|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Gay bishops in the C of E, but .....
|
|
|
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
quote:
He's only coming round to the current position anyway, gay relationships are ok as long as they're monogamous - no seeming mention of marriage...
The full piece is here.
He says plenty about marriage, but probably not what some people want him to say. The reaction to this from conservative evangelical friends of friends on facebook has been pretty hysterical sadly...
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
Wondering if heterosexuals will ever embrace monogamy for themselves ?
I guess not.
No day soon.
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
'I don't think a [sermon] is either prophetic or of much value if it is saying the world would be a better place if other people, not present and usually more important than we are, were different.'
as Enoch expressed it.
Wow. I'm deeply honoured that someone should remember something I said over three years ago and know where to find it - something incidentally I'd stand by to this day. Thank you.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Wondering if heterosexuals will ever embrace monogamy for themselves ?
I guess not.
No day soon.
Well, I have, and so (I think) have most married couples I know!
But perhaps you are mixing up monogamy with celibacy?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Wondering if heterosexuals will ever embrace monogamy for themselves ?
I guess not.
No day soon.
Well, I have, and so (I think) have most married couples I know!
But perhaps you are mixing up monogamy with celibacy?
No confusion. Straight society is not monogamous itself and then projects its stuff on to sexual minsorities.
Individuals such as you or I may be but I am talking about the way the whole thing works.
Think teens and young adults 'dating'.
Think so-called 'serial monogamy' (of say the middle aged) which is nothing of the sort.
Think divorce and what follows.
I think we all know from the culture around us that monogamy lifelong is the exception not the rule.
Just sayin
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Ask the BBC. I told them it was a non-story. They didn't agree.
That's because you were wrong.
Lifting the "moratorium" was always going to be a story. The only question was "how big a story?"
Handled competently, it would have been a minor blip and the bishops could have come out of it all relatively unscathed. But because the announcement was done obliquely to begin with and then handled with extreme incompetency, it blew up into something that the BBC ran with as its main story. End result? The bishops looked inept (because they were); the C of E looked pathetic (and deserved it) and many people just shook their heads in sorrow or disgust.
Sorry, pete. The House of Bishops screwed this up royally and I think you're trying to defend the indefensible.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
'I don't think a [sermon] is either prophetic or of much value if it is saying the world would be a better place if other people, not present and usually more important than we are, were different.'
as Enoch expressed it.
Wow. I'm deeply honoured that someone should remember something I said over three years ago and know where to find it - something incidentally I'd stand by to this day. Thank you.
I'm in the process of winding up to do research degree, and your quote is rather relevant to what I'm hoping to look at, so I recorded it at the time... I suspect it will end up in my thesis in the end - but that's a good few years off.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Leading Evangelical pastor of Oasis London embraces gay relationships, and announces it the Independent
Won't make much difference - most evangelicals think he is a dangerous liberal ever since he denied PSA.
Indeed - for many of us the two events are intimately linked: he's run from the Scriptural logic on one matter - now he abandoned the scriptural argument in favour of 'let's be nice to gays' - which actually is all that his argument comes down to at the end. Of course we all want to be 'nice' to gays - it's just that us conservatives believe that a sexualised gay relationship is an inherently bad thing. Unfortunately that message tends to get lost in a lot of real homophobia*, of which too many of us have been guilty.
----
* Real homophobia being defined as a rejection of a gay person purely because of their orientation, not because of their actions.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
* Real homophobia being defined as a rejection of a gay person purely because of their orientation, not because of their actions.
Which of course brings us back to the real reason this is a Dead Horse (too dead even for Tesco). According to you, then, homophobia is believing the only good gay is a dead gay; conservative non-homophobia is believing that the only good gay is a hypocrite. If you act against your orientation, against your God-given nature, then and only then you are acceptable to God. Which seems nonsensical to me.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
quote:
'let's be nice to gays' - which actually is all that his argument comes down to at the end
Does it though? I thought he explained at some length (quite a lot of length!) how and why his view had changed, and drawing parallels with views on women in leadership and slavery.
quote:
* Real homophobia being defined as a rejection of a gay person purely because of their orientation, not because of their actions.
And you get to define "real" homophobia why?!
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Leading Evangelical pastor of Oasis London embraces gay relationships, and announces it the Independent
Won't make much difference - most evangelicals think he is a dangerous liberal ever since he denied PSA.
Indeed - for many of us the two events are intimately linked: he's run from the Scriptural logic on one matter - now he abandoned the scriptural argument in favour of 'let's be nice to gays' - which actually is all that his argument comes down to at the end. Of course we all want to be 'nice' to gays - it's just that us conservatives believe that a sexualised gay relationship is an inherently bad thing. Unfortunately that message tends to get lost in a lot of real homophobia*, of which too many of us have been guilty.
----
* Real homophobia being defined as a rejection of a gay person purely because of their orientation, not because of their actions.
As a straight person, it is not for you to define homophobia because you will never be a victim of it. And what Angloid said.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Wondering if heterosexuals will ever embrace monogamy for themselves ?
I guess not.
No day soon.
Well, I have, and so (I think) have most married couples I know!
But perhaps you are mixing up monogamy with celibacy?
No confusion. Straight society is not monogamous itself and then projects its stuff on to sexual minsorities.
Individuals such as you or I may be but I am talking about the way the whole thing works.
Think teens and young adults 'dating'.
Think so-called 'serial monogamy' (of say the middle aged) which is nothing of the sort.
Think divorce and what follows.
I think we all know from the culture around us that monogamy lifelong is the exception not the rule.
Just sayin
Endorsing monogamy over non-monogamy is standard Christian belief and is not inherently homophobic (it can be when it is assumed that gay people are incapable of monogamy). I believe in monogamy over non-monogamy, but it has nothing to do with sexuality.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
We are trying to reinterpret God's opinions in light of the 21st century. God does not change his opinions. Sex outside marriage is not allowed.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Did anyone ever tell Solomon that?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
We are trying to reinterpret God's opinions in light of the 21st century. God does not change his opinions. Sex outside marriage is not allowed.
Well then gay marriage should be.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
quote:
We are trying to reinterpret God's opinions
What are they then?
quote:
God does not change his opinions.
Again, what are they? I'd also hope that my G-D is more than just some thing or person who has *opinions*.
quote:
Sex outside marriage is not allowed.
Says who? Where?
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Wondering if heterosexuals will ever embrace monogamy for themselves ?
I guess not.
No day soon.
Well, I have, and so (I think) have most married couples I know!
But perhaps you are mixing up monogamy with celibacy?
No confusion. Straight society is not monogamous itself and then projects its stuff on to sexual minsorities.
Individuals such as you or I may be but I am talking about the way the whole thing works.
Think teens and young adults 'dating'.
Think so-called 'serial monogamy' (of say the middle aged) which is nothing of the sort.
Think divorce and what follows.
I think we all know from the culture around us that monogamy lifelong is the exception not the rule.
Just sayin
Endorsing monogamy over non-monogamy is standard Christian belief and is not inherently homophobic (it can be when it is assumed that gay people are incapable of monogamy). I believe in monogamy over non-monogamy, but it has nothing to do with sexuality.
Very true.
I just notice that 'monogamy' is honoured in the breach, by churches, that is preached but not practiced. WHILE these churches talk and act, in ways that put all that burden of expectation on to lgbt.
Woman's Hour this morning had a very intersting piece in which 2 women spoke of their sex lives down the years. A number of others spoke of their lives and partners after they divorced or separated.
Can still be heard on-line I imagine.
LGBT have historically often had to go without sex or sexual loving due to the arrangements of societies down the centuries, including far-flung villages etc.
'standard Christian belief' in monogamy - 'one man and one woman for life' (that's it isn't it ?) is a 'belief' unpracticed, by a great many people, including many religious, clergy and popes, I am given to understand.
Genetic evidence also bears this out.
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
'As a straight person, it is not for you to define homophobia because you will never be a victim of it.'
This is absolutely right.
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Where on earth are you getting all this from?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Wondering if heterosexuals will ever embrace monogamy for themselves ?
I guess not.
No day soon.
Well, I have, and so (I think) have most married couples I know!
But perhaps you are mixing up monogamy with celibacy?
No confusion. Straight society is not monogamous itself and then projects its stuff on to sexual minsorities.
Individuals such as you or I may be but I am talking about the way the whole thing works.
Think teens and young adults 'dating'.
Think so-called 'serial monogamy' (of say the middle aged) which is nothing of the sort.
Think divorce and what follows.
I think we all know from the culture around us that monogamy lifelong is the exception not the rule.
Just sayin
Endorsing monogamy over non-monogamy is standard Christian belief and is not inherently homophobic (it can be when it is assumed that gay people are incapable of monogamy). I believe in monogamy over non-monogamy, but it has nothing to do with sexuality.
Very true.
I just notice that 'monogamy' is honoured in the breach, by churches, that is preached but not practiced. WHILE these churches talk and act, in ways that put all that burden of expectation on to lgbt.
Woman's Hour this morning had a very intersting piece in which 2 women spoke of their sex lives down the years. A number of others spoke of their lives and partners after they divorced or separated.
Can still be heard on-line I imagine.
LGBT have historically often had to go without sex or sexual loving due to the arrangements of societies down the centuries, including far-flung villages etc.
'standard Christian belief' in monogamy - 'one man and one woman for life' (that's it isn't it ?) is a 'belief' unpracticed, by a great many people, including many religious, clergy and popes, I am given to understand.
Genetic evidence also bears this out.
Oh, absolutely. The attitudes of con-evos towards LGBTQ people and to divorce would certainly suggest that heterosexual non-monogamy is fine with a lot of them, so long as those icky gays don't get to do it too - but then, the issue is not with monogamy but with those people.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Where on earth are you getting all this from?
I'm not sure what this refers to, but if it's referring to monogamy - lots of Christians who object to homosexual sexual activity seem not to object nearly as strongly to divorce and heterosexual non-monogamy. On a well-known anti-fundie board I read, there is speculation that polygyny would be considered by some fundamentalists* for this reason.
*by fundamentalists, I don't mean conservatives, I mean those Christians who do not let their children leave home until they marry or let their women wear trousers
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Yes, I suppose so. It's not a world I'm familiar with, I'm glad to say. I think - I can't know- that most of the married people I know take their vows pretty seriously and if they have divorced and remarried it's because they do, perhaps inconsistently but genuinely, believe in monogamy for life and wanted to have another go at achieving it.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, I suppose so. It's not a world I'm familiar with, I'm glad to say. I think - I can't know- that most of the married people I know take their vows pretty seriously and if they have divorced and remarried it's because they do, perhaps inconsistently but genuinely, believe in monogamy for life and wanted to have another go at achieving it.
You can't really repeat 'monogamy for life' and still call it 'monogamy' can you ? Callling it monogamy, while trying to call the shots to lgbt is something to which I am objecting.
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, I suppose so. It's not a world I'm familiar with, I'm glad to say. I think - I can't know- that most of the married people I know take their vows pretty seriously and if they have divorced and remarried it's because they do, perhaps inconsistently but genuinely, believe in monogamy for life and wanted to have another go at achieving it.
You can't really repeat 'monogamy for life' and still call it 'monogamy' can you ? Callling it monogamy, while trying to call the shots to lgbt is something to which I am objecting.
I don't think it's true to say that straight people who end up divorced don't take their marriage vows seriously or that it's not monogamy. People divorce for all sorts of reasons, not just sexual infidelity. I agree with you about the kind of hypocrites who rail against homosexuality but marry and divorce many times, but not all who practice serial monogamy fit into that mould. In fact, I would say that even amongst Christians, it's not the majority. You can take your marriage vows seriously and still end up divorced, unfortunately.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aelred of Rievaulx
Shipmate
# 16860
|
Posted
Albertus says: quote:
Yes, I suppose so. It's not a world I'm familiar with, I'm glad to say. I think - I can't know- that most of the married people I know take their vows pretty seriously and if they have divorced and remarried it's because they do, perhaps inconsistently but genuinely, believe in monogamy for life and wanted to have another go at achieving it.
I can't believe the irony here. LGBT peope can't even give their vows one shot, let alone several! And some of us would take our same-sex vows extremely seriously. How can heteros be so hypocritical?
--------------------
In friendship are joined honor and charm, truth and joy, sweetness and good-will, affection and action. And all these take their beginning from Christ, advance through Christ, and are perfected in Christ.
Posts: 136 | From: English Midlands | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
Albertus says: quote:
Yes, I suppose so. It's not a world I'm familiar with, I'm glad to say. I think - I can't know- that most of the married people I know take their vows pretty seriously and if they have divorced and remarried it's because they do, perhaps inconsistently but genuinely, believe in monogamy for life and wanted to have another go at achieving it.
I can't believe the irony here. LGBT peope can't even give their vows one shot, let alone several! And some of us would take our same-sex vows extremely seriously. How can heteros be so hypocritical?
Gay people who marry still divorce. Monogamy or the lack of it has nothing to do with sexuality. Obviously those straight people who object to SSM on 'Biblical' grounds but marry and divorce are hypocrites, but many straight divorcees have no objection to SSM at all.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]Oh, absolutely. The attitudes of con-evos towards LGBTQ people and to divorce would certainly suggest that heterosexual non-monogamy is fine with a lot of them, so long as those icky gays don't get to do it too ...
Where on earth do you get that one from? I have been in Con Evo circles for over 30 years and have never come across it. Especially today most con evos are looking to teach and live "Eros Redeemed" - that is to discover or rediscover God's intention for human sexuality.
It is a part of God's creation to be enjoyed within a committed and publicly recognised relationship. Call it marriage and call it monogamy if you will. For some that can only be expressed in sexual activity between a man and woman. others (in con evo circles) take the view that same sex rlaionships are permissible but on the same monogamous and recognised basis as hetersexual ones.
Nowhere have I seen nor have I ever heard the hypocrisy you ascribe to Con Evos. It doesn't help the cause to peddle tribal arguments because it just isn't true - just as not all camp A-C priests are actively gay.
By the way, to pick up our conversation on another thread the PC) one, I find the term "straight" as obnoxious as you'd find "homosexual" or "bent" (which seems to be the opposite).
[ 17. January 2013, 07:41: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
'standard Christian belief' in monogamy - 'one man and one woman for life' (that's it isn't it ?) is a 'belief' unpracticed, by a great many people, including many religious, clergy and popes, I am given to understand.
Genetic evidence also bears this out.
Why should that (on its own at least) invalidate the 'standard Christian belief', though? Because some Christians tell lies, does that mean we should likewise abandon striving for truth?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
By the way, to pick up our conversation on another thread the PC) one, I find the term "straight" as obnoxious as you'd find "homosexual" or "bent" (which seems to be the opposite).
Uh? Why on earth would you find such a straightforward description obnoxious? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
And more interestingly, what would you prefer to be called?
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I prefer 'straight' to 'hetero', FWIW. I'm not sure how else to define my sexuality.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Of course we all want to be 'nice' to gays - it's just that us conservatives believe that a sexualised gay relationship is an inherently bad thing.
So would you be ok with the Church blessing a gay couples relationship as long as they vow to be celibate?
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
glockenspiel
Shipmate
# 13645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Leading Evangelical pastor of Oasis London embraces gay relationships, and announces it the Independent
Won't make much difference - most evangelicals think he is a dangerous liberal ever since he denied PSA.
- it's just that us conservatives believe that a sexualised gay relationship is an inherently bad thing.
Why?
Posts: 1258 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Leading Evangelical pastor of Oasis London embraces gay relationships, and announces it the Independent
Won't make much difference - most evangelicals think he is a dangerous liberal ever since he denied PSA.
Surely it'll make a difference in the sense that gay evangelicals in London now know that there's an evangelical church they can attend without being in the closet. And this church may plant others. I know of a coupls of 'Oasis' churches in my city, and I'm wondering if they teach the same thing.
I don't suppose it'll convince all other evangelicals, but why should it? Different churches teach different things. There's probably an unmet demand for gay-affirming evangelical churches, so perhaps the numbers will grow a bit as the concept becomes more familiar.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Doesn't it represent some kind of trend towards acceptance of gay marriage, and in fact, gays? I thought the recent election in the US showed that whereas gay marriage used to be toxic, it had changed, and Obama was able to speak in favour. The usual nexus between the right wing and the evangelical movement seemed to have lost its impetus. When countries like Spain have legalized gay marriage, which used to be spoken of as one of the most Catholic in Europe, something is going on.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Spain has a strong anti-clerical streak, so I understand. Perhaps that's where the push for gay marriage came from.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, good point. None the less, I think there must be a current moving in that direction. When the conservatives got back in power, they said they would abide by the decision of the Constitutional Court, which I guess is a sort of Supreme Court, which then ruled in favour of ssm. Technically, it could be rescinded in the future, but it seems unlikely now.
I think many of the arguments used by opponents are just incomprehensible to many people, e.g. the natural law arguments, the idea that God instituted marriage and so on. I think the UK is too secularized now for those arguments to wash.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think many of the arguments used by opponents are just incomprehensible to many people, e.g. the natural law arguments, the idea that God instituted marriage and so on. I think the UK is too secularized now for those arguments to wash.
In an increasingly non-Christian world, yes the arguments do not hold any sway, butt he other problem those arguments ahve is that they are all so unsteady and too easy to disprove.
The only argument that might stand in the way is procreation, but nobody believes that procreation is the reason for, nor main purpose of, marriage.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The other issue for me is that many of these arguments seem riven by the is/ought fallacy. Thus, because something occurs in nature, does that mean it ought to occur?
Thus, the arguments that men have dicks, and women have handy receptacles for them, seems to lead on to a moral consequence - that we ought therefore to insert one into the other, and that is the basis of marriage. Where does the 'ought' come from? From God, I suppose.
Of course, men also have a handy receptacle, but that is 'ought not'. (Well, so do women of course, so you have multiple choice here).
This kind of argument is not going to work in a secular culture.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The other issue for me is that many of these arguments seem riven by the is/ought fallacy. Thus, because something occurs in nature, does that mean it ought to occur?
Thus, the arguments that men have dicks, and women have handy receptacles for them, seems to lead on to a moral consequence - that we ought therefore to insert one into the other, and that is the basis of marriage. Where does the 'ought' come from? From God, I suppose.
Of course, men also have a handy receptacle, but that is 'ought not'. (Well, so do women of course, so you have multiple choice here).
This kind of argument is not going to work in a secular culture.
It doesn't really work in the theological either. Since we infer what the end intended by God is from nature in the main, if it happens in nature it is quite possible to make the claim that it is an acceptable good for that thing... i never could get my head around the idea of 'hacking a system' since if it were 'hacking a system' it wouldn't be so damn easy to do...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes. Well, the gay Christian can simply say, I was made by God, with these desires. Well, OK, there is a reply to that, which I suppose says that you were also told that satisfying those desires is wrong, because men's willies have their rightful place, intended by God. Bottoms were intended for other things. It's hard to take this stuff seriously now.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
glockenspiel
Shipmate
# 13645
|
Posted
Maybe it would be easier to list those sexual acts which all of us would count as 'inherently wrong', and then identify what makes them so?
Does secular society have parameters enabling us to do this, beyond that which happens to be illegal?
Posts: 1258 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think buggering your mother-in-law is definitely in bad taste; not sure if it's 'wrong'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think buggering your mother-in-law is definitely in bad taste; not sure if it's 'wrong'.
Given that Paul does his nut about a member of the Corinthian church (1 Cor 5) having a sexual relationship with his step mother, I suspect it probably is wrong. And of course we've crossed the border into 'adultery' territory here, given that having a mother in law implies having a wife...
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]Oh, absolutely. The attitudes of con-evos towards LGBTQ people and to divorce would certainly suggest that heterosexual non-monogamy is fine with a lot of them, so long as those icky gays don't get to do it too ...
Where on earth do you get that one from? I have been in Con Evo circles for over 30 years and have never come across it. Especially today most con evos are looking to teach and live "Eros Redeemed" - that is to discover or rediscover God's intention for human sexuality.
It is a part of God's creation to be enjoyed within a committed and publicly recognised relationship. Call it marriage and call it monogamy if you will. For some that can only be expressed in sexual activity between a man and woman. others (in con evo circles) take the view that same sex rlaionships are permissible but on the same monogamous and recognised basis as hetersexual ones.
Nowhere have I seen nor have I ever heard the hypocrisy you ascribe to Con Evos. It doesn't help the cause to peddle tribal arguments because it just isn't true - just as not all camp A-C priests are actively gay.
By the way, to pick up our conversation on another thread the PC) one, I find the term "straight" as obnoxious as you'd find "homosexual" or "bent" (which seems to be the opposite).
I've absolutely seen a casual attitude to divorce while being hardline on homosexuality amongst con-evos, mostly in US megachurches but also elsewhere. I don't quite understand the comparison to camp A-C priests though?
Also, I apologise if you find 'straight' offensive. What would you prefer?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I've absolutely seen a casual attitude to divorce while being hardline on homosexuality amongst con-evos...
I have to agree with Jade on this one ExclamationMark. All Churches are guilty to some degree of relaxing the rules on one thing and being as strict on other things still.
It is however, I think, part of the challenege Churches find themselves in today where divorced people do make up a small, but not insignificant part of society (...and yes we should be grateful that the divorce rate is coming down in the UK - but I wonder if this has more to do with the dramatic fall in marriage rates as opposed to anything else...) and therefore need to be considered in any Churches approach to pastoral and missionary work.
As for:
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Maybe it would be easier to list those sexual acts which all of us would count as 'inherently wrong', and then identify what makes them so?
Does secular society have parameters enabling us to do this, beyond that which happens to be illegal?
Secular society tends to have parameters that are conformed to an understanding of:
1. public decency,
2. public outrage and disgust
3. the idea of harm to oneself and to others.
In example then beastiality, (on grounds of decency and disgust - intra-species relationships are ok, inter-species are not ok) and paedophilia, (on the grounds of outrage and harm to others,) are out.
Incest is out because it does harm to those that might result from such a relationship.
I don't know if society has any other determinants that inform it's decision making in regards to relationships but I would have said that those three were probably the base components. This is of course all dependent on a suitable form of government that listens and understands its people and then enforces those rules that the society at large deems to be right and wrong.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
glockenspiel
Shipmate
# 13645
|
Posted
Do the 'God Squad' have anything useful to add to the above points???
Posts: 1258 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think also that in a patriarchal society, certain rules were/are common - for example, female sexuality has to be tightly controlled, often via strictures on virginity and fidelity. This seems to connect with property and inheritance - men wanted to know that their children were really theirs, so women had to be controlled.
This led in the UK to coverture, whereby women actually lost their legal identity.
Patriarchy also tends to condemn homosexuality, since the ideal male is virile, war-like, aggressive, and above all, fertile, producing loads of kids.
The counter-example to this is the 'third gender' in some societies, who were/are permitted to wear women's clothes, and do female tasks, and possibly have sex with men. For example, still found in Samoa and India. It's all very complicated.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
