|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Who's changed their mind about homosexuality and God?
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And with the Bible being capable of being interpreted in two ways, which do you think is more likely to be the one that God intended? The one that leads to misery and death, or the one that leads to a full life lived in his care?
Well, if we're following Jesus then often the first one. That's certainly the path God intended for His son, why should our discipleship be any different?
No one ever said following Jesus would be sunshine and roses. In fact I think He said exactly the opposite. "Take up your cross and follow me", He said. Everyone has their cross to take up when they follow Jesus, some crosses are lighter than other people's, some a lot heavier.
If someone's doing what they're doing because it makes them happy or makes their life easier, how is that following Jesus as opposed to following their own desires?
Where does it say that he was talking about sexuality, or even any desire. What Jesus crucified on the boards of his desires? I know it's a popular read of that passage, but I'm wary enough to make a Keryg thread about it...
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Here's the thread I alluded to before.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
...
But speaking personally, I'm very glad that Jesus chose the path that led to misery and death.
That last sentence is so remarkably stupid and obtuse that I want to slap you.
hosting
My apologies for missing this - this is far too personal and Hellish, Orfeo. If you want to get that personal, you must do so in Hell, as per Commandment 4 and not on the other boards.
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
--------------------
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
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
Isn't the whole "misery and death" position rather at odds with the typical reasons given for becoming a Christian? I mean the poster children of being born-again are very keen to emphasise how much more meaningful life becomes, with a sense of peace, purpose, fulfillment and love towards humanity. Now it may be that when it suits the argument you can say that actually the Christian experience is really about misery, self denial and death in an attempt to avoid pissing God off, but it seems a little dishonest to avoid saying that except when it suits your purpose.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
New slogan:
Christianity: Come for the misery, stay for the death!
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And with the Bible being capable of being interpreted in two ways, which do you think is more likely to be the one that God intended? The one that leads to misery and death, or the one that leads to a full life lived in his care?
Well, if we're following Jesus then often the first one. That's certainly the path God intended for His son, why should our discipleship be any different?
Because we're not dying for the life of the world?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
My apologies for missing this - this is far too personal and Hellish, Orfeo. If you want to get that personal, you must do so in Hell, as per Commandment 4 and not on the other boards.
Point taken. I should have waited to post until I was somewhat less outraged.
--------------------
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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Now it may be that when it suits the argument you can say that actually the Christian experience is really about misery, self denial and death in an attempt to avoid pissing God off, but it seems a little dishonest to avoid saying that except when it suits your purpose.
These comments suggest that you are not listening to what either myself or Hawk have been saying.
I have never said that God wants misery for us all the time. I was merely reacting to the suggestion that 'God wants for us whatever makes us happy / feel good'.
I repeat what I said in my previous posts:
Some Christians seem to assume that 'if it feels right to me it must be right'.
Other Christians, rather perversely, adopt the opposite position of 'if it feels right it must be wrong'. (Or you could say 'if it is painful it must be right'.)
I reject both positions.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Now it may be that when it suits the argument you can say that actually the Christian experience is really about misery, self denial and death in an attempt to avoid pissing God off, but it seems a little dishonest to avoid saying that except when it suits your purpose.
These comments suggest that you are not listening to what either myself or Hawk have been saying.
I have never said that God wants misery for us all the time. I was merely reacting to the suggestion that 'God wants for us whatever makes us happy / feel good'.
I repeat what I said in my previous posts:
Some Christians seem to assume that 'if it feels right to me it must be right'.
Other Christians, rather perversely, adopt the opposite position of 'if it feels right it must be wrong'. (Or you could say 'if it is painful it must be right'.)
I reject both positions.
So if it's not clear cut, how do you discern the difference between what my Aikido sensei would call "good pain" and "bad pain."
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
So if it's not clear cut, how do you discern the difference between what my Aikido sensei would call "good pain" and "bad pain."
I'd argue that such a distinction is only possible with an objective morality (as opposed to an extreme form of situational ethics).
Of course that then raises the question of where it is possible to derive such an objective morality from.
As an evangelical I'd try to derive it from Jesus, as revealed in the scriptures ... but then that leads us to the other current dead horses thread! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Which only returns me to the point that I find it shocking that anyone would look at a situation that regularly leads to suicide and suicide attempts, and equate that with 'good pain'.
How anyone could think the fruit of good/Godly suffering involves people killing themselves is beyond me.
--------------------
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
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
So if it's not clear cut, how do you discern the difference between what my Aikido sensei would call "good pain" and "bad pain."
I'd argue that such a distinction is only possible with an objective morality (as opposed to an extreme form of situational ethics).
Of course that then raises the question of where it is possible to derive such an objective morality from.
As an evangelical I'd try to derive it from Jesus, as revealed in the scriptures ... but then that leads us to the other current dead horses thread!
The trouble with being objective is that you have to presume that you speak on God's behalf.
I tend to figure as far as perfect objectivity goes, that's God's and God's alone. The rest of us try as best we can with the goodwill given to us.
While I'm also wary of total subjectivity, I'm not quite comfortable with setting everything according to a standard that I derive as "objective." I figure one has to allow room for the obvious gap between myself and God, which means, to an extent, confessing my own subjectivity, even in exegeting the Scriptures.
And since we're already in Dead Horses anyway, I'm happy to bring that one in too. Who says threads have to be limited to one equine at a time? I've always thought on a certain level that the argument over homosexuality boils down to an argument about what inerrancy means anyway... ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which only returns me to the point that I find it shocking that anyone would look at a situation that regularly leads to suicide and suicide attempts, and equate that with 'good pain'.
How anyone could think the fruit of good/Godly suffering involves people killing themselves is beyond me.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I reject both positions.
Maybe if I do it in capitals, bold and italic it will be clearer?
I REJECT BOTH POSITIONS.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
The trouble with being objective is that you have to presume that you speak on God's behalf.
I tend to figure as far as perfect objectivity goes, that's God's and God's alone. The rest of us try as best we can with the goodwill given to us.
I half agree but wonder how that doesn't just lapse into deism? How does it not, in practice, lapse into total subjectivity?
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
since we're already in Dead Horses anyway, I'm happy to bring that one in too. Who says threads have to be limited to one equine at a time? I've always thought on a certain level that the argument over homosexuality boils down to an argument about what inerrancy means anyway...
I agree, I think this is the issue too.
I'm torn. Often an insistency on inerrancy does become an insistence on my interpretation. However, I think it is equally true that once inerrancy is let go it almost always becomes my interpretation anyway - i.e. if I accept or reject ethics from scripture based on my own morality then hasn't any sense of the external voice been lost altogether?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which only returns me to the point that I find it shocking that anyone would look at a situation that regularly leads to suicide and suicide attempts, and equate that with 'good pain'.
How anyone could think the fruit of good/Godly suffering involves people killing themselves is beyond me.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I reject both positions.
Maybe if I do it in capitals, bold and italic it will be clearer?
I REJECT BOTH POSITIONS.
Why do you think that makes it any clearer? I never accused you of saying 'if it hurts it must be good'. Just as I never said 'if it hurts it must be bad'.
You're the one (well one of two) that attempted to link suicide-causing pain with Christ's suffering and death. My entire POINT is that the two kinds of suffering are utterly different.
You're repeated statement that you don't think that suffering is always good merely confirming that you share my view on that point. What it is completely failing to do is indicate why you would think, in the case of Christian homosexuals, the suffering of internal conflict IS good, or at least better than them giving in to their homosexual desires in the context of a loving committed relationship.
Suffering that leads to change and repentance - good fruit, arguably good suffering that should be undergone. Suffering that leads to suicide and which consistently fails to bear any fruit other than further suffering - hmmm, do you seriously think that's what God wants?
What I actually said is, if it hurts in such a way that it leads to people throwing themselves off bridges and the like, maybe you should reconsider whether or not the interpretation of Scripture that directly CONTRIBUTES to that hurt is actually an interpretation in keeping with God's intention. Given that other interpretations are perfectly open.
--------------------
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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You're the one (well one of two) that attempted to link suicide-causing pain with Christ's suffering and death. My entire POINT is that the two kinds of suffering are utterly different.
No I didn't.
If you read back over the thread you will see that you started by talking about pain that may lead to suicide.
Later I made a comment about, for Christ, choosing God's will meant pain.
From there first of all you made a link between my comment and your one about suicide (a connection I didn't make) and then you strengthened it by making it a direct link: "suicide-causing pain".
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Suffering that leads to suicide and which consistently fails to bear any fruit other than further suffering - hmmm, do you seriously think that's what God wants?
What I actually said is, if it hurts in such a way that it leads to people throwing themselves off bridges and the like, maybe you should reconsider whether or not the interpretation of Scripture that directly CONTRIBUTES to that hurt is actually an interpretation in keeping with God's intention. Given that other interpretations are perfectly open.
I am terribly saddened by anyone who commits suicide for any reason. I've had to deal with two suicides (not for these reasons) and the brokenness normally leaves one with nothing to say.
However, there are a lot of assumptions in those paragraphs:
1. There is a direct causal link between a conservative view of sexuality and suicide.
2. Resisting the desires of our sexuality never bears any fruit. (How do you know that?)
3. Other interpretations are perfectly open.
I'd disagree with all of those assumptions.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you read back over the thread you will see that you started by talking about pain that may lead to suicide.
Later I made a comment about, for Christ, choosing God's will meant pain.
From there first of all you made a link between my comment and your one about suicide (a connection I didn't make)
You didn't just 'make a comment'. You QUOTED me. What other conclusion am I supposed to draw when you quote me but that you are linking your thoughts to mine.
As to italicising that it 'may' lead to suicide... I'm sorry, are you saying that the argument isn't valid unless every gay person actually goes all the way as far as attempting suicide, and not only attempts, but succeeds?
The first thing that reminds me of the old witch trials, where if someone drowned when you put them under the water, it was proof they weren't a witch. Terribly sorry, we made a mistake after all.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, there are a lot of assumptions in those paragraphs:
1. There is a direct causal link between a conservative view of sexuality and suicide.
2. Resisting the desires of our sexuality never bears any fruit. (How do you know that?)
3. Other interpretations are perfectly open.
I'd disagree with all of those assumptions.
I wanted to treat this part separately.
1. Yes, that is exactly what I am telling you, in regards to a conservative view of HOMOsexuality. Having attempted to live according to the conservative view of HOMOsexuality for 17 years, I am telling you that it is a total disaster for gay Christians.
2. This is a total mischaracterisation of what I've said. I find it interesting that you keep saying 'sexuality'. It's obvious that 'sexuality' encompasses much, much more than the gender you are attracted to, and nothing I have said in this thread suggests that I think there should be no sexual morals whatsoever.
3. Then why are you even in this thread?
3A. I feel it necessary to return to the very first comment I made on this thread. There's this very bad tendency to assume that because I'm gay, I must have adopted an interpretation that just happened to 'suit me'.
This is complete rubbish and precisely why I am explaining how I came to my current view. I started with the question: did my initial view bear good fruit? No. It didn't.
THEN I went and looked at the relevant passages of Scripture more carefully. While doing so, I tossed out a lot of very unsatisfactory justifications for BOTH views. I continued to look at the discussions, in favour of BOTH views, that actually looked they had been written by someone with a brain who hadn't prejudged the entire issue. Eg, those who actually acknoweldged that Romans 1 was the trickiest passage of the lot (anyone who tried to base a condemnation of homosexuality on the destruction of Sodom is foolish in the extreme).
THEN I concluded that actually, there were some cogent and well-argued views in favour of saying that the handful of passages of interest were focused on particular sexual practices, not on same-gender attraction generally.
AT THE SAME TIME, I began testing out whether such an interpretation bore better fruit.
It did.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Apologies for the triple-post, but I can't go back and edit the first one and I want to head off one potential response before Johnny S thinks of making it.
When I say Johnny S quoted me, I don't just mean he pressed the quote button. He used the same words I used, verbatim. I said 'misery and death' (referring to the internal conflict of gay Christians leading to potential suicide) and HE said 'misery and death' (referring to Christ's suffering and crucifixion).
I would think, in those circumstances, it is not only reasonable for me to see the two as linked, it is exceedingly strange for Johnny S to now claim they weren't. Either he chose to link them, or he somehow managed to pick that phrase to quote while completely ignoring the entire context I had said it in.
--------------------
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
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
The trouble with being objective is that you have to presume that you speak on God's behalf.
I tend to figure as far as perfect objectivity goes, that's God's and God's alone. The rest of us try as best we can with the goodwill given to us.
I half agree but wonder how that doesn't just lapse into deism? How does it not, in practice, lapse into total subjectivity?
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
since we're already in Dead Horses anyway, I'm happy to bring that one in too. Who says threads have to be limited to one equine at a time? I've always thought on a certain level that the argument over homosexuality boils down to an argument about what inerrancy means anyway...
I agree, I think this is the issue too.
I'm torn. Often an insistency on inerrancy does become an insistence on my interpretation. However, I think it is equally true that once inerrancy is let go it almost always becomes my interpretation anyway - i.e. if I accept or reject ethics from scripture based on my own morality then hasn't any sense of the external voice been lost altogether?
The gap between subjectivity and deism is a lot like the gap between objectivity and self-idolatry. There's a hazard on either end of the field, IMO.
If you consult scripture at all, then there's always a sense of the other voice. And as it is you consulting the scripture, there is always your own voice as well. This is inevitable, and I'd rather admit it than pretend to be able to eradicate my own prejudice from the situation. There's also the role of the community in interpretation to be considered.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Not to link this thread too closely with the wine thread in Purg, but there's a difference between insisting on resisting sexual temptation and insisting on celibacy.
One can accept that homosexual relationships are legitimate without opening the door to profligate promiscuity. And of course, homosexuals hardly have a monopoly on promiscuous sexual behavior.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Christians of a certain persuasion often voice the idea that homosexuals only engage in promiscuous sex.
But they also say that homosexuals may not get married, because that interferes with some other bureaucratic rule about having procreation as the only reason for sex.
So ANY sexual relation undertaken by a gay is automatically "promiscuous" and therefore should be slandered by right-thinking Good Christians.
But all the sex that Christians engage in, that is not done with a proper prayer for a new baby, (I don't mind if they also enjoy it!) is also promiscuous, according to the rule stated above.
So are we allowed to slander all Good Christians for their promiscuity, or is consistency not allowed in discussions about sex?
And what are we to make of all the sex engaged in outside marriage by a large group of Christians? I know that it does go on, because the number of teenage (and other) pregnancies occurring among abstinence-espousing Christians is actually higher than the number among sex-educated teens who happen not to be Christian at all (or, at least, who don't trumpet their Christianity).
Christians want there to be committed relations between sexual partners. Why are some people not allowed to have committed relationships, so they can avoid the stigma (or boredom) of having judgmental Christians talk about promiscuity?
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
When I say Johnny S quoted me, I don't just mean he pressed the quote button. He used the same words I used, verbatim. I said 'misery and death' (referring to the internal conflict of gay Christians leading to potential suicide) and HE said 'misery and death' (referring to Christ's suffering and crucifixion).
I would think, in those circumstances, it is not only reasonable for me to see the two as linked, it is exceedingly strange for Johnny S to now claim they weren't. Either he chose to link them, or he somehow managed to pick that phrase to quote while completely ignoring the entire context I had said it in.
I realise that, because of past experience, this is a painful issue for you and perhaps that is why you assume the worst in what I post. Therefore I think I'll bow out at this point.
When I picked up on your phrase 'misery and death' I was using it as a general (pessimistic) expression that is sometimes used to describe the common lot of humanity - which while including suicide was certainly not meant to focus on it. I had no intention at all of comparing Christ's death with that of someone who commits suicide.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
In other words, you DID competely ignore the context.
Well, thank you for at least admitting it.
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I will try to address the initial question; "who's changed their mind about homosexuality and God".
Naive person I was (maybe am), the idea of homosexuality never occurred to me when young. Initially once I understood it was really something people did (not trying to be offensive here, I did think it was a behavioural choice initially, along the lines of smoking actually). Initially I went with what authorities told me. Partly along the line of "the bible tells me so". So I was negative, perhaps at the level of 6 or 7/10 against. In the past 20 years or so, I began to understand that the issue is not homosexual behaviour, but rather faithfulness in relationships, respect and love. Sex being essentially a private matter involving a rather poor set-up in my opinion, with sewage being dealt with right beside an amusement park (a good argument for a Godly sense of humour or evolution etc.).
I put forth a motion at our vestry (parish council), with encouragement of my children who, God bless 'em are way more modern than me, that we consider writing the bishop and national church that we were an affirming parish and that we would like to conduct same-sex blessings. The resulting vestry discussions were explosive at times, with the end result of the motion passing after about 10 months of dialogue and working with the parish. The annual general meeting also passed it. The fall-out? One family did leave the parish and I am sorry about that, but frankly not that sorry. This is a matter of Christian love.
So, I have changed my mind.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Full Circle
Shipmate
# 15398
|
Posted
AIDS changed my mind, especially at the beginning of the epidemic when it was predominantly seen as a disease of gay men. I just couldn't believe some of the loud statements about HIV being God's judgement. The need to think about where they were coming from made me re-examine my beliefs (alongside meeting people: Christian and otherwise who self identified as homosexual).
--------------------
Beware the monocausal fallacy (Anon)
Posts: 232 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I grew up knowing we had an "aunt" (not a blood relation but a family member nonetheless) who was a Lesbian. I don't remember if I was told directly or it was pieced together from hearing what other people said when they thought I wasn't listening. But a big deal was not made of it, and it never seemed like a big deal to me. Most people are like this, some people are like that.
Becoming a Christian in my early adulthood kind of clouded the issue, but underneath was a pretty firm understanding that gay people were not bug-eyed monsters.
Working for 5 years in HIV/Aids surveillance, I rubbed elbows with a lot of gay folk. They were a lot like people.
I struggle with my own church's teachings on homosexuality. But I'm a heretic on so many other things.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Nothing much has changed for me. I've been gay and a churchgoing Christian nearly 40 years, and I still feel more embarrassed telling gay people I'm a Christian, than telling Christian people I'm gay.
The reason, I think, is that I'm confident I can defend homosexuality when I'm with Christians. I'm not sure I can defend Christianity when I'm with homosexuals.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
I haven't changed my mind on the central issue. I was broadly 'pro' before becoming a Christian. I'm still broadly 'pro' now. What has changed is my attitude to Christians who disagree with me. IME most of them (at least in Europe and particularly in the younger generation) don't hate gays, don't think gayness is worse than any other 'sin' and aren't nearly as obsessed about the whole thing as liberals seem to think they are. So I'm in the odd position of being a pro-LGBT Christian who finds most of the spokespeople on her own 'side' a bit irritating. I'm also in the awkward position of being a sliver to the right of alot of pro-LGBT churches theologically. In the past I've attended a church that was (very, very mildly) anti and argued my corner when the issue came up. And no I wasn't kicked out or treated like a heretic.
[ 15. June 2010, 15:13: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Today, actually the only real question I have about homosexuality, is how the word "gay" came to be the preferred term. When I was young, we all were gay and happy on sunny days and it did not have anything whatever to do with sexual orientation. Somehow the word's meaning changed. This is off topic, but I've never had a satisfactory explanation for this and I thought this learned crowd might know.
The other question might be with number of letters that are strung together to represent the wide variety of orientations: LGBT is commonly seen, but we are also seeing LGBTTS and I'm not sure exactly what "two spirited" actually means which is what the final TS is about. It would seem that this might be a pretty diverse grouping with all together.
[ 15. June 2010, 16:04: Message edited by: no_prophet ]
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Yereven: I get that a lot too. Clearly we should form a sect... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
no-prophet: I've heard LGBTQ (Q being queer, which is funny because I thought "Queer" was catchall for the whole bunch,) though I've never heard of two-spirited...
After a quick google, wikipedia informs me that it's a term of (loosely) Native American origin that became popularized in the 1990s for people who possess both a masculine and a feminine spirit, wearing clothes or assuming roles of either gender.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amorya
Ship's tame galoot
# 2652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
Today, actually the only real question I have about homosexuality, is how the word "gay" came to be the preferred term. When I was young, we all were gay and happy on sunny days and it did not have anything whatever to do with sexual orientation. Somehow the word's meaning changed. This is off topic, but I've never had a satisfactory explanation for this and I thought this learned crowd might know.
Checking the OED, it came into use in America in 1941. First recorded quote was from G W Henry:
quote:
Gay, an adjective used almost exclusively by homosexuals to denote homosexuality, sexual attractiveness, promiscuity..or lack of restraint, in a person, place, or party. Often given the French spelling, gai or gaie by (or in burlesque of) cultured homosexuals of both sexes.
Also from 1941 is this one:
quote:
Supposing one met a stranger on a train from Boston to New York and wanted to find out whether he was ‘wise’ or even homosexual. One might ask: ‘Are there any gay spots in Boston?’ And by a slight accent put on the word ‘gay’ the stranger, if wise, would understand that homosexual resorts were meant.
The OED warns that
quote:
A number of quotations have been suggested as early attestations of this sense. It is likely that, although there may be innuendo in some cases, these have been interpreted anachronistically in the light either of the context … or of knowledge about an author's sexuality.
Posts: 2383 | From: Coventry | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
Cecil Adams makes the point that the word was not quite as innocent as we might have thought--and points out that the word would probably have been in use in the subculture for some time before it made it to print in the larger world.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
The other question might be with number of letters that are strung together to represent the wide variety of orientations: LGBT is commonly seen, but we are also seeing LGBTTS and I'm not sure exactly what "two spirited" actually means which is what the final TS is about. It would seem that this might be a pretty diverse grouping with all together.
Apparently the current acronymn round here is LGBTQA (Q = Queer, A = asexual). Maybe we need something a bit less unwieldy? 'Alternative sexualities' might work, but would probably offend some people by implying that there was such a thing 'normative' sexuality.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, there are a lot of assumptions in those paragraphs:
1. There is a direct causal link between a conservative view of sexuality and suicide.
...
I'd disagree with all of those assumptions.
If you think that is an "assumption" you can simply choose to agree or disagree with as if it were a mere matter of opinion, then you have a lot of self-educating to do before you are in a position to contribute meaningfully to this thread. Spending a little time with someone who has survived precisely such an experience will demonstrate that that "link" is very real whether or not you recognize or "agree" with it. Until then, perhaps it might be wise to take your own advice, bow out, and spend some time listening.
[ 16. June 2010, 17:16: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Apparently the current acronymn round here is LGBTQA (Q = Queer, A = asexual). Maybe we need something a bit less unwieldy? 'Alternative sexualities' might work, but would probably offend some people by implying that there was such a thing 'normative' sexuality.
As new modes of being sexual (or not sexual) assert their existence and importance, the acronym will continue to grow. Soon breeders will be in the minority. It remains to be seen if the LGBTQAMOXD7$ are as merciful (or not merciful) to the breeders as they were to the LGBTQAMOXD7$ in their day.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Peterson Toscano, sometimes of this Ship, said what must me the last word on things like:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
LGBTQAMOXD7$
in his show Queer 101—Now I Know My gAy,B,Cs
And its really, really funny.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
Was it Tertullian who said "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" or am I getting muddled?
I think homosexuality might be more accepted in the mainstream church if there were one or two gay martyrs. People have certainly died for saying they're Christians - and I guess that's why people are so touchy about martyrdom and suicide being mentioned in the same sentence - hence the spat we saw earlier in this thread between orfeo and Johnny S. Happens to the best of us!
We know of people who have died for Christ - but who do we know who has died for being gay? Alan Turing? Harvey Milk? Playing up the legends of these people a bit more is the way to go, in my opinion.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Was it Tertullian who said "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" or am I getting muddled?
Yes, I think it was.
If by "martyr" you mean "person who was killed merely because of their belonging to an identity group," then there are lots of gay martyrs. Matthew Shephard is probably the most visible case here.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
If by "martyr" you mean "person who was killed merely because of their belonging to an identity group," then there are lots of gay martyrs. Matthew Shephard is probably the most visible case here.
Incidences such as this are exactly that caused me to think more about the subject, and in so doing to eventually change my mind on the issue.
Growing up in a very conservative area, I witnessed exactly what happens to those who don't conform to the predominant religious expectations. The issue of gay people doesn't come up a whole lot around here, presumably because they know exactly how the community would react. Because it doesn't come up, few people have to confront or change their pre-set opinions on the issue.
Also, being an active and interested member of a denom that recently has struggled with this very issue has helped shape my own opinion.
In American society, I think the media has played a large part in changing opinions. People were scandalized that NBC would run a show with a premise such as Will and Grace, and yet that show went on to be quite high-profile, and to gain an audience beyond anyone's expectations when the show started. Ellen DeGeneres's sitcom was quickly canceled after she came out, but now she is one of America's most beloved talk show hosts, and this in the short course of 10 to 15 years.
As a result of this media acceptance, there are now more and more people willing to be "out" in smaller towns and communities. As we discover that these people are our neighbors and friends, it becomes easier to reinvestigate previously closed opinions. Where many communities once could possibly have been capable of such hate crimes as that of Matthew Shephard, I think an increasing number of communities would not tolerate it.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
[QUOTE]... positive examples are something that most of us never saw when everyone was forced into the closet.
My own itinerary might be of interest here. From my early adolescence on, I was involved with the arts (primarily literature, theater, and music). I went to my first gay people's party at sixteen. I've always known many gay men; fewer lesbians, but a fair number. So I have had many positive role models. It is true that many of the gay people I knew lived precariously, on the fringes, because they were gay. Then again, I have always had something of a taste for the fringes, the dicey neighborhood, the things that get put down as "different."
Where I didn't see gay people was in church. So, though I think I never lost my belief altogether, I put "church and Christendom" into one watertight category and "gay people, music, arts, and literature" into another. Then I wavered back and forth for years, because, as I thought, one couldn't do both. You had to be straight, preferably married, narrowly middle-class, and a Philistine altogether in taste and opinions to be a Christian.
Well, perhaps one can't do both after all. It certainly seems to be harder than many of us thought it was going to be, back in the Nineties. However, by now literally everyone I know has changed their minds about homosexuality, from my late grandmother and my parents on down. Prejudicial remarks about gay people have become career-enders in academia and anywhere else educated people tend to gather. (That wasn't always the case!)
So the determined stand that most branches of Christendom* are making against gay people does not bode well for the future of Christendom, I think, in that the stand it is making is against the "creative class" altogether, and in favor of a certain kind of lower-middle-class mean-spiritedness, a rejection not only of gay people but of any kid of imaginative spirituality, or intellect, or excellence, or beauty of form.
* I've borrowed Kierkegaard's term, but I don't evaluate it as he did. There's much to be said for Christendom, I think, as for any form of high civilization.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
So the determined stand that most branches of Christendom* are making against gay people does not bode well for the future of Christendom, I think, in that the stand it is making is against the "creative class" altogether, and in favor of a certain kind of lower-middle-class mean-spiritedness, a rejection not only of gay people but of any kid of imaginative spirituality, or intellect, or excellence, or beauty of form.
I'm confused -- how is it a stand against the entire "creative class"? I'm sure you don't think that the creative class is made up entirely of gays. What do you mean by the creative class, and how does a traditional stance on the (im)morality of homosexual acts constitute taking a stand against it?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
So the determined stand that most branches of Christendom* are making against gay people does not bode well for the future of Christendom, I think, in that the stand it is making is against the "creative class" altogether, and in favor of a certain kind of lower-middle-class mean-spiritedness, a rejection not only of gay people but of any kid of imaginative spirituality, or intellect, or excellence, or beauty of form.
I'm confused -- how is it a stand against the entire "creative class"? I'm sure you don't think that the creative class is made up entirely of gays. What do you mean by the creative class, and how does a traditional stance on the (im)morality of homosexual acts constitute taking a stand against it?
"Creative class" is the urban planner Richard Florida's term for innovators in any field. The members of the "creative class" drive the economic engine because their innovations create wealth and jobs for everyone.
But they are choosey about where they live. They want to settle where there are others like them and where their innovative, out-of-the-box thinking will be appreciated, not squelched.
In other words, they look for an environment that appreciates creativity, diversity, non-conformity, innovation --because that environment will get behind them and support their creative ideas. Florida claims that one index to the sort of environment that will nurture creative class members is the visible presence of gay people. Environments that repress or drive out gay people will also repress or drive out people given to other forms of divergent thinking or non-conformist behavior.
Ergo, If gay people aren't welcome, the message being sent is: Creative Class, don't let the sun set on you here.
Interesting for me to type this out yesterday, because I hadn't quite realized it before I said it, but, yes, that's the problem I have with church. Narrow, inward-looking, conformist, lower-middle-class, snoopy, censorious, frightened of difference, averse to risk, old. All of which is signaled by the desire of most churches to drive forth openly gay people.
I don't think that lower-middle-class thinking is all bad, by the way. There's nothing wrong with taking coupons to the grocery store or paying your bills on time. And nothing in the above means I think contemporary culture (or whatever passes for it) is somehow preferable. (Casinos, drug addiction, Miley Cyrus, reality shows, pr0n? NO.)
In fact, contemporary culture is what happens when spiritual and physical realms no longer communicate with one another. The church walls itself off from the life of the culture, desiccates, and dies; the culture turns into a brainless, wretched, formless sprawl. Usual cure: import the formless sprawl into the church, via powerpoint, praise bands, etc.
Don't know where this leaves us, really. Would be nice if something could heal the split.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
Yes.
I wanted to join this thread earlier, but I struggle with what to say. I never had an opinion about 'Gay people' ... I cared about the rights of people who seemd to be getting a raw deal, whatever kind of objection whoever in authority (law, or by other strength) was having, but I didn't have an opinion 'about' them as such. Then both my daughters came out as gay, and I struggled for a bit. What if someone was right and I should have somehow stopped it happening? (alright, stop laughing) I mean, while I was very supportive of them as people... (one was struggling, id wise, the other was just in love with her girlfriend and we could all deal with it. )...about a year later I struggled with the idea that if it were a sin of any kind , I should have encouraged or discouraged, or provided some other kind of influence or model or... you see? Earlier in the thread Josephine says, marvellously, about homosexuality being of no more import than gossiping - but I would discourage gossiping, not celebrate it.
So I had to go through a fair bit of pointless agonising, to know where to stand. It's easy for the parent of a hetrosexual kid to simply hope that the relationship they are in, or may eventually be in, will become a marriage. If your kid is gay, according to a distressing number of churches, all you can hope for is that your kid's relationship will break up, and they live the rest of their lives in celebacy. Who actively wishes that for their child's happy ever after??
So I got very distressed at a recent lent class in which casual homophobia was used as if speaking on behalf of us all What if I'd brought my daughter along? What if someone there was gay, or who's child was gay, and I hadn't been there to speak out, and make it clear that the man at the front was NOT speaking for all of us?
And then I discovered that a distressing number of people agreed. That they they thought it a sin - not a huge, all encompassing sin, they wanted gay people in the church, they loved them, but felt they were wrong. And couldn't answer my question 'so what are you praying for? What is your happy ending? That the relationship breaks up and they live alone?'
no one can seem to see that it makes a difference if they (the majority) believe it's a sin.
please excuse excessive use of dynamics. I just really struggle sometimes, with the way that people don't understand the huge and fundamental difference.
I'm not struggling so much with the concept anymore though - I don't believe it's a sin, but in the end what I think doesn't matter anyway. Their souls are entirely between them and God.
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
sorry. preview post should be my friend.
dynamics = italics.
and I want to point out that I'd be very distressed if they were having casual relationships of any kind. It'd still be none of my business, I guess, but I'd talk to them about it, and worry about it, and hope and pray that they'd stop having casual relationships. I would pray that they would find a person they could really love and grow with, and stick to through thick and thin, and I'd hope that ultimately they would marry them in a spiritually based ceremony.
and given our cultural norms, that would be good and ok things to want and work towards, if only by prayer.
And when I was struggling, I didn't know what to want. Is that clear to anyone??
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Perfectly clear to me. And on the sort of level that my conflicts were on (although without the dimension of having daughters involved).
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
In other words, they look for an environment that appreciates creativity, diversity, non-conformity, innovation --because that environment will get behind them and support their creative ideas. Florida claims that one index to the sort of environment that will nurture creative class members is the visible presence of gay people.
I don't understand why, though. Can you explain some of his thinking on this issue? What is the link?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
In other words, they look for an environment that appreciates creativity, diversity, non-conformity, innovation --because that environment will get behind them and support their creative ideas. Florida claims that one index to the sort of environment that will nurture creative class members is the visible presence of gay people.
I don't understand why, though. Can you explain some of his thinking on this issue? What is the link?
I'll let him do it himself.
Here's a 2002 article from the Washington Monthly.
You can also reference his first book, Rise of the Creative Class, or his website.
His ideas have considerable currency among urban planners, especially people who are trying to improve their cities' economies. Lakeland, Florida is among the unlikely candidates for "creative class destination" these days. They've worked very hard at putting Florida's ideas into practice, and -- well, they've had some success. No thanks to the local Episcopal church, though!
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
IOW, if you put conscious effort into keeping gays out or marginalising them, you are distracting yourself from the point of whatever it is you are doing. The major example of this is the churches that are waging war over the mere existence of gays (let alone SSMs) and who are seen by the younger generation as being totally irrelevant because they (the churches) don't live out their core message of "Love your neighbour"
Even in the small rural high school where I still work a bit, the president of the student council is openly gay. He won election by being happy and creative and having a lot of friends of both genders.
But he, and his creative friends, won't stay within 500 miles of here when he does move out, any more than my own daughters did.
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
