|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: French protestant church votes in favour of blessing same-sex couples
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Thanks, orfeo quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The reality is that same sex couples ARE seeking blessings as a sign of approval
I note what you say about approval, but the text does explicitly say quote:
neither does it imply his approval of our plans
So won't same-sex couples feel they've been sold short?
I don't think that the 'tennis club' approach confers approval either. quote:
including people in social events and smiling
doth not approval make. I suspect not a few anti-SSM churches would do this with same-sex couples.
I think more research is needed into what is meant by "blessing"...
[ 26. May 2015, 05:25: 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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Can you actually be an anti-SSM church if you never actually show any sign of anti-SSM behaviour?
I'm not only talking about including people and smiling. I'm talking about using words like "husband" and "married" and all the other little things that indicate acceptance that this is a couple, and a married one at not.
Homosexuals are not mind readers. We're not actually going to be hurt by a private intellectual notion that same-sex marriage isn't legitimate, if there is no outward sign of this notion.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Can you actually be an anti-SSM church if you never actually show any sign of anti-SSM behaviour?
I'm not only talking about including people and smiling. I'm talking about using words like "husband" and "married" and all the other little things that indicate acceptance that this is a couple, and a married one at not.
Our church, being independent, doesn't have a position on SSM as yet, but I'd like to think that yes we would do all this.
This should be especially possible for French Christians with a non-sacramental view of marriage. As far as I'm concerned, if the state has married a couple, they are married.
(One of the things I'm realising going over all this again is that the interactions between legal marriage and a non-sacramental Christian view of marriage are not self-evident. This spills over in my mind to wondering exactly what a "blessing" is if it's not somehow sacramental, and why non-sacramentalists perform them...).
quote:
Homosexuals are not mind readers. We're not actually going to be hurt by a private intellectual notion that same-sex marriage isn't legitimate, if there is no outward sign of this notion.
Riiiight. An absence of any sign that SSM is not seen as socially legitimate would, to my mind, be pretty straightforward in our church. The presence of a sign that it is theologically legitimate (e.g. blessing a married couple) is more problematic for me (I'm just trying to be frank here).
[ 26. May 2015, 08:34: 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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I note what you say about approval, but the text does explicitly say quote:
neither does it imply his approval of our plans
So won't same-sex couples feel they've been sold short?
By who?
I think there's a whole lot of unpacking that needs to be done - conceptually or theologically - about whether it makes sense to present an action in church as God's blessing, rather than the church's blessing.
It seems to me that if God is fine with same-sex couples, he's probably been doing his level best to bless them - to assure them of his presence - for a long time. Back to when churches and even governments were outright persecuting them.
Alternatively, if God is not fine with same-sex couples, no amount of church ritual is going to achieve the blessing being sought.
I can't think of anyone with any kind of position on this subject who argues that God has recently changed his mind on this whole issue. The argument seems largely focused on whether or not churches are accurately reflecting God's views.
--------------------
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 Eutychus:
quote:
Homosexuals are not mind readers. We're not actually going to be hurt by a private intellectual notion that same-sex marriage isn't legitimate, if there is no outward sign of this notion.
Riiiight. An absence of any sign that SSM is not seen as socially legitimate would, to my mind, be pretty straightforward in our church. The presence of a sign that it is theologically legitimate (e.g. blessing a married couple) is more problematic for me (I'm just trying to be frank here).
I don't think you can separate "social legitimacy" and "theological legitimacy" in this fashion. A church is not a social club. It's not a high society gathering where one does not talk about impolite subjects like politics and religion.
If you're suggesting that it would somehow be possible for a homosexual to be a member of a church, be known to be homosexual, and yet remain blissfully unaware that that church's theological position is against homosexual practice, then I'd have to ask exactly what the point of this church is.
[ 26. May 2015, 09:41: 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
LONG ADDENDUM TO MY LAST POST: Or more specifically, what the point of this church's anti-SSM position is.
Seriously, if a gay church member won't even know that that is the position, the church might as well not have a position.
And if the gay church member WILL know that's the position, then it's going to affect their sense of acceptance, regardless of how much "social acceptance", as you're describing it, they receive.
Trust me, I've been there. Not with a whole church but with an individual. One of the people I naturally got on with extremely well, and had worked with closely over the years, let me know (as nicely as possible) after I came out that her theological position was firmly, rigidly even, that homosexuality is wrong.
You seem to be toying with a fantasy that this somehow wouldn't have affected my sense of being loved and accepted by her. I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Of course it coloured my interactions with her.
When I saw her sometime after leaving that church (I left because a new minister shared her views), she was delighted to see me, gave me a big hug and started talking about how much she missed me.
And while I exchanged pleasantries with her with a smile, inside do you know what I was thinking?
"I'm still just as gay as I was."
I'm still the person you rejected.
It is simply impossible to treat social acceptance of me as a separate topic from having a theological position that says something about me is wrong. I'm not saying that being gay is my entire identity, but it is part of my identity.
The idea that it's somehow feasible for a church to be completely "socially accepting" of same-sex couples while being theologically against them makes about as much sense as saying that a church could be completely accepting of a German couple while holding the theological position that Germans are destined for hell.
[ 26. May 2015, 10:13: 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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea that it's somehow feasible for a church to be completely "socially accepting" of same-sex couples while being theologically against them makes about as much sense as saying that a church could be completely accepting of a German couple while holding the theological position that Germans are destined for hell.
That makes sense to me, but it wasn't what I was picking up from your entire post here.
It's also why I asked about your feelings on the declaration. Could it not be interpreted precisely thus? It goes a lot further than many con-evos like, but is doesn't read like a ringing endorsement either, does it? It rests on the provision that God can bless behaviour of which he potentially disapproves.
[ 26. May 2015, 14:30: 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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I've started a Purg thread to explore "blessing" further.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's also why I asked about your feelings on the declaration. Could it not be interpreted precisely thus? It goes a lot further than many con-evos like, but is doesn't read like a ringing endorsement either, does it? It rests on the provision that God can bless behaviour of which he potentially disapproves.
I already said I agree with La vie en rouge that it's a fudge. They're trying to have a bet each way in a manner that is not really coherent.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Orfeo;
quote:
The idea that it's somehow feasible for a church to be completely "socially accepting" of same-sex couples while being theologically against them makes about as much sense as saying that a church could be completely accepting of a German couple while holding the theological position that Germans are destined for hell.
This takes for granted that being 'gay' is the same kind of thing as an ethnic or racial difference. It ain't necessarily so....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It takes it for granted because the vast majority of people who are not heterosexual take it for granted.
It only ever seems to be heterosexuals who think that sexual orientation isn't something that is part and parcel of who people are. But then, do any of these people act on the notion that choice is involved, and choose to become gay?
There's a Simpsons episode about it, where Homer decided to be gay.
But no, I've never actually heard of anyone who claims that they themselves chose in that fashion. There's only ever the implication that someone else chose being gay.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I already said I agree with La vie en rouge that it's a fudge. They're trying to have a bet each way in a manner that is not really coherent.
And I wonder whether fudges are all bad in the end, particularly perhaps in a transitional phase - e.g. Council of Jerusalem.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
A bit of fudge is good. A diet entirely of fudge is unhealthy.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I already said I agree with La vie en rouge that it's a fudge. They're trying to have a bet each way in a manner that is not really coherent.
And I wonder whether fudges are all bad in the end, particularly perhaps in a transitional phase - e.g. Council of Jerusalem.
Different question. I'm not going to comment on the political environment that a French church finds itself in, in relation to other churches, its own members and the general French public.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Orfeo;
quote:
But then, do any of these people act on the notion that choice is involved, and choose to become gay?
Where choice is involved in being 'gay', and is not involved in being black or German, is in choosing to perform certain acts. By definition actions are matters of choice and subject to moral critique of rightness, fitness, appropriateness, etc. Being black or German is not a moral act by the choice of the person concerned; sexual intercourse is a moral act by choice on the part of those involved.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Orfeo;
quote:
But then, do any of these people act on the notion that choice is involved, and choose to become gay?
Where choice is involved in being 'gay', and is not involved in being black or German, is in choosing to perform certain acts. By definition actions are matters of choice and subject to moral critique of rightness, fitness, appropriateness, etc. Being black or German is not a moral act by the choice of the person concerned; sexual intercourse is a moral act by choice on the part of those involved.
Steve, that only works if you define gay as "indulges in gay sex". Before I was in a relationship, I was still just as straight as I am now.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
And, that was an entirely conscious decision you had made. Choosing to be heterosexual. Nothing at all to do with the intrinsic and unalterable nature of who you are.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Orfeo;
quote:
But then, do any of these people act on the notion that choice is involved, and choose to become gay?
Where choice is involved in being 'gay', and is not involved in being black or German, is in choosing to perform certain acts. By definition actions are matters of choice and subject to moral critique of rightness, fitness, appropriateness, etc. Being black or German is not a moral act by the choice of the person concerned; sexual intercourse is a moral act by choice on the part of those involved.
Steve, that only works if you define gay as "indulges in gay sex". Before I was in a relationship, I was still just as straight as I am now.
Spot on, Karl.
It is in fact well established that conservative Christians tend to hear "gay" as meaning "having homosexual intercourse", whereas actual gays don't mean anything of the kind. There was an excellent survey on this a few years ago in the USA.
Why conservative Christians misread it in that way, I've no idea. It seems to tie into the related idea that homosexuality is all about sex, not love, whereas somehow straight relationships are about love.
I'm sure I've pointed out before on this forum that I hadn't actually spent all my years in the closet having sex with people. I had no sexual encounters with either men or women. It seems very, very odd to suggest that this somehow means my sexual orientation was unknowable.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is in fact well established that conservative Christians tend to hear "gay" as meaning "having homosexual intercourse", whereas actual gays don't mean anything of the kind. There was an excellent survey on this a few years ago in the USA.
Why conservative Christians misread it in that way, I've no idea. It seems to tie into the related idea that homosexuality is all about sex, not love, whereas somehow straight relationships are about love.
It's probable that such attitudes were forged as a result of generations of cultural conditioning.
Go back to the time when heterosexuality was the overriding and dominant norm, a time when the blessing on sex only existed when it was contained in the sanctity of a hetero marriage assumed to be based on love. Any form of desire that existed outside of such a model would be thought of as being based on sex.
Times may have changed, attitudes take a lot longer to change.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by orfeo;
quote:
It is in fact well established that conservative Christians tend to hear "gay" as meaning "having homosexual intercourse", whereas actual gays don't mean anything of the kind. There was an excellent survey on this a few years ago in the USA.
Why conservative Christians misread it in that way, I've no idea. It seems to tie into the related idea that homosexuality is all about sex, not love, whereas somehow straight relationships are about love.
I at least am well aware of the passage where David refers to Jonathan's love as "greater than the love of women", yet it seems at least unlikely that they broke the Levitical prohibition on intercourse.
Essentially there seems to be no biblical problem about men loving men; as I said above, it is what is done that is the problem.
I've more to say about this but just got back from a long day ... I think we'll all be better off if I tackle it tomorrow in a less tired state.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Steve, with all respect, that might be one valid interpretation but it has a great deal of unreality about it when compared to the way that churches actually treat homosexual people.
If people find out I'm gay, they don't generally ask a follow-up question about my sexual activity. They just go ahead and assume that I'm having sex. And furthermore, I suspect many of them assume that "sex" means anal intercourse.
[ 29. May 2015, 05:15: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
And bisexual people are assumed to be having sex with men and women simultaneously!
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Is that precisely what you mean? Literally?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
I'm still thinking through my response; I'm quite aware at this point that this is a debate with a lot of cross-purposes at work in it.
Much of current thinking about what it means to be 'gay' is based on what are essentially atheistic and materialistic interpretations of humanity which provides very different presuppositions.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm still thinking through my response; I'm quite aware at this point that this is a debate with a lot of cross-purposes at work in it.
Much of current thinking about what it means to be 'gay' is based on what are essentially atheistic and materialistic interpretations of humanity which provides very different presuppositions.
Orrrrr are gay people talking about how they view their sexuality. You know, since they would know.
Bottom line - gay people know much more about what being gay means than you or any other straight person does.
Do you also think that what it means to be straight is based on atheistic and materialistic interpretations of humanity? I'm guessing not. It's based on straight people's experiences. Same for being gay, or bisexual, or transgender, or genderqueer.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Much of current thinking about what it means to be 'gay' is based on what are essentially atheistic and materialistic interpretations of humanity which provides very different presuppositions.
I honestly haven't got the slightest idea what that means. Materialistic? I've just pointed out to you that my identity as gay is about what goes on in my head, not what I do with my body.
--------------------
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
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Much of current thinking about what it means to be 'gay' is based on what are essentially atheistic and materialistic interpretations of humanity which provides very different presuppositions.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but it sounds negative.
In your opinion is current thinking on what it means to be heterosexual similarly based?
[ 30. May 2015, 02:24: Message edited by: Huia ]
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's always struck me that many homophobes are quite materialistic when it comes to gays or gay marriage. They seem to focus less on love and intimacy, than penises and bottoms. But then they also tend to go on about penis-in-vagina as a description of heterosexuality.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I am a gay female, can anyone point me to that bible verse banning cunnilingus, ta ever so.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Bottom line - gay people know much more about what being gay means than you or any other straight person does.
Straight people do get and respect that.
In an effort to understand each-other maybe the gay community need to realise just how much of a cultural straight-jacket straight people actually live in.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Bottom line - gay people know much more about what being gay means than you or any other straight person does.
Straight people do get and respect that.
In an effort to understand each-other maybe the gay community need to realise just how much of a cultural straight-jacket straight people actually live in.
Um well clearly not all straight people get and respect that as Steve's comments show.
Please explain the cultural straight-jacket? Because that sounds awfully like explaining away straight privilege,
And it's not about an 'effort to understand each other', it's straight people needing understanding of when it's not about them and they need to shut up.
--------------------
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
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Please explain the cultural straight-jacket? Because that sounds awfully like explaining away straight privilege,
And it's not about an 'effort to understand each other', it's straight people needing understanding of when it's not about them and they need to shut up.
Cultural straight-jacket means the way male and female are conditioned from birth upwards, something that has contributed greatly to antagonism the hetero establishment.
Prior to divorce becoming common many male and female couples spent decades together in unhappy unions because the establishment decreed it. Even now that divorce has been made easy and socially acceptable there is still confusion in the hetero relationship. TMM this derives from the conditioning of 'boys in blue/girls in pink'.
OK maybe it was at one time a "privilege" to have sexual desires or encounters that didn't land a person in jail. However this hasn't been the case here, or other countries for 50 yrs thereabouts.
As for straight people knowing when to "shut up". Does that mean threads like this one are best conducted without input from us ignorant straights?
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Please explain the cultural straight-jacket? Because that sounds awfully like explaining away straight privilege,
And it's not about an 'effort to understand each other', it's straight people needing understanding of when it's not about them and they need to shut up.
Cultural straight-jacket means the way male and female are conditioned from birth upwards, something that has contributed greatly to antagonism the hetero establishment.
Prior to divorce becoming common many male and female couples spent decades together in unhappy unions because the establishment decreed it. Even now that divorce has been made easy and socially acceptable there is still confusion in the hetero relationship. TMM this derives from the conditioning of 'boys in blue/girls in pink'.
OK maybe it was at one time a "privilege" to have sexual desires or encounters that didn't land a person in jail. However this hasn't been the case here, or other countries for 50 yrs thereabouts.
As for straight people knowing when to "shut up". Does that mean threads like this one are best conducted without input from us ignorant straights?
Firstly, you're confusing gender roles with straight privilege - and in any case boys in blue and girls in pink is a fairly recent thing. Secondly straight privilege is a thing because of societal heteronormativity - that is straightness being the 'default'. It has nothing to do with privilege in a material sense but is a way of talking about overlapping spheres of oppression in a sociological sense. Given that even in the UK, LGBT suicide and homelessness rates far outstrip the cishet equivalent, straight privilege is a thing. Homophobia and heteronormativity are structural and institutional.
I'm not suggesting that no straight person can comment on this thread, but that LGBT experience is not for straight people to try and explain away or dismiss. LGBT people's lived experiences come first when talking about things concerning LGBT 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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Sorry a hectic week has kept me offthread for a bit. First to deal with this by Orfeo
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Much of current thinking about what it means to be 'gay' is based on what are essentially atheistic and materialistic interpretations of humanity which provides very different presuppositions.
I honestly haven't got the slightest idea what that means. Materialistic? I've just pointed out to you that my identity as gay is about what goes on in my head, not what I do with my body.
I'm making the point that you get different answers in moral and practical areas depending on whether your world view starts from “I believe in the God revealed in the Bible and supremely in Jesus”, or whether you start from this kind of presupposition outlined in this case by one Richard Dawkins...
quote:
“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference … DNA neither cares nor knows, DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
That continues to make no sense. Trust me when I say that those two starting points do not make a difference to "how it feels to be homosexual".
The assumption that being openly gay is somehow the opposite of believing in the Bible is one of the most egregious ideas that conservative Christians come up with. I have outlined numerous times on the Ship how I came to my current position, and it had precisely nothing to do with a mindset that ignores the Bible.
There are in fact homosexuals who do not have sex, on the grounds that they interpret the Bible as forbidding it. This does not mean they're not homosexual. Moral views about what kinds of sexual expression is permitted are simply a different topic altogether.
I mean, what you're arguing seems to be the equivalent of saying that any young person who believes that they should be a virgin until they are married isn't "straight". This simply isn't true.
[ 04. June 2015, 10:38: 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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by orfeo
quote:
I mean, what you're arguing seems to be the equivalent of saying that any young person who believes that they should be a virgin until they are married isn't "straight". This simply isn't true.
Now you're not making much sense! What I wrote is not equivalent to any such thing. But your response does seem to illustrate the confusion possible when Christians don't think through the presuppositions properly....
Put simply, I don't think 'straight' and 'gay' are Christian categories in the first place. Those are worldly categories based on the earthly materialist atheist presuppositions. The Christian view of what's going on is rather different....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Put simply, I don't think 'straight' and 'gay' are Christian categories in the first place. Those are worldly categories based on the earthly materialist atheist presuppositions. The Christian view of what's going on is rather different....
Not exactly. Your Christian view may be different. Other people's Christian view may be the same. And still other people's Christian view may be a different thing altogether.
Unless we're into a reincarnation of that well-known kilted issue and "No true Christian believes... so if you don't believe it, you can't be a true Christian."
It's making an awfully sweeping condemnation of a lot of people who are firm Christian believers and who yet differ from you on this point.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The Christian view of what's going on is rather different....
MY Christian view is that God, who is Trinity, made gay people and all soprts of other perople to reflect his diverse image.
To deny that is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by leo
quote:
MY Christian view is that God, who is Trinity, made gay people and all sorts of other people to reflect his diverse image.
To deny that is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Is it blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to deny that God also made murderers, racists, thieves, and paedophiles to reflect his diverse image? At the very least this situation has to be a bit more complex than you are suggesting....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
John Holding - I don't play the "My view's as good as your view and in turn anyone else's" game. Argue about "Is it true?" by all means, but your approach here simply destroys argument and debate.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
John Holding - I don't play the "My view's as good as your view and in turn anyone else's" game. Argue about "Is it true?" by all means, but your approach here simply destroys argument and debate.
There's a world of difference between "this is a Christian view, one of several possible ones" and "all views are equally possible for Christians, and equally valid".
Your habit of writing 'gay' in quote marks every time is very annoying. People's identities are not conditional on your theology validating them.
t
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Put simply, I don't think 'straight' and 'gay' are Christian categories in the first place. Those are worldly categories based on the earthly materialist atheist presuppositions. The Christian view of what's going on is rather different....
Are you trying to suggest that Christians don't believe in sexual attraction??
EDIT: If you in fact believe in arranged marriages and so forth, that's fine. It's just a novelty. My experience of Christians is that they get married to people that, among other things, they find sexually attractive.
I'm a man. I don't find women sexually attractive. Whether you think that's good or bad isn't what I'm talking about. I'm just talking about the fact.
[ 05. June 2015, 03:01: 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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by teufelchen;
quote:
There's a world of difference between "this is a Christian view, one of several possible ones" and "all views are equally possible for Christians, and equally valid".
Your habit of writing 'gay' in quote marks every time is very annoying. People's identities are not conditional on your theology validating them.
On the first, point taken; I still don't like the kind of discussion-stifling response that tries to treat everything as a matter of opinion rather than engaging with the actual issues of where it is right or wrong/true or false. I'd rather get on with the substantive arguments than be distracted by the "that's just your opinion" game.
On the second, I'm old-fashioned enough to seriously dislike the manipulation by which the beautiful word 'gay' has been reduced from dozens of delightful meanings to have only the one meaning of 'homosexual'. Unfortunately we're unlikely to ever get the proper meaning of the word back - but why shouldn't I protest a little?
And further, I am rather challenging the current usage and its implications; that seems to me to justify the questioning punctuation. In the comment about 'gay' and 'straight' not being Christian categories the inverted commas were partly about that but mostly just the normal picking out of the words I was commenting on.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by orfeo;
quote:
Are you trying to suggest that Christians don't believe in sexual attraction??
Don't be daft! I'm querying some of the ways sexual and other attraction are interpreted in the modern world, and querying whether Christians should be so readily accepting interpretations which are not based on Christian presuppositions.
On the second para, I'm not exactly keen on arranged marriages, though I think I can see how and why it worked in older cultures. But basically, no that's not relevant to my point.
quote:
I'm a man. I don't find women sexually attractive. Whether you think that's good or bad isn't what I'm talking about. I'm just talking about the fact.
I'm trying to discuss what is the proper Christian interpretation of such facts. Which does not necessarily agree with the interpretation that comes from the non-Christian world....
Can we get one issue out of the way; I don't have a problem with the notion that the secular plural state allows SSM and all kinds of other things that Christians aren't happy with. As you should be aware from my previous postings on various threads I emphatically do NOT believe in the concept of a 'Christian country' and the consequent imposition by law of Christian morality in the UK or any other state. My concern is with getting the Christian position clarified.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm trying to discuss what is the proper Christian interpretation of such facts.
Did someone forget to send Steve the position paper about homosexuality that has been agreed upon by all Christians worldwide?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
People who talk about the Christian position usually mean their own.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Steve, as far as I can see you challenged a statement that I was gay.
Your response was:
quote:
This takes for granted that being 'gay' is the same kind of thing as an ethnic or racial difference. It ain't necessarily so....
I'm gay. That's a fact. It means I'm male and I'm sexually attracted to men. That doesn't need "interpreting".
That's completely different from an opinion about whether being gay is morally problematic. Frankly I wasn't interested in discussing that.
If you can't express yourself clearly, it does you no favours to come back with statements like "Don't be daft!" when I'm trying to figure out what the fuck you're talking about.
It should be abundantly clear that I'm trying to actually establish what it is you're saying, and frankly you are no help whatsoever.
I can't be arsed anymore. Whatever you believe is your business, but if you can't express it clearly I'm no longer interested.
[ 05. June 2015, 12:47: 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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by leo
quote:
MY Christian view is that God, who is Trinity, made gay people and all sorts of other people to reflect his diverse image.
To deny that is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Is it blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to deny that God also made murderers, racists, thieves, and paedophiles to reflect his diverse image?
Equating gays with paedophiles etc. is an old trick and is highly insulting and dismissive.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by LeRoc
quote:
Did someone forget to send Steve the position paper about homosexuality that has been agreed upon by all Christians worldwide?
Yes they forgot - possibly because as you well know no such paper actually exists. Yes, currently Christians have lots of different positions; I'm trying to sort out what at least ought to be 'the Christian position' according to the original teachings rather than all the stuff we've made up later to accomodate the world.
by quetzalcoatl
quote:
People who talk about the Christian position usually mean their own.
Prove me wrong - as opposed to just acting as if all positions are equally valid and subjective, which as I pointed out above is a discussion-killer.
by orfeo;
quote:
Steve, as far as I can see you challenged a statement that I was gay.
and your evidence for this was my statement
quote:
This takes for granted that being 'gay' is the same kind of thing as an ethnic or racial difference. It ain't necessarily so....
No, not challenging that you are 'gay' - challenging whether that is exactly the same kind of thing as a racial difference. A lot of current discourse (not necessarily your position) assumes that, in order to then make the further assertion that 'being gay' means that it is perfectly all right to 'do gay' as in certain sexual acts. But the whole point about racism being wrong is precisely that racial difference does not also result in such differences of moral action.
I am saying that when that transition is made from 'being' to 'doing' the issue has changed.
by leo
quote:
Equating gays with paedophiles etc. is an old trick and is highly insulting and dismissive.
So why are YOU using an argument which implicitly makes that comparison?? Think about it....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
