homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools
Thread closed  Thread closed


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home

This thread has been moved to Dead Horses.    
 - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » Hostility to Traditional Christians on the Ship (Page 10)

 
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Hostility to Traditional Christians on the Ship
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
[In reply to Kaplan]

If we are going to pretend the bible is being taken at face value, may I remind you that lesbians exist - penetrative anal sex isn't the only form of sexual expression known to gay people and Jesus said fuck all about blow jobs.

Hurdling the dead horse, I would point out that some of the 'hostility' comes from a long term frustration with people holding this view arguing it is some how self- evident or almost culture free. That goes for almost any reading of any teaching in the bible, or subsequently, unless God himself whispered it in your ear - chances are you initially believed what you believed because that how you were raised - and you didn't question it till challenged by your own personal struggles or someone else's questions.

[ 30. July 2017, 06:46: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19151 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Would you expect all of the people of color on the Ship to allow such things to be said of them and be polite about it?
Firstly, there is always the option of scrolling past; "do not feed the troll".

Secondly, the decision to allow a view to be expressed is the H&A's not anybody else's. If the hosts are doing their job properly, the H&A's will not allow such views to be repeatedly posted.

And what I'm saying is that the anti-women and anti-gay views are on this level. Obviously this is not a widely shared view here, and I'm not taking a position in my role as an admin, but this is really what I think.
I think we might be talking past each other here.

What I was saying was that it was not up to [oppressed minority] to "allow" things to be said; such decisions are up to the H&As, or as they are known elsewhere, the moderators; they are the ones in the position of allowing/disallowing, and generally enforcing the rules. The H&As are there precisely to prevent people - oppressed minorities or otherwise - being both a judge and a party, and do their best to fulfil their role impartially.

(I personally am confident that the current arsenal of Ship rules is fit for purpose).

Furthermore, I think LilBuddha had an excellent point that this is not a civil rights protest but a discussion forum. There's room for both in the world.

I'm much more of a discussion person than a protest person, and all I can say is that my views on nearly every DH issue have changed in the 15 years or so I've been here and due in no small part to the Ship. Other posters have said things along similar lines.

I really don't like the idea of pre-emptively closing down debate merely because someone expresses an idea I may find reprehensible; "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
quote:
quote:
quote:
veneer of politeness
I think this is symptomatic of terrible bad faith.
How polite is it of you to accuse me of bad faith?
Politeness does not equal agreement or sycophancy, and I didn't accuse you.

Commandment 3 makes a distinction between attacking the issue and attacking the person. It may not be a hard and fast one, and you and I have disagreed before about where the line is to be drawn. In this present case, I think the context makes it clear that this was not a personal attack on you.

As it was, I explained precisely why I thought talking in terms of a "veneer of politeness" was symptomatic of bad faith - an explanation which you have not followed up on at all.

quote:
Sexism and homophobia are in themselves impolite, to say the least.
I think this statement also gets to the nub of the problem here. To my mind "politeness" in this context is not a value judgement on the core beliefs of a person but again, a set of social conventions for communication: here, their ability to discuss their beliefs in a respectful manner with others - even if some of those beliefs are not deemed to be respectful of others.

If one were to take the option of shutting down debate on the basis of a) a banned list of views held to be "impolite" and b) an assumption that anybody polite but inconvenient is merely hiding behind a "veneer of politeness" and thus actually on list a), I don't think there'd be much debating to be done.

[ 30. July 2017, 06:58: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16991 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
The idea that you can still be polite while expressing vile opinions reminds me of this sketch:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RJy2UucDcDw

Posts: 2789 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Sure. But that's satire. Are you saying you'd be incapable of knocking over the actual statements made one by one, politely but firmly? Or are you saying that anybody holding anywhere near any of those points of view, in seriousness not in satire, should be summarily banned on principle?

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16991 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
ISTM that if we have fewer conservative posters than previously, and those conservative posters that remain say they feel more reticent about expressing their views, then prima facie there are negative vibes flowing towards conservative posters that aren't flowing towards liberals. And this, I submit, is a bad thing.

Conservativism generally or conservatism about LGB issues in particular?

When I first joined this thread, I assumed it was about DH issues, plus politics.

Enough self-identified conservatives have posted for me to think that it goes deeper than that and that I should probably listen a bit.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7106 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

..To argue that in fact the Bible does not disapprove of homosexual behaviour.

..To argue that it does, but that it can be or must be ignored, in this particular at least.

The Bible is ignored by all Christians in 100s of particulars, as has been pointed out 1000 times here on the Ship. I've never seen a reason why this particular is more important than any of the others.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 12557 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I must admit I find this issue difficult in the real world.

Say that Group A is in obvious distress. There can be solutions to that distress from both left and right, and I can have a proper discussion about that.

But when the right suggest that Group A aren't in distress, or worse, can all go die in a hole, then there's not really very much left to say.

(And, tbf, the right will say I don't care about distressed Christian bakers or unborn children. Neither of which is true, but I concede that my solutions may look like not caring.)

(In answer to Ricardus)

[ 30. July 2017, 07:52: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 8708 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But when the right

Or the left.

(I know, I know, BSAB, whataboutery, etc. etc., but still).

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16991 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
FWIW I'd be well up for a discussion on ths tensions inherent in progressive attitudes to gender, sexuality, ethnicity and minority religions;far from it being taboo I think it's vitally important; I think for example that failure to navigate it well has been thd root of many of the criticisms of Jeremy Corbyn
Posts: 17450 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Authoritarians expect those in authority to protect them and their views as the price for the identification between authoritarian and authority. Whatever else it means, being a place of unrest means that the Ship disrupts this, and therefore intrinsically and necessarily makes authoritarians uncomfortable. To my mind, this must continue: it seems to me to be the entirely reasonable concomitant of the requirement placed on me to paddle and maintain my own canoe as a result of my instinctive dissidence.

I am reminded of one of Mousethief's offerings, now enshrined in the Quotes Files, about effluents.

--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

Foolish, potentially deranged witterings

Posts: 2113 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But when the right

Or the left.

(I know, I know, BSAB, whataboutery, etc. etc., but still).

I had already covered that in my last paragraph... I'm not blind to my own faults, just better at ignoring them.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 8708 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Scripture suggests that all sexual desires, not just homosexual desires, will not survive into the next life. (I'm Protestant, so I'll bypass the fires of Purgatory for the sake of discussion.)

I put it in those terms only because the Catholic version is more explicit. Happy with your way of putting it; do you agree that it follows that all of us have an essential self that is neither straight nor gay ? That sexual orientation is not identity ?

quote:
At the same time, I think Scripture is clear that sexuality is most definitely part of who we are on this side of the grave, that it is a gift from God.
If by "sexuality" you mean that we are male or female, with all that implies, then yes. If you mean that Scripture says that homo- or hetero- orientation is a gift (or is part of identity) then I'd have to ask which sections you have in mind.

Like all such gifts, I can be used well or abused.

quote:
This approach says that the only appropriate options for dealing with sexual desires are celibacy or marriage—by definition in this understanding, a committed, lifelong relationship between a man and a woman.
That is my understanding of traditional Christianity.

quote:
But for gay and lesbian people, the second option — marriage between a man and a woman—isn't available, at least not if one is to live honestly, because attraction to people of the opposite sex simply isn't there. So to them, the message basically is "tough luck, but it's going to have to be celibacy for you."
Yes, and if you want to say that that doesn't seem fair, then I agree. Some of us do seem to be given heavier burdens than others. I don't know why God would give anyone a desire that it is never right to act on.

But - please forgive me if I'm wrong - I'm not aware that there's anything in your brand of Christianity or mine that guarantees that some people don't have a harder situation than others.

quote:
It's saying "you're prohibited from acting on your sexuality because your sexuality isn't right." And from there, it's just a few steps to "regardless of how you behave, there's something inherently deficient and deviant about you in ways not shared by all of humanity." That's why I don't think the behavior and the orientation can really be separated. The wrongness of the behavior is inextricably connected to the deficiency of the orientation.
There are two sets of "a few steps" here.

One is from an act being wrong or bad to the desire to commit that act being wrong or bad.

It seems uncontroversial to say that to want to do wrong is not a good thing to want. But we don't choose our wants. So in describing a desire or tendency to desire as bad, we have to be clear that the person experiencing the desire is blameless (except to the extent that they have chosen to encourage that desire in themselves or others).

The second few steps are from saying something about the desires that a person experiences to saying something about the person themselves.

That's the "gay souls" argument. Traditional Christianity does not see people as the sum of their desires; desires are something you have, not what you are.

In other words, these are a few steps that traditional Christianity does not take. Regardless of whether anyone else does.

It's really very simple. Traditional Christians believe homosexual acts to be wrong (because their authoritative tradition - with or without capital letter - tells them so). You apparently do not believe those acts to be wrong, and that's fine.

But the idea that considerations of "equal rights" can somehow resolve that disagreement in your favour is false.

The proof of that - and please feel free to skip this para if it offends you in any way - is in the attitude (that I assume we all share) to sexual desires involve an other who is not a consenting adult. You don't believe that those with such desires are being unfairly discriminated against. That the underlying reason is a nasty bigoted desire to treat them as second-class. Because the acts are wrong, end of story.

Not saying "equally wrong" - nonconsenting is obviously worse. I'm suggesting that faced with one's own belief in real wrongness, the sort of "no less than" social equality that you're putting forward just isn't relevant. There is no equality between right and wrong.

So please do our traditionally-minded brethren the courtesy of accepting that they disagree with you about the boundaries of right and wrong. And not join in this attempt to smear them as hatemongers.

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 2979 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Problem is, Russ, that this prohibition seems to have no consequences beyond makong gay people's lives more miserable. As such, it's hard not to concude that it's basically "I'm not homophobic, I don't hate gay people, but God is, and does, so I have to go along with it."

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17450 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
This thread is just Exhibit A. You get hostility to 'Traditional Christians' because basically it translates as 'People who want the very first thing you know about them to be that they're anti-gay but who then come over all indignant if you say they're homophobic'

This is so often the case that they own the term and the exceptions to the rule need a different label so as not to be confused with them.

[ 30. July 2017, 10:16: 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: 6891 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Despite the length of the thread and the variety of content, I am minded now to move it to Dead Horses. This because the preponderance of more recent posts is definitely Horsey. But I will check out with other Hosts.

Barnabas62
Purgatory (and DH) Host

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 20858 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Problem is, Russ, that this prohibition seems to have no consequences beyond makong gay people's lives more miserable.

That's because you don't see any wrongness in homosexual acts.

If you saw such a wrongness, or held as an act of faith in the absence of seeing that there is such a wrongness, then the absence of those acts would be the intended positive consequence. And the "misery" to gay people would be no more than the self-restraint that moral duty requires of all of us when we feel the urge to do wrong.

You know that this is not exactly my own position. But I believe that conservative Christians hold it in good faith.

You disagree with their premise; it doesn't follow that they secretly do too and are only putting it forward as an excuse to have someone to be nasty to.

That's moving beyond believing your view is true, to believing it is so self-evident that anyone who disagrees must surely be doing so in bad faith.

And you have enough appreciation of the history of Christian thought to know that that is not the case.

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 2979 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
That's because you don't see any wrongness in homosexual acts.

If you saw such a wrongness, or held as an act of faith in the absence of seeing that there is such a wrongness, then the absence of those acts would be the intended positive consequence. And the "misery" to gay people would be no more than the self-restraint that moral duty requires of all of us when we feel the urge to do wrong.

You know that this is not exactly my own position. But I believe that conservative Christians hold it in good faith.

I don't understand what good faith has to do with it or why that position should be given some kind of special respect because it is held in good faith.

I assume you are using the term to suggest that those who hold this position are honest and fair about it - in contrast to someone who is just pretending to believe in it for some kind of ulterior motive.

But if that's the case, there are Christians who apparently sincerely believe that black people are inferior. There were clearly Christians who were sincere in their belief in slavery, others who obviously were sincere in their belief in violent struggles.

They were genuine. These people presumably had thought about it and come to these conclusions.

We'd still say they were wrong and possibly think the ideas were stupid, no? Why would we take any account of their good faith?

--------------------
arse

Posts: 9834 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
On balance, we reckon it is now better in Dead Horses. There is a non-Horsey dimension to the thread, obviously, but it is becoming increasingly artificial to skirt around DH issues while discussing the wider issues. So we feel the move may free up the discussion, give you less to navigate round.

Thread on its way.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 20858 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools