|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hostility to Traditional Christians on the Ship
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Gottschalke; I do wish you'd tell us whether you think the State should refuse to allow equal civil marriage, because that's the sticking point for me. I don't mind what you think of LGBTQ+ people, but I do care if you want to inflict what you think of them on them, unwillingly.
[ 26. July 2017, 11:45: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think CS Lewis might be partly to blame for that.
In Perelandra he argues that God might make a rule that is to be obeyed - in Perelandra, the rule not to spend a night on the Fixed Land - merely for the delight of obedience rather than for any utilitarian reason. Which leads back into issues of power and authority.
Yes, I've had people counter with that. But making up a rule that will cause people anguish just so he can enjoy people obeying it - in the one case where only 50% of the population are affected, in the latter 10% - just seems, well, weird. It's a bizarre argument to make. "God wants the best for you, except don't wear green. Nothing wrong with green, but he's just decided to ban it so that we can all enjoy not wearing green and stoning to death anyone who does."
This sounds like an episode of "Star Trek: The Next Generation". There was a planet with young, very fit, very blonde adults. They had "sex at the drop of a hat--*any* hat". Their deity/creator--alien(s) in an orbiting space ship, who really was kindly disposed to his "children"--was training them in law and obedience. Every day, a different area was declared forbidden--on pain of death. The locals were ok with it, because they simply avoided it. But they didn't think to tell visitors...which is at the heart of the episode.
Arbitrary rules are cruel, unfair, and all that stuff. If God is really like that,... ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
He isn't. He OBVIOUSLY isn't. He really is obviously utterly unlike anything ... small, small minded.
I think we are weak on benevolence here. I am. I get flinty. There are those who are strongly benevolent. I had another fail with a friend recently over his homophobia. He redeemed it simply by coming round on his vintage motorbike and we hugged to our amusement. I never want to fail with him again. We did a year ago over Brexit and then Trump ... and then Islamophobia. But he loves me. And I need to learn, as I have with a close family member, never to lose it.
That.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I notice that the OP mentions trolling going 'either way'. I am curious as to which concrete examples of trolling against traditional Christians are being thought of here.
I take trolling to be distinct from robust criticism.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
I cannot conceive of unrest apart from the consciousness of my own sinful state and shortcomings. The Church - my church -, and Christ, through it/her offers me a path of reconciliation and healing through the sacraments, fellowship and the recognition of the daily struggle. Practically and pastorally, this may not always be evident, but it is here.
The issues of personal salvation are as pressing as those of "social justice". They have to go together - the spiritual life and the works of corporal and spiritual mercy.
I think this comes close to the heart of things, and to something very important - though I'm not sure I understand you fully, or am clear in myself.
My 'progress' towards healing and reconciliation has been through taking seriously people I would tend to dismiss. It has consisted in letting them become fully human to me. It has involved seeing and turning away from my prejudices, which are often rooted in fear and ignorance. It has involved getting close to people that alarm me, and receiving friendship and respect from them.
This has not been in connection with sexuality, which I seem to have little problem with, but poverty, underprivilege, alien cultural values and forms of expression. I seem to move Godwards when I build bridges with those unlike me.
So spirituality, for me, has been intimately connected with being changed by those I am inclined to judge. Seeing and repenting of my sexism and elitism, for example, are not just consequences of my discipleship, they are my discipleship.
And then I read that link to the FIEC, and feel like Dumbledore drinking poison. FIEC people are also made in God's image. Must I learn to love them? Their statement of faith looks like a complete rejection of the hope that in loving my neighbour I will find God and receive myself.
I suppose, Gottschalk, that I am with you in thinking social attitudes and salvation are one thing.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
It seems to me that some churches have replaced the creeds with what they call their 'Statement of Doctrine' or something similar. In effect this has become their creed.
The difference between such "statements of faith" and "creeds" is that these days, the latter are a unifying instrument that believers are invited to affirm (incidentally, we were invited to recite the Nicene creed in church last Sunday, which is not something we often do) whereas "statements of faith" are usually designed to keep certain categories of people out.
Whenever I have seen such "statements of faith" invoked it has been by leadership, to remove somebody or keep them out. In other words - again - it's a proxy for power plays.
There are plenty of decent people in FIEC churches (including Ship lurkers, as I know for a fact). They just don't go to war invoking their "statements of faith". The latter are not the sum of the members.
Blogger Fred Clark wrote about this a while back:
quote:
The oddest thing to me about the prevalence of “statements of faith” in evangelical circles is that such statements arose due to an “aversion for all creeds but the Bible.” (That phrase is from the 1845 Address to the Public on the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention.)
That anti-creedal Baptist impulse of “no creed but the Bible” is why most evangelical churches today, unlike their mainline Protestant counterparts, do not recite the Nicene or Apostles creeds in their worship — or pretty much ever. Instead evangelicals have statements of faith — the new creeds we refuse to call creeds.
Also consider this: The Nicene Creed is a mere 222 words long. The Apostles Creed is only half as long.
The statement of faith used by the Southern Baptist Convention and its seminaries is more than 5,000 words long.
At that length, a statement of faith no longer functions as a creed-by-another-name. At that length, the SBC’s statement of faith seems intended to provide denominational lawyers and scribes a pretext for condemning anyone who gets out of line.
Clark was raised in the American Evangelical tradition, so he's familiar with the ground.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I find the sociological perspective more interesting. The sociology of religion routinely posits religious groups as either in low or high tension with the surrounding culture. Indeed, there's a spectrum between the very high tension sect and the low tension church.
I think you've truncated the spectrum of the sociology of religion a little there. "Hegemonic dominance" should be on there somewhere. Something along the lines of "this is a [Christian / Muslim / Whatever] country, so our laws, customs, and people should adhere to [Christian / Muslim / Whatever] norms". Quite a common phenomenon, historically speaking, and not unheard of today.
The complaints of Gottschalk (and similar) seem to be the mournful cries of displaced hegemons, those who are used to being regarded as the moral arbiters of everything who suddenly (and in their eyes unjustly) find their former authority questioned, or even outright denied. They're here to judge others for their lust, not to be judged themselves for their own pride. I seem to remember reading something about that somewhere.
At any rate, they get very tetchy with anyone who suggests their positions are open to criticism and there's a type of narcissism that runs throughout the whole argument. Their basic premise is that the most important consideration is how people will react to them, rather than how their actions might affect other people. It's all "Me! Me! Me!", whether it's Russ complaining about the horrified looks he gets these days when he calls someone 'nigger' to their face (slight paraphrase) or someone whining about the treatment they received when they whipped out their 'God Hates Fags' sign at that funeral. The most (and perhaps only) important thing to them is how they are treated. It's like they assume their right to free speech contains a sub-clause about the right to not be criticized.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Thanks for those who provided detail on the role of the Creeds in evangelistic churches.
Er - "Evangelical" not "evangelistic". Any church can (and, in my book, should) evangelise!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... the mournful cries of displaced hegemons ...
So that's what happens when you build houses or factories on prime agricultural land, poor things! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
[ 26. July 2017, 14:46: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Gottschalke; I do wish you'd tell us whether you think the State should refuse to allow equal civil marriage, because that's the sticking point for me. I don't mind what you think of LGBTQ+ people, but I do care if you want to inflict what you think of them on them, unwillingly.
I am not sure I understand you. You speak as if I had some sort of power over what other people do or some sort of public power. I have no such power nor seek it - I only want and seek power over myself, to restrain myself, to discipline myself...but ultimately to surrender myself to God's will. I don't particularly care for the State - friend today, enemy tomorrow.
The only thing in my power is perhaps to go and talk to the homeless that I see on the streets (growing number of them in Britain), help them if I can- go and help in soup-kitchens, give shelter and clothing to those without, and enable structures to look after the materially downcast. Rights don't feed - that's such a middle class conceit.
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
I am not sure I understand you. You speak as if I had some sort of power over what other people do or some sort of public power. I have no such power nor seek it - I only want and seek power over myself, to restrain myself, to discipline myself...but ultimately to surrender myself to God's will.
It's kind of the underlying premise of representative government; that the government derives its authority from the people and is answerable to them via elections. Your self-admitted abdication of your responsibilities as a voter is still a decision.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Gottschalke; I do wish you'd tell us whether you think the State should refuse to allow equal civil marriage, because that's the sticking point for me. I don't mind what you think of LGBTQ+ people, but I do care if you want to inflict what you think of them on them, unwillingly.
I am not sure I understand you. You speak as if I had some sort of power over what other people do or some sort of public power.
You do. It's called a vote.
But that's beside the point. The point is rather do you think the state should allow equal marriage, or do you think it should itself restrict civil marriage to heterosexual couples? If you did have the power to control this issue. If you were an MP, would you have voted for or against equal marriage?
It's not that hard.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The point is rather do you think the state should allow equal marriage, or do you think it should itself restrict civil marriage to heterosexual couples? If you did have the power to control this issue. If you were an MP, would you have voted for or against equal marriage?
It's not that hard.
But it is very easy to dodge.
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I fear the 'traditional' Christians have fallen into the contemporary trap of thinking that sex is more important than anything else we do. Ironic, then, that they accuse more socially liberal Christians of being slaves to the Zeitgeist.
This is a powerful statement and deserves to be repeated. It explains so much.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Jane R wrote:
quote:
I fear the 'traditional' Christians have fallen into the contemporary trap of thinking that sex is more important than anything else we do. Ironic, then, that they accuse more socially liberal Christians of being slaves to the Zeitgeist.
Fabulous. It reminds me of Foucault who argued that apparent Victorian prudishness concealed a veritable obsession with sex, or what he called, 'a great sexual sermon'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
There's nothing to dodge as my original point has very little to do with contingencies such as those invoked by Karl. And yes, given that I consider this type of cornering and dabbling in counterfactuals unhelpful and useless, I will make it a point not to answer him.
I will only say I don't believe in political solutions to human problems. The state - friend today, enemy tomorrow.
The same people who so decried the so-called Constantinian settlement now turn out to be those who precisely resort to it.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You do. It's called a vote.
But that's beside the point.
No, it is the point. Gottschalk's opinions on whether same-sex couples should be able to marry are important precisely because he has political power - both in terms of the vote that he has, and in terms of the explicit or tacit support that he might give to one side or the other in the public sphere.
It's not only "would you vote for an MP that supports same-sex marriage" but "would you speak up in favour of SSM being legal even though you think it's wrong."
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I'm sorry, how is it a counterfactual?
If one lived in Nazi Germany and didn't vote for parties which supported the rights of Jews, did one therefore not (at least contribute to) the hatred Jews?
What's the difference? How is it suddenly not hatred when it comes to gay people?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm sorry, how is it a counterfactual?
If one lived in Nazi Germany and didn't vote for parties which supported the rights of Jews, did one therefore not (at least contribute to) the hatred Jews?
What's the difference? How is it suddenly not hatred when it comes to gay people?
Please do get your equivalences right. And do not forget that homosexuals were actively hounded, persecuted and killed by Nazis as well. And your point is?
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
I will only say I don't believe in political solutions to human problems.
But is the human problem the problem that you don't approve of same-sex couples marrying (but don't believe in using the state to enforce your disapproval on other people) or is the human problem the problem that same-sex couples don't (didn't) have the same legal protections as mixed-sex couples, but you don't support using the political process to change that?
Saying you "don't believe in political solutions" is a cop out. The state exists. The relevant question is "do you think the state should have authority over X, or do you think the state should butt out and let people do X or not as they prefer"?
Saying "I don't believe in political solutions" is tacit support of whatever the status quo happens to be.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It's not only "would you vote for an MP that supports same-sex marriage" but "would you speak up in favour of SSM being legal even though you think it's wrong."
It seems to me that there are various moral/political positions here:
* wishing to see gay marriage outlawed and doing everything possible politically to see it outlawed
* refusing to support any politician; not my problem
* support of a politician who stands against gay marriage
* support of a politician who coincidentally doesn't stand against gay marriage.
* support of a politician who vocally supports gay marriage
* vocal support of gay marriage
I'm not sure that the final position there is the only moral one. But I'm fairly sure that simply refusing to engage is no better than standing against gay marriage or supporting a politician who stands against gay marriage.
I'm not sure how one defines hatred on this issue exactly. But I'm pretty sure that it looks like hatred to the gay person seeing someone who has rights willfully or negligently or callously deprive others of the thing they take for granted.
Talking of the FIEC above, it is quite interesting to see the views of their leader
John Stevens
He says a bunch of stuff I don't agree with but then also says this:
quote:
However we also need to recognise that, at least in part, we Christians have brought these difficulties on ourselves, and we need to be prepared to put our own house in order.
First, some of the organisations that have been most vociferous in condemning the intolerance that led to the resignation of Tim Farron are those that have consistently stood against the grant of any civic rights and freedoms to the LBGT community. It is hardly surprising that the gay community is suspicious of the political objectives of evangelical Christians. Christians need to adopt a political philosophy that is appropriate for a genuinely plural society that encompasses both believers and unbelievers.
Christians in a plural society have to be prepared to tolerate others acting in ways that they regard as sinful, or even offensive, and extend to them the right to act in ways that they believe are self-harming. As far as the Bible is concerned the greatest sin is idolatry and the worship of false god’s, which means that the grant of freedom of religion is inherently the conferral of permission for people to sin, harm themselves, disobey God’s law and deprive him of the honour and glory he is rightly due.
Attempts to ban other religions, or even to require conformity to a particular form of Christian faith and practice, have proved impossible and counterproductive throughout church history, and no Christians I know advocate such a step.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
"Saying "I don't believe in political solutions" is tacit support of whatever the status quo happens to be. "
It doesn't follow.
It seems that none of you have been reading what I have been writing since yesterday. I admit to be somewhat obscure - something I need to correct.
You've assumed a number of things and you are the ones who seem obsessed with one issue.
I believe in the eminent value of the sacramental solution, in grace, in God's healing power above everything else... in comparison to which all other solutions seem to be approximations. But again, I am speaking for myself.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Please do get your equivalences right. And do not forget that homosexuals were actively hounded, persecuted and killed by Nazis as well.
True but nothing to do with the point I was making. Which is quite simple: if you live in a country where a community has their rights curtailed, are you not contributing (if not actively exhibiting) hatred by refusing to do something politically about it?
It's quite a simple question.
quote:
And your point is?
It is the same point that I've made above. If you refuse to support civil marriage of gay people you are in effect hating them.
We'd probably agree that voting for the Nazi party was an act of Jewish hatred. And I think it is reasonable to say that not-voting for an anti-Nazi party is also a form of hatred.
If not, why not?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
"Saying "I don't believe in political solutions" is tacit support of whatever the status quo happens to be. "
It doesn't follow.
Well it does really doesn't it. If the status quo is killing Jews or slavery or racism and you've got the power to do something about it but don't, then you are tacitly supporting it. Are you not?
quote:
It seems that none of you have been reading what I have been writing since yesterday. I admit to be somewhat obscure - something I need to correct.
You've assumed a number of things and you are the ones who seem obsessed with one issue.
I'm a little obsessed with trying to understand how you can claim to have traditional values but not exhibit hatred to gays. Whilst simultaneously refusing to tell us whether you campaign against gay marriage or whether you'd support those who are campaigning for it. Simply saying that you're standing above all this petty political stuff isn't really the message one gets from Pope Francis, if I might be so bold.
quote:
I believe in the eminent value of the sacramental solution, in grace, in God's healing power above everything else... in comparison to which all other solutions seem to be approximations. But again, I am speaking for myself.
Oh right. Good job nobody asked you to do something about slavery then.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Please do get your equivalences right. And do not forget that homosexuals were actively hounded, persecuted and killed by Nazis as well.
True but nothing to do with the point I was making. Which is quite simple: if you live in a country where a community has their rights curtailed, are you not contributing (if not actively exhibiting) hatred by refusing to do something politically about it?
It's quite a simple question.
quote:
And your point is?
It is the same point that I've made above. If you refuse to support civil marriage of gay people you are in effect hating them.
We'd probably agree that voting for the Nazi party was an act of Jewish hatred. And I think it is reasonable to say that not-voting for an anti-Nazi party is also a form of hatred.
If not, why not?
Gosh, where to start?
1.You seem to have some direct insight into people's minds. In 1933...did everyone who voted for the NSDAP hate Jews?
2. My abstentionism from the political processes predate any glimmer of a debate on marriage rights for homosexuals.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Gosh, where to start?
1.You seem to have some direct insight into people's minds. In 1933...did everyone who voted for the NSDAP hate Jews?
"Justice is what love looks like in public" Cornel West.
quote:
2. My abstentionism from the political processes predate any glimmer of a debate on marriage rights for homosexuals.
What kind of a moral is that? "Oh well I never vote, don't you know. The fact that this fascist party is planning to kill a load of their opponents is clearly nothing to do with me, because I've never voted.
A pathetic one.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
I will only say I don't believe in political solutions to human problems.
There's one view (yours apparently) that government is something alien, separate from people.
I take the view that government is one of the ways people deal with the kinds of collective action problems human societies seem to keep running across when they get more complicated than the hunter-gatherer level. I'd argue that political solutions seem to have a very good track record solving human problems like "how can we all have access to safe drinking water?". Certainly a lot better than "sacramental solution[s]" to such problems.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Gosh, where to start?
2. My abstentionism from the political processes predate any glimmer of a debate on marriage rights for homosexuals.
What kind of a moral is that? "Oh well I never vote, don't you know. The fact that this fascist party is planning to kill a load of their opponents is clearly nothing to do with me, because I've never voted.
A pathetic one.
Gottschalk can however be bother to start a thread about it on a Forum which, he asserts, won't give him a fair hearing.
Funny old world.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Gosh, where to start?
1.You seem to have some direct insight into people's minds. In 1933...did everyone who voted for the NSDAP hate Jews?
"Justice is what love looks like in public" Cornel West.
quote:
2. My abstentionism from the political processes predate any glimmer of a debate on marriage rights for homosexuals.
What kind of a moral is that? "Oh well I never vote, don't you know. The fact that this fascist party is planning to kill a load of their opponents is clearly nothing to do with me, because I've never voted.
A pathetic one.
It seems that the principal way you conceive of moral action is through a political medium - how is that not reductionist?
I may not vote for an anti-Nazi party, but I may well be sheltering Jews and Homosexuals in my basement.
I may have abstained from voting regarding the extension of marriage rights to homosexuals, but still extend to homosexual married couples everything courtesy and charity I can, or give myself up for them, should they be in danger.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Gosh, where to start?
2. My abstentionism from the political processes predate any glimmer of a debate on marriage rights for homosexuals.
What kind of a moral is that? "Oh well I never vote, don't you know. The fact that this fascist party is planning to kill a load of their opponents is clearly nothing to do with me, because I've never voted.
A pathetic one.
Gottschalk can however be bother to start a thread about it on a Forum which, he asserts, won't give him a fair hearing.
Funny old world.
Grief, I never started a thread on this particular issue of homosexual mariage - it's been hijacked by a few elements here.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Grief, I never started a thread on this particular issue of homosexual mariage - it's been hijacked by a few elements here.
To be fair, it was implicit in your second post on the thread. You were asked to clarify what you meant by 'traditional Christian', and you responded by saying it was the holding a traditional view on sexual ethics.
You could have said usury, you could have said communal living, you could have said pacifism, you could have said something about the creeds. But you didn't. You literally have only yourself to blame at this point.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But I'm fairly sure that simply refusing to engage is no better than standing against gay marriage or supporting a politician who stands against gay marriage.
I have to disagree with you there. If everyone that is opposed to gay marriage abstained from the political decision-making process, then the vote would be carried by those who are in favour of it. They would be able to retain their belief that it is wrong without that belief negatively affecting anyone else and without having to compromise their integrity by voting for something they believe is wrong.
We've been pushing the "if you don't like it then don't have one yourself" line for years, the implication of which is that we don't care whether someone thinks gay marriage is a sin so long as they don't try to prevent anyone else from having one if they want to. I for one think that is enough, and would not want to go down the road of saying that nothing less than active support for gay marriage will do. I respect anyone who says "I cannot in good conscience vote for this, but out of respect for other people's freedom to act according to their own conscience I will not vote against it either".
tl;dr - principled abstention is a perfectly honourable way of sticking to your beliefs without using them as a stick with which to beat others.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm sorry, how is it a counterfactual?
If one lived in Nazi Germany and didn't vote for parties which supported the rights of Jews, did one therefore not (at least contribute to) the hatred Jews?
What's the difference? How is it suddenly not hatred when it comes to gay people?
Godwin calling.... Godwin calling.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Godwin calling.... Godwin calling.
I didn't call anyone a Nazi, I was asking what the difference was between rights for Jews in Nazi Germany and rights for gays in the present.
If there is a real difference, I'm not seeing what it is.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
You must be joking unless you meant something else. Of course, there is a difference. As a matter of fact, gays have more right today than Jews had back then in Germany under the NSDAP. Your equivalences are just beside the point.
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
You must be joking unless you meant something else. Of course, there is a difference. As a matter of fact, gays have more right today than Jews had back then in Germany under the NSDAP. Your equivalences are just beside the point.
Yes they do. But in the same way that depriving Jews of their rights to own property was Jew hatred, depriving gays of civil marriage is gay hatred.
The situation is different but depriving a group of civil rights is the same thing: hatred.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
Thanks mr cheesy for quoting some comments by the leader of the FIEC, for example .. Attempts to ban other religions, or even to require conformity to a particular form of Christian faith and practice, have proved impossible and counterproductive throughout church history, and no Christians I know advocate such a step.
Perhaps on this point John Stevens needs to read his own doctrinal statement in '7' True fellowship between churches exists only where they are faithful to the gospel.
What's that if it is not an attempt to require conformity?
And, why do I keep thinking of that familiar statement 'God loves the sinner but hates the sin' when I read that material?
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
@Mark Wuntoo
I think they think there is a difference between being in a close church relationship and actively wanting other religions to be banned.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
"Saying "I don't believe in political solutions" is tacit support of whatever the status quo happens to be".
Well it does really doesn't it. If the status quo is killing Jews or slavery or racism and you've got the power to do something about it but don't, then you are tacitly supporting it. Are you not?
I don't think this would be a fair criticism of old-fashioned left-wing anarchists.
Indeed I think that the criticism could also be made of anyone who votes for any party more progressive than the one that's most likely to get in. I think that would be generally bad for the political climate.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Grief, I never started a thread on this particular issue of homosexual mariage - it's been hijacked by a few elements here.
To be fair, it was implicit in your second post on the thread. You were asked to clarify what you meant by 'traditional Christian', and you responded by saying it was the holding a traditional view on sexual ethics.
You could have said usury, you could have said communal living, you could have said pacifism, you could have said something about the creeds. But you didn't. You literally have only yourself to blame at this point.
That plus the fact that I don't see much evidence that the Ship has become significantly more hostile to any other aspects of traditional Christianity.
When I first joined the Ship, we used to have regular threads about Does Calvinism Posit a Monster God? and The Diocese of Sydney Is Evil. IngoB started his Star of the Sea board because of a perception that every thread that touched on Catholic doctrine turned into a demand that Catholics prove from first principles the value of extra-Biblical tradition. Outside of the DH issues, I would say traditional Christianity gets rather less bashing than it used to.
Politically, I do agree that the Ship seems to have edged significantly closer to a left-wing echo chamber (without being quite there yet). However Gottschalk, if I understand him correctly, has said he abstains from politics.
--------------------
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: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
1.You seem to have some direct insight into people's minds. In 1933...did everyone who voted for the NSDAP hate Jews?
If I beat you, or let you be beaten, the charity in my heart is meaningless.
quote:
2. My abstentionism from the political processes predate any glimmer of a debate on marriage rights for homosexuals.
If you vote for nothing, you are responsible for everything that is wrong.
Wherever two or more are gathered in my name, there will the state be. Gathered for any reason, obviously. The state is necessary, the state protects or not based on what is citizens do. Failing to participate is anti-Christian.
Regarding your nazi Germany basement hiding doppelganger: They could also have missed voting because they were building a time-machine to create less harsh treatment of post-WWI Germany and helping get Hitler into a fine-art career. But the odds are you'd have agreed, not cared enough and/or feared too much to help confront.
However you look at it, it still appears to be a cover for dodging civic responsibility.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
tl;dr - principled abstention is a perfectly honourable way of sticking to your beliefs without using them as a stick with which to beat others.
I would say it can be but is highly dependent on the situation.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Indeed I think that the criticism could also be made of anyone who votes for any party more progressive than the one that's most likely to get in. I think that would be generally bad for the political climate.
Not voting and throwing away your vote are mostly stupid and counter-productive.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But actually, I HAVE noticed a significant uptick in hostility toward my beliefs, and I've been here what, fifteen years now? (I lurked a bit before signing on)
Speaking only for myself, I have no hostility towards you. Occasional frustration, yes, but no hostility. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
As far as your beliefs, I am less likely to be polite about certain expressions of belief, yes.
But it truly is the presentation which matters regarding hostility of response.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is one of the great mysteries to me why some Christians have taken to making sexual ethics the defining characteristic of Christianity. To the point where non-Christians also generally see this as being what the church is about.
'Cause openly hating on brown people has fallen out of fashion. Need another rallying call for the faithful in a secularised world. Need a them.
Triple post, bad form I know.
Wanted this to be separate.
I could not find the race link I mentioned so I withdraw that.
But the larger point of the demonisation of homosexuality is a tactic devised as a rallying flag stands. Its current weight in "traditional" Christianity has the same roots as the recent switch of the stance on abortion.
--------------------
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
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Is it me or has hostility to traditional Christian teaching on the Ship considerably intensified in the past years, including hostility to those who hold such teachings? I mean there are the usual boards where discussion continues but I do perceive a general wave of intolerance.
The Ship has been a place where I have learnt a lot over the years. I am grateful for the wide representation of views and opinions, and for the usual cut and thrust of debate. I do not have concrete evidence but just a feeling, though, that the new modern (or postmodern) consensus on ethical questions is somewhat seen as the norm here.
Trolling can also go either way,
Just wondering.
In case you didn't realize it, the church as a public institution is being literally eaten by humanism. Eaten alive.
15Then the angel said to me, “The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. 16The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire.
The prostitute is the allegorical "woman" so often associated with the apostate Hebrews, she is the backsliding church. Get used to this.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
The prostitute is the allegorical "woman" so often associated with the apostate Hebrews, she is the backsliding church. Get used to this.
Oh yeah, that's right: it's the Roman Catholic Church. Now where have I heard that one before.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Yes, the phenomenon is more visible in the US. Where, when civil rights came in (allowing and encouraging more black persons to vote) the evangelical church suddenly discovered abortion and gay people. Previous to that point they had been entirely torpid about the issues.
Even now, when you're in political trouble, it's always handy to do something unpleasant to gay or transgender people.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Godwin calling.... Godwin calling.
I didn't call anyone a Nazi, I was asking what the difference was between rights for Jews in Nazi Germany and rights for gays in the present.
If there is a real difference, I'm not seeing what it is.
One needn't call anyone a Nazi to fall prey to Godwin's Law. Just introducing Adolf or the Nazis into the debate does it. A classical definition can be found here.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
One needn't call anyone a Nazi to fall prey to Godwin's Law. Just introducing Adolf or the Nazis into the debate does it. A classical definition can be found here.
Go on then, please tell me why depriving gays of rights is not comparable with depriving Jews of rights in Nazi Germany.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
As per Godwin:
"Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler to think a bit harder about the Holocaust"
I'm not comparing someone else to Hitler. I'm saying that there is no real reason to think that hatred of Jews in Nazi Germany is different in kind to deriving gays access to civil marriage (ie hatred).
If you think it is, then let's discuss why it is different and not hatred.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Is it me or has hostility to traditional Christian teaching on the Ship considerably intensified in the past years, including hostility to those who hold such teachings? I mean there are the usual boards where discussion continues but I do perceive a general wave of intolerance.
The Ship has been a place where I have learnt a lot over the years. I am grateful for the wide representation of views and opinions, and for the usual cut and thrust of debate. I do not have concrete evidence but just a feeling, though, that the new modern (or postmodern) consensus on ethical questions is somewhat seen as the norm here.
Trolling can also go either way,
Just wondering.
In case you didn't realize it, the church as a public institution is being literally eaten by humanism. Eaten alive.
15Then the angel said to me, “The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. 16The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire.
The prostitute is the allegorical "woman" so often associated with the apostate Hebrews, she is the backsliding church. Get used to this.
If only it were. Being consumed by the fire of humanism. Metabolized, transformed in to something useful. All the dross burned off, excreted.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As per Godwin:
"Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler to think a bit harder about the Holocaust"
I'm not comparing someone else to Hitler. I'm saying that there is no real reason to think that hatred of Jews in Nazi Germany is different in kind to deriving gays access to civil marriage (ie hatred).
If you think it is, then let's discuss why it is different and not hatred.
Comparison with Adolf and the Nazis, as a rhetorical tool, is too problematic to permit an exchange of views. This is why it is generally considered to end discussion. I would agree with this, and find it an aggressive approach, disrespectful to one's interlocutor. It is the Neigan's Lucille of discourse, not useful for convincing, but effective at bashing.
[ 26. July 2017, 18:59: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Oh right, so you're not going to answer. Even though you are misapplying the thing that you've brought in to close down discussion.
Never mind then.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
