|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Fucking crypto-homophobes
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm pretty sure there will be plenty of Parish Churches in Scotland that will choose to marry gay couples in due course, along with many Scottish Episcopal Churches (and in all likelihood Glasgow Cathedral). Within 3 years is my bet.
Is there going to be a business revival at Gretna Green? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 17. August 2013, 02:21: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Simple understanding of the story of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus did not disagree with the verdict. He simply told the accusers that those without sin should cast the first stone. He then said that he did not condemn the woman and that, showing he agreed that she had indeed committed the crime, told her to go and sin no more. I can't make it any straighter than that.
As far as Jesus talking about the Torah (not 'the rules') he said that he had not come to abolish the Law but to fulfil the Law. This means that as far as he was concerned, nothing had changed - the moral and criminal law still stood BUT as far as the ceremonial side of the Torah - anything to do with the Temple, ceremony, diet, ritual purity and sacrifice, etc, he was fulfilling it in himself and rendering them obsolete.
How you decided that stoning, which Jesus in practice stopped by saying what he said, falls on the ceremonial side of this distinction, I've no idea.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
(Ah, nice to see someone's got ol' Peter's back in the loophole department...) quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
That is a long way from saying 'therefore all the moral laws of the OT are done away with. Well the ones we want done away with at any rate. Jesus certainly never said so not implied any relaxing of the sexual morality laws. in fact he made them sterner - ever looked at someone with lust?
He told the woman caught in adultery "Go and sin no more!"
I see no evidence in the Gospels, the Acts or the Epistles for the relaxation of the moral law. ceremonial law yes, (and that includes eating pork and visiting Gentiles), but not morality.
The Peter story does set a precedent for a spiritual leader reevaluating a cultural prohibition toward the better interest of the community.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What the blazes are you on about?
Oh yes, that's right. You don't actually use sex as part of expressing your deepest, closest relationship with another human being, do you? I mean, sure, you love your wife a hell of a lot, but you don't express that bond through sex. No, that's just DUTY. Baby-making duty.
Either 'one flesh' is about a deep union or it's just a physical penile insertion thing. Make up your mind.
EDIT: It is freaking BIZARRE to have you tell me I'm making it all about sex when you are the one saying that you can't have a marriage without sex in it. Absolutely bizarre. The debate is about MARRIAGE. I hate to break it to you, but gays aren't protesting that you're denying them their right to have sex. The law on that changed decades ago.
And it is even MORE bizarre to suggest that the goal of gays in having marriage is to have more sex! I mean, what the fuck, dude? The whole point of marriage is committing. It's the exact opposite of screwing whoever I like. If I just wanted to screw whoever I like, why would I give a shit about marriage? Why would a heterosexual give a shit about marriage if their goal was to have lots of sex whenever they felt like it??
I am so glad I logged off and let smarter folk (you) tackle Bingo's post.All I could come up with at the time was "sputtersputter THAT'S BANANAS!"
The above is exactly what my befuddled brain was going for.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Here's a crazy-making thought:
It is probable that everybody reading this thread is finding that it reinforces their existing belief set / philosophy. Discussing these arrayed points of contention may actually be actively counter-productive to social harmony.
Humans suuuuuuck.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
People do change their minds on this topic. Even Presidents. But then it's only the stubborn ones we drag to Hell.
What the fuck are you talking about social harmony down here for, anyway?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.
Mudfrog, never is a long time. Can you rant on behalf of all other churches?
And just because it is not a legal offence for churches to discriminate, doesn't mean it's not homophobia.
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
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Humans suuuuuuck.
Liek vacuum cleaners,I've been told.
And orfeo, please undo whatever crazy text-predicting hack you have performed on my computer, because you did it again.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Here's a crazy-making thought:
It is probable that everybody reading this thread is finding that it reinforces their existing belief set / philosophy. Discussing these arrayed points of contention may actually be actively counter-productive to social harmony.
Humans suuuuuuck.
They aren't called dead horses for nothing.
Social harmony is overrated. The abolitionists were counter-productive to social harmony.
Oddly enough, both the same sex marriage and gay rights in general may lose their dead horse status if public opinion in the US continues to shift.
For those who think no church will marry same-sex partners you may want to read this Atlantic magazine the quiet gay rights revolution in America's churches Halfway to Canada
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There is a difference between single-sex marriage and civil partnerships. Civil partnerships forbid the use of any words or lyrics that refer to a marriage, so the Wedding March cannot be sung, and no reference to any religion are allowed.
There are Vicars who have been doing SSB's in churches using the words/music of the marriage rite for 20+ years. OK it's been private and under the radar but it's more than possible than more than one sympathetic Bishop knows/knew and does/did nothing.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Simple understanding of the story of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus did not disagree with the verdict. He simply told the accusers that those without sin should cast the first stone. He then said that he did not condemn the woman and that, showing he agreed that she had indeed committed the crime, told her to go and sin no more. I can't make it any straighter than that.
As far as Jesus talking about the Torah (not 'the rules') he said that he had not come to abolish the Law but to fulfil the Law. This means that as far as he was concerned, nothing had changed - the moral and criminal law still stood BUT as far as the ceremonial side of the Torah - anything to do with the Temple, ceremony, diet, ritual purity and sacrifice, etc, he was fulfilling it in himself and rendering them obsolete.
How you decided that stoning, which Jesus in practice stopped by saying what he said, falls on the ceremonial side of this distinction, I've no idea.
I didn't. I was just making the point that Jesus set the example for not stoning people even though they might be guilty of the offence, as the questioner asked me whether I agreed that naughty children should be stoned.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There is a difference between single-sex marriage and civil partnerships. Civil partnerships forbid the use of any words or lyrics that refer to a marriage, so the Wedding March cannot be sung, and no reference to any religion are allowed.
There are Vicars who have been doing SSB's in churches using the words/music of the marriage rite for 20+ years. OK it's been private and under the radar but it's more than possible than more than one sympathetic Bishop knows/knew and does/did nothing.
I wouldn't want such a deceitful man as my parish priest. He shows no respect for his church, for his bishop, and most importantly for God himself.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Here's a crazy-making thought:
It is probable that everybody reading this thread is finding that it reinforces their existing belief set / philosophy. Discussing these arrayed points of contention may actually be actively counter-productive to social harmony.
Humans suuuuuuck.
You are aware that you are part of this same set, aren't you?
And yes, I fully concur.
To my deep sadness, I take great comfort from having resigned from church membership.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
There are enough differences between civil partnerships and same sex marriage that Susan Calman gave a whole half hour programme on it as part of the linked series. Researched and vetted by the BBC lawyers for accuracy.
John Sentanu is quoted in this Telegraph article from June 13 that the Church of England may allow same sex blessings and it's obviously being debated.
quote:
However, he also signalled the Church could review its attitude towards blessing gay couples in future.
“What do you do with people in same sex relationships that are committed, that are loving, that are Christian?” he said.
“Would you rather bless a sheep and a tree but not them? That is a big question to which we are going to come and the moment is not now. We are dealing with legislation as we've got."
Although the law was recently changed to make it possible for churches to perform civil partnership ceremonies, they are still officially banned in the Church of England whose rules also prevent priests performing formal “blessing” services for same-sex couples.
There have been bigger stories in the press - this one from the Daily Mail from 2008, which was discussed on the Ship when it happened. The fact that hit the press in the way that it did makes me suspect there are fewer same sex blessings happening than Exclamation Mark is suggesting.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
There are Vicars who have been doing SSB's in churches using the words/music of the marriage rite for 20+ years. OK it's been private and under the radar but it's more than possible than more than one sympathetic Bishop knows/knew and does/did nothing.
I wouldn't want such a deceitful man as my parish priest. He shows no respect for his church, for his bishop, and most importantly for God himself.
I suspect the vicars think they're doing what God wants: compassionately blessing the union of two people who happen to be of the same sex, and not waiting for human prejudices and religious bureaucracy to catch up.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm pretty sure there will be plenty of Parish Churches in Scotland that will choose to marry gay couples in due course, along with many Scottish Episcopal Churches (and in all likelihood Glasgow Cathedral). Within 3 years is my bet.
Is there going to be a business revival at Gretna Green?
I doubt it. The situation at Gretna arose from the discrepancy in civil marriage laws between Scotland and England. Not least that a wedding can be carried out in Scotland by almost anyone. The marriages at Gretna were traditionally civil rather than religious, and it's likely that same-sex couples will be able to marry in England before they can in Scotland (depending on how quickly the bill makes it through the Scottish parliament). I suspect that gay folk will be just as keen as straight to avail themselves of a helpful minister willing to conduct the wedding on the beach or the lochside.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And anyway, one cannot get away from the Biblical definition - a man leaves his father, a woman leaves her mother and they become one flesh.
am I the only one, while reading this thread, to keep picturing the premise of some B horror flick involving a plastic surgeon and grotesque, merged bodies?
just me, then?
carry on.
That is a bad bad movie cherub.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh yes, that's right. You don't actually use sex as part of expressing your deepest, closest relationship with another human being, do you? I mean, sure, you love your wife a hell of a lot, but you don't express that bond through sex. No, that's just DUTY. Baby-making duty.
Personally I think that Romeo and Juliet drama has only one way to go, and if you are attaching too much cosmic significance to your humping then the cosmos will turn out to be rather limited. A bit more down to earth attitude to regular sex with the same person over decades does help, and kindness and humour will be more important qualities in the marriage bed than kamasutric star performance.
As for baby-making duty, well, there certainly is a duty to be open to having a baby, in principle. And that perhaps points to expressing a deepness and closeness in sex that you are not so terribly keen on. One that is as cosmic as poop in nappies, and expresses a commitment that is going to make your hair grey and your bank account empty. Romance gets real pretty damn quick that way, and if you are smiling at your beloved through that, then perhaps it really is about more than a pretty face and sensational hip rhythm.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Either 'one flesh' is about a deep union or it's just a physical penile insertion thing. Make up your mind.
No, orfeo, precisely not. What you write there is the exact antithesis to Jesus Christ Himself, God Incarnate. It is not either the profoundness of heaven or the baseness of earth, it is both-and. It is one and the same, united in the person (in this case, our person) while remaining unmixed and distinct in their respective natures. Penile insertion remains penile insertion, deep union remains deep union, but both are one in us as persons. Whether you agree with this particular case is one thing. But if you don't get this principle, then frankly you have understood nothing about Christianity. And if you do get this principle, then you have to stop arguing as you do above. Either-or is not Christian.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
EDIT: It is freaking BIZARRE to have you tell me I'm making it all about sex when you are the one saying that you can't have a marriage without sex in it. Absolutely bizarre. The debate is about MARRIAGE. I hate to break it to you, but gays aren't protesting that you're denying them their right to have sex. The law on that changed decades ago.
You were making it all about sex, at least rhetorically, because you were pretending that I was excluding love, commitment and intense feelings just because I was discussing the necessary sexual aspect of marriage. But you cannot have marriage without sex, because marriage is designed for having sex. That's what it is about. In case you were not aware, nobody and nothing stops you from living with another person in a sex-free way for as long as you like, and how you like it. You do not need to marry if you want to live together "platonically", in love, commitment and with intense feelings. You need to marry if you want to have sex and children. If gays really want to do something like marrying, and not just adopt the sad shell that civil law has made of marriage, then they need to stop having sex until they get married, stick with that one sex partner till death after having married, and look into adopting several kids during their relationship. Who knows, maybe lots of gays are interested in that, but I wouldn't bet on it.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And it is even MORE bizarre to suggest that the goal of gays in having marriage is to have more sex! I mean, what the fuck, dude? The whole point of marriage is committing. It's the exact opposite of screwing whoever I like. If I just wanted to screw whoever I like, why would I give a shit about marriage? Why would a heterosexual give a shit about marriage if their goal was to have lots of sex whenever they felt like it??
Well, for one thing because you cannot have any sex outside of marriage. None. You are not even allowed to masturbate. OK? But of course, you are constantly confusing actual marriage with that token ceremony of modernity. Well then, tell me where is the commitment in that? It is a temporary union till divorce does you part. As institution, it is a sham - it's precisely worth whatever you make of it, no more and no less. No particular penalty is attached to getting out of it, unless you count the money wasted on lawyers. Nobody needs that, actually, because if the measure of one's commitment simply is one's commitment, then one does not need to give that the fancy name of "marriage". And of course, among the heterosexual couples that realisation is getting more and more traction. And now you walk in and absolutely demand that you gays get that token ceremony, too. Because ... well, I don't know why. Keeping up with the shams of the Joneses, I guess. I'm not sure that all this fighting is really about the gays, honestly. I think it is mostly about heterosexuals not wanting to have the nasty fact rubbed into their faces that their "marriage" means so little now that there really is not much of a reason left to refuse it to gays.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Oh, please. As if you've noticed the bite and those who disagree with you on this subject haven't? We disagree about what God's will is, but we all know it's incredibly difficult to conform to God's will.
Call me a cynic, but if you find that God's will coincides precisely with your sexual urges, then my guess is that you were not listening all that well to God. There's plenty about the RC's teaching on sexuality that I find hard to live by. That it is a challenge does not prove that it is the right challenge, but I'm deeply suspicious about the lack of challenge I see elsewhere.
[ 17. August 2013, 08:23: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
If gays really want to do something like marrying, and not just adopt the sad shell that civil law has made of marriage, then they need to stop having sex until they get married, stick with that one sex partner till death after having married, and look into adopting several kids during their relationship. Who knows, maybe lots of gays are interested in that, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Certainly many would be. Probably a similar proportion to straight people. In fact a fair few already are. The formal recognition of church or state won't change the facts of their relationship.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
If gays really want to do something like marrying, and not just adopt the sad shell that civil law has made of marriage, then they need to stop having sex until they get married, stick with that one sex partner till death after having married, and look into adopting several kids during their relationship. Who knows, maybe lots of gays are interested in that, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Certainly many would be. Probably a similar proportion to straight people. In fact a fair few already are. The formal recognition of church or state won't change the facts of their relationship.
Indeed, there are gay couples that have stayed together 40, 50, 60 years. But Ingo is one of those idiots who thinks that the gay lifestyle is all nightclubs and wild sex, which makes us much sense as labelling the 20 year old frat boys vomiting in the gutter as typical of the straight lifestyle and standard marriage material.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Well said Orfeo . That is the kind of rhetoric that changes the attitudes of people like myself .
Heterophobic rants do not .
But yeah , this is Hell so carry on ranting if this is folks' wont .
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The problem with the supporters of ssm is that they, if the are Christians, have to ignore the Bible and have a very low view of its divine authorship.
How long have we been debating this issue of SoF? Have you really missed every single fucking post by Christians and non-Christians explaining that the issue is not "what I believe God says" but "by what right do we force one particular view of 'what God says' on everybody?"
There's no end of things that God or the Bible can be supposed to be against (greed, lust, pride, worshipping other gods, pornography, drunkenness, disobedience to parents...) that just about no one wants to make laws to oppose. There's no reason why a Christian believing gay sex to be wrong shouldn't add SSM to that very very long list.
You're not a moron. You're capable of reading English and even trying to understand other points of view. So why do you repeat this stupid misrepresentation of the other side's views? Do you expect us not to notice? Do you not even notice yourself that you are, well, the plain word for it is, LYING*?
Or are you just trying to be deliberately offensive?
(*God's against that, too. He's even got a commandment about it.)
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Certainly many would be. Probably a similar proportion to straight people. In fact a fair few already are.
The "no sex other than in marriage, no divorce of marriage, and marriage is ordered to having children" movement in the gay community has indeed escaped my attention so far. That you can wheel out some gay couples that have stayed together for decades is precisely as meaningless as wheeling out some heterosexual couples that have stayed together for decades. All that tells us is that people can fulfil that particular criterion, whether they want to establish this and other criteria in a formal and binding way through a (religious) institution is quite a different matter.
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The formal recognition of church or state won't change the facts of their relationship.
Then why seek it?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
People do change their minds on this topic. Even Presidents. But then it's only the stubborn ones we drag to Hell.
Even an Evangelical Bishop repented. If there's hope for him (who is under more pressure to hold the conservative party line), there's hope for gay/Muslim/left-wing-hating gobshites.
(Edited by host: lost/broken/long link replaced by one using tinyurl)
[ 17. August 2013, 12:52: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There certainly is. 80% and more of me is that. For I am all I have ever been.
There is hope even for IngoB.
The Bible is not a flat cook book. It has a trajectory.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Why will you simply not accept that gay sex is aghainst God's will as far as HE is concerned?
A simple answer to a simple question... For my part it is because I believe to impute such a thing would be a grave sin, a blasphemy against God, a denial of the plain truth of Scripture, a refusal to submit to our Saviour's commandment of Love, and an imperilment to my eternal soul.
But other than that, sure it's grand...
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Why will you simply not accept that gay sex is aghainst God's will as far as HE is concerned?
A simple answer to a simple question... For my part it is because I believe to impute such a thing would be a grave sin, a blasphemy against God, a denial of the plain truth of Scripture, a refusal to submit to our Saviour's commandment of Love, and an imperilment to my eternal soul.
But other than that, sure it's grand...
Pretty much, yep. Though I do believe that God, in his mercy, will ultimately forgive even homophobes.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
He already has. He includes them with us. The trick is we must include them. Otherwise they become our sinners in the hands of an angry church.
And yeah, you were using hyperbole.
[ 17. August 2013, 11:12: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
And just where does it say "And Jesus said, 'You have heard it said that thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman', but I say unto thee, it's OK now."?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hoorayyyy! Bravo. Mate, that's your story. Your desperate interpolation. God bless you in it. God is with you in it. Despite it. If He can move you in it, in your sleep, while you suffer, by you reading, suffering, He will. If He can be bothered. He might even do that for IngoB.
But what He wants from me is to embrace you in your difference, in your otherness. And even IngoB who will not have that. But your flaw, unlike IngoB who is sealed, is that you want to be loved.
It's all right mate. So is mine.
Your exegesis on 'one flesh' is risible it has to be said. Utterly vacuous. Not that better can be done, otherwise I'd do it for you. As I used to do for myself.
As Steve Chalke courageously grasped, we have never been here before.
Deal with it.
And no I'm not comfortable with homosexual sex ... or homophobia or Islam or Islamophobia or crime or punishment. Them. Us. But nowadays I'm far more uncomfortable with the reactionary responses. Starting with my own.
The only way forward is together, with and despite our different stories.
Let's find a way here Mudfrog.
For the love of God.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The only way forward is together, with and despite our different stories.
Let's find a way here Mudfrog.
For the love of God.
Well and amen to that of course - difficult though it might be for all of us!
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Here's an idea, let's call the religious mumbo-jumbo thingy "Really Real God-Approved Marriage™".
Then we can all rest assured that the mere seeking of the lowly social contract with corresponding legal rights and responsibilities can be applied to the general understanding of "marriage" as actually used in modern secular/legal usage. And we can let any human couple do that, and save the RRGAM™ for just the baby-making flesh-melding army of the various offended gods.
"Why bother?"!? What an incredibly stupid thing to say.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As for baby-making duty, well, there certainly is a duty to be open to having a baby, in principle. And that perhaps points to expressing a deepness and closeness in sex that you are not so terribly keen on. One that is as cosmic as poop in nappies, and expresses a commitment that is going to make your hair grey and your bank account empty. Romance gets real pretty damn quick that way, and if you are smiling at your beloved through that, then perhaps it really is about more than a pretty face and sensational hip rhythm.
What a load of crap. Plenty of people who never have children are quite keen on the highest degree of deepness and closeness in sex, and having a baby is not the only strong test of romance.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Oh, please. As if you've noticed the bite and those who disagree with you on this subject haven't? We disagree about what God's will is, but we all know it's incredibly difficult to conform to God's will.
Call me a cynic, but if you find that God's will coincides precisely with your sexual urges, then my guess is that you were not listening all that well to God. There's plenty about the RC's teaching on sexuality that I find hard to live by. That it is a challenge does not prove that it is the right challenge, but I'm deeply suspicious about the lack of challenge I see elsewhere.
Who said anything about God's will coinciding precisely with their sexual urges? Saying the church should marry gay people doesn't at all mean every sexual urge gay people (or straight people, for that matter) feel should be indulged. And it's all very well for straight people to talk about the "challenge" of Catholic teaching on sexuality when at least the RCC allows them a licit avenue for the sex they want to have.
[ 17. August 2013, 15:01: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Simple understanding of the story of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus did not disagree with the verdict. He simply told the accusers that those without sin should cast the first stone. He then said that he did not condemn the woman and that, showing he agreed that she had indeed committed the crime, told her to go and sin no more. I can't make it any straighter than that.
As far as Jesus talking about the Torah (not 'the rules') he said that he had not come to abolish the Law but to fulfil the Law. This means that as far as he was concerned, nothing had changed - the moral and criminal law still stood BUT as far as the ceremonial side of the Torah - anything to do with the Temple, ceremony, diet, ritual purity and sacrifice, etc, he was fulfilling it in himself and rendering them obsolete.
How you decided that stoning, which Jesus in practice stopped by saying what he said, falls on the ceremonial side of this distinction, I've no idea.
I didn't. I was just making the point that Jesus set the example for not stoning people even though they might be guilty of the offence, as the questioner asked me whether I agreed that naughty children should be stoned.
This contradicts your statement, included in this nested quote, regarding Jesus not coming to change "law". This is the problem when people slide to and fro between literal and interpretation. Shifting, sliding and changing position in a theological game of Twister, refusing to acknowledge that their arse has hit the ground.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
if you are attaching too much cosmic significance to your humping then the cosmos will turn out to be rather limited
could not have said it better myself. You should paste this on your mirror.
--------------------
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 IngoB:
.... As for baby-making duty, well, there certainly is a duty to be open to having a baby, in principle. And that perhaps points to expressing a deepness and closeness in sex that you are not so terribly keen on. ...
Wow. That's some deep insight into other people's relationships.
Well, no, actually, it's a load of crap. Many happy, loving, committed couples delay having children for many good reasons. Such as finishing their education, getting their careers started, getting stable housing, or hey, just enjoying their couple-ness for a little while before embarking on the next great adventure in life.
But no, those things have no place in the Bingo's Procrustean baby-making marriage bed.
--------------------
"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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Mudfrog: I see no evidence in the Gospels, the Acts or the Epistles for the relaxation of the moral law.
I don't care, this isn't how I read the Bible.
quote:
Mudfrog: Why will you simply not accept that gay sex is aghainst God's will as far as HE is concerned?
Because —and I hope the gay people on the Ship will forgive me the expression— this god can take one up the ass. As far as I am concerned.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.
I agree with Arethosemyfeet, it's going to happen in Scotland as soon as the legislation is passed. There are church ministers campaigning for it now. (At 1.42, 1.46 and 1.55)
Incidentally, a gay couple we know were jointly ordained as elders in the Church of Scotland over 15 years ago, which we took to be a pretty strong endorsement by their minister and congregation, at a point at which the church didn't have many options for showing support for a gay couple.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Anyway, this is all academic. ...
There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.
A tenner says you're wrong, and that we'll see that happen within the next quarter-century. I call on other shipmates to witness. If any of us are still here in 25 years' time ...
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Anyway, this is all academic. ...
There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.
A tenner says you're wrong, and that we'll see that happen within the next quarter-century. I call on other shipmates to witness. If any of us are still here in 25 years' time ...
It's only a fair bet if you limit it to England. If you want to cover the whole of the UK then you'll have to shorten the time drastically if you want anyone to bite.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Anyway, this is all academic. ...
There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.
A tenner says you're wrong, and that we'll see that happen within the next quarter-century. I call on other shipmates to witness. If any of us are still here in 25 years' time ...
It's only a fair bet if you limit it to England. If you want to cover the whole of the UK then you'll have to shorten the time drastically if you want anyone to bite.
Fine by me. But the offer was to Mudfrog, not all and sundry. I'm just asking others to be witnesses.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
It will take less than 25 years, even in England. Mudfrog is losing this. His side is on the losing side of this. Just like people in the Church defended separations of blacks and whites decades ago —using the same kind of 'Biblical' reasoning— as Mudfrog does. They lost.
In a couple of decades, at least in the West no-one will bat an eye about a SSM in the church. People who still object will be loud at times, but they will be at the fringes. Even the RCC won't be able to enforce this. People will nod when the Vatican makes its decrees, but in their private sphere they will simply ignore them. Just as most Catholics in the Netherlands, the US and Brazil already use contraceptives.
You're losing this, big time. It is not because the people don't accept moral arguments. It's because they do, and they decide that your argument isn't moral.
And I will laugh, and laugh, and laugh...
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
£20 to the Ship's Floating fund says that it will happen within the next four years in Scotland.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Anyway, this is all academic. ...
There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.
A tenner says you're wrong, and that we'll see that happen within the next quarter-century. I call on other shipmates to witness. If any of us are still here in 25 years' time ...
QLib, I'll wager you any reasonable sum you care to name that there will be no Vatican-sanctioned (i.e., renegade ones don't count) Roman Catholic gay marriage ceremony in any Roman Catholic church (or any other venue) in the next 25 years.
But I agree that Mudfrog would be a mug to bet tuppence than no Church of England parish will celebrate one in the same period.
[ 17. August 2013, 17:16: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
My my . Is the timing of SSMs being conducted in church is turning into a sweep stake ? Surely there's some commission to be had here.
If we're going to lose half the congregation over this might as well make a couple of quid in the process ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Anyway, this is all academic. ...
There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.
A tenner says you're wrong, and that we'll see that happen within the next quarter-century. I call on other shipmates to witness. If any of us are still here in 25 years' time ...
That depends if you count the Quakers as a church, Britain yearly meeting reached agreement on same sex marriage some years before the law changed.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Unless one can find a true Scotsman, I suggest no one actually wager with Mudfrog.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
lilBuddha: Unless one can find a true Scotsman, I suggest no one actually wager with Mudfrog.
Actually, for Mudfrog to lose this wager, we'd need to find two true Scotsmen (or Scotswomen) ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And just where does it say "And Jesus said, 'You have heard it said that thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman', but I say unto thee, it's OK now."?
quote:
Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”
I hold that to include both cocks and strap-ons.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Anyway, this is all academic. ...
There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.
A tenner says you're wrong, and that we'll see that happen within the next quarter-century. I call on other shipmates to witness. If any of us are still here in 25 years' time ...
That depends if you count the Quakers as a church, Britain yearly meeting reached agreement on same sex marriage some years before the law changed.
Well, yes, I think it would be unfair to count Quakers.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And just where does it say "And Jesus said, 'You have heard it said that thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman', but I say unto thee, it's OK now."?
Yeah, Jesus failed to mention that prohibition at all. Showing perhaps exactly how important it was to him. Compared to, say, loving one's enemies.
quote:
I see no evidence in the Gospels, the Acts or the Epistles for the relaxation of the moral law.
This is true, because when it's shown to you as plain as day, you don't see it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
