|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hostility to Traditional Christians on the Ship
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
ThunderBunk
Well, there's certainly a tension, isn't there? On the one hand it's supposedly about living life to the fullest, which presumably includes all of our appetites. But on the other, few flourishing forms of organised Christianity seem willing or able to encourage that. There are always limits of some sort, stated or unstated.
I'm not the one who created these limits; they existed long before I was born. So I suppose one could argue, you seem inclined to do, that what we've long called Christianity isn't really Christian at all.
In any case, out of all the 1000s of 'Christian' movements created there don't appear to be very many dedicated to personal fulfillment. This is what leads me to doubt that there's much of a demand for such groups. It's counter-intuitive, perhaps, but people seem more drawn to movements that place at least some limits upon them.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
ThunderBunk
I'm not the one who created these limits; they existed long before I was born. So I suppose one could argue, you seem inclined to do, that what we've long called Christianity isn't really Christian at all.
It's not that unusual; I have an ally in the former Archbishop of Canterbury, who is given to describing Christianity as a campaign for fuller humanity.
This campaign is alive and well around the church, and occasionally penetrates. The fact that all the major movements which have improved people's lives since the Reformation - against slavery, against discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, class and sexual orientation - have originated and taken firmer root outside the church than within seems to me to be more than anything evidence of the Holy Spirit tiring of the effort in penetrating church walls.
None of this stops me from being an ardent sacramental Christian, but it stops me from seeing the church as the only vehicle by which the holy spirit operates. The fact that people are staying away in droves seems to me evidence that the campaign is working in its "wild" form.
--------------------
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
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
ThunderBunk
I'm not the one who created these limits; they existed long before I was born. So I suppose one could argue, you seem inclined to do, that what we've long called Christianity isn't really Christian at all.
It's not that unusual; I have an ally in the former Archbishop of Canterbury, who is given to describing Christianity as a campaign for fuller humanity.
This campaign is alive and well around the church, and occasionally penetrates. The fact that all the major movements which have improved people's lives since the Reformation - against slavery, against discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, class and sexual orientation - have originated and taken firmer root outside the church than within seems to me to be more than anything evidence of the Holy Spirit tiring of the effort in penetrating church walls.
None of this stops me from being an ardent sacramental Christian, but it stops me from seeing the church as the only vehicle by which the holy spirit operates. The fact that people are staying away in droves seems to me evidence that the campaign is working in its "wild" form.
Whatever Terms and Conditions Churchianity is, it's not a means by which either the church or human beings is/are going to flourish.
--------------------
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
|
|
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:
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.
My comment with respect to the noose, etc., ( which, according to your caricature somehow amounts to fantasy about martyrdom) was not in reference to the issue of wheelie bins, but with respect to not succumbing to the bullying of those who want to corner people according to their opinions - which seems to be the modus operandi of some commenters here - which to me, constitutes an attack on another person's internal forum, or conscience, if you will.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
No, I'm going to ask, civilly. On which of these topics have you changed your mind because of discussions that took place on these boards?
None. Not one.
Not from the philosophical side of the debate, but I have changed my mind when people have shared their struggles in being a Christian, or I have met them in Shipmeets. I have seen that being Fundie/Liberal/Traditional/etc. does mean you are any less a Christian than those like me, which is fairly conservative (but no longer on some DH issues) charismatic Evangelical with leanings towards some catholic spiritual exercises and disciplines.
But no, people I disagree with, your philosophical debate has not changed my mind one bit, and probably never will. But when you share your struggles and open yourself and become vulnerable, even to the extent that you will be hurt by robust debate. That is when you get through. I have not been changed by your logic, but I have been changed by your humanity.
Which I why I have a dislike of this sort of thing:
quote:
Boogie
I think Gottschalk needs to pop along to Dead Horses to get his questions answered.
If, once there, he says "all xxx are immoral due to their sexual orientation and lifestyle" then he can expect his arguments to be pretty well mauled.
Words like mauled sound like its is OK to mount a personal attack, or to dogpile. Which is why these days I no longer post if more than one person has said what I want to say. Boogie, I agree with you on the issue of the perished ponies, but I think that is not the way to debate the issues.
Only by accepting those we disagree with can we hope to have a chance of influencing them.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It cannot be both the "inevitable conclusion" and the "starting point"!
It isn't. The starting point is where they start and the inevitable conclusion is where thinking about it leads.
quote:
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.
I think being unaware of what your thinking leads to is a poor excuse. Independent though and questioning are virtues and any faith that doesn't support this is severely flawed.
quote:
Firstly, you have suddenly lumped together all the proponents of "traditional" viewpoints as directly inciting physical violence.
Nope.I said affect not "directly incit(e)"
quote:
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.
Nope, strike (at least) two. I used an example that showed a willing attitude v. a closed one and how the reactions might be.
quote:
(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).
Techniques of oppression? Oppression??
Hey everyone, could you double check? Did he just call people getting their feeling hurt oppression?
quote:
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.
Really? Insulting a POV is a hate crime?
[ 29. July 2017, 15:46: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Which I why I have a dislike of this sort of thing:
quote:
Boogie
I think Gottschalk needs to pop along to Dead Horses to get his questions answered.
If, once there, he says "all xxx are immoral due to their sexual orientation and lifestyle" then he can expect his arguments to be pretty well mauled.
Words like mauled sound like its is OK to mount a personal attack, or to dogpile. Which is why these days I no longer post if more than one person has said what I want to say. Boogie, I agree with you on the issue of the perished ponies, but I think that is not the way to debate the issues.
Only by accepting those we disagree with can we hope to have a chance of influencing them.
I said his arguments would be mauled.
And they would.
Of course, they already have been, over and over again.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I'm not sure if this is relevant to this situation or not, so I'd be interested in thoughts.
Some sociologists and others say that racism is only a real thing when it is a majority with power restricting the rights of a minority without power. And often when (for example) white people complain of reverse racism they're actually not complaining about something that is truly racism but misplaced racial prejudice.
Wikipedia says on this:
quote:
Some sociologists do not believe in the existence of reverse racism because of the hierarchy in which those who are in the subordinated position do not have the power to commit reverse racism without larger, institutional support. Based on David Wellman's definition of racism in Portraits of White Racism as "culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities," reverse racism could not exist because it cannot defend advantages of racial groups who are disadvantaged in society.
I wonder if we can say the same about prejudice against homosexuals. The kind of thing we might describe under the banner of homophobia.
If so, maybe it isn't possible for homosexuals to be "heterophobic" by describing those exhibiting prejudice as homophobes and can't be accused of returning "insults" (such as describing someone as a homophobe) as a hate crime. Because (a) they're in a position of weakness and (b) what they're saying is true. The person, like it or not, who is exhibiting discriminatory views and is in an empowered majority is being a homophobe.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Also I'm wondering if it really can be said that the "tables have turned" once the pro-gay views are in the majority and the anti-gay ones are in a minority.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'm sorry, I've been away at a funeral and am shortly going on holiday, so time is running out, but in brief: quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I used an example that showed a willing attitude v. a closed one and how the reactions might be.
I think this gets to the nub of things: there are those who are open-minded and those who are not.
However, IME not all those who lay claim to open-mindedness are themselves open-minded, and not all those caricatured as closed-minded are. As I have also said before, this is an inconvenient truth for activists, but I think it's true.
quote:
Hey everyone, could you double check? Did he just call people getting their feeling hurt oppression?
I think that internet bullying is a thing. Not the same as physical violence but none the less real for all that. I also think that there is a danger in oppressed minorities discovering new-found freedoms and thinking "well we were mistreated for so long, it's our turn now". It's unfair, and I can understand the temptation, but I don't think giving in to it does anything for the cause. quote:
Insulting a POV is a hate crime?
No, but in my view abandoning politeness (albeit firm politeness) with respect to a poster is not justified, in this discussion space, by a person's particular point of view alone. If people simply want to trade insults, there are plenty of other spaces available.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Also I'm wondering if it really can be said that the "tables have turned" once the pro-gay views are in the majority and the anti-gay ones are in a minority.
Anything can be said. It would be incorrect in this case.
There is not the same consequences behind the attitudes and that matters.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I think the fact that two things aren't equivalent doesn't mean that the lesser one isn't bad.
Posters equating the vilification of gay people to the vilification of conservative Christians make me ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) . However it doesn't follow that the vilification of conservative Christians is totally OK.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Posters equating the vilification of gay people to the vilification of conservative Christians make me . However it doesn't follow that the vilification of conservative Christians is totally OK.
OK but a gay person objecting to something that a Conservative Christian has written as being homophobic is not vilification. Or is it?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
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.
lilBuddha can speak for herself, but no, that's not what I'm saying, at least not to the extent you want to push it. As Doc Tor noted, Scripture suggests that all sexual desires, not just homosexual desires, will not survive into the next life. (I'm Protestant, so I'll bypass the fires of Purgatory for the sake of discussion.)
At the same time, I think Scripture is clear that sexuality is most definitely part of who we are on this side of the grave, that it is a gift from God. Like all such gifts, I can be used well or abused.
The problem that I have with the "it's the behavior, not the inclination" approach to rejecting homosexual behavior is that it leads to a false distinction between one person's sexuality and another's, which turn leads to an implicit rejection of some people as "less than."
This approach says that the only appropriate options for dealing with sexual desires are celibacy or marriage—by definition in this understanding, a committed, lifelong relationship between a man and a woman. (Of course, many proponents of this understanding basically shrug off failure to manage the lifelong part, essentially acknowledging that some sexual sins are more acceptable than others.)
But for gay and lesbian people, the second option—marriage between a man and a woman—isn't available, at least not if one is to live honestly, because attraction to people of the opposite sex simply isn't there. So to them, the message basically is "tough luck, but it's going to have to be celibacy for you."
The message is clear: heterosexual people are able and entitled to act, in appropriate ways, on their sexuality, but homosexual people are not. It's a very short trip from that to the idea that homosexual orientation, regardless of behavior, is somehow "less than." It's saying "you're prohibited from acting on your sexuality because your sexuality isn't right." And from there, it's just a few steps to "regardless of how you behave, there's something inherently deficient and deviant about you in ways not shared by all of humanity." That's why I don't think the behavior and the orientation can really be separated. The wrongness of the behavior is inextricably connected to the deficiency of the orientation.
I hope that makes some sense. It's the best I can do for now.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I have an ally in the former Archbishop of Canterbury, who is given to describing Christianity as a campaign for fuller humanity.
This campaign is alive and well around the church, and occasionally penetrates.
The question is, why not just create a church that has all that as its USP, rather than being a part of something that needs to be 'penetrated' from outside, as it were?
I'm a libertarian, and believe that people should ideally create the churches they need. But this isn't how things seem to work. It seems that those who want the most personal liberation also want to belong to the most hegemonic (to use Croesos's word) institutions. Talk about 'unrest'!
In one sense this is totally counter-intuitive. But in another, it just shows that for all the noisy arguments within the CofE about who's right or wrong, its 'tradition' is all about absorbing and co-opting interesting ideas from outside, be they gay liberation or charismatic evangelicalism, etc.
Above all, though, it does seems that the very normativity of the CofE - or any other Western denomination - depends upon it moving in an ever more compliant direction towards 'humanity'.
But secular people don't look to religion to approve of the life choices they make. This is why the movement of churches in this liberating direction won't halt church decline.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Churches are neither shops nor golf clubs.
I understand the words in your post, Svitlana, but they don't describe anything I understand at any more than a linguistic level.
--------------------
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.:
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.
My comment with respect to the noose, etc., ( which, according to your caricature somehow amounts to fantasy about martyrdom) was not in reference to the issue of wheelie bins, but with respect to not succumbing to the bullying of those who want to corner people according to their opinions - which seems to be the modus operandi of some commenters here - which to me, constitutes an attack on another person's internal forum, or conscience, if you will.
That was a characterization, but (I would argue) not a caricature. You suggested that "some"* were preparing nooses for you brave non-succumbers, and offered your neck.
That has martyrdom fantasy written all over it. It's not terribly uncommon, though often it finds less florid expressions. (Could I interest Monsieur in a War on Christmas?)
*And who exactly are these "some" people, anyway? If people are coming to (metaphorically) hang you, why be so mealy-mouthed about who they are?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think that internet bullying is a thing.
What, really?!
quote:
Not the same as physical violence but none the less real for all that.
This is no less a cat than this. but somehow, they are not quite equivalent.
quote:
I also think that there is a danger in oppressed minorities discovering new-found freedoms and thinking "well we were mistreated for so long, it's our turn now". It's unfair, and I can understand the temptation, but I don't think giving in to it does anything for the cause.
"I know I've called you unnatural, said you should die, blamed you for natural disasters; but there is no need to call me a bigot"
My causes have not been advanced by polite listening, but by demands.
However, SOF is a place for debate and discussion, not civil rights legislation. So, if someone comes demonstrating a willing attitude, I will discuss with them reasonably. Otherwise, no. And persistent ignoring of reality for a chosen, non-factual belief also EARNS disdain.
Look down in DH right now. You will find two people failing to engage in reasoned discourse. They have earned their Hell calls. They have bought and paid for any abuse they have received.
There are other Shippies there whose posts hover on supporting the same position, but have not been insulted or called to Hell.
So, go on believing we are mean to the Trads., but reality doesn't line up so easily.
--------------------
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
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK but a gay person objecting to something that a Conservative Christian has written as being homophobic is not vilification. Or is it?
It depends how it's done. I wouldn't say that accusing someone of homophobia is vilification - it's an accurate term 99% of the time, and if anything it's more generous to imply the accused is frightened rather than driven purely by hatred.
OTOH, I think some of treatment Steve Langton received in hell could be described as vilification. The guy was clearly homophobic, but (IIRC) he also had the trifecta of being elderly[1], autistic[2] and from a sheltered religious background[3].
On the other other hand, as someone with scars from Myrrh's Great Climate War, I totally understand the frustration of dealing with an opponent who makes bad arguments about a subject you care about, and who just won't stop. Stepping away can be extremely difficult.
-------------
[1] Not an excuse for homophobia, but realistically, many people's thinking gets more rigid with age.
[2] Also not an excuse, but it might have contributed to his evident disgust about anal sex.
[3] Again not an excuse but certainly an obstacle. He also had no desire to make homosexual activity illegal, unlike 52% of UK Muslims, and there was considerably less outrage on the Ship about that.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
However, SOF is a place for debate and discussion, not civil rights legislation.
Yes and Amen. quote:
So, if someone comes demonstrating a willing attitude, I will discuss with them reasonably.
Good. (And credit where credit is due, I find that generally, you do, and we've both I think gained greater mutual understanding as a result).
quote:
Otherwise, no. And persistent ignoring of reality for a chosen, non-factual belief also EARNS disdain.
It might deserve disdain. I really try and avoid meting out disdain though, because I find it constructive to stress test my own convictions against even the most fruitcakey of ideas.
(The last time I tried that to any great extent in DH was back in 2011 and is now languishing on p293 of Oblivion. You might be amused, LB, to see the subject...)
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
. He also had no desire to make homosexual activity illegal, unlike 52% of UK Muslims, and there was considerably less outrage on the Ship about that.
Because we don't get Muslim posters coming on the Ship and telling us we are evil, because they are 4% of the UK population and 1% the US?
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Churches are neither shops nor golf clubs.
I understand the words in your post, Svitlana, but they don't describe anything I understand at any more than a linguistic level.
Churches are distinct from shops and golf clubs. But they also share things in common with them.
People can choose:
to go to church or not
to start a church
to switch from one church or another
to leave a church
to accept, dismiss or modify the teachings of a church they attend
to identify with a church they hardly if ever attend
to resent a church whose cultural or theological identity is changing
to condemn or praise a church they never attend
to treat a church as either a cultural or a theological entity, or both.
etc.
You might disagree with all of this choice, but it exists. It exists for shops and golf clubs, and also for churches. Our theology is also a choice, although it's heavily influenced by a range of things: our background, peer group, education, etc. including our own tastes - as are our choices about shopping, i.e. the products we consume or avoid, and the places we go to get them.
The economics of religion is a discipline that looks into this, as is the sociology of religion.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Like I say, it makes sense to me on a linguistic level. But none of that is what the church is to me or for me, so it has no life as a definition or a mode of exploration.
Further, it's a complete distraction and waste of energy. A church that spends all its time thinking of itself and running itself on those terms will not achieve the sort of life a church is called to have as the body of Christ.
It will be writing itself into a well deserved oblivion. Wrong tense; it is.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Posters equating the vilification of gay people to the vilification of conservative Christians make me . However it doesn't follow that the vilification of conservative Christians is totally OK.
OK but a gay person objecting to something that a Conservative Christian has written as being homophobic is not vilification. Or is it?
No.
Tbh I hesitated over the word 'vilification' but it was one that seemed to be in use and I couldn't think of a better one.
ISTM that if we have fewer conservative posters than previously, and those conservative posters that remain say they feel more reticent about expressing their views, then prima facie there are negative vibes flowing towards conservative posters that aren't flowing towards liberals. And this, I submit, is a bad thing.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
ThunderBunk
Well, what we agree on is that you have to do and perceive church as seems right to you and for you. All I'm saying is that other people should do the same for themselves.
If other people run their churches in a way that creates a 'distraction and a waste of energy' then those churches will presumably stumble and fail. But churches, even quite well-meaning ones, stumble and fail all the time, so nothing new there.
[ 29. July 2017, 20:35: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, go on believing we are mean to the Trads., but reality doesn't line up so easily.
Hm. As a general rule, if I don't perceive myself to be a jerk but others do, then their perception of reality is probably better than mine.
Not saying you're being a jerk. But if conservative posters feel that the ship has become a more hostile environment, then the fact that liberals don't perceive themselves to be disbursing more hostility isn't really evidence that they're not.
--------------------
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:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, go on believing we are mean to the Trads., but reality doesn't line up so easily.
Hm. As a general rule, if I don't perceive myself to be a jerk but others do, then their perception of reality is probably better than mine.
Not saying you're being a jerk. But if conservative posters feel that the ship has become a more hostile environment, then the fact that liberals don't perceive themselves to be disbursing more hostility isn't really evidence that they're not.
And it isn't evidence that they are correct, either.
There is a phenomenon that occurs when those who were the default lose that status. Perception can perceive loss of privilege as persecution.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Conservatism has never been the default on the Ship, nor has it ever enjoyed a privileged status on the Ship.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Conservatism has never been the default on the Ship, nor has it ever enjoyed a privileged status on the Ship.
No but people can bring a privileged attitude to the ship (import it, so to speak), and when it is thwarted, read that as persecution.
It may also be that the lefties are seeing what's happening in Britain and America, and feeling under attack, and taking it out on righties everywhere. Which wouldn't be okay, but it would be understandable from a cause-effect point of view.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Also I'm wondering if it really can be said that the "tables have turned" once the pro-gay views are in the majority and the anti-gay ones are in a minority.
Definitely not. Being "pro-gay" and actually being gay are two very different things, as regards interacting with homophobes. Just as being anti-racism and being black/brown are quite different things when interacting with racists.
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
He also had no desire to make homosexual activity illegal, unlike 52% of UK Muslims, and there was considerably less outrage on the Ship about that.
Considering that our known population of UK Muslims here is pretty close to zero, I'm not sure what you were expecting. Oh dear, we react to people who are actually here more than we do to people who are not. How odd.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Conservatism has never been the default on the Ship, nor has it ever enjoyed a privileged status on the Ship.
To add to mt's comment; it is only within the current generation that a significant portion of the general population (Europe and anglophone sphere) has been accepting of LGBT+. Older friends never thought laws would change in their lifetime.
So, for some, to go from where their position was default in the general population to not in such a short time is a shock.
--------------------
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
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK but a gay person objecting to something that a Conservative Christian has written as being homophobic is not vilification. Or is it?
If someone implies that I'm lying, is telling them they're wrong vilification or self-defense?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Given that there's no marriage in Heaven, that probably goes for the straights, too.
Absolutely.
The point being that the distinction between gay and straight is not fundamental to our identity, in Christian thought. These are temporary desires that we experience here on earth.
You may think Christianity has it wrong, and you're entitled to that belief.
What I'm saying is that traditional Christians do not believe that gay people are essentially or fundamentally bad.
We do not choose our desires. Having bad desires isn't a sin.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Given that there's no marriage in Heaven, that probably goes for the straights, too.
Absolutely.
The point being that the distinction between gay and straight is not fundamental to our identity, in Christian thought. These are temporary desires that we experience here on earth.
You may think Christianity has it wrong, and you're entitled to that belief.
What I'm saying is that traditional Christians do not believe that gay people are essentially or fundamentally bad.
We do not choose our desires. Having bad desires isn't a sin.
May I print this post and plant it in the flowers?
Hmmm, perhaps not. That much fertilizer might damage them.
Interesting that you don't appear to be able to see that your assertions are self-contradictory.
--------------------
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:
quote:
Would you expect all of the people of color on the Ship to allow such things to be said of them and be polite about it?
Firstly, there is always the option of scrolling past; "do not feed the troll".
Secondly, the decision to allow a view to be expressed is the H&A's not anybody else's. If the hosts are doing their job properly, the H&A's will not allow such views to be repeatedly posted.
And what I'm saying is that the anti-women and anti-gay views are on this level. Obviously this is not a widely shared view here, and I'm not taking a position in my role as an admin, but this is really what I think.
quote:
quote:
veneer of politeness
I think this is symptomatic of terrible bad faith.
How polite is it of you to accuse me of bad faith?
quote:
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.
Sexism and homophobia are in themselves impolite, to say the least.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
marsupial.
Shipmate
# 12458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
ISTM that if we have fewer conservative posters than previously, and those conservative posters that remain say they feel more reticent about expressing their views, then prima facie there are negative vibes flowing towards conservative posters that aren't flowing towards liberals. And this, I submit, is a bad thing.
Conservativism generally or conservatism about LGB issues in particular?
I think we're probably getting to the point where religious conservatives who hold conservative views specifically on LGB issues will be getting a rough ride in pretty much any forum where they don't dominate the discussion. That's not just a Ship thing; it's a reflection of the development over the past few decades of a consensus, increasingly shared to some extent by pretty much everyone except religious conservatives, that anti-LGB attitudes are pernicious and cause serious harms to a great many real live people. We've seen debates on the Ship lately whether debates about LGB acceptance should now be considered beyond the pale. I think that the Dead Horses approach we have taken on the Ship is probably the least bad option, but the realities of the situation are such that such debates are going to generate a lot more heat, personal conflict, and hard feelings, than light.
It's unfortunate if the dominant Ship attitude toward LGB issues is driving conservatives away from the Ship who might have a lot to contribute to more productive debates, but I don't think it's just a Ship thing.
Posts: 653 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Considering that our known population of UK Muslims here is pretty close to zero, I'm not sure what you were expecting.
Our known population of Trump supporters is even lower but they still provoke plenty of outrage. I'd suggest...
- Many on the left don't want to criticise Islam because this could support anti-immigration arguments and/or racists. (Understandable enough.)
- Some on the left still do, but they are now outcast as racists.
- The ones who don't have a strong view either way (like me) just keep their heads down.
- Anti-gay Christians are an out-group to Shipmates, especially Shipmates who have experienced their prejudice first-hand.
So an Irish baker causes endless rage by not baking a cake, while over a million British Muslims actually want to return to the days of Alan Turing and it barely raises a murmur.
The relevance to this thread is that I believe ten years ago this discrepancy might have been debated openly; now it feels taboo to even mention it.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Considering that our known population of UK Muslims here is pretty close to zero, I'm not sure what you were expecting.
Our known population of Trump supporters is even lower but they still provoke plenty of outrage. I'd suggest...
- Many on the left don't want to criticise Islam because this could support anti-immigration arguments and/or racists. (Understandable enough.)
- Some on the left still do, but they are now outcast as racists.
- The ones who don't have a strong view either way (like me) just keep their heads down.
- Anti-gay Christians are an out-group to Shipmates, especially Shipmates who have experienced their prejudice first-hand.
So an Irish baker causes endless rage by not baking a cake, while over a million British Muslims actually want to return to the days of Alan Turing and it barely raises a murmur.
The relevance to this thread is that I believe ten years ago this discrepancy might have been debated openly; now it feels taboo to even mention it.
I don't see why it couldn't be discussed openly now, though I'm not sure why you think the Muslim angle is particularly critical. I'll bet there are a lot more than a million non-Muslim Britons who share those views, and you could probably find lots of ways of grouping people that would indicate correlations with religion or other social indicators. (I suspect ultra-orthodox Jews, for example, probably aren't too liberal in this area. Probably plenty of Christian churches in the US, too, for that matter.)
In a pluralistic society you'll always have to figure out how to live together with people of differing views, and just what allowances should be made for those holding minority views. I think you could have a useful discussion on this topic.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Okay a bare majority of a tiny minority of Brits versus the President of the United States. And you think this is a reasonable comparison? FFS.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
So an Irish baker causes endless rage by not baking a cake, while over a million British Muslims actually want to return to the days of Alan Turing and it barely raises a murmur.
The relevance to this thread is that I believe ten years ago this discrepancy might have been debated openly; now it feels taboo to even mention it.
How many posts in this hypothetical thread do you think it would take to get to Islam is inherently evil?
--------------------
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
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Conservatism has never been the default on the Ship, nor has it ever enjoyed a privileged status on the Ship.
R
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Given that there's no marriage in Heaven, that probably goes for the straights, too.
Absolutely.
The point being that the distinction between gay and straight is not fundamental to our identity, in Christian thought. These are temporary desires that we experience here on earth.
Yes, but "temporary desires" about which the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2332 and 2333) says:
quote:
Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.
and
quote:
Everyone, male and female should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity.
So, a pretty significant part of this "temporary" existence.
quote:
What I'm saying is that traditional Christians do not believe that gay people are essentially or fundamentally bad.
We do not choose our desires. Having bad desires isn't a sin.
Well, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2358), "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" and "homosexual inclinations" are "objectively disordered." So, chosen desires or not, technical sin or not, they are Not Good; they are Less Than. So, the message to gays and lesbians, whose sexuality affects all aspects of who they are in the unity of body and soul and who are admonished to accept their sexual identity, is that who they are is disordered.
As for only assigning the label of sin to homosexual acts, which are "intrinsically disordered" and "contrary to natural law" (2357), given Christ's admonition that any man who looks at a woman lustfully commits adultery in his heart and given that homosexual tendencies are said to be "objectively disordered," it can be hard to take seriously the claim that only the acts are sinful.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Conservatism has never been the default on the Ship, nor has it ever enjoyed a privileged status on the Ship.
R
Sorry, i was trying to invite Ricardus (after a few bottles of brandy and whisky) to a discussion of political issues - you seem to have some experience in them and I would like to learn more notwithstanding my personal preferences.
--------------------
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 Gottschalk:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Conservatism has never been the default on the Ship, nor has it ever enjoyed a privileged status on the Ship.
R
Sorry, i was trying to invite Ricardus (after a few bottles of brandy and whisky) to a discussion of political issues - you seem to have some experience in them and I would like to learn more notwithstanding my personal preferences.
My friends and I tried to play a game. But the Americans got in the way. Nice chaps though, i must say. I told them about the Ship and they might join us.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Sorry, i was trying to invite Ricardus (after a few bottles of brandy and whisky) to a discussion of political issues - you seem to have some experience in them and I would like to learn more notwithstanding my personal preferences.
You may wish to try sending an e-mail or personal message by clicking on one of the icons at the top of Ricardus's posts (envelope with one person is e-mail, envelope with two people is personal message - assuming you're not already familiar with them.)
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
So don't whine about the word homophobe.
Yes, there is such a thing as genuine homophobia, and it can be found in places as diverse as communist Cuba, predominantly Christian Uganda, and most or all Muslim majority countries, as well as Europe and North America.
However, disagreeing with the beliefs and practices of self-identified homosexuals is no more homophobia, than disagreeing with Hindu beliefs and practices is "Hinduphobia".
So I refuse to acknowledge the smear homophobe because it is offensive and dishonest, and its indiscriminate use is on the same mindless and adolescent level as labelling anyone whom one dislikes, or with whom one disagrees, as "fascist".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
This illustration comes from a world where men are uncontrollably randy and women are passive, either compliant, or resistant.
No it doesn't.
It has nothing to do with gender stereotypes.
It is simply a recognition that most heterosexual men are by inclination regularly sexually attracted to women - but in all or most cases choose not to follow through on it for a variety of reasons which (it is to be hoped) includes common decency and consideration.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Caplan Corday: quote:
So I refuse to acknowledge the smear homophobe because it is offensive and dishonest, and its indiscriminate use is on the same mindless and adolescent level as labelling anyone whom one dislikes, or with whom one disagrees, as "fascist".
How about the term anti-homosexual bigot? No phobia involved, just prejudice, anything from cold judgmentalism to ick-factor to self-justifiable raging violence. No sweat.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Caplan Corday: quote:
So I refuse to acknowledge the smear homophobe because it is offensive and dishonest, and its indiscriminate use is on the same mindless and adolescent level as labelling anyone whom one dislikes, or with whom one disagrees, as "fascist".
How about the term anti-homosexual bigot? No phobia involved, just prejudice, anything from cold judgmentalism to ick-factor to self-justifiable raging violence. No sweat.
No reading for comprehension either, obviously.
And no capacity for recognising the possibility of the existence of a genuinely held belief without attaching pejorative connotations to it.
It is the fallacy known as the argumentum ad hominem.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Oh, I'm sure one can have a genuinely bigoted belief against homosexuality and its expression.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
So under this understanding what choices does the gay man have? Celibacy or ...?
On the face of it, the Bible teaches that homosexual activity is wrong, and that heterosexual activity outside of marriage is wrong.
It nowhere teaches that every human being is entitled to sexual fulfillment.
So yes, Christianity has always taught that unmarried heterosexuals, and those with homosexual inclinations, are to be celibate.
Most Christians have always believed this, and most Christians today globally still believe it.
The choices are therefore:-
1.To go along with it, even though it seems harsh (and FWIW, it seems harsh to me, too).
2.To argue that in fact the Bible does not disapprove of homosexual behaviour.
3.To argue that it does, but that it can be or must be ignored, in this particular at least.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
