|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why is Evangelicalism associated with homophobia?
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The affirmations of the Pastoral Responses to Homosexuality report make interesting reading, and certainly don't represent a virulent homophobia
Nope, the 'affirmations' you link to are pretty strongly anti-gay, so I would regard them as a thousand percent unacceptable on grounds of homophobia.
Just because yours in the first response to my post. Hopefully I'll address in passing most of the subsequent points.
I did say I found that report inadequate in not going as far as I would like. It forms part of the reason why I have not renewed my EA membership for several years. However, I stand by my claim that there is a lot in there that would be a lot further than many evangelicals would want to go, and as such represents a step (albeit a small one) in the right direction. Whether the EA takes further steps in coming years I doubt, partly because so many of the Evangelicals and Evangelical groups who would want to go further have probably given up on the EA, so the end of the evangelical spectrum that would pull in the direction I would like to see is not as strong within the EA as it was only a few years ago.
I never claimed there weren't homophobes within the EA, there clearly are. My point was that the document produced by the EA had sufficient not too bad statements that they're clearly trying to include the non-homophobic evangelicals, ie: it is further evidence that evangelicals (even within the relatively conservative EA) are not all homophobes, despite how the media might want to portray us.
Some of the bits of that document that are much better than might have been expected include:
quote:
1. We recognise that all of us are sinners, and that the only true hope for sinful people – whatever our sexuality – is in Jesus Christ. Our earnest prayer is that his love, truth and grace would characterise evangelical responses to debates on homosexuality, both now and in future.
2. We affirm God's love and concern for all human beings, whatever their sexuality, and so repudiate all attitudes and actions which victimise or diminish people whose affections are directed towards people of the same sex. We are encouraged many Christians now recognise and deeply regret the hurt caused by past and present failures in their responses to those who experience same-sex attraction.
Which directly attacks the "we're better than you" attitude of too many of the anti-gay factions in evangelicalism.
quote:
4. We encourage evangelical congregations to be communities of grace in which those who experience same-sex attraction and seek to live faithfully in accordance with biblical teaching are welcomed and affirmed. Such Christians need churches which are safe spaces where they are able to share and explore their stories with fellow believers for mutual encouragement and support as we help each other grow together into maturity in Christ.
I don't think anyone would want churches to be anything other than a safe space for anyone. I agree this could be a problematic phrase if you read it with certain assumptions about "biblical teaching" on the subject of sexuality. Of course, if you approach it with a view that biblical teaching is not clear on the subject (indeed that the usual "proof texts" are irrelevant to the contemporary questions of sexuality) and therefore more general statements about how we relate to each other (love your neighbours as yourself etc) take precedence then the focus of the clause changes dramatically. Because, based on biblical teaching, the clause affirms loving, committed, monogamous marriage regardless of the gender of the partners. Though the context of the rest of the document doesn't really allow that interpretation.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
1. We recognise that all of us are sinners, and that the only true hope for sinful people – whatever our sexuality – is in Jesus Christ. Our earnest prayer is that his love, truth and grace would characterise evangelical responses to debates on homosexuality, both now and in future.
2. We affirm God's love and concern for all human beings, whatever their sexuality, and so repudiate all attitudes and actions which victimise or diminish people whose affections are directed towards people of the same sex. We are encouraged many Christians now recognise and deeply regret the hurt caused by past and present failures in their responses to those who experience same-sex attraction.
Which directly attacks the "we're better than you" attitude of too many of the anti-gay factions in evangelicalism.
Which would be more convincing if the rest of the list wasn't composed of ways that "we're better than you". Again, I think it's helpful if we ask whether we'd consider it racist if these kinds of distinctions were made on racial grounds. For example:
quote:
3. We affirm that marriage is an institution created by God in which one [white] man and one [white] woman enter into an exclusive relationship for life. Marriage is the only form of partnership approved by God for sexual relations and [inter-racial and non-white] sexual practice is incompatible with His will as revealed in Scripture. We do not accept that holding these theological and ethical views on biblical grounds is in itself [racist].
Saying "God approves of us but not you" is all about asserting "we're better than you".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's precisely conversations like this that make me sympathetic towards someone like Kaplan Corday. The reaction he's getting is frankly quite embarrassing to me. If someone is complaining about homosexuals engaging in cheap verbal shots, you do not prove him wrong by engaging in cheap verbal shots. And cheap shots, it seems to me, are coming from a variety of sources.
I am treating Alan Cresswell very differently from Kaplan Corday because the two cases are different. Alan I believe to be a fundamentally decent person who simply isn't looking around him and seeing what those he aligns himself with are saying. I'm trying to not leave him anywhere to hide because I believe that he is fundamentally a decent person who can be engaged with and is passing on inaccurate information.
Kaplan Corday on the other hand I do not believe can be truly engaged with on an internet message board. His excuse for his beliefs is the Phelps Excuse. That his theology says to do something and therefore he must do it - meaning that he does not himself have moral reasoning outside his theology - or if he does then he stops listening to the voice of his conscience when his theology disagrees. (I believe the thing to do at that point is stop listening to your theology and reassess it). His position is therefore not open to engagement as the only way to change it would be to completely burn the theology down - and that's beyond the scope of message board posting. He also doesn't produce such ... interesting and intensely logical posts as IngoB that are frequently worth reading if only to find where the bedrock assumptions are wrong and how people can get there.
So what is the purpose of engaging with his posts? The audience. Kaplan Corday explicitly states that "homosexual practice ... is unacceptable" (link provided in part so others can confirm that this abridged quote is a fair reflection of what he is saying). Kaplan Corday is happy to say that things are unacceptable. This is one of the tools in his box and that of his church. Yet for some reason he objects to sauce for the goose becoming sauce for the gander. His stated belief that homosexual practice is unacceptable is itself unacceptable. And this is why, I believe, he objects to the word homophobia - it underscores that the beliefs he subscribes to and preaches are unacceptable. Which is precisely what he does say about others.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I never claimed there weren't homophobes within the EA, there clearly are. My point was that the document produced by the EA had sufficient not too bad statements that they're clearly trying to include the non-homophobic evangelicals,
That entire single page document should, in my opinion, be taken as a whole rather than proof texted/quote mined to take the individual sub-statements out of context. That's a curate's egg of a statement.
quote:
ie: it is further evidence that evangelicals (even within the relatively conservative EA) are not all homophobes, despite how the media might want to portray us.
Really? Given that the document itself is homophobic, it's lending evidence to the idea that the media presentation is accurate. You do not get to pick and choose from a document like that.
quote:
Some of the bits of that document that are much better than might have been expected include:
...
quote:
4. We encourage evangelical congregations to be communities of grace in which those who experience same-sex attraction and seek to live faithfully in accordance with biblical teaching are welcomed and affirmed. Such Christians need churches which are safe spaces where they are able to share and explore their stories with fellow believers for mutual encouragement and support as we help each other grow together into maturity in Christ.
4, however, needs to be taken in conjunction with 10.
quote:
10. We encourage evangelical congregations to welcome and accept sexually active lesbians and gay men. However, they should do so in the expectation that they, like all of us who are living outside God's purposes, will come in due course to see the need to be transformed and live in accordance with biblical revelation and orthodox church teaching. We urge gentleness, patience and ongoing pastoral care during this process and after a person renounces same-sex sexual relations.
10: If they are genuinely Christians then their homosexual activity will stop pretty soon. (And by 9 they should be thrown out of the church if it doesn't).
Which means that the two combine to say "We welcome a safe space for ex-gays to share their testimony".
quote:
I agree this could be a problematic phrase if you read it with certain assumptions about "biblical teaching" on the subject of sexuality.
You mean biblical teachings that suggest that being a sexually active lesbian or gay man is being outside God's purpose? (Point 10). Or biblical teachings that "Marriage is the only form of partnership approved by God for sexual relations and homoerotic sexual practice is incompatible with His will as revealed in Scripture" (Point 3).
quote:
Of course, if you approach it with a view that biblical teaching is not clear on the subject
... then you need to dissent from point 3 which states in so many words that "homoerotic sexual practice is incompatible with His will as revealed in Scripture"
quote:
Though the context of the rest of the document doesn't really allow that interpretation.
Indeed. The context of the rest of the document explicitly deniess that interpretation.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't think it necessarily follows that promoting high standards of sexual behaviour equates with being opposed to homosexual behaviour. Indeed, I know of some gay Christian groups that take the line that while sexuality is not a choice, sexual morality is and that homosexuals ought to have the same high standards of sexual behaviour as heterosexuals.
But of course, such a position requires taking the view that homosexual behaviour is not, in and of itself, a falling below standard and a departure from a heterosexual norm.
Do these evangelicals expect gay church members to remain celibate until marriage? Many gay people would presumably have no interest in inheriting such a conservative and 'straight' view of relationships, even if they see SSM as something worth fighting for.
The ongoing public assumption that SSM is a way of defying conservatism makes the job of pro-SSM evangelicals harder, because religion is an essentially conservative force, even when combined with theological liberalism. Lots has been said about love, tolerance, freedom, etc. regarding SSM, but maybe what unconvinced evangelicals need to hear is how it bolsters uprightness, piety, self-restraint and responsibility - things which are often claimed for marriages between Christian straight couples.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Alan I believe to be a fundamentally decent person who simply isn't looking around him and seeing what those he aligns himself with are saying.
I align with evangelicals. And, I'm aware of, and disgusted by, what many evangelicals are saying. My point is that not all evangelicals are saying the same thing. I no longer align myself with the EA, their views on homosexuality being part of the reason for that. My point is that there are (or, maybe were a couple of years ago) members of the EA who were saying things on the subject of homosexuality that I agree with. And, although the statement we're discussing does not say what I would say, it's not as bad as it would have been without the members who dissent from the majority view.
I've said it before, but it may be worth repeating. The EA seems to be moving from an alliance of representatives of the full breadth of evangelicalism to an alliance of representatives of conservative evangelicals. Which is something I find profoundly sad, as it marks what might be a definite split in UK evangelicalism - which after surviving disputes over issues such as the nature of the Holy Spirit (eg: does He currently act in the church in presenting specific messages via prophecy and tongues?) it's disturbing that the issue that causes division is secondary, and not even hinted at in the core statements of evangelical belief around which the EA is supposed to identify.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'm going to step into this thread tentatively to see where I've got to.
The last time I was in DH I was discussion the French Protestant Federation's stance on the (now-passed) gay marriage law here in France. My mind has changed several times over this issue, not least by views expressed here - and also, as importantly for me, by how they were expressed.
All I'll say about my stance for now is that I could not be a member of the EA, or of many other evangelical organisations, because of their anti-gay stance and the disingenuous language in which it is couched. Off the Ship, I get into trouble for being perceived as pro-gay. I've never got into trouble the other way.
Now in an attempt to address the question in the OP:
It seems to me that sexual orientation is a profoundly emotive issue because it is so bound up with identity - particularly, I would venture to suggest, for those in a minority orientation.
What I haven't noticed yet in this thread is a recognition that for many evangelicals, their evangelical faith, homophobia and all, is similarly inextricably bound up with their identity.
Having the right doctrine and practice in this matter is not perceived by them in terms of mere theology, but (rightly or wrongly) in terms of eternal destination*. Evangelicals' reluctance to change their stance on this may not just be about vested interests but about them feeling affronted in their identity in a similar way to gays feeling affronted that they cannot enjoy the same family structure as straights.
*ETA: specific beliefs being a key functional component of salvation in evangelicalism, as opposed to, say, simply being a member of a particular church
[ 28. June 2014, 21:03: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The EA seems to be moving from an alliance of representatives of the full breadth of evangelicalism to an alliance of representatives of conservative evangelicals. Which is something I find profoundly sad, as it marks what might be a definite split in UK evangelicalism.
Looking at it another way, it might enable the non-conservatives to align themselves with Christians who are closer to the centre, people who might possibly identify as open evangelicals, but whose churches were never as theologically uniform as to be in the EA.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What I haven't noticed yet in this thread is a recognition that for many evangelicals, their evangelical faith, homophobia and all, is similarly inextricably bound up with their identity.
As a matter of fact this is exactly my understanding of Kaplan Corday and why I've been treating him the way I have. This, combined with a maltheistic belief in hell (which, as far as I know he holds), makes him utterly unreachable from anywhere I stand. Therefore all I can do is use him as an example for others.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Alan I believe to be a fundamentally decent person who simply isn't looking around him and seeing what those he aligns himself with are saying.
I align with evangelicals. And, I'm aware of, and disgusted by, what many evangelicals are saying. My point is that not all evangelicals are saying the same thing.
And mine is that the leaders are saying the same thing. It's not Fred Phelps and Stephen Green that are the people considered representative of Evangelical Homophobia. It's the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, probably the most influential English-speaking Evangelical theologian this century, and the Evangelical Alliance.
You stand alongside and defend Evangelical Christians. Evangelical Christians en masse support and empower homophobic bigots to speak for them. You therefore stand alongside and defend people happy to have homophobic bigots speaking for them.
And when a leader among Evangelical Christians does break from the party line what happens? Ask Steve Chalke (or others). While you personally provide covering fire - as you did in your first post in this thread.
I know you're better than that, Alan. Do better, please?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The EA seems to be moving from an alliance of representatives of the full breadth of evangelicalism to an alliance of representatives of conservative evangelicals. Which is something I find profoundly sad, as it marks what might be a definite split in UK evangelicalism.
Looking at it another way, it might enable the non-conservatives to align themselves with Christians who are closer to the centre, people who might possibly identify as open evangelicals, but whose churches were never as theologically uniform as to be in the EA.
I, for one, hope so. And that a split like this will give somewhere for non-homophobic evangelical Christians to go so they aren't aligning on tribal grounds with a group of homophobes.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What I haven't noticed yet in this thread is a recognition that for many evangelicals, their evangelical faith, homophobia and all, is similarly inextricably bound up with their identity.
As a matter of fact this is exactly my understanding of Kaplan Corday and why I've been treating him the way I have. This, combined with a maltheistic belief in hell (which, as far as I know he holds), makes him utterly unreachable from anywhere I stand. Therefore all I can do is use him as an example for others.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Alan I believe to be a fundamentally decent person who simply isn't looking around him and seeing what those he aligns himself with are saying.
I align with evangelicals. And, I'm aware of, and disgusted by, what many evangelicals are saying. My point is that not all evangelicals are saying the same thing.
And mine is that the leaders are saying the same thing. It's not Fred Phelps and Stephen Green that are the people considered representative of Evangelical Homophobia. It's the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, probably the most influential English-speaking Evangelical theologian this century, and the Evangelical Alliance.
You stand alongside and defend Evangelical Christians. Evangelical Christians en masse support and empower homophobic bigots to speak for them. You therefore stand alongside and defend people happy to have homophobic bigots speaking for them.
And when a leader among Evangelical Christians does break from the party line what happens? Ask Steve Chalke (or others). While you personally provide covering fire - as you did in your first post in this thread.
I know you're better than that, Alan. Do better, please?
hosting
This line of posting is getting far too personal towards others and needs to stop at once.
quote:
4. If you must get personal, take it to Hell
If you want to make disparaging comments about other posters, then you know where the Hell board is. Don't do it here. This thread is not for your personal opinions on other posters.
Louise
Dead horses Host
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Homophobia, if you want to take a literal etymological approach, ought to be fear of all things or people homo .
But homo does not mean homosexual, it's only half the word and it means 'the same' or 'similar', as in homonyms, homophones or homogenize. So literally, homophobia ought to mean fear of things that are the same. A literal homophobe would avoid wearing matching socks or talking to twins. They would seek out diversity.
I suspect that, sticking with the literal etymological approach, evangelicals are actually inclined to be heterophobic. All sub groups tend by definition to be like-minded people seeking each other's company, but I think that for evangelicals being surrounded by self-affirming sameness is more important, and that diversity feels more undermining, than it does to other brands of Christianity.
Evangelicals feel strengthened by their alliances, and warmed by strong leaders who can unite them. Common enemies, whether heresies, pro-gay people, liberals or communists, also help to confirm the sense of unity. I agree with those who think that sexuality just happens to be a litmus topic at the moment. It will be something else before long.
When a common enemy issue starts to become divisive, as the sexuality question has, then I think it creates real pain. Some people continue to want to emphasise sexuality in order to strengthen unity, loyalty and common cause, only to find that it is causing fracture and weakness. That hurts.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I stand by my claim that there is a lot in there that would be a lot further than many evangelicals would want to go, and as such represents a step (albeit a small one) in the right direction.
That claim surprises me. I feel like the statements are accurately summarized as "be anti-gay in every way, but be slightly nice about it."
My assessment would thus be (speaking from ~20 years experience of numerous evangelical groups) that there is nothing in those affirmations that the staunchest most fundamentalist anti-gay evangelical (short of actually crazy people like Fred Phelps) would have any reason whatsoever to disagree with. Statement 9 particularly horrifies me - that they think kicking people out of churches for being gay is valid - that's on the very extreme end of anti-gay evangelicalism.
quote:
Some of the bits of that document that are much better than might have been expected include:
"1. We recognise that all of us are sinners, and that the only true hope for sinful people – whatever our sexuality – is in Jesus Christ."
That's the gospel (according to evangelicals anyway). So hardly a step forward or better than expected. Let's imagine they inserted an entire gospel sermon into the beginning of their affirmations... then there would be much you could agree with in there, but it wouldn't make the content of the bits that actually spoke about gay people any less anti-gay.
quote:
"Our earnest prayer is that his love, truth and grace would characterise evangelical responses to debates on homosexuality, both now and in future."
Replace "homosexuality" with the word "everything" in that statement and all evangelicals would sign it. That's just a basic statement that they are always happy to give lip-service to, because basically it's saying "Christians should behave Christianly".
quote:
2. We affirm God's love and concern for all human beings, whatever their sexuality, and so repudiate all attitudes and actions which victimise or diminish people whose affections are directed towards people of the same sex. We are encouraged many Christians now recognise and deeply regret the hurt caused by past and present failures in their responses to those who experience same-sex attraction.
Well that is a nice thing to say. And I 100% grant you that that those words are a looot nicer than what usually is said by evangelical groups about gay people. However those are just nice words and nothing else, as the rest of the affirmations make abundantly clear. Expressing God's love and concern for all is just talking more pious sounding Christianese, so of course everyone will agree. And saying that (other) Christians have done some bad things in the past is part and parcel of believing everyone to be sinners anyway, and plays into an all-to-common hypocritical and judgmental background narrative that people have of personally believing that other people are worse sinners than you yourself are. I feel like whoever wrote this is probably patting themselves on the back for cleverly making it sound like they are nice to gay people, and feeling like they've done a great job of essentially whitewashing the tomb to make it look attractive for the media.
quote:
4. We encourage evangelical congregations to be communities of grace in which those who experience same-sex attraction and seek to live faithfully in accordance with biblical teaching are welcomed and affirmed. Such Christians need churches which are safe spaces where they are able to share and explore their stories with fellow believers for mutual encouragement and support as we help each other grow together into maturity in Christ.
The extreme limitations on this affirmation are made clear by points 8 and 9 which undermine almost everything that point 4 says, as you yourself seem to realize in your own analysis. Points 8 and 9 make clear that churches are only to be welcoming to ex-gays and for gays who are willing to be subjected to invasive ministries designed to remove gayness.
The incredible and life-destroying damage done to gay people worldwide by Christian ministries that seek to change the way gay people behave, and which are subsequently opposed worldwide by nearly every profession medical and psychological organisation who have testify in courts and to many parliaments about the dangers of such approaches, gives the lie to "safe space". It's a "safe space" in the same kind of way the electric chair is a safe space.
As far as being welcoming to ex-gays goes, I've never heard anyone suggest that the church shouldn't welcome ex-gays, so I don't see this as a "step forward" in any way, just business as usual. Part and parcel of the gospel is that repentance and faith are possible, so obviously people who have rejected gayness and found Jesus have to be welcomed.
quote:
I don't think anyone would want churches to be anything other than a safe space for anyone.
Agreed. And, as it stands, evangelical churches are simply not safe spaces for gay people. So I would strongly counsel any gay person I knew not to attend one, because it isn't safe.
quote:
I agree this could be a problematic phrase if you read it with certain assumptions about "biblical teaching" on the subject of sexuality. Of course, if you approach it with a view that biblical teaching is not clear on the subject... Though the context of the rest of the document doesn't really allow that interpretation.
Exactly. The rest of the document provides very clear guidelines for interpretation about what point 4 is and isn't meaning about safe spaces.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What I haven't noticed yet in this thread is a recognition that for many evangelicals, their evangelical faith, homophobia and all, is similarly inextricably bound up with their identity.
As a matter of fact this is exactly my understanding of Kaplan Corday and why I've been treating him the way I have. This, combined with a maltheistic belief in hell (which, as far as I know he holds), makes him utterly unreachable from anywhere I stand. Therefore all I can do is use him as an example for others.
See you in Hell, cupcake.
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Justinian, Croeos and others - would you say it is homophobic to believe that same-sex activity is wrong? Not wishing to ban it, or to treat people any differently based on who they choose to have sex with, but just believing it is not approved of by God.
I'm reminded of the man temporarily dubbed "The Most Racist Pastor In America".
quote:
Hybreeding, hybreeding, oh, how terrible, hybreeding. What white woman would want her baby to be mulatto, made by a colored man? Let’s stay the way God made us. I believe it’s right.
Pastor Reagan didn't express any desire to enforce his views via the law, yet I can't think of any way the descriptor "racist" doesn't apply. The same reasoning would seem to apply to homophobia. Hating others is less problematic if you're not trying to use the law to enforce your bigotry, but it's still hate.
For those arguing the semantics of the term "homophobia": Would you prefer to use the term "anti-gay bigotry"?
Thanks, Crœsos (and sorry for the extensive quote - necessary for the context, I'm thinking). Yes, I take your point but do you think it's possible for there to be no hate (your word) in the expression of the view that same-gender sexual activity is never within God's will? No hate, merely a quiet belief, perhaps only shared with others when the subject comes up, that God intends sexual activity to be only between a married opposite-gender couple.
On your quote from the fragrant Mr Reagan, I'm rather thinking of views expressed in more measured, gentle terms. Comments like his - 'What white woman would want her baby to be mulatto, made by a colored man?' - with the apparent incredulity that anyone could believe differently to him on this issue, are not what I had in mind!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
No hate, merely a quiet belief, perhaps only shared with others when the subject comes up,
Well, kinda no. Do you think all the opponents of SSM hate gay people? Or think they should be treated differently? But some of those people still voted for anti-SSM legislation, or did not speak out against it. In the same way not everyone who believed/believes black people are inferior hates them.
It is not that your quiet believers do not exist, but that they have impact even if they are completely silent.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do you think all the opponents of SSM hate gay people?
To me that's the really weird thing about this whole issue. Opposition to gay rights is demonstrably harmful to gay people. And so it is tempting to assume that the people bringing harm to gay people must hate them, because well, if someone's harming someone else then we don't normally assume they're doing it because they love them!
But in my observation, Christian opposition to gay rights doesn't usually come from a place of hate but is a product of pure ignorance - the Christians opposing gay rights have totally no idea whatsoever of what sorts of harm they are doing to gay people and they have never stopped to think about it, and often enough the idea that they even might be harming gay people with their views has never ever crossed their minds.
I think that there are plenty of honest and sincere and otherwise good people who are Christians are who think "the bible teaches against homosexuality" and therefore oppose same sex marriage. They don't hate anyone. They are simply and sincerely trying to live out what they see as the teachings of the bible. If you suggested to them that they might actually be causing any harm to anyone by following the teachings of the bible their initial response would probably be to laugh incredulously at you in disbelief.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
It is puzzling.
I've posted several times in DH the truth that the widely held medical opinion about homosexuality up to half a century ago was that it was a pathological condition. Here's a link I've also posted before.
I have discussions with my 95 year old mum about this subject from time to time. She was brought up to believe that homosexuality was "not right" and the paradigm shift in both social and medical understanding is something she struggles with, basically because she grew up in a world in which the "not right" view was commonplace. I don't think she's naturally a prejudiced person, she certainly isn't on many other issues, but on this one she has a lot more negative reinforcement to climb over than I ever had.
It was easier for me to approach the issue from first principles, to look at the reasons for supporting the paradigm shifts. That at least suggests that my mum didn't take positive steps to pass on the negative reinforcement she received. I was always taught the importance of fairness, of taking responsibility for making up my own mind. Those things have stood me in good stead.
I guess this is why I prefer dialogue to verbal war. Opinions can change, despite a history of negative reinforcement, but only if you start at least from the position of an exploration which respects the other person's autonomy. "Why do you believe that?" is a better opener than "your belief is just wrong, you've been brainwashed".
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
South Coast Kevin - I am afraid that when I hear Christians holding to the "homosexual sex is sinful line" I wonder how many gay people they know. For most people, gay couples are part of their social circle and as far as anyone can ever tell about relationships from the outside, their relationships are no better or worse than heterosexual relationships. I have been aware of gay couples for 30 odd years. Some of the gay couples I know have been together for longer than that.
Bishop James Jones, retired Bishop of Liverpool, who famously changed his stance on homosexuality from being one of the nine bishops who opposed the ordination of Jeffrey John as a Bishop in 2003 to issuing statements against the CofE line on same sex marriage in 2013 publicly apologised for his opposition and wrote Making Space for Truth and Grace (pdf)* explaining how he thought the Bible could be seen as describing loving relationships between men.
Personally, I don't want to think about what any of my heterosexual partnered friends and acquaintances get up to in the bedroom (or wherever else they might want to engage). As far as I'm concerned, consenting adults in private, not my problem. So why should I want to think of what my homosexual partnered friends and acquaintances do? Why are we making a special case for same sex couples in this instance?
* using an owly link because, there were a lot of characters that were rendered link unfriendly.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Thanks Orfeo for trying to inject a little sanity into the group hysteria.
I suspect you are wasting your time, but I appreciate and respect your attempt.
You remind me of those episodes of The Simpsons in which Lisa plaintively calls for calm and rationality in the middle of a Springfield mob rampaging with pitch-forks and burning torches.
A few random responses.
1.Neither I, nor any of the evangelicals I know, are interested in political campaigning on behalf of anti-gay legislation. We regard gays in the same way we regard members of other religions, ie as wrong in their beliefs and practices, but as entitled to them as we are in a pluralist society, and as entitled as we should be to openly express their disagreement with other belief systems without being vilified as bigots.
2. To insist that “homophobia” and its cognates are correct and unchangeable is to exhibit a prescriptivist rigidity which would be laughed out of court in other circumstances. To use “homophobe” to describe someone who merely disagrees with homosexual practice is as insulting as calling a black person as a “nigger”, and just as easy to dump in the dustbin of linguistic history. “Homophobia” should be reserved for extremists such as those who have called for capital punishment for gays in Uganda.
3. I agree entirely that it is exegetically invalid to use the Sodom story in Genesis as a theological argument against homosexual practice.
4. The fact that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality is irrelevant. There are many self-evidently wrong things which he did not mention, and to suggest that he upheld traditional sexual morality in areas such as adultery, but was happy with homosexual practice, defies credulity.
5. Conscience versus Scripture is a false dichotomy, naively suggesting as it does that conscience is some sort of infallible, autonomous, objective tabula rasa. Sure, my conscience is influenced by the Bible, but every conscience is historically and culturally the productt of some combination of belief systems and worldviews.
6. The analogy of opposition to homosexual practice with racism is entirely invalid. No-one can choose their ethnicity, and while no-one can choose their sexual orientation, they can choose what they do with it, and therefore can logically be criticized by someone who disagrees with their decision. In the same way, I have an overwhelming inclination, which I didn’t choose, to believe and practise the Christian religion, but in the end it is my choice whether to go along with it or not, meaning that an atheist is perfectly entitled to deny that it is my unavoidable destiny or identity, and just as entitled to question and criticize my choice.
7. Yes, to use “those who engage in homosexual behaviour” or even “practicing homosexuals” is clunky and inconvenient, but it obviates to some extent, the constant confusion over whether the term “homosexual” is being used to describe an orientation, or a life choice to go with that orientation.
And just incidentally, I suspect that this thread must be approaching a Ship record for evocations of Fred Phelps.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Having at last read that document, I note that it uses "chaste" when they actually mean "celibate". This is word-twisting.
People in marriages, or civil partnerships, or even longstanding non-formalised relationships can be chaste, because it means that they are faithful to their partner, not that they abjure sex.
People in no relationship at all can be chaste, if they believe that sex has to be part of a permanent faithful relationship. Obviously in that case, they are celibate as well.
But to use chaste when you are dealing with couples who you expect to abjure from showing their love physically is not about chastity, it is about imposing celibacy on those who are not called to be harmed by repressing their feelings, or to harm the loved one by denying theirs.
If they mean celibacy, that is what they should state, and then everyone knows that they are in the business of imposing on others restrictions they do not apply to themselves.
Otherwise they are saying "We are all required to be chaste, but you are required to be so in a more rigorous way than we are, and excuse us, we're off to bed."
Having now read Kaplan's piece - he agrees that people cannot choose their sexuality, as they cannot choose their race, but then says they can choose what they do about it. Implicit in that is that the choice, if they also feel called to follow Christ, is to deny themselves. Unlike denying gluttony, or covetousness, or violence, or any other thing we may feel is part of our make-up, denying this is to do active harm to others, rather than sparing them harm. It is not a choice at all. It is an imposition not made on straights.
[ 29. June 2014, 10:42: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Having now read Kaplan's piece - he agrees that people cannot choose their sexuality, as they cannot choose their race, but then says they can choose what they do about it. Implicit in that is that the choice, if they also feel called to follow Christ, is to deny themselves. Unlike denying gluttony, or covetousness, or violence, or any other thing we may feel is part of our make-up, denying this is to do active harm to others, rather than sparing them harm. It is not a choice at all. It is an imposition not made on straights.
To be fair, it's an imposition also made on straight people if they can't find a suitable Christian partner. Some evangelical churches have a fairly equal sex distribution, but the majority will have more women than men, especially in the black-majority churches. This imbalance is even more obvious in non-evangelical churches. Strictly speaking, many of these churches would prefer or even expect the women to remain celibate rather than marrying non-Christian men. IOW, the concept of 'denying yourself to follow Christ' is a reality for many straight (or bisexual, or otherwise sexual) female Christians.
Moreover, I think evangelical churches are more committed to self-denial in general than many other churches are (e.g. variously teaching against alcohol, jewelry, certain types of clothing or entertainment, expecting individuals to tithe, etc.). So expecting self-denial in the case of certain sexual behaviours is only more of the same. If you don't believe in self-denial as a concept you probably shouldn't be attending an evangelical church....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Are you sure the imbalance of women in non-evangelical churches is because they are single? Some are widowed or single, yes, but some are coming to church while their husbands go elsewhere, either a different church or to something secular.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The analogy of opposition to homosexual practice with racism is entirely invalid. No-one can choose their ethnicity, and while no-one can choose their sexual orientation, they can choose what they do with it,
People can also choose what they do with their ethnicity: Issues of segregation and interracial marriage were all about people being able to make or not make certain voluntary choices relating to the their race. It's extremely analogous. The analogy only breaks down if you take the position that having same-sex attractions is itself a matter of choice, a view that no longer seems to be seriously advocated by many people.
quote:
“Homophobia” should be reserved for extremists
Wishful thinking about what you would like English words to mean in an ideal world is just, well, wishful thinking. Words actually have meanings in the here and now based on how people actually currently use them.
As I've said, I don't personally like the word homophobia, precisely because it leads to these sorts of arguments over what it ought to mean. I prefer to simply discuss in plain words the issues, which basically boil down to the fact that discrimination and stigmatization of gay people harms them. It saddens me that Christians on the whole have tended to avoid informing themselves about what damage their discrimination does to gay people, and so their zeal for following the bible has not been balanced by knowledge of the actual consequences their actions and words have on the lives of others. Those Christians who personally have gay family members are often forced by this to consider what negative consequences taking anti-gay positions actually have on gay people, and as a result are typically much keener to see the church take pro-gay positions. It speaks to a depressing lack of empathy among Christians that those without direct contact with gay people do not seem to give much thought (usually not any at all) for the harms done to gay people by the Church's negative views and actions.
At the end of the day, it doesn't necessarily matter a lot to gay people whether you are "only a little bit" anti-gay or whether your view is "biblically motivated" or not. Because if you are against them having equal rights and against treating them equally, then from the gay people's point of view your actual actions against them cause the same harms to them regardless of your pious motivations or lack thereof. The reason why no gay people on this board are at all interested in redefining homophobia to only include the "extremists" while allowing the supposedly nicer anti-gay Christians to not fall under that label is because actually the gay people don't see any difference between the two. If you are trying to take away their rights and their freedoms... if you are trying to stop them marrying, stop them adopting children, and force them into harmful and damaging therapies, and condemn and marginalize them... then you are anti-gay in every way that counts, and the reasons for which you are doing it, be they "biblical" reasons or not, make not an iota, not a jot, not a shred, of difference to the gay people that you are actively harming.
So when Christians appeal to gay people to not label the Christian church's anti-gay activities as "homophobia" this comes across as the church saying to gay people: "we're going to continue persecuting, condemning and campaigning against you, but we'd like to not feel bad about it while we do it, so could you please stop calling us "homophobic" while we persecute you, because that word makes it sound like we're doing something bad, and we'd prefer not to feel bad about ourselves while we persecute you, thanks". Funnily enough, such requests are not typically viewed in a positive light by gay people.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Are you sure the imbalance of women in non-evangelical churches is because they are single?
No, that's not what I meant. There is simply an oversupply of women in the church. This means that young, single (straight) women in the church are likely to find it harder to get a Christian husband.
The imbalance is greater in non-evangelical churches, but OTOH those churches have fewer young people anyway, and they're also less concerned about marriages between Christians and non-Christians.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And when a leader among Evangelical Christians does break from the party line what happens? Ask Steve Chalke (or others).
I tried to respond to this last night, but my computer had a fit and closed my browser with a long, unsaved, reply almost ready to post.
Clearly in the last decade or so homosexuality has become an issue in evangelicalism, with those who consider homosexual activity to be a sin currently in the majority. That can create problems for those in the minority. The example of Steve Chalke is complicated. Yes, he and Oasis are no longer members of the EA. But, first it was after a quite considerable period of discussion over the issue of homosexuality, a discussion that is ongoing. Steve Chalke has held his views on sexuality for a considerable time, he's been criticised for those but so far only one organisation has ejected him, BUGB for example hasn't done so. The EA has said they don't want his membership fee, he hasn't lost his job, for example.
And, he's not unique. Ken Wilson is still senior pastor at Ann Arbor Vineyard despite his letter to his congregation. Admittedly when Marten Woudstra says "there is nothing in the Old Testament that corresponds to homosexuality as we understand it today" it does result in people claiming the NIV is an unreliable translation because the translators were not anti-homosexual. And, when one of the most influential proponents of Biblical hermaneutics Bernard Ramm states "The issues about homosexuality are very complex and are not understood by most members of the Christian church" it doesn't lead to any attempt to try harder to enable members of the Christian church to understand them better. OK, so there's no way that Ramm or Woudstra can lose the positions now (both are dead). I've just picked a small sample of evangelicals who have been or are supportive of homosexual rights, and because the view that Americans are much more conservative I've picked Americans. These are people for whom their views on homosexuality are/were not problems for their continuing employment in evangelical churches or colleges.
So, in answer to your question "when a leader among Evangelical Christians does break from the party line what happens?", the answer appears to be evangelicals spend a lot of time talking, and only rarely do anything else.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Kaplan Corday
...The fact that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality is irrelevant. There are many self-evidently wrong things which he did not mention, and to suggest that he upheld traditional sexual morality in areas such as adultery, but was happy with homosexual practice, defies credulity.
Others might well think that the idea that Jesus would lump together a failure to live up to biblical principles of faithfulness, commitment and permanence in sexual relationships, with the desire to live out those very principles within a marriage, in itself defies credulity.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
4. The fact that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality is irrelevant. There are many self-evidently wrong things which he did not mention, and to suggest that he upheld traditional sexual morality in areas such as adultery, but was happy with homosexual practice, defies credulity.
Why does it defy credulity? It seems that that statement presupposes that being against homosexual practice was part of "traditional sexual morality" as Jesus knew it.
Which is not self-evident. Without going into all the detailed ins and outs of which bits of the OT were about morality and which were about purity, it doesn't at all follow that what is, in your mind, 'traditional morality' was actually 'traditional morality' a couple of thousand years ago, which is precisely why things such as textual examination is important.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
6. The analogy of opposition to homosexual practice with racism is entirely invalid. No-one can choose their ethnicity, and while no-one can choose their sexual orientation, they can choose what they do with it, and therefore can logically be criticized by someone who disagrees with their decision.
Only problem is, you present us with one correct choice. For life.
Which simply isn't "choice".
I've spoken before on the Ship on how that is completely different to the situation for heterosexuals. Heterosexuals are held out the hope of sexual expression within a committed relationship.
I'm honestly not sure that many heterosexuals can actually fathom what it is like to be told that you will never, ever have that opportunity. Maybe some can - those who have given up on ever finding a partner.
Any heterosexual who actually has found a partner cannot, I submit, understand just how soul-destroying it is to believe that you will never have that kind of intimate love and passion. I believe I've written before about how close I was to suicide after attending a heterosexual wedding at my church, right at the time that I had finally come to terms with the fact that I was homosexual and would always be homosexual. I was in my 20s, I was a virgin, and I was led to believe I would always be a virgin - not because I was uninterested or unattractive or had made a commitment to celibacy, but because I was born with the 'wrong' desires.
You call that CHOICE? Hardly.
Which is actually one of the key reasons I think the conservative position on homosexuality is wrong. It proposes that God intentionally created some of his children to have their souls crushed in a fundamental and deeply personal way.
[ 29. June 2014, 15:08: 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
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
originally posted by Kaplan Corday
...The fact that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality is irrelevant. There are many self-evidently wrong things which he did not mention, and to suggest that he upheld traditional sexual morality in areas such as adultery, but was happy with homosexual practice, defies credulity.
Others might well think that the idea that Jesus would lump together a failure to live up to biblical principles of faithfulness, commitment and permanence in sexual relationships, with the desire to live out those very principles within a marriage, in itself defies credulity.
As a devout Jew governed by the law of Moses, Jesus almost certainly would've considered male-on-male sex a sin in all circumstances. A couple's love for one another wouldn't overturn the law given by Adonai to his people.
In the gospels accounts of Jesus showing flexibility, such as eating grain and healing on the sabbath, he cites precedent. He's not overturning the law so much as arguing that his opponents are applying it wrong.
This ought not to matter. Incarnation can still allow that, as a man, Jesus' knowledge was limited. On this, he was wrong.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
ADDENDUM: Any notion that having a partner in life is not all that important is, given the amount of effort that heterosexuals put into coupling, definitely defying credulity.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
As a devout Jew governed by the law of Moses, Jesus almost certainly would've considered male-on-male sex a sin in all circumstances. A couple's love for one another wouldn't overturn the law given by Adonai to his people.
This presupposes that the law Adonai gave to his people was that male-on-male sex was a sin in all circumstances. A position I do not, on examination of the relevant texts, accept.
In any case, taking that position poses you a FAR bigger problem than "Jesus was wrong" which you can get around by saying that Jesus was human. Not only would you have to say that Jesus was wrong, you would also have to say that Adonai was wrong. That the law that Adonai (according to you) gave was bad.
[ 29. June 2014, 15:18: 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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
And now, one more 'addendum' to clarify what my position is...
I do not think that the law given to Moses prohibited male-on-male sex because it was inherently immoral. I think that any prohibition on male-on-male sex was because such sex was associated with the worship of pagan gods.
Whether your definition of 'sin' encompasses both immoral actions and actions that are prohibited for some other reason may differ.
--------------------
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
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This presupposes that the law Adonai gave to his people was that male-on-male sex was a sin in all circumstances. A position I do not, on examination of the relevant texts, accept.
The Levitical texts do appear pretty explicit. Even if the original intent was different, what matters is how they'd be understood by Jesus.
Of course I could be wrong on this. My overriding point is that it shouldn't matter either way.
quote:
In any case, taking that position poses you a FAR bigger problem than "Jesus was wrong" which you can get around by saying that Jesus was human. Not only would you have to say that Jesus was wrong, you would also have to say that Adonai was wrong. That the law that Adonai (according to you) gave was bad.
Far less drastic than that: whoever authored that section of the law of Moses was wrong. They thought they were writing God's will but were mistaken.
In any case, the Euthyphro dilemma would come into play, which goes back to what I said upthread about authority. Judaism has its own spin on this. There is, within the Talmud, the great story of the halakha outvoting Adonai according to Adonai's own rules!
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Svitlana, that thought did cross my mind. I do know that denying oneself for Christ has a long and honourable history in various branches of the church.
Being of a cohort where there has been an inbalance - which no-one made clear when there was hope in my youth - I am aware that the imposition can be placed on straights, too. Usually women. This may well be a reason for my being quite fierce about those who demand celibacy of others, especially when those others have found loving partners.
It's wicked, though, for some to demand that others deny themselves when they do not personally have to do it in the same way.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
The Levitical texts do appear pretty explicit.
We know exactly and with perfect clarity what they meant in the context of a civilization that has been gone for 3000 years. No hubris there.
quote:
Even if the original intent was different, what matters is how they'd be understood by Jesus.
Given that Jesus said jack shit about homosexuality, that is a rather difficult thing to recreate.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
, and while no-one can choose their sexual orientation, they can choose what they do with it,
So, what you are saying is God created people with a powerful desire which they must never fulfill? How does this jibe with the Loving Creator bit?
The desire to be with another person on an intimate level is one of the strongest urges we have. So you are either saying God is a bastard or homosexuality is deviant. The former is a possibility. Science has put paid to the latter.
I am not attempting to be insulting to your beliefs, I am attempting to understand how you have this working.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
The Levitical texts do appear pretty explicit. Even if the original intent was different, what matters is how they'd be understood by Jesus.
Leviticus has a long, long history that many evangelicals do not know. The Book that we have now, was compiled and edited by the Priestly Source, (P) in the post-exilic period. We don't know how much of Leviticus dates to the actual period of Moses. The prohibitions against same-sex conduct may be related to the writers wanting to distance themselves from Persian, Babylonian or Caananite cultures.
As for Jesus, it's a big question. Jews disagree over scriptural texts, just as much as Christians do. We can't say that Jesus would have gone with the "conventional" interpretation of Torah, because frankly in many cases, there were multiple schools and interpretations.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We know exactly and with perfect clarity what they meant in the context of a civilization that has been gone for 3000 years. No hubris there.
Yup, that's hubris in perfection. Good thing I don't claim such omniscience! Merely that the Pentateuch's clobber verses appear pretty explicit. The exegetical debates tend to revolve around nuances of the Hebrew terms translated as "abomination", rather than whether they're condemning men having sex with men.
If I'm wrong, and they don't condemn loving relationships, that's great news for traditionalists.
quote:
Given that Jesus said jack shit about homosexuality, that is a rather difficult thing to recreate.
Anti-gay evangelicals expend vats of ink and bytes arguing that Jesus' condemnation of sexual immorality would encompass homosexuality.
Since arguing the point implicitly accepts the authoritarian framework, I'm not that bothered. It matters less what Jesus did or didn't say (to add an extra layer of trouble, we don't even know if the words go back to the historical Jesus) than it does whether there's any reason to condemn gay relationships. I see none.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Leviticus has a long, long history that many evangelicals do not know.
True, although in many cases, biblical inerrancy commits evangelicals to defend Mosaic authorship.
quote:
The Book that we have now, was compiled and edited by the Priestly Source, (P) in the post-exilic period. We don't know how much of Leviticus dates to the actual period of Moses. The prohibitions against same-sex conduct may be related to the writers wanting to distance themselves from Persian, Babylonian or Caananite cultures.
Yup, this may well be the explanation, likely infused with patriarchal gender assumptions. It's informed guesswork, which is the crucial thing: the Bible itself offers no reason for the command. Absent a doctrine of authority, what's asserted without reason can be dismissed without reason.
quote:
As for Jesus, it's a big question. Jews disagree over scriptural texts, just as much as Christians do. We can't say that Jesus would have gone with the "conventional" interpretation of Torah, because frankly in many cases, there were multiple schools and interpretations.
I've no problem accepting this possibility. Our info on 1st century Judaism is partial in the extreme. It may be there existed multiple schools of thought lost to history, and one of those endorsed loving sexual relationships between same-sex couples. I don't consider it likely, since, if it existed, it seems to have vanished without a trace, but it's possible.
The crucial question for me isn't "Did Jesus condemn gay relationships?" but "Why should we?"
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We know exactly and with perfect clarity what they meant in the context of a civilization that has been gone for 3000 years. No hubris there.
Yup, that's hubris in perfection. Good thing I don't claim such omniscience! Merely that the Pentateuch's clobber verses appear pretty explicit.
I can't slide a knife between those two. "Pretty explicit" and "perfect clarity" are kissing cousins.
quote:
The exegetical debates tend to revolve around nuances of the Hebrew terms translated as "abomination", rather than whether they're condemning men having sex with men.
I've also seen rabbis say that the prohibition against homosex is a ritual, rather than moral, prohibition. If that's the case then one could argue it doesn't apply to Christians at all.
quote:
quote:
Given that Jesus said jack shit about homosexuality, that is a rather difficult thing to recreate.
Anti-gay evangelicals expend vats of ink and bytes arguing that Jesus' condemnation of sexual immorality would encompass homosexuality.
Which is question-begging in a nutshell. "He must say what we mean because that's what he means because..." Around and around and around you go.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I can't slide a knife between those two. "Pretty explicit" and "perfect clarity" are kissing cousins.
Something appearing pretty explicit (i.e., by my perception, subjective and timebound as it is) hasn't touched first base with certainty. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:
I've also seen rabbis say that the prohibition against homosex is a ritual, rather than moral, prohibition. If that's the case then one could argue it doesn't apply to Christians at all.
Yup, that's certainly a possibility, and illustrates just how tough an ask it is injecting the content of Judaism into a religion that rejects its frameworks.
If Paul of Tarsus did condemn homosexuality in all circumstances as self-evident, it wouldn't count against the ritual element, but would add a moral one. Not that ritual and morality are neatly separate in any case.
quote:
Which is question-begging in a nutshell. "He must say what we mean because that's what he means because..." Around and around and around you go.
Evangelical advocates of that position cite a swathe of biblical material to back the claim (Jesus' attitudes to marriage, both upholding and expanding on the law, references to Sodom and Gomorrah, etc) and why argue it when doing so implicitly accepts their beliefs about biblical authority?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I can't slide a knife between those two. "Pretty explicit" and "perfect clarity" are kissing cousins.
Something appearing pretty explicit (i.e., by my perception, subjective and timebound as it is) hasn't touched first base with certainty.
So you're making no claims for the accuracy of what you count as "pretty explicit"? It's just an interesting fact about your psychology?
quote:
If Paul of Tarsus did condemn homosexuality in all circumstances as self-evident, it wouldn't count against the ritual element, but would add a moral one. Not that ritual and morality are neatly separate in any case.
But that's a big IF. And it's not clear he could condemn it in circumstances he wasn't even aware could possibly exist. Applying his condemnations from his world to circumstances in our world is iffy, and it gets even iffyer when you consider that there is a great deal of doubt as to what the circumstances were that he was operating in. In short, applying Paul's thoughts about homosex to 21st century SSM isn't clear or explicit at all. It's a mare's nest. People claiming it's clear or explicit are fooling themselves and are chock full of fundamentalist hubris.
quote:
Evangelical advocates of that position cite a swathe of biblical material to back the claim (Jesus' attitudes to marriage, both upholding and expanding on the law, references to Sodom and Gomorrah, etc) and why argue it when doing so implicitly accepts their beliefs about biblical authority?
Yes and it's question begging. If the question is, "Is SSM part of what is condemned in the bible?" then saying "SSM is condemned by Jesus because he condemns immorality and it's immoral" is begging the question. Whether it is immoral is what we're trying to answer; assuming it's immoral and then saying "therefore it's immoral" is circular.
And the Sodom and Gomorrah question has been answered above. In order to get a condemnation of homosex from S&G you must bring it in from outside, because the passage admits of mmultiple interpretation, and the one place it's glossed elsewhere, the gloss quite explicitly mentions how you treat the poor, but doesn't mention homosex at all. In short, unless you have decided on other grounds that homosex is wrong, you can't derive the wrongness of homosex from S&G. Or, to put it succinctly, that's a circular argument.
ETA: Another huge point that needs to be considered is the difference between the two hermeneutics regarding biblical morality:
1. Everything that is not explicitly prohibited is allowed; and
2. Everything that is not explicitly allowed is prohibited.
[ 29. June 2014, 18:31: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So you're making no claims for the accuracy of what you count as "pretty explicit"? It's just an interesting fact about your psychology?
Of course I'm claiming accuracy, I'm just making clear that I'm not claiming certainty. It's a question of probability made on limited data.
quote:
But that's a big IF. And it's not clear he could condemn it in circumstances he wasn't even aware could possibly exist. Applying his condemnations from his world to circumstances in our world is iffy, and it gets even iffyer when you consider that there is a great deal of doubt as to what the circumstances were that he was operating in. In short, applying Paul's thoughts about homosex to 21st century SSM isn't clear or explicit at all. It's a mare's nest. People claiming it's clear or explicit are fooling themselves and are chock full of fundamentalist hubris.
Well yes, I agree, they are. Paul may well have been unaware of loving same-sex relationships (or he may have known & condemned regardless, it's pure guesswork). The difficulty of applying his words today are exactly why I'm no fan of using the Bible (or any other text) as a how-to guide.
quote:
Yes and it's question begging. If the question is, "Is SSM part of what is condemned in the bible?" then saying "SSM is condemned by Jesus because he condemns immorality and it's immoral" is begging the question. Whether it is immoral is what we're trying to answer; assuming it's immoral and then saying "therefore it's immoral" is circular.
And the Sodom and Gomorrah question has been answered above. In order to get a condemnation of homosex from S&G you must bring it in from outside, because the passage admits of mmultiple interpretation, and the one place it's glossed elsewhere, the gloss quite explicitly mentions how you treat the poor, but doesn't mention homosex at all. In short, unless you have decided on other grounds that homosex is wrong, you can't derive the wrongness of homosex from S&G. Or, to put it succinctly, that's a circular argument.
It's only question-begging if it's assumed. A reasoned exegetical case can be made that the gospels contain themes authentic to Jesus of Nazareth that would condemn homosexuality. Of necessity, any conclusion will be probable and provisional.
quote:
ETA: Another huge point that needs to be considered is the difference between the two hermeneutics regarding biblical morality:
1. Everything that is not explicitly prohibited is allowed; and
2. Everything that is not explicitly allowed is prohibited.
Hermeneutics are a whole new can o' worms!
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
ETA: Another huge point that needs to be considered is the difference between the two hermeneutics regarding biblical morality:
1. Everything that is not explicitly prohibited is allowed; and
2. Everything that is not explicitly allowed is prohibited.
Hermeneutics are a whole new can o' worms!
New? That's all we've been doing for the last 5 exchanges is hermeneutics.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
It's only question-begging if it's assumed. A reasoned exegetical case can be made that the gospels contain themes authentic to Jesus of Nazareth that would condemn homosexuality.
I disagree. It's all wild interpolation, and depends on bringing a blanket condemnation of homosex in from outside, as you cannot get a blanket condemnation of homosex from either Leviticus or S&G.
[ 29. June 2014, 19:49: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
New? That's all we've been doing for the last 5 exchanges is hermeneutics.
Well, in the sense of applying a hermeneutical lens to do some slapdash exegesis, I guess we have. More detailed hermeneutics is yet more fun. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
I disagree. It's all wild interpolation, and depends on bringing a blanket condemnation of homosex in from outside, as you cannot get a blanket condemnation of homosex from either Leviticus or S&G.
As the ancients had no concept of sexual orientation, I'd instead describe it as "a blanket condemnation of sex between men." That (IMO) is what a plain reading of Leviticus and Paul offers. (Paul may also have condemned sex between women.)
This only gets so heated 'cause it's tied to authority. If I come across as relaxed about what the Bible says, it's only because I give it no special weight. As the underlying issue is authority, that, not exegesis, is (again IMO) what we ought to focus on.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Homophobia is the word for this form of bigotry.
"Homophobia" is not the word, but on the contrary a manipulative, dishonest and unacceptable smear.
And a theologically based opposition to homosexual practice is not bigotry.
Caliing opponents of homosexual practice "homophobes" is like calling homosexuals "poofters", girls who wear short dresses "sluts", supporters of the welfare state "communists", policemen "fascists", and boat-people "queue jumpers".
quote:
if you oppose the right of people who love each other to get married and are working to separate families (as opponents of gay marriage are) then homophobia is being polite. If you have a pharisee-like dedication to the rules and are callous and unempathetic about those they hurt, that's worse. If you deny your approach leads to suffering, that's just callous blindness.
This is nothing more than a confused and moralistic attempt at emotional blackmail.
Jesus taught love of God and neighbour AND what we would call "traditional" sexual ethics; they are not mutually exclusive.
What is 'homosexual practice'? Can we please stop acting as if being gay and having romantic relationships with people of the same gender is so easily separable? People don't refer to 'heterosexual practice'.
Also, annoyed bisexual alert - G is not the only letter in LGBT.
--------------------
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
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
I accept that traditional beliefs can spring not from homophobia, but instead from a sincere desire to obey scripture, so yes, why do the same hoary phrases keep cropping up? It's entirely possible to advocate a traditional position without using phrases like "homosexual practice," and, above all, "lifestyle."
Traditionalists must, surely, be aware by now of how hurtful those phrases are? That being so, why haven't they been retired?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Traditionalists must, surely, be aware by now of how hurtful those phrases are?
Why do you think that?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Traditionalists must, surely, be aware by now of how hurtful those phrases are?
Why do you think that?
'Cause they get told near every time they use 'em!
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
