|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Leviticus on homosexuality - a temporary injunction?
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
I don't believe you. It would help to have either specifics about churches or confirmation from someone in your diocese (I know there are several on the Ship).
I also think it conceivable that the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and the Metropolitan Community Church might have an interest in spreading scare stories of this kind about the CofE which, say, 'Changing Attitude' wouldn't have.
Grammatica, I know this wouldn't happen even in the conservative evangelical parishes of my acquaintance.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Oh I definitely believe that they can genuinely love each other. Tragically misplaced love, maybe, but love nonetheless.
Love that doesn't fit the right tab into the right slot is "tragically misplaced"? I did think we were talking about the homosexuals and the Christian Church. I'm sure there are plenty of objections you could make to homosexuality from the moral perspective of a Canaanite fertility cult. But most people I meet who try to sell me the line that same-gender families are immoral claim to be upholding true Christianity, so you'd think their reasoning would be somewhat recognizable as Christian tradition (ya know, the one with "neither male nor female?)
quote:
And sure I recognize they are more than those acts. So much more, in fact, that giving up those acts should be a small price to pay in return for acceptance.
Funny that those who insist that giving up married family life is no great thing aren't queuing up to make the sacrifice themselves. It's so easy to tell other people what's good for them isn't it?
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I don't believe you. It would help to have either specifics about churches or confirmation from someone in your diocese (I know there are several on the Ship).
Just wanted to say that I haven't come across any reports of this kind of thing happening in my area (and there are quite a few evangelical churches of all kinds around).
Also, I was under the impression that a minister couldn't just declare someone ex-communicant without some sort of "official" procedure being followed.
This is the relevant Canon (B16.1):
quote:
If a minister be persuaded that anyone of his cure who presents himself to be a partaker of the Holy Communion ought not to be admitted thereunto by reason of malicious and open contention with his neighbours, or other grave and open sin without repentance, he shall give an account of the same to the bishop of the diocese or other the Ordinary of the place and therein obey his order and direction, but so as not to refuse the sacrament to any until in accordance with such order and direction he shall have called him and advertised him that in any wise he presume not to come to the Lord’s Table: Provided that in case of grave and immediate scandal to the congregation the minister shall not admit such person, but shall give an account of the same to the Ordinary within seven days after at the furthest and therein obey his order and direction. Provided also that before issuing his order and direction in relation to any such person the Ordinary shall afford to him an opportunity for interview.
So if someone WAS being forbidden communion on the basis of being LGBT, they ought to be able to make a complaint to the Bishop. If the Bishop has upheld such a decision, then I think that it would be advisable to kick up a stink publicly.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I don't believe you. It would help to have either specifics about churches or confirmation from someone in your diocese (I know there are several on the Ship).
I have already said that it would be inappropriate to name names so you choose to believe me or not. Suffice is to say that my church is one of three in this diocese that has signed up to the Inclusive Church and Changing Attitudes statements (but not to LGCM's because it's too bureaucratic - though LGCM use our building). As a result, we have refugees from other churches - it is not for me to tell their stories because I have a degree of shared pastoral oversight.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
]So if someone WAS being forbidden communion on the basis of being LGBT, they ought to be able to make a complaint to the Bishop. If the Bishop has upheld such a decision, then I think that it would be advisable to kick up a stink publicly.
Both bishops here are evangelicals who describe themselves as 'hold[ing] the conservative view.'
The usual story is that a minister has told someone that they should not present him/herself at the rail until s/he leaves her partner or, in one case, undergoes 'therapy' I don't know whether any of these has actually gone up to the rail - only at that stage could one 'kick up a stink publicly.'
One story is likely to get into the public domain soon, if the person has the courage to make him/herself the centre of attention,. if it does, with that person's permission, I'll update you.
These ministers are actually following the church's teaching, that goes right back to Tony Higton. There doesn't seem to be the same urgency with regard to usurers.
[ 14. August 2011, 17:35: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I also think it conceivable that the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and the Metropolitan Community Church might have an interest in spreading scare stories of this kind about the CofE which, say, 'Changing Attitude' wouldn't have.
Changing Attitudes has more of a foot in the door than LGCM because Colin is not seen to be as 'shrill' or 'strident' as Richard Kirker was. It's in Colin's interest, not least for lots of Anglicans in Uganda and Nigeria to rock the boat too much.
I don't think that LGCM would invent scare stories. LGCM and MCC were suspicious of each other for a long time and the fact that LGCM has appointed an MCC person to be CEO suggests that they trust her not to poach people. Fergusson did not have an easy ride when she started celebrating eucharists (and she deputed an Anglican woman priest to do so once) at their events - two people that I know from this city made loud and long public objections:
one anglo-catholic on the basis that she is not episcopally ordained and is female
one Roman Catholic on the basis that there should not be ecumenical eucharists at all
--------------------
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
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
I believe you even less, leo, when you aver that the Bishop of your diocese knows of and approves of the excommunication of gay Anglicans.
Nor do you seem now able to name any other diocese where you claim this to be happening.
I've met people who claim to have been taken up into alien space-ships and had their semen stolen. Doesn't mean it's true.
[ 14. August 2011, 18:17: Message edited by: Amos ]
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I believe you even less, leo, when you aver that the Bishop of your diocese knows of and approves of the excommunication of gay Anglicans..
Bear in mind that three diocese intersect in this city.
Believe what you want to believe but have you read some of the vitriolic stuff from some bishops in the Anglican Communion? Or, moving away from the local, the vicar of Jesmond (if Holloway is still there??
--------------------
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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
I don't think we should call it "marriage"
That reminds me of a moral dilemma I've got. Could I ask your advice on it?
One of my oldest friends has always called his parents by their Christian names. Never 'Mum' and 'Dad', he just uses their real names. To me, that's just weird.
And there's someone at work who addresses his as 'father' and 'mother', which I think is far too formal, even a little pompous.
And I know an American lady who calls her mum "Mom". It's like she can't even spell.
So here's my problem: what's the Christian thing to do? Should I tell all these people, loudly and often, that they ought to be using the names for close family members which I approve of? Or would it be better to compromise my principles, keep my mouth shut, and avoid looking like a colossal arsehole?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
Eliab ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
But most people I meet who try to sell me the line that same-gender families are immoral claim to be upholding true Christianity, so you'd think their reasoning would be somewhat recognizable as Christian tradition (ya know, the one with "neither male nor female?)
Um are you seriously saying that my position is not "recognizable as Christian tradition"? This is news.
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Funny that those who insist that giving up married family life is no great thing aren't queuing up to make the sacrifice themselves. It's so easy to tell other people what's good for them isn't it?
Well not everyone would accept that "married family life" is a fair descriptor of what they're being asked to forsake... But anyhow, to be fair there is a certain rather well-known group of celibates who share my position on this matter.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
I don't think we should call it "marriage"
That reminds me of a moral dilemma I've got. Could I ask your advice on it?
One of my oldest friends has always called his parents by their Christian names. Never 'Mum' and 'Dad', he just uses their real names. To me, that's just weird.
And there's someone at work who addresses his as 'father' and 'mother', which I think is far too formal, even a little pompous.
And I know an American lady who calls her mum "Mom". It's like she can't even spell.
So here's my problem: what's the Christian thing to do? Should I tell all these people, loudly and often, that they ought to be using the names for close family members which I approve of? Or would it be better to compromise my principles, keep my mouth shut, and avoid looking like a colossal arsehole?
If you sincerely believe that the Creator of the Universe cares about the difference between mom and mum, then go ahead and be a C.A. I won't judge you for following your consicence. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
]So if someone WAS being forbidden communion on the basis of being LGBT, they ought to be able to make a complaint to the Bishop. If the Bishop has upheld such a decision, then I think that it would be advisable to kick up a stink publicly.
Both bishops here are evangelicals who describe themselves as 'hold[ing] the conservative view.'
The usual story is that a minister has told someone that they should not present him/herself at the rail until s/he leaves her partner or, in one case, undergoes 'therapy' I don't know whether any of these has actually gone up to the rail - only at that stage could one 'kick up a stink publicly.'
One story is likely to get into the public domain soon, if the person has the courage to make him/herself the centre of attention,. if it does, with that person's permission, I'll update you.
These ministers are actually following the church's teaching, that goes right back to Tony Higton. There doesn't seem to be the same urgency with regard to usurers.
Leo, that is very interesting in light of the following from the Bristol Bishops' blog:
quote:
The challenge then and now, when disunity breaks out in the Church, is how we deal with it. Paul’s advice, and it is sound advice, is not to deal with broken relationships in the same way that the world deals (or doesn’t deal) with such situation.
Legal action against fellow Christians is a very serious matter. Vilifying our enemies is not edifying for Christ or His Church. Walking away is sometimes the only recourse, but it rarely sorts out the issue(s) at hand.
Surely the most serious outcome in all the Anglican Communion fall-out is the division of the Church in such a public and, at times, ugly way. Seeking to witness to the God who is love in a Church which can seem more characterised by hate, will simply not achieve much.
I have supported the Covenant process and will continue to do so, but without some careful reflection on all this, we shall end up witnessing not to the power of Jesus to unite, but to the power of humanity to divide – a mere replication of what we see happening so frequently in the wider world. The net result will be that we shall prove [to] those hostile to the Church, of whom there are many, that we are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
+Mike
Well, yes, I expect the Bristol bishops and clergy will be proving to everyone that they are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. That is, unless they manage to keep their exclusion of gay people on the downlow, while the public face of tolerant moderation remains intact.
And yes, I do believe you; it's exactly the sort of thing one would expect, in fact.
There is a word for that kind of thing.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
quote:
Oh I definitely believe that they can genuinely love each other. Tragically misplaced love, maybe, but love nonetheless. And sure I recognize they are more than those acts. So much more, in fact, that giving up those acts should be a small price to pay in return for acceptance.
So I guess I'm duty-bound by my Christian faith to dismiss my partner of five years to the guest bedroom with a brisk handshake (maybe) and an appointment for individual confession with our pastor so that we can each confess our sin as "evil livers."
Oh...wait...our pastor loves us and believes that our relationship is a good and holy thing; in fact, tells us that we're one of the more healthily functional couples in our flock. Our flock in which both of us are not only accepted without reservation but have been given significant lay leadership roles.
My goodness, Bran, the thought of all that apostasic sin aided and abetted by clergyfolk must make your head spin.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
The5thMary
Shipmate
# 12953
|
Posted
RE: LutheranChik's comment, "My goodness, Bran, the thought of all that apostasic sin aided and abetted by clergyfolk must make your head spin."
Yes, his head spins 360 degrees just like in "The Exorcist"! ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
God gave me my face but She let me pick my nose.
Posts: 3451 | From: Tacoma, WA USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Be very careful with that handshake LutheranChik. . There will necessarily be the physical contact you refer to. Physical contact may lead to desires for homoerotic behaviour. And the briskness is a worry also; be very careful to be a jolly maiden aunt off to look to the hound puppies, rather than being too masculine about it.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Hm I certainly understand that various bad things tend to happen to homosexual persons. We should feel sorry for them, yes. But we shouldn't assume that it's all our fault for imposing those dreadful moral codes upon them, whose removal will make everything better.
No need to assume. I'm here to give you my personal testimony that removing those dreadful moral codes DOES make everything better.
--------------------
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
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Hm I certainly understand that various bad things tend to happen to homosexual persons. We should feel sorry for them, yes. But we shouldn't assume that it's all our fault for imposing those dreadful moral codes upon them, whose removal will make everything better.
No need to assume. I'm here to give you my personal testimony that removing those dreadful moral codes DOES make everything better.
As is anybody who lived under them. But of course, "personal testimony" is irrelevant to anybody who has a theory to defend.
It really doesn't matter what happens to actual people when the Authority of the Magisterium (or "the Authority of Scripture" - or "the Authority of Tradition") is at stake....
[ 24. August 2011, 15:00: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I wouldn't be too harsh. I mean, it took me personally about 17 years to be willing enough to let go of the theory so that I could find out the facts. It was God who told me to let go of it. I think he finally decided I wouldn't work it out for myself so he gave me an explicit cue - and then a second one at the point where I had doubts again and nearly backed in to my corner again.
Something that I very much enjoy saying on the Ship, because in many Christian circles AND in many gay circles, the entire idea of God telling someone that it's okay for them to be gay is from a different universe.
[ 24. August 2011, 16:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It really doesn't matter what happens to actual people when the Authority of the Magisterium (or "the Authority of Scripture" - or "the Authority of Tradition") is at stake....
That's really the trouble with the "traditional" view: it has an empirical problem. All those pesky gay couples living the goods of marriage as set forth in the prayer book are so darn inconvenient when you're trying to convince people that that's definitionally impossible! Why can't they just be good sports and feign celibate vocations to keep our nice and tidy theology working?
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
anon four
Shipmate
# 15938
|
Posted
LQ
--------------------
Ό δε ανεξέταστος βίος ου βιωτος ανθρώπω.
Posts: 82 | From: Sunny South Coast, UK | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Hm I certainly understand that various bad things tend to happen to homosexual persons. We should feel sorry for them, yes. But we shouldn't assume that it's all our fault for imposing those dreadful moral codes upon them, whose removal will make everything better.
No need to assume. I'm here to give you my personal testimony that removing those dreadful moral codes DOES make everything better.
Sure, maybe it's "better" in the sense of "personal temporal happiness of most homosexuals". I won't argue with that. But the personal temporal happiness of most homosexuals is but a drop in the bucket compared to "everything".
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
That's really the trouble with the "traditional" view: it has an empirical problem. All those pesky gay couples living the goods of marriage as set forth in the prayer book are so darn inconvenient when you're trying to convince people that that's definitionally impossible! Why can't they just be good sports and feign celibate vocations to keep our nice and tidy theology working?
I don't think my nice and tidy theology is at all disturbed by those pesky gay couples. The foulest sinner can live a happy and successful life; we all must come to terms with this fact.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Sure, maybe it's "better" in the sense of "personal temporal happiness of most homosexuals". I won't argue with that. But the personal temporal happiness of most homosexuals is but a drop in the bucket compared to "everything".
That's a very trivial way to sweep away thousands of years of broken families, addiction, and suicide. Providing ecclesiastical and community support to monogamous gay may not improve "everything" but it affords them a means of grace and a salvific alternative to serial intimacy, just as it does heterosexuals.
What does your model improve?
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
I don't think my nice and tidy theology is at all disturbed by those pesky gay couples. The foulest sinner can live a happy and successful life; we all must come to terms with this fact.
I didn't say anything about subjective happiness or success. I referred to the goods of marriage. Happy or successful gay couples could still of course be sinning and not disprove your thesis. Married gay couples are another matter. In what way are they "sinning" that all married couples are not? If the moral qualities of the two are alike then ultimately the distinction is made by fiat. The "anti" crowd has to find a way to say that Mr and Mr Brown are wicked for joining together for mutual joy, help, comfort, and (God willing) childrearing, while letting themselves off the hook for the very same "sins." That is the fatal contradiction of the argument. It has to uphold marriage while contriving a reason not to uphold it for some.
I call it the Oatmeal Crisp argument: "it's an honorable estate - but you wouldn't like it!"
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Sure, maybe it's "better" in the sense of "personal temporal happiness of most homosexuals". I won't argue with that. But the personal temporal happiness of most homosexuals is but a drop in the bucket compared to "everything".
Just out of curiosity, what is your desire to deliberately inflict personal temporal unhappiness supposed to accomplish? Why is it so important to you that gays be made miserable?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
The bottom line is that there exist a certain number of people who have a vocation neither to heterosexual marriage nor to celibate chastity. There has to be a tertium quid. You can strain all you want at why they "should" be able to fit in one box or the other or why their predicament ought not to exist in the Church, but you're only going to end up with the same people in the same scenario - and outside the Church. And whose soul is that supposed to save?
And besides, Jesus thought differently - "Not all can keep this teaching: some are born eunuchs ..." For an argument supposedly based in Scripture the "contras" can be awfully ADHD when Scripture isn't so comfy for them. The law they cite against gays contains in the same paragraph an "asterisk" foreseeing exceptional situations. Talk about "arguing away the plain meaning of scripture!" the fact is that Jesus was always looking for the purpose of the Law in order to err on the side of bringing people into it. The Pharisees were the ones arguing for the interpretation of the Law best suited to keeping out the undesirables. And why would we want that to be our goal? Marriage was made for man [sic], not man for marriage.
But the anti crowd cannot come up with a recognizably Christian ethic of marriage that preserves penile-vaginal intercourse as its be-all-and-end-all, so they are always keen to avoid any such direction. Thus they patch together a pastiche of the bits of each strand of the narrative on marriage that appear superficially opposed to gays, but they can't stick to any one strand for too long or the bits that don't fit will raise their heads.
That's why it's impossible to argue with them. There's no way to frame their argument in positive terms. They don't appear to have anything to say about marriage at all. From the picture they give, it's some kind of Jungian union of opposites into a gnostic androgynous one-flesh. They can't talk about Genesis too long, or they'll be reminded that Adam's helpmate was chosen on the basis of similarity, not "complementarity" (the animals, after all, were rejected, and they were plenty different). They can't claim it's against the Church's "tradition" when the compiler's of that very tradition's formularies neglected to give a definition that excludes gays (unless you think we're incapable of joy/comfort/childrearing). They can't push the absolute need for procreation too hard lest they face the displeasure of their infertile loved ones. They can't lean too heavily on marriage as fulfillment of God's image, or the necessary conclusion will be that each person is only half an Image - and thus the person who chooses celibacy, as they typically recommend, is by their logic no better off than the one who flouts the commandment to such union by forming a gay parternship.
I'm reminded of high school maths when we charted points on a graph and had to draw an 'averaging' line that came as close to keeping an even number of dots on either side. The contras ultimately cannot draw a definitional line, whichever they pick (and far from being monolithic, there are several "Biblical marriages" on offer in the narrative, many decidedly un-Christian in formation) that leaves all hetero couples on one side and all gays on the other. yet rather than pausing to think, hey, what's up with my definition, they blame the gays for having the temerity to screw up their graph.
You have to let go of the need to make those the only two kinds of families: the existence of other kinds of families who are nevertheless manage to fulfil the Church's teaching belies it.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Sure, maybe it's "better" in the sense of "personal temporal happiness of most homosexuals". I won't argue with that. But the personal temporal happiness of most homosexuals is but a drop in the bucket compared to "everything".
It is nevertheless pretty important to the homosexuals themselves.
You can't dismiss something by saying that it's merely temporal. The temporal fate of the man who fell among thieves was a drop in the bucket compared to "everything". Yet we do not commend the priest and the Levite for considering that, nor condemn the Samaritan for considering the man's temporal fate important.
Dives is certainly happier than Lazarus in a temporal sense. But nobody suggests that Dives would have been condemned to permanent unhappiness had he shared more of his wealth with Lazarus. The greatest love is to lay down our lives for our friends, indeed, but there is no reason to suppose it commendable for us to ask our friends to lay down their lives for nobody in particular.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
The bottom line is that there exist a certain number of people who have a vocation neither to heterosexual marriage nor to celibate chastity. There has to be a tertium quid. You can strain all you want at why they "should" be able to fit in one box or the other or why their predicament ought not to exist in the Church, but you're only going to end up with the same people in the same scenario - and outside the Church. And whose soul is that supposed to save?
Unrepentant sinners aren't saved, regardless of whether they are "outside the Church" or not.
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
They can't talk about Genesis too long, or they'll be reminded that Adam's helpmate was chosen on the basis of similarity, not "complementarity" (the animals, after all, were rejected, and they were plenty different).
They may have been similar but they were not identical and interchangeable. St. Paul says For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
They can't lean too heavily on marriage as fulfillment of God's image, or the necessary conclusion will be that each person is only half an Image - and thus the person who chooses celibacy, as they typically recommend, is by their logic no better off than the one who flouts the commandment to such union by forming a gay parternship.
Hm I haven't really thought about this argument. But I like it! And I don't see how it's hostile to celibates - surely giving up the chance to be more like God is still a wonderful sacrifice.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The greatest love is to lay down our lives for our friends, indeed, but there is no reason to suppose it commendable for us to ask our friends to lay down their lives for nobody in particular.
Yeah because we all know that refraining from sodomy is morally equal to martyrdom, right?
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Yeah because we all know that refraining from sodomy is morally equal to martyrdom, right?
So let's get down to it, as I've asked once already.
What's actually involved in this "refraining from sodomy," in your estimation? Where's the bright line here? Is it the "act" itself - whatever that is - or does the "refraining" need to happen sooner?
IOW, it OK to kiss, or hold hands, or maybe send a risque love letter?
What's the actual deal? Let's just see if "refraining from sodomy" means what it seems plainly to mean - that is, giving up any possibility of any sort of physical intimacy (and the emotional intimacy that accompanies it) with another human being you love, for life.
Not only giving up the intimacy - but giving up any hope for it. For life, from childhood onward.
So: still feeling snide about it? Or is it just a monumental lack of imagination and/or empathy. Well, I can understand; nobody else on earth is expected to do this. I'm sure you can't imagine it for yourself; good thing you don't have to, eh?
[ 26. August 2011, 00:59: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Unrepentant sinners aren't saved, regardless of whether they are "outside the Church" or not.
Good God, we might as well pack up and go home then.
More seriously, what does "repentance" mean? Does it not mean "turning" (as to the will of God)? The question then becomes, how does the homosexual who wishes to follow God show that turning? Is a marital or marital-type relationship not, relatively speaking, a closer turn to God than many alternatives? Or do you envision a "pass/fail" soteriology?
quote:
They may have been similar but they were not identical and interchangeable.
And what two people are "identical and interchangeable," unless you strip marriage down to a biological exchange? This is the problem: these arguments all take us away from a Christian ethic of marriage in all their effort to exclude one superficial perceived departure. It almost doesn't matter what one believes: the argument is structurally doomed to defeat itself. I assure you there isn`t a variant I haven`t encountered.
quote:
And I don't see how it's hostile to celibates - surely giving up the chance to be more like God is still a wonderful sacrifice.
When an individual discerns a celibate charism and desires to serve God in that way more than the comforts of marriage, it is indeed a wonderful sacrifice. That sacrifice is cheapened when celibacy is imposed as a blanket prescription on an entire population, regardless of their gift for it, as St Paul himsel recognized many lack (again, not the conservative's favourite passage!)
quote:
Yeah because we all know that refraining from sodomy is morally equal to martyrdom, right?
Well, there's no need to drag angelic rape into the matter. But assuming you mean bugger you're, in fact, the first to raise the matter; I've said nothing about it. And personally, I'm inclined to think a stronger case can be made for Biblical prohibition thereof, for all couples (an accepted rabbinical position in American Masorti Judaism).
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Unrepentant sinners aren't saved, regardless of whether they are "outside the Church" or not.
That's something you really need to take heed of, then, because you're still supporting the tail-end of one of the big three late medieval church 'panics'/persecutions. The penny has already dropped about the sinfulness of witch-hunting and anti-semitism. Time for churches and believers to repent for carrying the 'anti-sodomite' panic into modern times, even in a more attenuated form.
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
They can't talk about Genesis too long, or they'll be reminded that Adam's helpmate was chosen on the basis of similarity, not "complementarity" (the animals, after all, were rejected, and they were plenty different).
They may have been similar but they were not identical and interchangeable. St. Paul says For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Unfortunately given the state of the art on the subject at the time, St Paul couldn't know anything much about human evolution and development. First of all neither men nor women were created as per Genesis but evolved from earlier non-human ancestors. Nobody was created 'for' anyone. Secondly the Y chromosome certainly didn't pre-date the X, nor did women develop from men. The tropes in Genesis about ribs/men predating women should not be taken as telling us useful basic information to use to determine our views about marriage.
Unfortunately, some Catholic/literalist Protestant views on sexuality suffer from a case of 'Garbage in- Garbage out' because they try to treat creation stories in Genesis and later quotes from it in the New Testament as saying something determinative and factual about men, women and sexuality. It's as if we took the Chinese story of the rabbit in the moon and tried to use it to tell us about the moon and its nature. St Paul can't tell us anything about modern gay marriages which have evolved from modern egalitarian heterosexual marriages, something he knew nothing about and something which tropes from Genesis can't shed any light on.
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Yeah because we all know that refraining from sodomy is morally equal to martyrdom, right?
So back to the dregs of the late medieval sodomy panic - no repentance necessary for signing up to a strain of doctrine as damaging as anti-semitism and witch-hunting. Lots of people were martyred because an action as normal, harmless and natural to them as praying was demonised by people who shared that sort of doctrine but didn't have a modern squeamishness about killing and imprisoning for it. Many people now are still suffering because these false views were and are promoted by churches, but there's not much sign of repentance from the churches for it. There should be.
I can quite easily imagine someone ignorantly sneering 'But we're just asking them to refrain from praying - since when has one act of prayer mattered? If they'd just give up this one noxious act we wouldn't need to discriminate against God Botherers. Why's it so important to them? Why can't they live their life alone? It's no big deal. They're just expressing love for some imaginary being they say loves them. It's sad and pathetic and barren and settling for less than they can be. It would do them good to get a Real Life Relationship. Have you heard some of the things they pray about? It's disgusting! Why can't they just abstain?'
If you demonise a harmless characteristic activity of a group, then you demonise that group. Demonise and sneer at catholics for 'idolatry' for venerating statues, always insist on using that word, pick out that one activity of veneration to define Catholics by, and relentlessly attack them for it... trivialise their objections, it works so well! Anyone can see what a Catholic-friendly society it created in 16th/17th century Scotland. Attack people in this manner, and then tell them they ought to be doing the repentance, while you're doing the kicking...
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Sure, maybe it's "better" in the sense of "personal temporal happiness of most homosexuals". I won't argue with that. But the personal temporal happiness of most homosexuals is but a drop in the bucket compared to "everything".
That's a very trivial way to sweep away thousands of years of broken families, addiction, and suicide.
Absolutely. And I'm glad you put it that way because I'm not sure I could have responded without spreading a lot of invective over it.
This is not about 'happiness' in some sort of twee, rainbow-infused 1950s sense. This is about escape from total despair.
quote:
What does your model improve?
Indeed. I find it galling that people are willing to support a particular interpretation of Scripture without considering the results of that interpretation. And when the results are so appallingly bad, I would have thought it would be reasonable for at least a THOUGHT along the lines of "Hmm, maybe I read that wrong" to cross one's mind.
--------------------
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
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
Indeed, it's funny how foresaking marriage is somewhere on a par with giving up chocolate for Lent as long as some other sucker's giving it up.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
They can't lean too heavily on marriage as fulfillment of God's image, or the necessary conclusion will be that each person is only half an Image - and thus the person who chooses celibacy, as they typically recommend, is by their logic no better off than the one who flouts the commandment to such union by forming a gay parternship.
Hm I haven't really thought about this argument. But I like it! And I don't see how it's hostile to celibates - surely giving up the chance to be more like God is still a wonderful sacrifice.
This doesn't seem to be an argument you're applying consistently.
Celibates are less like God* ---> Wonderful Sacrifice!
Homosexuals are less like God ---> Horrible Sacrilege!
------------
*Isn't the Christian deity supposed to be celibate Himself?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That is now becoming commonplace in the C of E - LGBTs being refused Holy Communion simply because they are who God made them to be.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) This is the most shocking thing I've ever heard on the Ship. It's not just the theological incoherence of even considering such a such a measure without evidence of one's being an "open and notorious evil liver." Throughout my adult life I have celebrated the fact that my church has never made a personal issue of my sexual orientation, nor (apparently) that of a few of my most admired teachers and mentors, who had found a home in Anglicanism, loved the church deeply, and contributed to her-- in some cases spectacularly. If I had had such a confrontation in high school or college on top of all the other traumas of trying to come to terms with oneself at that age, I very well might not be alive today. What is happening to my holy mother?
quote:
I don't tend to believe in judgement or hell but this issue is making me more orthodox - there must be a judgement for inhospitality. It was Sodom who was judged - not for anything to do with sex or even rape but for being inhospitable.
Even if it did have to do with sex, the fatal visitors were angels, not men. If I were God and a bunch of guys tried to mess with my angels before even bothering to get well enough acquainted to learn who they were, I might get teed off, too. But the moral of the story, bearing this in mind, is quite different. How people persist in ignoring this obvious factor boggles my mind.
persons Jesus told his disciples to brush off the dust from their feet. LGBTs are doing so, in judgement of the churches. [/QB][/QUOTE]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
giving up those acts should be a small price to pay in return for acceptance.
Given that these are acts in private, how would you know who has given them up? Would you believe those who told you so? Jeffrey John has stated that his relationship with his partner is non-physical. A lot of acceptance that declaration has gotten him.
Anyway, why do you think that it would be a small price for gays to pay when so many straight people have found it impossible? This is very common, judging from the number of folks who are married and claim to be living biblically, after St. Paul grudgingly allowed marriage for those who cannot control themselves.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
giving up those acts should be a small price to pay in return for acceptance.
Given that these are acts in private, how would you know who has given them up? Would you believe those who told you so? Jeffrey John has stated that his relationship with his partner is non-physical. A lot of acceptance that declaration has gotten him.
Obviously we can't know; I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I won't condemn anyone unless his conscience moves him to admit his situation.
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Anyway, why do you think that it would be a small price for gays to pay when so many straight people have found it impossible? This is very common, judging from the number of folks who are married and claim to be living biblically, after St. Paul grudgingly allowed marriage for those who cannot control themselves.
Oh I never said it would be a small price. I was just pointing that out to show the silliness of protesting that since homoerotic acts are only one aspect of their relationships, we should allow them.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Anyway, why do you think that it would be a small price for gays to pay when so many straight people have found it impossible? This is very common, judging from the number of folks who are married and claim to be living biblically, after St. Paul grudgingly allowed marriage for those who cannot control themselves.
Oh I never said it would be a small price.
Ahem.
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Oh I definitely believe that they can genuinely love each other. Tragically misplaced love, maybe, but love nonetheless. And sure I recognize they are more than those acts. So much more, in fact, that giving up those acts should be a small price to pay in return for acceptance.
Leaving aside the question of why you don't think you can make your point without bearing false witness, why did you assume we can't read the transcript of your words?
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
I was just pointing that out to show the silliness of protesting that since homoerotic acts are only one aspect of their relationships, we should allow them.
I read your point, as fairly plainly written, that lifelong celibacy for homosexuals is a "small price to pay in return for acceptance" among the bigots who hate homosexuals. I disagree that a lifetime of chastity counts as a "small price" or that gaining the "acceptance" of such people is worth the effort.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
Surely "should" and "would" mean rather different things.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Surely "should" and "would" mean rather different things.
But your assessment of lifelong chastity being a "small price" is the same regardless of what modifier you use.
For example, saying "you should be ashamed for using such a weak resort to cheap semantics" conveys a slightly different meaning than saying "I would be ashamed for using such a weak resort to cheap semantics", but it doesn't change the assessment of "a weak resort to cheap semantics" much at all.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
All very well for you to set the standards. You don't have to live by them.
I'm perfectly fine with eating meat sacrificed to idols. Perhaps you aren't. Where does that leave any two Christians who find themselves at opposing poles of a non-essential issue?
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
afterthought --
Why should I even care for or want *your* acceptance?
I'm perfectly content with my savior's.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Surely "should" and "would" mean rather different things.
That depends entirely on context. In this context, they probably don't and if they do mean different things that only makes your argument look even worse - it 'should' be a small price, but it won't be? Why's that? Something else that's wrong with us??
--------------------
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
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Persephone Hazard:
...why not? What should you assume, then?
Also, the othering language here makes my skin crawl.
Well we should assume that doing what's right is more important than doing what's pleasurable.
And what in the world is "othering language"? It's homosexuals who delight in saying how they are "gay" and others are "straight", not me. I hate categorizing people like that.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Surely "should" and "would" mean rather different things.
That depends entirely on context. In this context, they probably don't and if they do mean different things that only makes your argument look even worse - it 'should' be a small price, but it won't be? Why's that? Something else that's wrong with us??
Of course there's something wrong with us! It's called "sin". Christ said that His yoke is easy and His burden light. But we don't always find it so...
[ 31. August 2011, 09:40: Message edited by: Bran Stark ]
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Persephone Hazard
Ship's Wench
# 4648
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Well we should assume that doing what's right is more important than doing what's pleasurable.
I agree. I don't agree that living true to ourselves is not right, nor that it is merely pleasurable.
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
And what in the world is "othering language"?
Othering language is language that creates a divide, a sense of 'us and them'. It's not the same as labels - 'gay' and 'straight' is an example of labelling language, not othering language. (There may be other problems with labelling language, and other arguments that can be made. But that isn't relevent here.)
And I find it utterly repellent. It's dangerous, it's hurtful and it just makes it harder to work toward a time when people are loved for rather than defined by their differences. It's often just about the general atmosphere of a discussion, or the way that concepts are discussed with no nod to the real living people behind them, but every now and then a specific example comes along that makes my skin crawl. Like this one:
"If they don't think those individual sex acts are very important, then surely they have no cause to complain when we call them immoral, now do they."
Immediately you've created a stark divide: WE and THEY. But people aren't a THEY. Nobody's a THEY. I personally believe that a completely central point of Christianity, probably the most important thing that Jesus ever tried to teach, was that everybody is WE. Even the people you don't really want to be 'we'.
Society doesn't ostracise people with leprosy any more. But I'm pretty certain that were Jesus to be coming along to people's dinner parties today he'd still be bringing uninvited guests - members of the Irish travelling community, gay men with HIV/AIDS, people who are homeless and sleeping in shop doorways, working class single mothers on benefits.
In this particular thread, see also "I certainly understand that various bad things tend to happen to homosexual persons. We should feel sorry for them, yes. But we shouldn't assume that it's all our fault for imposing those dreadful moral codes upon them.", "I don't think we should call it "marriage", but I have no objection to civil union thingies for those wanting them." and various other examples.
It's not just about sexuality, either. People use othering language abut women, about people of colour, about those in a different social class, about immigrants, about those of a different religion, about any group of people who anyone ever tries to seperate themselves from.
[ 31. August 2011, 12:49: Message edited by: Persephone Hazard ]
--------------------
A picture is worth a thousand words, but it's a lot easier to make up a thousand words than one decent picture. - ken.
Posts: 1645 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
It's homosexuals who delight in saying how they are "gay" and others are "straight", not me. I hate categorizing people like that.
Well it's mighty noble of you to swallow your discomfort with making such distinctions and going ahead anyway. Look at the difference in language.
Straight: "Holy Scripture commends [marriage] to be honored among all people."
Gays: "Yeah because we all know that refraining from sodomy is morally equal to martyrdom, right?"
Straight: "intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity"
Gay: just "doing what's pleasurable."
Straight: "that they may know each other with delight and tenderness in acts of love"
Gay: "the silliness of protesting that since homoerotic acts are only one aspect of their relationships, we should allow them."
quote:
Of course there's something wrong with us! It's called "sin".
Who's "us"? You only consider it "sin" when done by others. Or are now going to treat all who "persist" without "repentance" in such relationships described above the same? In that case, my own bishop will fall afoul of the Windsor moratorium: his wife is a Quaker.
quote:
I haven't thought about that argument ...
The heterodox implications of complementarism are a central feature of Fr Haller's book. By admitting you haven't thought of it you're admitting to not having read it. I am frankly a little sick of dealing with people wringing their hands on the intertubes wondering "how can we square this with Scripture?" who haven't bothered to read "How to Square this with Scripture for Dummies." Why should we do your lot's homework for you?
Above, you got rather indignant/sarcastic at the idea that the creeping gnosticism implicit in your view was not "recognizably Christian." This, in my experience, is a common response. I take it a tacit concession, since presumably if your view were reconcilable with Christianity and my suggestion that it is not so demonstrably absurd, your response could easily show how that could be so, rather than simply laughing off the absurdity of such a suggestion.
Perhaps it would be edifying to take some time off from the discussion to find out what you are talking about before you spill forth your opinions on the basis of not much. I have to add on a personal note that some of the throwaway remarks you make are quite alarmingly thoughtless and crass, even by "reasserter" standards, and display a shocking lack of Christianity for one supposedly concerned with its preservation.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Out of 50 recent posts by Bran Stark, 23 are about homosexuality. Why this obsession?
The sort of stuff he writes is toxic to any gay people who are not self-assured and is likely to damage them if they take it seriously.
However, Bran Stark should not be taken seriously. On a 'favourite bible verse' thread in Heaven, he misquotes John 3:16, so anything he says about the teaching of the Bible is likely to be flawed.
Elsewhere, about prayer book revision, he says that he likes gloomy language. This does not sound to me to have the mark of a 'saved person' with 'blessed assurance'.
Most importantly of all, in my opinion, anyone who says that celibacy is the only option for gay people should be celibate themself. If Bran Stark is celibate, then his opinion might be worth listening to. I know quite a few celibates. Interestingly, none of them seek to impose it on to others. They see it as a personal calling to THEM and would not dream of advising others about THEIR callings.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
