|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Meet the FOCAs...
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
To the_raptor: are you saying that polyamoury is a sexual orientation?
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Which took time. Time that neither side in this seems to want to have. All decisions must be made NOW not in a year or two after people have had time to calm down and to look at things with clear and level heads (and have the time to study scripture and pray for the promptings of the Holy Spirit - Who seems to have been lost in all of this...).
Surely there has been that time - we've had two (?) years since ++Rowan's call for a 'time of reflection', five since +Robinson's consecration and 10 since the last Lambeth Conference. How much more time do you want?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
And how many years of discernment did it take before the ordination of women was agreed in the Church of England? The Act of Synod was passed in 1992, but there was a resolution at the 1968 Lambeth Conference to involve women as much as possible in worship pending a decision on the ordination of women.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
No, I would argue that gay Christians should live celibate lives. Just as some heterosexual Christians do (eg if they can't find a Christian spouse).
Oh, and you can dedicate yourself to caring for another human being without needing to fuck them.
OK, let's try again. Gay people are commanded never to date, to kiss somebody they love, to hold another person in intimacy - for an entire lifetime.
Heterosexuals are, contrariwise, heartily encouraged to do all these things. The first date is a big, exciting moment; a first kiss is something one always remembers; marriage is considered the highlight of people's lives. It's the time when they swear to "love, honor, and cherish" their spouse, and to care for them for life. No heterosexual is ever told they are forbidden these things for the rest of their lives. Ever.
It's not, IOW, all about "fucking" someone; it's about living an ordinary human life in the world. But listen, I have an idea: why don't you yourself vow to live a celibate life and show us all how it's done? If you're married, you will simply have to leave your wife and family; after all, that's what you'd demand of a gay Christian. How about being a good sport and a role model?
If you're not willing to do this, I don't really know why anybody should listen to you. You don't seem to have any good reasons for what you're arguing, other than that it comes from your own particular worldview. But that's not really good enough for anybody who doesn't hold that particular worldview; for that, you need good arguments based in reason and in the faith itself.
And we have by far the better arguments based in reason and reality and faith, I'm afraid. Most people recognize that human beings do better when they have love in their lives. More people each day are starting to recognize that gay people shouldn't be punished for an unchosen orientation towards members of their own sex - and that gay relationships can show every bit as much "fruit of the spirit" as heterosexual ones do. Most people aren't falling for the "polyamoury" argument anymore; the two things are not comparable and everybody can see it. (In any case, gay Christians are willing to follow the "monogamy" stricture, if only on the basis that it will keep the peace in the community, which was at least part of the original intent, I'm sure, as well. There is, after all, no prohibition on polygamy in Scripture, either - so monogamy is a creation of the Church.) Fewer people will read Scripture literally going forward, but will work to try to understand its intent.
So you will lose the general argument in time. But that's OK; nobody will stop you from forbidding gay partnerships in your own denomination, or part of a denomination, I'm sure. We will continue to disagree on this - and I have no problem with that at all.
In any case: gay people will continue to be and become Christian. You can't control where the Gospel will go and what it will do.
[ 03. July 2008, 14:29: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And how many years of discernment did it take before the ordination of women was agreed in the Church of England? The Act of Synod was passed in 1992, but there was a resolution at the 1968 Lambeth Conference to involve women as much as possible in worship pending a decision on the ordination of women.
Yes, but you didn't in the meantime have bishops going round and uniltarally ordaining women. And even 2-5 years is considerably longer than your 'NOW'.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Sorry, that was Pata ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) And you don't even have the same avatar!
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
To give you a Catholic example, I know quite a few Catholics on the progressive wing of that Church who disagree with the Magisterium over issue such as the DH under discussion here, plus ordination of women and celibacy of the clergy; however none of these individuals would dream of eg: ordaining an practising homosexual, or a woman, or a married individual, in defiance of that Magisterium (or at least if they did they realise that they would be putting themselves beyond the pale). Rather they hope and pray (and talk) that the Magisterium will change tack on these issues. It's the hearty "f*** you" that certain parts of TEC and AC-Can have said to the rest of the AC that is, as I see it, the primary and potentially communion-breaking issue
I actually agree with you about how the process should ideally have been approached - that is, about "hoping and praying and talking."
Part of the problem was, though, that gay folks continued to hear a "hearty 'f**** you" from the rest of the Communion (and the Christian world) on this subject, as well. There was, literally, no progress on the "listening process"; nobody was listening and nobody had to, because anti-gay-partnership Christians have a supermajority and thought we didn't have to be taken seriously. In addition, there's the problem that in some of the countries in the Communion, homosexuality itself is still illegal; there's just a huge gulf there, and I would think that nobody believed that any progress would have been made in a hundred years if we went by "majority rule."
Also: the pace of change in the world has been hugely speeded-up in the past 50 years or so, and the church seems positively medieval in comparison - although actually, it's not. There's been a great deal of change around this topic even in the past 10 years, in fact.
Something was going to give in any case, at some point. I agree that ideally the "talk and hope and pray" solution is a good one - and I agree that it's ridiculous to have elected a gay Bishop before we even have same-sex blessings! (OTOH, Gene Robinson had worked in his own diocese for 20 years or so, and was known to and and elevated by his own people, and it's hard to argue with that; that's exactly how things are supposed to work. And of course, if he could have gotten married he would have.)
But Canada has same-sex marriage now. England has civil partnerships. And there are a lot of gay priests. Something was going to give at some point, somewhere.
I truly am tired of all the hoo-hah, though. So I think GAFCON is actually for the best - because it's a way for both sides to distance themselves from the other. It hasn't been good for us, either.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
I would also like to point out that the attitude towards gay people by several of the Communion's Archbishops has still never really been challenged.
No Anglican Church except Canada censured Peter Akinola for his attempt to influence the writing of laws in Nigeria that would get gay people imprisoned merely for speaking about homosexuality. How can this be? This is a serious issue that nobody seems interested in, and a clear demonstration of what I'm talking about above - about the "hearty f*** you" towards gay people.
How can there be no response from the Communion at all about this? And which is worse: same-sex blessings, or Anglican support for the imprisonment of innocent people?
This is why this has all gone down the way it did; nobody seems interested in the way the Communion treats gay people. And again: which ought to be the more serious problems for Christians?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Surely it shouldn't have to be an either/or?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Surely it shouldn't have to be an either/or?
It is, though, isn't it? So why shouldn't TEC and others act on their own? No response seems to be forthcoming from anybody else anyway.
I'm afraid it's hard to take the Anglican Communion seriously when it comes to this whole issue; it really does, I'm afraid, seem to be based on simple hatred for gay people. That's what happens when Akinola says and does these things and there's no pushback at all. The American government condemned Akinola's efforts, but the Communion itself has nothing to say?
This does not give a very good impression of Anglicanism - or Christianity - I'm afraid.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I agree; but two wrongs don't make a right in my book.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Surely it shouldn't have to be an either/or?
But that is precisely the point - maybe it shouldn't be, but it is. If the conservative lobby had treated gay people like human beings throughout, whilst making clear their belief that we are called to celibacy, perhaps this would have been possible. Consider the pledges made in Lambeth 98 - listening to gay people, no discrimination based upon orientation alone, no homophobia. If these pledges had been honoured, then I have little doubt that it would have been possible to meet the election of +Robinson with a coalition of conservatives and liberals who accepted the need to apply the breaks for the sake of unity. Just look at the endless compromises the liberals have offered even despite the ill-treatment they've suffered!
Unfortunately, the conservatives have been comprehensively let down by their leaders, many of whom have behaved abominably. Consider the continued crossing of diocesan boundaries long after this was supposed to have ceased. Consider the legislation promoted by the Nigerian church. All leading up to the nauseating spectacle of two senior bishops being invited to condemn torture and refusing to do so. Such a movement is obviously untenable.
I've no doubt that a new compromise will be reached. But after all that's occurred, it will be much less generous to the conservatives. With any luck it will be based on local discretion, the only system that makes any sense.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
OK, let's try again. Gay people are commanded never to date, to kiss somebody they love, to hold another person in intimacy - for an entire lifetime.
Heterosexuals are, contrariwise, heartily encouraged to do all these things. The first date is a big, exciting moment; a first kiss is something one always remembers; marriage is considered the highlight of people's lives. It's the time when they swear to "love, honor, and cherish" their spouse, and to care for them for life.
I don't think that is the correct Christian attitude. The highlight of my life was getting saved, and I intend to not have a physical relationship with a women until we are at least engaged.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
No heterosexual is ever told they are forbidden these things for the rest of their lives. Ever.
You mean apart from some denoms priests right?
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It's not, IOW, all about "fucking" someone; it's about living an ordinary human life in the world.
Christians aren't called to live ordinary human lives.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But listen, I have an idea: why don't you yourself vow to live a celibate life and show us all how it's done? If you're married, you will simply have to leave your wife and family; after all, that's what you'd demand of a gay Christian. How about being a good sport and a role model? If you're not willing to do this, I don't really know why anybody should listen to you.
Why don't you kill yourself, check with God about the permissibility of homosexual unions, and get back to us?
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
You don't seem to have any good reasons for what you're arguing, other than that it comes from your own particular worldview.
*buzzzzzz*
I am bisexual (but I only fall in love with women), have always stood up for the civil rights of homosexuals, and have suffered discrimination because of my gay friends. Try again.
My reasoning is the Bible. You know the thing you base your claim on that monogamy is the only permissible context for sexual relations?
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And we have by far the better arguments based in reason and reality and faith, I'm afraid.
"No you don't. Your argument wouldn't convince a child."
See how that works? Just saying your argument is better doesn't make it better. You also owe me a million dollars.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Most people recognize that human beings do better when they have love in their lives. More people each day are starting to recognize that gay people shouldn't be punished for an unchosen orientation towards members of their own sex
But people should still be punished for all the other unchosen desires that lead to sin? The same studies that show homosexuality is from birth, also show a lot of other things are from birth.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Most people aren't falling for the "polyamoury" argument anymore; the two things are not comparable and everybody can see it.
No, they are directly comparable. You are ignoring part of scripture to fit your world view, so why shouldn't we ignore a slightly different part of scripture?
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Fewer people will read Scripture literally going forward, but will work to try to understand its intent.
Why read the scripture at all if you aren't going to attempt to take it seriously? You may as well go with your "feelings about God" and do whatever you want, despite how the Apostles warned about that repeatedly. But of course modern people know so much more than the people that actually had direct experience with the risen Christ.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
In any case: gay people will continue to be and become Christian. You can't control where the Gospel will go and what it will do.
And neither can you. If you actually read some of the Gospel you might become convinced as I have that homosexuality isn't permissible.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
No heterosexual is ever told they are forbidden these things for the rest of their lives. Ever.
You mean apart from some denoms priests right?
That's a voluntary choice for priests. You can always choose not to be ordained, or leave the church once you are.
A better analogy would. be the RC attitude to divorced people. They cannot legitimately have sexual relationships of any kind according to the teachings of that church.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
I don't think that is the correct Christian attitude. The highlight of my life was getting saved, and I intend to not have a physical relationship with a women until we are at least engaged.
As I said: you are not forbidden a physical relationship for the rest of your life.
Priests, of course, and religious, choose to live as celibates - and many leave the priesthood and the monastery because they realize that they aren't called to it. Your idea, on the contrary, is to force it on other people so that your understanding of faith is upheld.
*buzzzzzz* Sorry. I don't share your point of view, although I have no problem with you having it.
And I'm just not convinced why I should do what you say. You really do need to convince us all - and the rest of the world - or else it's perfectly reasonable for me to say that my arguments are better. They do seem to be changing more peoples' minds than yours do.
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Christians aren't called to live ordinary human lives.
And yet you don't seem to be doing anything particularly out of the ordinary; put your money where your mouth is and become a celibate yourself. If this is so important to you, surely you'll help us out? We need to see that it's possible, and you're just the guy to provide the example for us. (BTW, the fact that you find my example so outlandish - you suggest that I "kill myself"! - sort of makes the point, doesn't it?)
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
But people should still be punished for all the other unchosen desires that lead to sin? The same studies that show homosexuality is from birth, also show a lot of other things are from birth.
Uh-huh. And how, again, is homosexuality "sin"? You haven't convinced me. I'm convinced with most other things, but not this one. It's up to you to offer an argument that works - and again, remember that I don't share your views on what the Bible has to say on this topic. (Let me remind you again that I agree with and follow precisely what Leviticus says about "lying with a man."
I agree, IOW, that lying with men is an abomination. So what was the problem again?
[ 03. July 2008, 16:46: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
No heterosexual is ever told they are forbidden these things for the rest of their lives. Ever.
You mean apart from some denoms priests right?
That's a voluntary choice for priests. You can always choose not to be ordained, or leave the church once you are.
They are still told "they are forbidden these things for the rest of their lives. Ever".
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
No heterosexual is ever told they are forbidden these things for the rest of their lives. Ever.
You mean apart from some denoms priests right?
That's a voluntary choice for priests. You can always choose not to be ordained, or leave the church once you are.
They are still told "they are forbidden these things for the rest of their lives. Ever".
No, they're not. They are only forbidden them if they choose to remain priests.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Your idea, on the contrary, is to force it on other people so that your understanding of faith is upheld.
Yes, I shall ride through the country side with my legions of doom. And capture the naughty nympho homos in Euphemism camps.
Obviously saying something is wrong is the same as forcing people to do things.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
You really do need to convince us all - and the rest of the world - or else it's perfectly reasonable for me to say that my arguments are better.
No, you do not understand how to conduct an argument. "My arguments are the best in the world and you can't deny it."
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
They do seem to be changing more peoples' minds than yours do.
If popularity is the ultimate decider of truth we should become Muslims or atheists.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Christians aren't called to live ordinary human lives.
And yet you don't seem to be doing anything particularly out of the ordinary; put your money where your mouth is and become a celibate yourself.
How would you know what I am doing? You don't know me, and you don't know how I am living.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
If this is so important to you, surely you'll help us out? We need to see that it's possible, and you're just the guy to provide the example for us.
You already know it is possibly, you even mentioned celibate priests. You are just using cheap rhetorical tricks.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(BTW, the fact that you find my example so outlandish - you suggest that I "kill myself"! - sort of makes the point, doesn't it?)
I don't find it outlandish, I find it a pathetic trick. Used by someone who apparently would rather play the man instead of the ball. Yet you keep telling me that you really have an excellent argument, it would be interesting to hear it.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
But people should still be punished for all the other unchosen desires that lead to sin? The same studies that show homosexuality is from birth, also show a lot of other things are from birth.
Uh-huh. And how, again, is homosexuality "sin"?
It was your argument that homosexuality wasn't sin because it was "unchosen".
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
I'm waiting, still, raptor, for you to explain to me why homosexuality is "sin." I can easily explain why it's not, and already have.
Love is the highest and best Christian principle; Paul calls it the greatest of the three Christian virtues. Sex is a part of one particular kind of love relationship - a kind that almost every human being sees as an integral part of being human. As do you, since you hope to be married.
Physical intimacy is "unitive" between married couples; this is an argument the Catholic Church uses, and so does the Orthodox Church (I think), and so do Anglicans. Once again: nobody else in the world is forbidden physical intimacy, without exception, for life. Marriage and gay partnership are not merely about "fucking."
When heterosexual couples live together in love and care for one another and their families and neighbors and friends, it is considered the noblest and most Christian kind of life. When homosexual couples do the same things, they are condemned as sinners. Can you possibly be saying that it's the penis and the vagina that make the difference? That is truly and really very bizarre.
Heterosexual couples are encouraged to stay together forever and care for one another; homosexual couples are encouraged to break up and live alone. (And no, people don't usually agree to care for a lifetime for others they are not related to in some way.)
Heterosexual couples are told to love one another; gay couples are told to "repent" for loving one another. FYI, in the past, this resulted in gay people becoming addicts and committing suicide; you are too young to know about this, obviously, but I remember it well.
Paul says that "Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things." He also says that "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."
If gay couples are manifesting these attributes - and it's very clear that they can and do - then how can their partnership be called "sin"?
And, BTW, if the condemnation of homosexuality leads to addiction and depression and death and the destruction of people who aren't harming anybody - then how can it not be called "sin"?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Also: I don't think you really understand the "lifelong celibacy" problem.
Here's the issue: it's fine for people to choose it, but it shouldn't be compulsory on the basis of somebody else's understanding of what's in the Bible. And that the example of the priest isn't, therefore, a good one, since the priest has chosen it - and since it isn't compulsory. At one time, about half of seminarians left the priesthood because they realized their call wasn't to celibacy.
It is, in other words, not analogous in any way to what gay people face: unchosen and compulsory celibacy for life. That's 70-80 years, without even a chance at a kiss.
And I hate to tell you, but when most heterosexuals marry for love - as is the case for almost everybody in the West and I would imagine most people in the world - the argument becomes even less tenable because there's really not much difference between gay and straight relationships at that point at all.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubifex Maximus
Shipmate
# 4874
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The_Raptor
You seem to believe that people choose to be polyamourous.
I do. If you wish me to believe otherwise, you may make a case.
quote:
"a gay man or a straight man may choose to be celibate or not celibate while remaining gay or straight. "
He may
quote:
If you can choose between monogamy and promiscuity, why can't you choose between celibacy and being sexually active?
I do
quote:
You can understand why gay people would struggle to remain celibate, but you can't understand why some people can't stay monogamous.
I understand why a gay person would regard it as oppressive when they are told that they may make no other choice than to be celebate and that they may not seek an emotionally satisfying and loving relationship with another.
I also understand that some people choose not to be monogamous but I believe that there are many, many reasons why monogamy is a better choice than promiscuity.
--------------------
Sit down, Oh sit down, sit down next to me.
Posts: 400 | From: Manchester | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
...Bigotry.
Bullshit.
You keep yammering about "bigotry" in an attempt to shut other people up. Based on what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman at the well, how do you think he would react to your claims?
Oh, I'll bet he was a bigot too.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But here we have a bishop of the AC saying and doing that which the AC has said 'no' to.
Does that give you the right to refuse to share communion with him. I'm not sure how whether the person with whom you are refusing to share communion is a Bishop or not is at all germane to the question. It's your attitude towards him/her that will surely be the deciding factor for you?
I was mulling this over further last night (yes, alright, I'm a sad, obsessive muppet!): surely there comes a point in the relationship between Party A and Party B when, if you have A saying constantly to B, "What you're doing is wrong and it annoys the heck out of me and please stop doing it" and B saying "No it's not wrong, I want to do it and I will keep on doing it regardless of what you say and it annoys the heck out of me that you keep telling not to do it", one would have to question the degree to which any kind of meaningful close relationship could continue to exist between the the parties.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But here we have a bishop of the AC saying and doing that which the AC has said 'no' to.
Does that give you the right to refuse to share communion with him. I'm not sure how whether the person with whom you are refusing to share communion is a Bishop or not is at all germane to the question. It's your attitude towards him/her that will surely be the deciding factor for you?
I was mulling this over further last night (yes, alright, I'm a sad, obsessive muppet!): surely there comes a point in the relationship between Party A and Party B when, if you have A saying constantly to B, "What you're doing is wrong and it annoys the heck out of me and please stop doing it" and B saying "No it's not wrong, I want to do it and I will keep on doing it regardless of what you say and it annoys the heck out of me that you keep telling not to do it", one would have to question the degree to which any kind of meaningful close relationship could continue to exist between the the parties.
Oh, absolutely, I'm not saying that you would necessarily choose to associate with them. But that isn't quite the same thing. It's more like, say, one of your partners behaving in this way. You might not choose to go to lunch with them, but you have certain mutual responsibilities to fulfil towards each other, regardless of how irritating they might be. Especially if the Senior Partner tells you just to get on with it!
Actually, even that isn't a terribly good analogy, because in your work life you could always leave and seek employment elsewhere. That sort of isn't an option for Christians!
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
...Bigotry.
Bullshit.
You keep yammering about "bigotry" in an attempt to shut other people up. Based on what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman at the well, how do you think he would react to your claims?
Oh, I'll bet he was a bigot too.
Ross
This is starting to get heated - can people veer away from getting personal, please?
Personal arguments belong in Hell.
Louise
Dead Horses Host.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
One more thing, raptor: you've told me I was "playing the man and not the ball" by asking you to do what you expect gay folks to do - and you were right, of course.
It's because nobody ever pays any attention to the man at all; everybody's too busy playing the ball. All the anti-gay-partnership arguments depend entirely on not recognizing the humanity of gay people, and I was trying to get you to notice this by putting you in the position yourself.
This isn't theoretical and something to be discussed in the abstract; it needs to be enfleshed and made real. That is part of the argument, and has to be.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubifex Maximus
Shipmate
# 4874
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
everybody's too busy playing the ball. All the anti-gay-partnership arguments depend entirely on not recognizing the humanity of gay people, and I was trying to get you to notice this by putting you in the position yourself.
And this, for me, is the real big issue. The notion that people who believe that the divine can become incarnate in Human flesh should demean the humanity of a group of people. I have no other horse in this race. It seems clear to me that all the efforts to compare homosexuality with sins of doing such as promiscuity and pederasty are attempts to cover up the fact that the belief that to be homosexual is wrong is to criticise not someones doing but their being. I feel I must lay my cards on the table here and say that I believe this is heinous. Criticise someones actions by all means, but to say to someone, anyone what you are is wrong appalls me. This in the light of a scriptural witness that is, to put it mildly, thin and ambiguous.
These are vast claims made on little evidence. I would like to challenge those posting here who believe that homosexuality is so wrong to establish their claims as the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt or else to admit we cannot establish this to such a standard and out of principle as Christians we will accept our fellow human beings as ones for whom Christ died.
That's the issue for me, I'm fed up with all this, it makes me angry.
--------------------
Sit down, Oh sit down, sit down next to me.
Posts: 400 | From: Manchester | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
But TM, there's a seventy-page thread in which many, many attempts have been made to do establish how wrong homosexuality is. Not one of them has stood up, but has anybody's mind changed?
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubifex Maximus
Shipmate
# 4874
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
But TM, there's a seventy-page thread in which many, many attempts have been made to do establish how wrong homosexuality is. Not one of them has stood up, but has anybody's mind changed?
Hence the reason for my challenge and for describing clearly why I think it is necessary to make it. If nobody meets it, or promises to tread more lightly on their fellow human beings, then I will feel free to draw my own conclusions about what all this has to do with the way of Christ, or the Word of God.
--------------------
Sit down, Oh sit down, sit down next to me.
Posts: 400 | From: Manchester | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
But TM, there's a seventy-page thread in which many, many attempts have been made to do establish how wrong homosexuality is. Not one of them has stood up, but has anybody's mind changed?
I just realized, dj_ordinaire, that the argument from Scripture against homosexuality is entirely circular! I didn't know it before, but the other thread going right now has made it very clear.
The argument is this: Homosexuality is bad because the Bible says it's wrong - and the Bible says it's wrong because homosexuality is bad. Amazing!!!
Nobody ever seems to go beyond what they believe the Bible says to wonder, "Why"? What is the reason for the prohibition? If we believe in a God who created the universe out of Love, then how can this teaching possibly (as someone asked there) harmonize with that idea?
I'm stunned that after all these years I didn't recognize the circularity! And that, I think, is because it's really that big a taboo, one that has been completely accepted by everybody for so long. So I'm not actually surprised that other people (for whom this is not really a pressing kind of problem at all) didn't recognize it, either.
It's only when you go a bit further that you realize this problem. And it's also begun to dawn on me that everybody's so completely focused on the topic of sex that we haven't even begun to look at everything else. Romans 1:26-27 completely absorbs everybody's attention - but Romans 28-32 gets a total pass!
I can't remember ever hearing a sermon on 1 Corinthians 13 and the "Christian virtues," and what this means for all of us. And believe me: it shows in the Anglican dust-up about this. I'm not surprised, either, that so many people have such a negative view of Christianity, given the way we all behave - as if 1 Cor 13 had never been written.
So actually I think this is the beginning of something good, not just the end of something bad. Maybe we'll really begin to get down to the "Love" part at last.
[ 05. July 2008, 13:30: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I can't remember ever hearing a sermon on 1 Corinthians 13 and the "Christian virtues," and what this means for all of us. And believe me: it shows in the Anglican dust-up about this. I'm not surprised, either, that so many people have such a negative view of Christianity, given the way we all behave - as if 1 Cor 13 had never been written.
You've never heard a Sermon on 1 Cor 13? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) Do you really mean that? I'd be hard pressed to think of a chapter of Scripture I've heard more frequently preached upon (the ones describing the Annunciation, Nativity, Crucifixion and Resurrection aside).
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I can't remember ever hearing a sermon on 1 Corinthians 13 and the "Christian virtues," and what this means for all of us. And believe me: it shows in the Anglican dust-up about this. I'm not surprised, either, that so many people have such a negative view of Christianity, given the way we all behave - as if 1 Cor 13 had never been written.
You've never heard a Sermon on 1 Cor 13? Do you really mean that? I'd be hard pressed to think of a chapter of Scripture I've heard more frequently preached upon (the ones describing the Annunciation, Nativity, Crucifixion and Resurrection aside).
Yes, I do mean it. Of course, I was completely out of the church for three decades until about 7 years ago, so it's not that surprising, really.
In fact, when a friend referred to "the Christian virtues," I had to go to Wikipedia to find out what this meant; I had, literally, no clue. (It could be partly due to our fairly dismal educational system in the States, I suppose!)
But, still: I can't remember hearing anything about it during the current "discussions" - when you'd think it would be front-and-center. Nobody ever brings it up to show how we ought to be treating one another, or how we should be conducting ourselves.
Shouldn't this be taught all the time? If faith, hope, and love are what we are uniquely about, shouldn't we be talking about this as a way of life? I don't think this is happening at all.
[ 05. July 2008, 13:55: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
surely there comes a point in the relationship between Party A and Party B when, if you have A saying constantly to B, "What you're doing is wrong and it annoys the heck out of me and please stop doing it" and B saying "No it's not wrong, I want to do it and I will keep on doing it regardless of what you say and it annoys the heck out of me that you keep telling not to do it", one would have to question the degree to which any kind of meaningful close relationship could continue to exist between the the parties.
That may be the case. But that is not, in my view, grounds for choosing to snub Christ and to refuse to share communion.
We share communion not because we have a "meaningful close relationship", but because we share faith in the same saving Christ.
We share communion not because we agree about everything - or even about all the really important things, but because we agree that in Christ is our salvation (however we may understand that).
Sharing communion is not the same thing as saying "I agree with you" or even "it doesn't matter that we disagree". Sharing communion IS saying "we may not agree about a lot of things, but we agree about seeking to follow Christ and be obedient to him".
Refusing to share communion is - to me - equivalent to claiming that the other person is not really a Christian. Or - to put it another way - if you can't share communion then don't pretend to be part of the same Church. Those who refuse to share communion are making sweeping judgements about the faith and integrity of those they are ignoring and rejecting.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
Quite right about sharing communion with those with whom we disagree. Can any of us (or them perhaps in this case) really say that at every Eucharist they are in complete harmony with each and every other communicant? ! I think not...
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
In fact, when a friend referred to "the Christian virtues," I had to go to Wikipedia to find out what this meant; I had, literally, no clue. (It could be partly due to our fairly dismal educational system in the States, I suppose!)
I have never heard of the term 'Christian virtues' and I have been churchgoing in the UK for the past 50 years.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Quite right about sharing communion with those with whom we disagree. Can any of us (or them perhaps in this case) really say that at every Eucharist they are in complete harmony with each and every other communicant? ! I think not...
Nope. It's something to keep in mind -- and something the FOCAs should put higher up on their lists.
Hey, I practice what I preach -- I received the host from the hands of +John Shelby Spong not long ago!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
In fact, when a friend referred to "the Christian virtues," I had to go to Wikipedia to find out what this meant; I had, literally, no clue. (It could be partly due to our fairly dismal educational system in the States, I suppose!)
I have never heard of the term 'Christian virtues' and I have been churchgoing in the UK for the past 50 years.
These are also called "the theological virtues" - but I always thought they were better described as "the Christian virtues" because they occur in the Epistles.
They are part of the Catholic Catechism, along with the "cardinal virtues," here.
[ 05. July 2008, 20:07: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(There doesn't seem to be even any pretense at teaching these in Anglicanism, though - or in most of the Protestant world, as far as I know. I'm not sure whether their presence in the Catechism means that a great deal of attention is paid to them in the Catholic Church, either; I just don't know.
But if not, why not? Many theologians have written on these virtues - but nobody would ever know it. Everybody's too worried about sex all the time - and of course, lately, about gay sex.
I don't get it, to be honest.)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Shouldn't this be taught all the time?
Could I ask where you got your Bible? Cos I've never heard of one that only contains one chapter of one book. Must be quite a collector's item.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Shouldn't this be taught all the time?
Could I ask where you got your Bible? Cos I've never heard of one that only contains one chapter of one book. Must be quite a collector's item.
I didn't say it should read all the time.
But if these virtues are unique to Christianity, and as key as they seem to be - what else is anywhere near as important? - then surely everything else is related to them?
[ 05. July 2008, 23:02: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But if these virtues are unique to Christianity,
It's probably a tangent to this thread but I don't think they are unique to Christianity. In particular, The Golden Rule is shared by most major religions.
Posts: 3690 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul M:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But if these virtues are unique to Christianity,
It's probably a tangent to this thread but I don't think they are unique to Christianity. In particular, The Golden Rule is shared by most major religions.
Well, we're talking about the three particular "theological virtues" of "faith, hope, and love" as articulated in 1 Cor 13 and developed and discussed by others afterwards.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(I don't mean, BTW, that the virtues themselves can't be found elsewhere. I'm simply saying that 1 Cor 13 has given rise to a discussion across the ages of these three particular virtues as a unified group, and that theologians and poets (and others) have recognized these things as central to the Christian faith.
I'm not aware that this particular set of virtues occurs as a group elsewhere, although I could be wrong.)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Davy Wavy Morrison
Shipmate
# 12241
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I just realized, dj_ordinaire, that the argument from Scripture against homosexuality is entirely circular! I didn't know it before, but the other thread going right now has made it very clear.
The argument is this: Homosexuality is bad because the Bible says it's wrong - and the Bible says it's wrong because homosexuality is bad. Amazing!!!
I don't understand. We know God is good because the Bible says it is so, and the Bible says it is so because in fact God IS good. Some of us believe that the Bible says that homosexual activity (i.e. physical sexual activity) is wrong, and it follows that the reason the Bible says that is because it is wrong, against the will of God. We may in fact be wrong, but I can't see how that is circular reasoning.
If I get a call from someone saying that a friend is ill, I believe the message because I trust the caller. The reason the caller gave me the message is because it is true. The Bible gives the message (so to speak) because it is true.
On another point, I am not aware that many people say that having homosexual attraction is wrong. It is doing, not being, that matters.
We are quite rightly told these days not to vilify gay people. It is nice when we are accorded the same courtesy (that's a general comment, not referring to anyone here).
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Hey, I practice what I preach -- I received the host from the hands of +John Shelby Spong not long ago!
Some people have all the luck.
[code fixed - L]
[ 06. July 2008, 12:19: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posts: 406 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I didn't say it should read all the time.
Indeed. You "only" said that it should be taught all the time, which makes it all so much better.
quote:
But if these virtues are unique to Christianity, and as key as they seem to be - what else is anywhere near as important? - then surely everything else is related to them?
That this one passage is unique and uniquely vital to Christianity is your interpretation, but I'm confused about what you want. I'm assuming that despite your initial complaint, you don't really think every sermon should begin "The text for today's sermon, as ever, will be 1Cor 13..." [cue groans from the congregation], but I don't see what you do want. A good sermon will naturally give a balanced account of Christianity and the Bible's message, but do you really think that can only be done with explicit reference to this one particular passage?
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
That this one passage is unique and uniquely vital to Christianity is your interpretation, but I'm confused about what you want. I'm assuming that despite your initial complaint, you don't really think every sermon should begin "The text for today's sermon, as ever, will be 1Cor 13..." [cue groans from the congregation], but I don't see what you do want.
I think you're taking one statement way too literally; it wasn't meant that way. Here's my point: If "faith, hope, and love" are central to Christianity - and surely "love" is, since it is the Summary of the Law, and since we're even supposed to love our enemies! - then surely it should show up in our lives and actions towards others? I just don't see it much, particularly in the case of the current Anglican drama.
Further, I wasn't talking about sermons only (although I did mention them), but about teaching a practice and a way of life. It seems to me that Christianity is much less a way of life at present than a set of rules. I don't think, IOW, we're really very good at teaching these virtues - as I said, I've never heard a sermon on the topic - but why aren't we? They are central teachings of the faith - particularly the "love" part.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison:
I don't understand. We know God is good because the Bible says it is so, and the Bible says it is so because in fact God IS good. Some of us believe that the Bible says that homosexual activity (i.e. physical sexual activity) is wrong, and it follows that the reason the Bible says that is because it is wrong, against the will of God. We may in fact be wrong, but I can't see how that is circular reasoning.
All arguments that comes solely from Scripture are circular, though: God wills it because the Bible says so, and the Bible says so because God wills it.
But people who don't accept the Bible as "inerrant" or "infallible" (depending on what you meant by that) won't accept such arguments; you need something else to argue from: reason.
And there isn't any reasonable argument against gay partnerships of the sort we're discussing; quite the contrary, I'd say. Reason is completely on our side.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(There doesn't seem to be even any pretense at teaching these in Anglicanism, though - or in most of the Protestant world, as far as I know.
I'm not entirely sure how you can say this when our lectionaries appoint the passage to be read at Sunday Eucharists, Evensongs, and midweek Feasts and devotions at least annually - as well as recommending it for use at weddings and funerals - the expectation being that it will often be mentioned in sermons on those occasions.
That's before we get on to the many hymns which have been inspired by it, representations of the virtues in glass or paintings, &c &c.
We may not be very good at expressing these virtues, but I don't think that this is due to any lack of familiarity!
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
But TM, there's a seventy-page thread in which many, many attempts have been made to do establish how wrong homosexuality is. Not one of them has stood up, but has anybody's mind changed?
That is only half-true. It is equally true that on the keryg threads some have tried to demonstrate that (e.g.) Paul didn't really condemn homosexuality. None of them have stood up there either. No one has changed their mind there. You really mean that they haven't convinced you.
What is true is that neither side finds the other's arguments convincing, and that the debate is polarising.
And that is because neither side shares the other's presuppositions. Hence, FOCA's claim that it is really about scripture is only fair, from their POV.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But people who don't accept the Bible as "inerrant" or "infallible" (depending on what you meant by that) won't accept such arguments; you need something else to argue from: reason.
Depends what you are talking about. If you are referring to a societal ethic then sure.
However, if you are talking about a distinctly Christian ethic then you are basically demanding everyone else to accept your worldview before the discussion can begin. 'Reason' is not some neutral ground where we can all go to work this out.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
