|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hostility to Traditional Christians on the Ship
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
@MrCheesy
You're still not giving me any reasons but are instead mounting a bill of presumptions. And I am not a JP. So, instead of imagining motives for my ideas, is it really beyond your power to discuss their merits alone, without always committing ad hominem and a host of other fallacies? Merits of the argument, not those (imagined, for you do not know me) the person!
Your ideas don't seem to have any merits; you don't want to engage with politics but at the same time you think something must be done in your own backyard. Which most people would accept was a political statement and the issues you are describing require the very structural things that you've previously decried.
I've no wish to discuss wheelie bins with you.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Then when I was not quite 21, I was indecently assaulted in a largish private gathering by Robert Helpmann. Not surprisingly, I was homophobic for a number of years afterwards. Then I came to know some gays socially, and in particular received quite a bit of work from a gay solicitor. Madame and I became very friendly with him and his very long term partner. Views changed and what was left of the previous phobia has long gone.
Something similar happened to me after I was raped by a man named Mike. My back was injured so my GP referred me to his colleague, an acupuncturist also called Mike, in whose prescence I had difficulty just lying on the table. He stuck the first needle in - and I made a conscious connection of why I felt so uncomfortable - so I told him. His reaction was understanding, which really helped me to be more rational about the name.
I have had heaps of good therapy since, which has been useful because Mike is a relatively common name here.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Would that be since the "Credit crunch" when the greed of the banks became a burden for the general population?
Sure, and rampant global capitalism, and the middle east wars have been key too. But while these may provide the fuel, social media is pouring petrol onto the fire.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
I mean that I would prefer a more devolved, more local approach to taxation and welfare and I am not advocating for total isolationist autarchy. It would be good if people could take decisions about, say, rubbish collection, parking, preservation, schools, transport, etc. instead of it all taking place in Whitehall, or the County/Area Councils. I would like to see a return of powers, both legislative and judicial (more JPs perhaps?) to burgh and parish councils.
I mean, yes, that would be lovely. Except that as currently constituted, most of the wealth of this country is generated in a few square miles of land in the south-east of England.
They would get flying cars and robot servants, while the rest of us would be left the other side of the very big wall that would suddenly appear.
If we were starting with a clean slate, perhaps. But we're not.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
I mean that I would prefer a more devolved, more local approach to taxation and welfare and I am not advocating for total isolationist autarchy. It would be good if people could take decisions about, say, rubbish collection, parking, preservation, schools, transport, etc. instead of it all taking place in Whitehall, or the County/Area Councils. I would like to see a return of powers, both legislative and judicial (more JPs perhaps?) to burgh and parish councils.
I mean, yes, that would be lovely. Except that as currently constituted, most of the wealth of this country is generated in a few square miles of land in the south-east of England.
They would get flying cars and robot servants, while the rest of us would be left the other side of the very big wall that would suddenly appear.
If we were starting with a clean slate, perhaps. But we're not.
My ideas are just ideas - they are not policy proposals. No one was suggesting we start from a clean state. I haven't got a programme or anything like a programme. Someone asked me a question and I tried to give an answer.
I find all this pretended inference from and about intentions and motives distasteful - I do not see how it helps to bring the discussion forward, in addition to being attacks on a person's internal forum.
Some - those looking for hegemony - probably have the noose ready for the necks of us who won't succumb to their bullying. Here is my neck.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
That's probably a bit over dramatic. Especially since you're a member of possibly the most hierarchical of mainstream churches. I mean, I can understand you not thinking much of representative democracy, but if your preference is anarchy, then you're probably in the wrong denomination.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Furthermore, as people have said, they will avoid being 'the one', leading to a Ship that lists permanently and very noticeably to port.
I think it is the inevitable leaning for a compassionate Christian site. Not saying that conservative cannot or do not have compassion, but some of their positions are not.
quote:
If two people have critiqued a post fully, you don't need to add more of the same. Use the time to phone your mother, make jam, or discover what's making the noise in the walls.
It might not appear that way by my post count, but I often do not post because my point has been made. The problem, though, is that the two posts you mention might not have done the job thouroughly. Or I might not think so. Or I might feel incredibly strong about a certain subject and feel the need to express this.
Constraints are a difficult thing to manage in a complete balanced fashion.
quote:
Dunno. Maybe people want the Ship to be a place where everyone thinks the same and 'wrong' views are never expressed.
If we are all like-minded lefties, why do I get into so many fights here? Serious question.
The naysayers will have the ship as arguing between scarlet and vermilion. Speaking for myself, this is not my experience.
--------------------
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 goperryrevs:
There are many people* who hold certain convictions about personal morality, but don't want to deny any rights to other people.
* At least, here in the UK there are. My impression is that the US is more polarised.
The * is true, but Brexit and the racist incidents since show that the problem is still significant.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Rarely have I come across anyone who starts from there. They start from other assumptions, some of which may be nobler than you seem willing to give them credit for.
If you want to go to the start, it is most often that someone they trust/respect told them. Parent, priest, etc. Normal and natural, but not noble. Noble comes in later, if it comes in. Honestly to want to save someone from Hell for what you perceive as their "sin" is noble.
God said, I believe it and that settles it is not noble.
quote:
By interacting, politely, with those who are willing to interact, some greater mutual understanding can be achieved - and possibly, some minds changed. Why refuse to do so on principle?
There is a difference between being polite to a person and not respecting their position. I think the second is often conflated with the first.
And, honestly, in regards to many DH topics; this is 2017, not 1917. One needs to ignore an awful lot to have those some of those positions.
So, the starting point of a discussion can determine the reaction.
For instance, "The preponderance of evidence v. my religious tradition troubles me" will generate a different reaction than "Science is a tool of the Devil!" or a general ignorance of the scientific process.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Some - those looking for hegemony - probably have the noose ready for the necks of us who won't succumb to their bullying. Here is my neck.
Wow, I didn't realize you could be hanged for refusing to use a wheelie bin. Those are some pretty harsh council bylaws.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Not hanging, but there are actual cases of councils using anti-terrorism powers to catch people putting out their wheelie-bins on the wrong day.
Source (admittedly from 2008).
[ 28. July 2017, 17:29: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
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 Ricardus:
Not hanging, but there are actual cases using anti-terrorism powers to catch people putting out their wheelie-bins on the wrong day.
Source (admittedly from 2008).
Anything can be abused. I was going to say anarchy would be shooting people for not putting out their bins properly. But in anarchy, there would be no bins at all, just mounds of rubbish.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Not hanging, but there are actual cases of councils using anti-terrorism powers to catch people putting out their wheelie-bins on the wrong day.
Source (admittedly from 2008).
That's been stopped.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Not hanging, but there are actual cases of councils using anti-terrorism powers to catch people putting out their wheelie-bins on the wrong day.
Source (admittedly from 2008).
That's been stopped.
and the problem was that the list of bodies allowed to use RIPA was drawn so widely that while it was initially justified as 'anti-terrorist' legislation, it wasn't implemented with that sole aim in mind.
Exactly the same thing happened with followup legislation - it was justified using 'turr!' but the list of use cases which accompanied it were around traffic offences and the like.
[and fwiw the newspaper that printed that article - was at the forefront of efforts both times to push the legislation through].
[ 28. July 2017, 17:54: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If you want to go to the start, it is most often that someone they trust/respect told them. Parent, priest, etc. Normal and natural, but not noble. Noble comes in later, if it comes in. Honestly to want to save someone from Hell for what you perceive as their "sin" is noble.
God said, I believe it and that settles it is not noble.
Agreed, but I think the existence of the former category are worth seeking out in discussion.
Besides, my point remains that the starting point for "the other side" is not generally that they consider such or such category of person inferior.
quote:
There is a difference between being polite to a person and not respecting their position. I think the second is often conflated with the first.
Of course there is. From what RuthW posted, it seems to me she is inclined to give up on the first and possibly conflate it with the second, which is why I reacted. quote:
And, honestly, in regards to many DH topics; this is 2017, not 1917. One needs to ignore an awful lot to have those some of those positions.
Mileage varies enormously - as someone rightly pointed out upthread, try going to Africa for a slice of different worldviews.
I think all of us run the danger of ignoring an awful lot: that's the problem of echo chambers. No side is immune from this and downgrading places for "serious debate" exacerbates the problem.
quote:
For instance, "The preponderance of evidence v. my religious tradition troubles me" will generate a different reaction than "Science is a tool of the Devil!" or a general ignorance of the scientific process.
Of course. But there's a lot of room between those two extremes, and I think that where there's a reasonably broad consensus in a community, there's a tendency to consider any dissenting voice as sounding like the latter, or of merely sounding like the former to disguise what is erroneously perceived as their true position, i.e. the latter.
I'd say there's evidence of that on this thread.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I don't think, truly, that Christian disagreement is with behaviour, not orientation.
...
It is the sexuality of the person that is the issue, not the behaviour of the person.
It really isn't.
In Christian thought, all of us are tempted every day to do things we shouldn't do. Little wrongs, big wrongs, public wrongs, private wrongs.
Being tempted is not a sin. Giving into the temptation is the sin.
And some of us are more tempted to some sins than others. Some more prone to wrath, others to sloth.
Traditional Christian thought does not recognise sexuality as a black-or-white identifying characteristic. There are no gay souls. There are only souls that are subject to particular types and degrees of temptation.
It really is the behaviour and not the being subject to particular temptations that the Church condemns, and this fits entirely logically within a worldview in which no-one has any right to the comfort of sexual intimacy, and some are called to give up that comfort to serve God as a celibate monk or nun or priest.
You may deeply disagree with this point of view, but please don't misrepresent it.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
They didn't. They defined it.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I don't think, truly, that Christian disagreement is with behaviour, not orientation.
...
It is the sexuality of the person that is the issue, not the behaviour of the person.
It really isn't.
But it really is. Martin60's was the perfect, concise response. But let me lay out a longer one.
You cannot define someone's being as fine, but the expression of it wrong.*
This inherently says the being is wrong.
*Well, obviously you can, but it isn't logical or rational.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Just completely gobsmacked that you equate "homophobic" with "poofter" and "faggot."
Just completely gobsmacked that you cannot understand that "poofter" and "faggot" are offensive, that "homophobe" is offensive and also dishonest and untrue, and that all are unacceptable.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I don't think, truly, that Christian disagreement is with behaviour, not orientation.
...
It is the sexuality of the person that is the issue, not the behaviour of the person.
It really isn't.
In Christian thought, all of us are tempted every day to do things we shouldn't do. Little wrongs, big wrongs, public wrongs, private wrongs.
Being tempted is not a sin. Giving into the temptation is the sin.
And some of us are more tempted to some sins than others. Some more prone to wrath, others to sloth.
Traditional Christian thought does not recognise sexuality as a black-or-white identifying characteristic. There are no gay souls. There are only souls that are subject to particular types and degrees of temptation.
It really is the behaviour and not the being subject to particular temptations that the Church condemns, and this fits entirely logically within a worldview in which no-one has any right to the comfort of sexual intimacy, and some are called to give up that comfort to serve God as a celibate monk or nun or priest.
You may deeply disagree with this point of view, but please don't misrepresent it.
Well put, Russ.
Temptation is not wrong in itself, because Jesus himself experienced it.
The temptation of a man with SSA to have sex with other men is no better or worse than the temptation of a heterosexual man to have sex with as many attractive and compliant young women as possible.
Temptation is not identity or destiny in any objective or obvious sense, and therefore while such a man can choose to think, "I am by inclination polygamous/polyamorous and therefore that is what I am and must be", he can equally choose to be celibate or monogamously married.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Egeria
Shipmate
# 4517
|
Posted
Kaplan Corday said
quote:
"homophobe" is offensive and also dishonest and untrue, and that all are unacceptable.
One of my grad school classmates, a very "out" gay man, was rejected by his university's Phi Beta Kappa chapter because of his sexual orientation. After the rejection was reported in the campus newspaper, he was beaten up by members of the baseball team and had to be hospitalized.
A law student in San Francisco, minding her own business and waiting for a BART train, had a kneecap broken by some thug who thought she was a lesbian.
My straight sister, working a canvassing job one summer, was verbally abused and spat at by a "man" who thought her new summer haircut was a sexual statement.
I am also straight, and while I don't remember anyone ever spitting at me, I've had a number of unpleasant experience with these creeps who didn't like my hair style or my skirt length (apparently some people think that longer skirts mean a woman is gay) or the color of my backpack. A rumor in my department--about how I supposedly don't like men--apparently was simply based on the fact that I'm single. And then there were the other accusations--that I am antagonistic towards religious people (that person didn't know that I attend church regularly) and that I'm unwilling to relocate from the Bay Area for a new job. None of that is true, and all of that, if repeated to colleagues on selection committees, could have damaged my chances for advancement. In other words, the gossip could contribute to the wreckage of my career. And that climate of suspicion and hostility was largely created by self-proclaimed Christians.
So don't whine about the word homophobe. It's actually a fairly restrained, polite term for filthy-minded gutter-crawling bigots.
--------------------
"Sound bodies lined / with a sound mind / do here pursue with might / grace, honor, praise, delight."--Rabelais
Posts: 314 | From: Berkeley, CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I don't think, truly, that Christian disagreement is with behaviour, not orientation.
...
It is the sexuality of the person that is the issue, not the behaviour of the person.
It really isn't.
In Christian thought, all of us are tempted every day to do things we shouldn't do. Little wrongs, big wrongs, public wrongs, private wrongs.
Being tempted is not a sin. Giving into the temptation is the sin.
And some of us are more tempted to some sins than others. Some more prone to wrath, others to sloth.
Traditional Christian thought does not recognise sexuality as a black-or-white identifying characteristic. There are no gay souls. There are only souls that are subject to particular types and degrees of temptation.
It really is the behaviour and not the being subject to particular temptations that the Church condemns, and this fits entirely logically within a worldview in which no-one has any right to the comfort of sexual intimacy, and some are called to give up that comfort to serve God as a celibate monk or nun or priest.
You may deeply disagree with this point of view, but please don't misrepresent it.
Well put, Russ.
Temptation is not wrong in itself, because Jesus himself experienced it.
The temptation of a man with SSA to have sex with other men is no better or worse than the temptation of a heterosexual man to have sex with as many attractive and compliant young women as possible.
Why the comparison with the heterosexual man who wants to bed as many women as he can? What about the "temptation" of a man to have sex with just one other man he loves and is wiling to commit himself to?
quote:
Temptation is not identity or destiny in any objective or obvious sense, and therefore while such a man can choose to think, "I am by inclination polygamous/polyamorous and therefore that is what I am and must be", he can equally choose to be celibate or monogamously married.
So under this understanding what choices does the gay man have? Celibacy or ...?
I understand the appeal of this position to the Christian who sincerely wants to be charitable and to love the sinner but hate the sin. I used to take this position, trying to square what I was taught/believed about sexual dos and dont's with what I saw and experienced in my relationships with gay friends.
But eventually I realized that, for reasons others have said, there was nothing charitable about this position, nor could it withstand scrutiny. Rejecting the "behavior" is rejecting the individual, however much we try to convince ourselves that it's not. It's not loving; it's cruel.
[ 29. July 2017, 02:28: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
The state through a species of taxation seeks to enforce a largely unmonitored, unaccountable system of national sympathy upon us when that money could be channelled directly for the support of local issues.
Could you clarify "species of taxation" and "system of national sympathy" please? I don't understand what you mean by either phrase.
I mean that I would prefer a more devolved, more local approach to taxation and welfare and I am not advocating for total isolationist autarchy. It would be good if people could take decisions about, say, rubbish collection, parking, preservation, schools, transport, etc. instead of it all taking place in Whitehall, or the County/Area Councils. I would like to see a return of powers, both legislative and judicial (more JPs perhaps?) to burgh and parish councils.
I appreciate the response, Gottschalk, though I'm a bit surprised that the referents turn out to be so mundane - now I find myself wondering what the traditional Christian teaching on wheelie bins might be...
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Nick Tamen, thanks for that - it sets out very simply and clearly what's basically wrong with the traditional line.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Besides, my point remains that the starting point for "the other side" is not generally that they consider such or such category of person inferior.
I'm sorry, but it is. They might not think they think this, but it is the inevitable conclusion of their way of thinking.
To repeat my post from just upthread.
You cannot define someone's being as fine, but the expression of it wrong.
This inherently says the being is wrong.
quote:
But there's a lot of room between those two extremes, and I think that where there's a reasonably broad consensus in a community, there's a tendency to consider any dissenting voice as sounding like the latter, or of merely sounding like the former to disguise what is erroneously perceived as their true position, i.e. the latter.
I'd say there's evidence of that on this thread.
You present this as if it is an equal exchange. It isn't. The Gay is a choice. etc. says that all LGBT+ are liars or completely deluded about a very primal element of themselves.
The fauxtrage of comments like this:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Just completely gobsmacked that you cannot understand that "poofter" and "faggot" are offensive, that "homophobe" is offensive and also dishonest and untrue, and that all are unacceptable.
are one reason why these exchanges should not be considered equal. The consequences are not equal. Hurt feelings v. broken bones. Or worse.
The increased hate crimes after Trump and Brexit are clear demonstrations on how a POV can affect the actions of others.
--------------------
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You think there are groups of people who, irrespective of their attempts to interact, don't deserve the same treatment as everyone else on the sole basis of their views, which you qualify as "abhorrent" - a characterisation which those who hold opposing views to you would doubtless reject. I can't see how functionally, that's any different from seeing them as "less human".
What would you do if a neo-Nazi showed up here and posted flat-out racist things in Purgatory? Would you object? If I called that person a racist would you tell me I was over the line? 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? Neo-Nazis are not less human than I am, but their views should not be countenanced.
quote:
By interacting, politely, with those who are willing to interact, some greater mutual understanding can be achieved - and possibly, some minds changed. Why refuse to do so on principle?
Because it says that as long as people assume a veneer of politeness, all views are on the same footing and deserve the same consideration.
There may be more I should respond to on this thread, but I need to get some sleep, so for now I'll just add: what lilBuddha said.
[ 29. July 2017, 05:55: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Besides, my point remains that the starting point for "the other side" is not generally that they consider such or such category of person inferior.
I'm sorry, but it is. They might not think they think this, but it is the inevitable conclusion of their way of thinking.
It cannot be both the "inevitable conclusion" and the "starting point"!
For some people it may well be the latter, but for others, it's not. Blaming people for holding such views as their starting point when you yourself admit they might be unaware of the implications of their position is precisely what I would like to avoid.
quote:
You present this as if it is an equal exchange. It isn't. (...) these exchanges should not be considered equal. The consequences are not equal. Hurt feelings v. broken bones. Or worse.
The increased hate crimes after Trump and Brexit are clear demonstrations on how a POV can affect the actions of others.
Firstly, you have suddenly lumped together all the proponents of "traditional" viewpoints as directly inciting physical violence.
That's about the equivalent of saying every Muslim is a terrorist in the making.
It assumes nobody with views that differ from yours could possibly be interested in dialogue, and provides a false justification for simply flaming them instead of giving them a chance to present their thinking - which might give you a further insight into how their mind works even if you aren't won over to their viewpoint.
(We have been over this ground a bit before. In my view, being an oppressed minority does not entitle the minority in question to use the techniques of oppression back whenever it gets the chance).
Secondly, I don't think a decision to sanction behaviour or views deemed unacceptable by a community in and of itself justifies violence, whether verbal or otherwise, directed at those concerned. Hate crimes are not the monopoly of either side.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
What would you do if a neo-Nazi showed up here and posted flat-out racist things in Purgatory? Would you object?
As a host, I'd draw attention of the admins to a breach of Commandment 1. quote:
If I called that person a racist would you tell me I was over the line?
As a host, yes, because you'd be in breach of Commandment 3.
As far as I'm concerned, those rules are only good rules if they are applied without exception.
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.
Thirdly, we have a place for not being polite, it's called Hell, and one of the key reasons for Hell was to keep Purgatory polite. quote:
all views are on the same footing and deserve the same consideration.
Within the context of Purgatory and the 10Cs, I believe they are and they do. I believe in letting ideas compete freely within this space and allowing them to be considered on their merits or demerits. And I further believe this is one of the defining characteristics of the Ship and something rarely to be found elsewhere. Lose that and we're holed below the waterline.
quote:
veneer of politeness
I think this is symptomatic of terrible bad faith.
It's simply not possible to decide whether someone's politeness is a "veneer" or not, on the basis of their views alone, until you've interacted with them for a while.
Again, taking such an approach is like those who use the existence of Taqiya to accuse all Muslims - and most unfairly of all, those genuinely seeking to integrate - of concealing their true jihadist intentions beneath a "veneer of politeness" (a practice described on the linked page as "a staple of right-wing Islamophobia in North America").
Politeness isn't a reward granted only to those whose views we share. It's a basic mechanism that allows constructive communication, and life in a diverse society, to happen. If opposing views cannot be defeated by reasoned argument, but only be seen off by verbal (or other) aggression, it begs the question as to the validity of one's own arguments - on either side.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Isn't all politeness a veneer to some extent?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I don't think, truly, that Christian disagreement is with behaviour, not orientation.
...
It is the sexuality of the person that is the issue, not the behaviour of the person.
It really isn't.
In Christian thought, all of us are tempted every day to do things we shouldn't do. Little wrongs, big wrongs, public wrongs, private wrongs.
Being tempted is not a sin. Giving into the temptation is the sin.
And some of us are more tempted to some sins than others. Some more prone to wrath, others to sloth.
Traditional Christian thought does not recognise sexuality as a black-or-white identifying characteristic. There are no gay souls. There are only souls that are subject to particular types and degrees of temptation.
It really is the behaviour and not the being subject to particular temptations that the Church condemns, and this fits entirely logically within a worldview in which no-one has any right to the comfort of sexual intimacy, and some are called to give up that comfort to serve God as a celibate monk or nun or priest.
You may deeply disagree with this point of view, but please don't misrepresent it.
Russ, your analysis doesn't fit with how life feels to me or how I understand the Gospel.
I don't go around resisting temptation. Where I am well-adjusted, I don't feel temptation.
The Gospel tells me to love my neighbour, and when I do, when fear and jealousy are replaced by love, I naturally choose what is good for her or him. There is no effort, no war between will and want - which are not really separate things in any case.
Indeed, when Jesus says that someone who looks on another with lust or anger has already committed adultery or murder, isn't he making intention the focus rather than the deed?
Just as the Gospel should lead to peace and goodwill between people, I think it should bring the same to each of us 'internally,' not leaving us at war with ourselves, trying to resist temptation. I just put a sleeping bag in a stuff sack. That's not how I want my life to feel, a struggle to control urges that threaten to escape on whichever side I'm not paying attention to.
The assertion that Jesus was tempted is a strange one. Who can possibly know? I like the thought that he was the person whose dreams and deeds were one.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Isn't all politeness a veneer to some extent?
That's another way of putting it, yes. But it's a facilitating veneer. Social convention might be a more acceptable way of putting it.
I have a lot of conversations from prison running through my head as I read this thread. As a chaplain the overwhelming majority of inmates are polite to me (if only because I'm not in uniform and in their minds, might come in useful some day as a target for some devious scheme or other, say bringing a phone in).
I don't mistake politeness for fundamental niceness.
Some can very politely express blood-curdling views to me (as in "I raped her but didn't mean to kill her: after all, I raped several girls at knifepoint after her and didn't kill any of them" [sits back and waits for approval]).
Others never seem to have had a polite word said to them in their lives and define their whole miserable existence in terms of victimhood. For them, actually being addressed as a human being who is more than their criminal act or ethnic background or off-the-rails views in some areas and who might have some intrinsic value has the effect of watering a shrivelled plant.
Politeness is the basic social convention that enables us to recognise those around us as sharing our fundamental humanity, whatever their words or deeds - and potentially, building some bridges.
Lastly, this picture says it all.
[ 29. July 2017, 07:42: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't mistake politeness for fundamental niceness.
Some can very politely express blood-curdling views to me (as in "I raped her but didn't mean to kill her: after all, I raped several girls at knifepoint after her and didn't kill any of them" [sits back and waits for approval]).
The fact that you can even sit in the same room as someone who has done these things shows to me that you know more about this subject than I ever will.
It also shows me that you are a far better person than I'll ever be.
I take my hat off to you.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Thanks Egeria for some very appropriate context.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
not generally that they consider such or such category of person inferior.
I'm sorry, but it is. They might not think they think this, but it is
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The Gay is a choice. etc. says that all LGBT+ are liars or completely deluded about a very primal element of themselves.
Careful, lB. In the second you're rightly pointing out the shittiness of being told one's deluded, but in the first you're doing exactly the same.
I don't think it necessarily follows that the conservative believes that LGBT+ people are inferior. I didn't when I used to believe that homosexual acts were inherently 'sinful'.
Back then, I would have put it this way: we are all broken in all sorts of different ways. Some people are lustful, some a prone to anger, or depression, or insecurity, or jealousy... and so on. I would have put homosexual desire in the big pot of 'urges and inclinations' which are part of our brokenness.
So, I'd have seen acting on those urges as equivalent to when Jesus says "in your anger, do not sin". The urges are what they are - but acting upon them is wrong because of the damage done to others or oneself.
This is why I was never persuaded by the line "God made me this way. It's just the way I am. I have to be true to myself". Well, God me the way I am too. Some parts are wonderful, some parts are horrendous, and lots is in between. Being made a certain way does not have any inherent moral value to it.*
Anyway, I'm straying into DH territory, but the point is, I never saw LGBT+ people as inferior. Simply broken - as I, and we all are. It was just that their orientation was one of the specific ways in which they were broken.
* Three main things changed my mind.
- Realising that, in themselves, homosexual relationships don't damage oneself or others any more than heterosexual relationships. Acting on all the other 'broken' urges does do damage. So maybe I was categorising it wrongly.
- Realising that the Bible, which I thought so clear, wasn't. Especially when you look at how we've treated other theologies (slavery, ursury etc. etc.)
- Realising that my own instinctive 'eugh' factor was morally irrelevant.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Kaplan Corday said quote:
The temptation of a man with SSA to have sex with other men is no better or worse than the temptation of a heterosexual man to have sex with as many attractive and compliant young women as possible.
This illustration comes from a world where men are uncontrollably randy and women are passive, either compliant, or resistant. It makes men's sexuality the sole driver, and implies that self control and the availability of compliant young and attractive women are the only things limiting this insatiable appetite.
I know there is a traditional view out there that views sex in this one-sided way, as a male sport. Male chauvinism we used to call it, and it does fit with the view of human nature that sees it as a battle between desire and discipline, but can't we do better, and be more true to our experience?
Do we want to talk about being young and attractive as a sort of qualifying requirement for women, but not men, in respect of sex? Isn't this the world view of the Miss World Contest?
If we can't reimagine sex in line with the Gospel as an opportunity for intimacy, trust and commitment, a risky but joyful and fun negotiation of our insecurities and needs, do we really have anything worthwhile to say about it at all?
I mean I know it was only an example, but where on earth did you get it from?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
If I called that person a racist would you tell me I was over the line?
As a host, yes, because you'd be in breach of Commandment 3.
As far as I'm concerned, those rules are only good rules if they are applied without exception.
Two things occur to me.
First, my memory of Erin is older than all of yours, but I do remember that she had a very low tolerance for people who came here looking for a fight.
But then I also recall that Simon did as well when he was more actively involved.
One incident I recall was when someone came using the username Satan (or it might have been Saitan) and Erin did the chomping routine after about one post. Another time someone was being offensive in the old cafe and Simon came in to remonstrate with him.
So I don't think it was always the way that people got the benefit of time to see if they'd break any of the commandments and I don't think a robust response from the Hosts and Admins would have gotten a response from other hosts.
Second, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe holocaust denial is an offense in France (as it is elsewhere). Are you saying to me that it is right that someone in France can post such things on this website (providing they do it politely) when they'd not be able to do it in public away from their computer - and that interlocutors can be given reprimands instead?
I'm now not talking about the law, by the way, I'm trying to understand how you understand these processes on this website vs normal civil behaviour and expectations in other areas of your life.
ISTM that most of us think that there are certain things which should not be said and most of us live in jurisdictions where one can get into some kind of trouble for saying them. And I further suggest that it used to be the case that this website took more robust action when someone tried saying such things.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The temptation of a man with SSA to have sex with other men is no better or worse than the temptation of a heterosexual man to have sex with as many attractive and compliant young women as possible.
Temptation is not identity or destiny in any objective or obvious sense, and therefore while such a man can choose to think, "I am by inclination polygamous/polyamorous and therefore that is what I am and must be", he can equally choose to be celibate or monogamously married.
OK, but we all know that sexual sins in general and so-called "homosexual" sins in particular are treated differently by people who are into categorising sins.
If it wasn't then such things wouldn't be given a second of thought beyond the time one might spend thinking about the sin of jealousy or the sin of speeding or the sin of eating too many doughnuts.
That's for one thing.
Second of all, if someone is in a committed homosexual relationship or marriage, there is nothing that they can actually do to stop sinning according to this rubric short of leaving the relationship. We might get very analytical about their activities in the bedroom, but the long-and-the-short of it is that they can only "be whole" by leaving their partner. I don't think anyone would apply that standard to people in other kinds of so-called "sinful" relationships.
Most of all, there is this general air which seems to say that these things are so disgusting and so sinful and so broken that they can never be good - to the extent that we're going to waste a whole lot of time bashing on this drum at the expense of things that we actually know are harmful such as some forms of gambling.
For me this is what it comes down to: there is no evidence that homosexual relationships are more evil than heterosexual relationships (it'd be nice if there was some kind of obvious red flag) and there is no evidence that homosexual sex is any more dangerous than other kinds (again, a red flag would be great).
So when someone makes a claim that it is wrong and sinful then there is no reason to give that any more notice than the person who thinks eating shellfish is immoral and sinful. And a whole lot more reason to focus on things that are actually unquestionably dangerous and destructive.
[ 29. July 2017, 08:38: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
First, my memory of Erin is older than all of yours, but I do remember that she had a very low tolerance for people who came here looking for a fight.
Who said anything about people coming looking for a fight? Are you assuming that someone arriving with an opposing view to the majority simply must be looking for a fight?
quote:
So I don't think it was always the way that people got the benefit of time to see if they'd break any of the commandments
If you're suggesting there was a time when people got booted simply for their views without having broken any Commandments, I don't recall it. quote:
and I don't think a robust response from the Hosts and Admins would have gotten a response from other hosts.
Purgatory has been run hotter and cooler at different points in time. My perspective is that presently, there are far fewer people turning up with the express intention of trolling. Those that do are dealt with quite quickly.
I think there are two other trends at work. One is that bulletin boards are no longer the heady medium they were 15 years ago; most people interacting online do so via social media. Secondly, the Ship has not kept up with social and technological change, so we simply don't attract the attention - positive or negative - we once did.
quote:
I believe holocaust denial is an offense in France (as it is elsewhere). Are you saying to me that it is right that someone in France can post such things on this website (providing they do it politely) when they'd not be able to do it in public away from their computer - and that interlocutors can be given reprimands instead?
From the Ship point of view, it might fall under the scope of Commandment 1 ("all the other negative -isms", which I guess we take to include "revisionism") and I would guess the H&A's would invoke that in dealing with it.
Having said all that, and despite thinking the US First Amendment can be terribly abused, I'm really not convinced making Holocaust denial an offence is a good idea. The subjective impression such laws produce in me is that there is the fear that the hypothesis cannot be refuted by cogent argument.
(This is one of the points I feel terribly un-French whatever my passport says. I think France's holocaust denial laws, and other similar legislation and policies, are above all a guilt-induced cultural reaction to France's treatment of the Jews during the war rather than a rational measure. It's hard otherwise to explain how François Hollande, as president of this oh-so-secular state, could suddenly don a kippah and participate in an act of worship in a synagogue, live on TV. I doubt you'd see him taking his shoes off as he entered a mosque for prayer. This whole issue goes quite a long way to explaining why Muslims are so poorly integrated in France compared to, say, the UK).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Interestingly, I've just this minute discovered that a US Federal court has just ruled on an issue not too far removed from this one: quote:
the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause does indeed prohibit officeholders from blocking social media users on the basis of their views
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Who said anything about people coming looking for a fight? Are you assuming that someone arriving with an opposing view to the majority simply must be looking for a fight?
I don't know Eutychus - you tell me why a Neo-Nazi would start posting here if it wasn't for a fight. Fascism and neo-nazism are violent ideologies, indeed it is explicitly stated so within facism.
quote:
If you're suggesting there was a time when people got booted simply for their views without having broken any Commandments, I don't recall it.
Well I suppose one can argue Commandment 1 is a catch-all term for almost anything, but I can remember incidents where Erin chomped shipmates with few posts without the now customary warnings.
Again, I'd suggest in the past there were views that were simply unacceptable.
quote:
From the Ship point of view, it might fall under the scope of Commandment 1 ("all the other negative -isms", which I guess we take to include "revisionism") and I would guess the H&A's would invoke that in dealing with it.
Having said all that, and despite thinking the US First Amendment can be terribly abused, I'm really not convinced making Holocaust denial an offence is a good idea. The subjective impression such laws produce in me is that there is the fear that the hypothesis cannot be refuted by cogent argument.
(This is one of the points I feel terribly un-French whatever my passport says. I think France's holocaust denial laws, and other similar legislation and policies, are above all a guilt-induced cultural reaction to France's treatment of the Jews during the war rather than a rational measure. It's hard otherwise to explain how François Hollande, as president of this oh-so-secular state, could suddenly don a kippah and participate in an act of worship in a synagogue, live on TV. I doubt you'd see him taking his shoes off as he entered a mosque for prayer. This whole issue goes quite a long way to explaining why Muslims are so poorly integrated in France compared to, say, the UK).
Mmm. So you think this is a limp guilt-fest rather than a way to try to protect a minority from experiencing hate-speech. Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Interestingly, I've just this minute discovered that a US Federal court has just ruled on an issue not too far removed from this one: quote:
the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause does indeed prohibit officeholders from blocking social media users on the basis of their views
I'm not sure why that's relevant. One can believe that certain views are beyond the pail whilst also believing that representatives should be able to hear the opinions of their constituents.
As far as I know, we're not here in the representative-constituent relationship so I can't really see why that's relevant or important.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Some other things occur to me:
From whatever the point was that Dead Horses was instituted on this board (I don't remember) it has been determined that there are different categories of things;
1. Things within the bounds of rigorous discussion and which people eventually get bored of talking about
2. Things which get sucked into endless discussion
3. Things that cannot be discussed here
But in effect the choice between 1 and 2 often comes down to whether or not a significant proportion of the population feels that they're about an issue which cuts to the essence or core of their being.
The choice between 2 and 3 is more nebulous, couched in the language of the 10 commandments.
And, I believe, becomes increasingly hard to justify when people are able to post here things about homosexuals that they'd not be able to post about Jews.
The idea that Commandment 1 is just limiting "-isms" is bogus. Is not talk about the human rights that gay people should have an ism?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't know Eutychus - you tell me why a Neo-Nazi would start posting here if it wasn't for a fight. Fascism and neo-nazism are violent ideologies, indeed it is explicitly stated so within facism.
I'm not sure how we've got from "traditional Christians" to "neo-nazism" unless it is through guilt by association.
And again, I refuse to lump any group together, be it Republicans, rapists, or EDL supporters, as an indiscriminate mass, or immediately assign motives to people who turn up here with non-conforming views.
Posters sign up as individuals. If they start trying to act as representatives of a constituency, they'll soon fall foul of the commandment against crusading.
quote:
I can remember incidents where Erin chomped shipmates with few posts without the now customary warnings.
I posted above that we're not Jesus; we're not Erin either. I had a lot of respect for her, and her authoritarianism helped make the Ship what it is, but I didn't agree with all her unilateral decisions, either.
quote:
Again, I'd suggest in the past there were views that were simply unacceptable.
If you really want to argue that, I'll take sides with those arguing that we are in danger of seeing other views as "simply unacceptable" here today - just not the same ones.
quote:
So you think this is a limp guilt-fest rather than a way to try to protect a minority from experiencing hate-speech.
That's not what I said.
I do think that there are a whole host of cultural issues (including treatment of Jews) experienced differently by France and the UK because of our nations' differing experiences of WW2 - and I'd lived here for over a decade before acquiring the first inklings of that insight.
And to the point, I think that banning the expression of theories, however crackpot, is not a good way of stamping them out, or of developing one's own properly informed views.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not sure how we've got from "traditional Christians" to "neo-nazism" unless it is through guilt by association.
I don't think anyone was associating anyone with nazis, we were simply asking if you thought there are unacceptable views. The answer seems to be no.
quote:
And again, I refuse to lump any group together, be it Republicans, rapists, or EDL supporters, as an indiscriminate mass, or immediately assign motives to people who turn up here with non-conforming views.
Posters sign up as individuals. If they start trying to act as representatives of a constituency, they'll soon fall foul of the commandment against crusading.
I'm afraid I think this is a deeply ambivalent attitude. It makes me wonder whether you are actually suited for a hostly position on these boards.
[ 29. July 2017, 09:22: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
we were simply asking if you thought there are unacceptable views. The answer seems to be no.
Oh it's "we", now, is it? Who are you claiming to speak on behalf of? If anyone on the other side of an argument to yourself were to start using such language you'd say it was the first sign of dogpiling.
There are views which I find reprehensible, but what I personally find reprehensible is an entirely separate issue to the rules and practices of this debate space and how they are enforced.
quote:
I'm afraid I think this is a deeply ambivalent attitude. It makes me wonder whether you are actually suited for a hostly position on these boards.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) the Styx is available for you to air your grievances.
[ETA oh, I see you already availed yourself of it]
[ 29. July 2017, 10:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
The state through a species of taxation seeks to enforce a largely unmonitored, unaccountable system of national sympathy upon us when that money could be channelled directly for the support of local issues.
Could you clarify "species of taxation" and "system of national sympathy" please? I don't understand what you mean by either phrase.
I mean that I would prefer a more devolved, more local approach to taxation and welfare and I am not advocating for total isolationist autarchy. It would be good if people could take decisions about, say, rubbish collection, parking, preservation, schools, transport, etc. instead of it all taking place in Whitehall, or the County/Area Councils. I would like to see a return of powers, both legislative and judicial (more JPs perhaps?) to burgh and parish councils.
I appreciate the response, Gottschalk, though I'm a bit surprised that the referents turn out to be so mundane - now I find myself wondering what the traditional Christian teaching on wheelie bins might be...
Haha, well, I suppose the mundane, the quotidian is what is nearest at hand as Heidegger would say. You might want to call that very low politics - as compared to the nose-bleeding high politics of some of the other commenters.
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Rejecting the "behavior" is rejecting the individual
I think what you're asserting here (and lilBuddha is saying much the same) is that homosexual acts are the self-expression of a homosexual identity. Of a gay person's true self = very self = soul.
I believe that you believe this. But it is not the traditional Christian understanding.
If I have it right, the traditional Christian view is that homosexual desires along with all other earthly attachments will be burned away in the fires of Purgatory leaving a clean soul. In other words, being gay does not go all the way down to the bedrock of the self; desires (of any sort) are something you have, not something you are.
"Identity politics" is not Christian.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Given that there's no marriage in Heaven, that probably goes for the straights, too. I find your exegesis ... lacking.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I must say, I too find it difficult to see Christianity as a religion where we are envisaged as bound by our nature and expected to obey it at all times.
Maybe liberal Christianity will develop more assertively in this direction, but I don't think the take-up will be all that great.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You may deeply disagree with this point of view, but please don't misrepresent it.
I'm not misrepresenting it. Or at least not wilfully. I get that the Church, in an effort not to appear censorious, tries to give the impression that people can be as gay as they want so long as they don't do anything about it. But even that attitude is inconsistent with teaching about how God looks on the heart, and the many things Jesus taught about purity of thought-life. The claim that the Church only sees a problem with behaviour is frankly implausible, and gives a very wonky picture of a set-up that's happy to say 'I know you're not the same as me, but you're okay with me, so long as you don't do anything that inconveniently reminds me, you're not the same as me'.
And I'm glad you've brought up temptation - along with Kaplan Korday, because it's really nothing to do with temptation. Not in essence.
For example, when a heterosexual person is tempted to sex they are reminded by traditional Church teaching that they must first marry someone of the opposite sex, always assuming that traditional Church teaching still includes the tradition of viewing pre-marital sex as fornication. At any rate, straight people tempted by sex have a clear pathway for their urges. This is because being straight isn't 'wrong'.
When a homosexual person is tempted to sex, their options are what exactly, for the legitimate expression of that part of their humanity?
When I am tempted by either wrath or sloth - to use your own examples, I can freely channel both those perfectly human attributes into quite useful and even healthful alternatives, if I exercise self-control and maintain a good purpose. Wrath could lead me to campaign, say for justice, or stand up for the weak. Sloth could be moderated into contemplative rest and recuperation.
Where, according to traditional Christian teaching is the legitimate channelling of the sexuality of the same-sex attracted person? There is none, because the traditional view is that when a straight person is tempted sexually they are experiencing a legitimate sexual urge for which there are natural and 'lawful' remedies. Whereas when a homosexual person is tempted sexually they are only ever being tempted to express what must be sinful and disordered, and for which, allegedly, there is no Biblical remedy or approval.
This can only be because what they ARE is wrong; ie, a person with a sexual element to their whole being which doesn't conform to what should be 'right'. In effect, they are under the restraints that, say, a criminal would be under, if that criminal wanted to express his natural urge to steal, or kill or commit fraud.
Another way to look at it, and which explodes the temptation myth is this. Two people are 'tempted' by their sexual urges. The first has an affair outside marriage; the second is completely faithful to the marriage partner. However, it is the second who is told he may not marry in church, or is 'disgusting' or disordered, and must not ever have sex or engage in an intimate relationship. The first should restict his sexual activity to his wife; the second should restrict them altogether. That's not about temptation at all. It's about saying that number one has the 'right' kind of sexuality, just the wrong way of expressing it. But number two's sexuality is just wrong, full stop. And that IS about identity and selfhood and being.
Clearly, the orientation of the heterosexual adulterer is of no interest to the observer; whereas the orientation of the second is fundamental to whether or not they are to be judged in how they have responded to 'temptation'; even though that person's response is disciplined, monogamous, and committed; virtues which apparently cease to be virtues when employed by someone of the 'wrong' orientation.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I must say, I too find it difficult to see Christianity as a religion where we are envisaged as bound by our nature and expected to obey it at all times.
Maybe liberal Christianity will develop more assertively in this direction, but I don't think the take-up will be all that great.
I don't know what this is, but it isn't Christianity. Christianity sees creation, including creation of the whole human person, as a gift to be celebrated just as it is, and lived to its fullest.
--------------------
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: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
The state through a species of taxation seeks to enforce a largely unmonitored, unaccountable system of national sympathy upon us when that money could be channelled directly for the support of local issues.
Could you clarify "species of taxation" and "system of national sympathy" please? I don't understand what you mean by either phrase.
I mean that I would prefer a more devolved, more local approach to taxation and welfare and I am not advocating for total isolationist autarchy. It would be good if people could take decisions about, say, rubbish collection, parking, preservation, schools, transport, etc. instead of it all taking place in Whitehall, or the County/Area Councils. I would like to see a return of powers, both legislative and judicial (more JPs perhaps?) to burgh and parish councils.
I appreciate the response, Gottschalk, though I'm a bit surprised that the referents turn out to be so mundane - now I find myself wondering what the traditional Christian teaching on wheelie bins might be...
Haha, well, I suppose the mundane, the quotidian is what is nearest at hand as Heidegger would say. You might want to call that very low politics - as compared to the nose-bleeding high politics of some of the other commenters.
Well, I suppose we all have our idiosyncrasies. Some indulge in nose-bleeding high politics, others fantasize about martyrdom over refuse collection policy gripes.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
