brain failure that leads one to make such nasty scriptural interpretations is clearly a sign from God that you have been damaged and are counseled to silence on the subject lest you hurt others. [/QB]
I guess homophobia is the new pathology/sin. Is there a cure? Possibly, there is a market for a new reparative therapy technique, which will help homophobes deconstruct their own defensive attitudes, get in touch with their homoerotic side, blah blah blah. I feel keen to start this up, I reckon the fees should be pretty high, treat them mean, keep them keen, eh?
[ 10. July 2013, 16:27: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
If I'm reading this correctly, then God, who makes us all, also makes some people gay. All fine so far. And if he makes you gay, then the answer to the problem, is for you not to have sex. Call me pedantic and all, but I've spotted a huge logical flaw in this argument.
But is God directly responsible for everything in our genetic make-up? For those with a tendency towards, for example, violence; did God make them that way? How about genetic disorders like cystic fibrosis; does God choose certain people to suffer from birth like this?
Personally, I don't think it works quite like this, which then makes it much easier to acknowledge a genetic component to homosexuality and still counsel people 'affected'* that abstinence is the only godly way for them.
But see, that is bullshit. God, as the Bible(Koran, Torah) describes him created the game, the rules and the playing field. He is by definition and circumstance completely responsible for every good, bad and indifferent. Completely responsible for every fucking variable.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I guess homophobia is the new pathology/sin. Is there a cure? Possibly, there is a market for a new reparative therapy technique, which will help homophobes deconstruct their own defensive attitudes, get in touch with their homoerotic side, blah blah blah. I feel keen to start this up, I reckon the fees should be pretty high, treat them mean, keep them keen, eh?
Pathology? No, not typically. Sin? If you believe in sin, it surely is one. Well, depending on if you really listen to that hippy in the second half of the bible.
Cure? does not exist. Reduction in occurrence, perhaps. You know, when homosexuals get accepted as being real people. Given how quickly this has worked out for black people, though....
Really spell-check? Hippy is not in your dictionary?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Does the remark about slave masters also apply in the UK? There has been longer since they stopped having that status.
One argument is that the Transatlantic slave trade reinforced (or even created) anti-black racism rather than being the product of it. Consequently, the end of the slave trade didn't mean the end of ideas about racial superiority and inferiority, but gave them a new life in a different form. It's in this sense that the descendants of slaves and of slave owning nations have been psychologically affected by slavery.
There are still complexities, such as the ordinary people of Britain sticking up for black GIs during the war when white GIs thought them uncivilised for not applying segregation, which was viewed with some disgust - an attitude which shifted afterwards.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Returning to the main thread - it is odd how this sort of discussion always seems to function on the assumption that heterosexual relationships are about love and homosexual relationships are about sex.
I'm, as far as can be determined in the absence of any practical opportunity for demonstration, heterosexual. I am also quite lucky in that the absence of sex has not been, for the relevant 50 or so years, a serious problem.
Having, however, having to deliberately keep myself to myself for someone else's wellbeing has been a bit of a pain, and not something I would inflict on anyone else, which is what Hawk is trying to do. No cuddles, no hugs, no kisses, no nothing physical at all because we humans link all those sort of things with the more serious stuff, and they might lead further.
If you can live happily* celibate, fair enough, but it's not something anyone has the right to inflict (I'm using that word again deliberately) on anyone else. And it isn't any use saying that that is what God has clearly said he wants, because the sort of God who wants to put people through a sort of hell because of the way they are made (genetics, epigenetics, whatever, it isn't a choice) isn't a God whose word is worth taking notice of.
*(Oh, and it has occurred to me that some people may find a sort of happiness in succeeding in being triumphantly, miserably celibate, but not everyone is made like that.)
[ 10. July 2013, 18:15: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Penny S
That example you gave of racism is still pretty ancient! My guess is that you don't live in a big multicultural city where some of these psychological issues are much more recent. That's not a criticism BTW! We can live where we want.
Going back to the OP and homosexuality, I think the basic problem now is that the most liberal Christian movements tend not to be the ones doing the church plants and the evangelism. People in their 20s, 30s, and 40s are often attracted to dynamic church movements, to churches that put an emphasis on relationship. And then like attracts like, so once these people are there, they attract others. But if it's the evangelical churches that are doing the work, it's their theology that's going to be presented, be it about SSM or anything else.
It'll be interesting to see what happens in the future. It may be that such churches eventually become more tolerant simply by virtue of attracting younger worshippers. Perhaps this tolerance will grow as their churches gradually age and become more settled and respectable. Or maybe as the number of Christians continues to decline in general these churches will just accept their marginal status and won't feel the pressure to be part of the liberalising trend in society.
[ 10. July 2013, 20:57: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Can't email you, SvitlanaV2, so I'm having to tangent again.
I've had an interesting experience in Brixton! And have been in mixed company in South London quite a bit. I think I am suggesting that recent racism is not a hangover, but a more recent phenomenon, with other roots than slavery, with the British response to others' racism not being to support it in the past. (There is a story of a pub where the white GIs wanted a pub to ban the black GIs where the publican then segregated by banning the whites - don't know if it's true.) The change of course came with the civilian arrivals of people who thought they were British, so there was a basic difference. And attitudes were closely related to those to the Irish, not ex-slaves. And exhibited by those whose ancestors were themselves exploited by the upper classes. Much more complex. No less nasty.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Penny S
Well, racism can be directed towards all kinds of ethnic groups, not just one! Anti-Irish racism goes back a long way. Scholars say the ethnic English in Victorian times posited a racial hierarchy, with themselves at the top. Black Africans were usually at the bottom. Different historical influences would have created these categorisations, which is why I don't really agree with your (original?) idea that the more recent British experience of anti-black racism has no historical context.
Obviously, the black GIs were likely to have had a more positive experience in the UK than back in the USA. That wouldn't be hard, would it?? After the war though it was a different story for black people in the UK.
Anyway, unless you want to start another thread we'd better conclude our tangent!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
If you can live happily* celibate, fair enough, but it's not something anyone has the right to inflict (I'm using that word again deliberately) on anyone else. And it isn't any use saying that that is what God has clearly said he wants, because the sort of God who wants to put people through a sort of hell because of the way they are made (genetics, epigenetics, whatever, it isn't a choice) isn't a God whose word is worth taking notice of.
I agree that another's infliction of spiritual morality is wrong. No one should force someone to live according to faith, it has to come from within otherwise it's meaningless.
And your characterisation of God as someone who asks people to willingly suffer for His sake is fully in accordance with Christian understanding. Whether such suffering is a result of the setting they were born into, the particular makeup of their flesh, or events that shaped them. None is a justifiable reason to ignore God's Will. The major example of course is Jesus' submission to God's will in his own ultimate suffering. Such faith may not be a faith that appeals to you personally, but it is the one revealed throughout scripture. If someone rejects that revelation in favour of something else that is their free decision.
But I would dispute that celibacy is a 'kind of hell' as you describe it though. Paul of course described it as the ideal. I maybe wouldn't go that far myself, but it is certainly a condition that can bring much blessing. It is not intrinsically a condition of suffering.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
None is a justifiable reason to ignore God's Will. The major example of course is Jesus' submission to God's will in his own ultimate suffering.
Isn't the standard Christian position that Jesus is God? This seems kind of like a scam. "You should submit to my will, but don't worry, I'll also be submitting to my will, so it's fair!"
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
But I would dispute that celibacy is a 'kind of hell' as you describe it though. Paul of course described it as the ideal. I maybe wouldn't go that far myself, but it is certainly a condition that can bring much blessing. It is not intrinsically a condition of suffering.
I wonder what ever happened to "it is not good for the man to be alone"? You seem to be saying that it is good for certain men (and women) to be alone and forgo the joys of having a family. This seems particularly cruel given that gays are far more likely to be disowned by their families of origin than straights, and you come along and say it's not cruel to tell them God hates the idea of them forming their own family.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Think is, though, Hawk, there's a reason for Jesus' suffering. What is the reason for those who are attracted to their own sex having to suffer celibacy, for those for whom it is suffering? What good does it do? Why does God demand it? Put simply, what has God got against homosexuality? This is the bit I can never quite get over; what's God's problem with it? I can see why he's agin' murder and theft and gossip and loads of other stuff that harms people, but I can't see the issue here. If he's going to issue a prohibition surely he has a reason?
[ 17. July 2013, 14:41: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's babies, innit?
Or in posh language, sex is procreative and unitive. But gaaayzzz are not.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yeah, but God only likes certain kinds of two-person orificial enjoyment, doesn't he? There are baby-making orificial events, and non-baby-making ones, and OK, between man and wife, the latter might be tolerated every now and again, but not Mano a Mano in El Baño, or even worse, bottoms. Well, OK, bottoms between man and wife might be OK now and again, as a kind of amuse bouche, but between guy and guy?!?! Dirty, dirty, dirty, and no babies!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yeah, but God only likes certain kinds of two-person orificial enjoyment, doesn't he?
No-one's making him do it.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
