|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: French protestant church votes in favour of blessing same-sex couples
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Furthermore, sexual relationships between men were seen as an extension of male friendships and manliness, and was not romantic. It also had a deeply misogynistic element to it. Sexual relationships between women were condemned, unsurprisingly.
Equating the Classical concept of same-gender sex with loving and monogamous same-gender relationships is wrong-headed and offensive. It bears no resemblance to actual gay people's lives.
--------------------
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
by arethosemyfeet;
quote:
Please stop trying to use Asperger's to justify or support your views.
I'm not using AS to 'justify or support' my views. Just trying to explain, to a Shipmate's suggestion about my 'a priori' assumptions, that Aspies generally think in a slightly different way about things - which is indeed why so many of us are 'absent-minded professors' who contribute a particular kind of problem solving in many fields.
also by atmf;
quote:
your assumption that Jesus would agree with you because there is no record of him saying otherwise is an argument from silence, however you frame it.
Actually I tried quite hard to avoid that assumption. I made the point that where there is only silence, neither side can assume "Therefore he agrees with me..." I do give some weight, with a rabbi as unconventional as Jesus, to the notion that in a case like this his silence would likely reflect agreement with the prevailing view, especially as his other comments on sexual morality tend if anything to the stricter side. Note, BTW, that when challenged about his social contact with prostitutes and tax collectors he doesn't justify it by saying that those 'sinners' are perfectly all right, but by a comment that it is those who are ill who need a doctor.
On the text about God making humans 'male and female' I'm aiming/hoping to be back later tonight with a more detailed exposition. But I think the Son of God basing an argument about marriage on the fact of God creating them 'male and female ' goes a little beyond mere 'silence'.
by Palimpsest;
quote:
I'm always amused by those who cite Leviticus as a reason to condemn same sex marriage but who still manage to eat bacon for breakfast.
That in itself is a bigger argument (about the relationship of OT and NT) than I can tackle right now. I think above I cited Leviticus rather to point out that in Jewish culture, accepting that prohibition on gay sexual activity would be the norm. There are wider reasons than that one text to object to same-sex marriage for Christians.
Although I'm deliberately soft-pedalling the point after events on other threads, can I point out that as I don't believe in the concept of a 'Christian country', and also therefore don't believe in Christians using the law to impose their beliefs and moral standards on non-Christians in the style of Muslim 'Sharia', I'm not opposing the legal provision of SSM in a religiously and philosophically pluralist state. Ideally, I don't believe Christians should practice SSM; and in turn I believe that because I don't find sufficient reason in the Bible.
Alan Cresswell, sorry but for now I've run out of time to answer your point; apologies also to others like Curiosity killed the cat.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
can I point out that as I don't believe in the concept of a 'Christian country', and also therefore don't believe in Christians using the law to impose their beliefs and moral standards on non-Christians ... I'm not opposing the legal provision of SSM in a religiously and philosophically pluralist state.
Which is an irrelevant tangent. The question (on this thread) is not about whether or not nation states legally recognise same sex marriages. The question is, in countries where the state legally recognises marriage should the Church "bless" (whatever that means) such marriages?
--------------------
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 Steve Langton:
On the text about God making humans 'male and female' I'm aiming/hoping to be back later tonight with a more detailed exposition.
He also made them intersex. Not many of them, admittedly, but some. Your exposition will need to deal with that.
It will also have to avoid treading on a vast number of landmine generalisations that risk alienating/invalidating any heterosexual man or woman that doesn't happen to match whatever characteristic you give to an archetypal male or archetypal female. Best of luck with that.
Because, fundamentally, "likes having sex with women" is just one characteristic attributed to an archetypal male. It happens to be one that I break. But there are other characteristics that some other male on the Ship will break.
[ 10. June 2015, 12:25: 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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
He also made them intersex. Not many of them, admittedly, but some. Your exposition will need to deal with that.
I think that can be explained by the fall, so in the creation account we see the model which since has been corrupted to lesser or greater degrees.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
On the text about God making humans 'male and female' I'm aiming/hoping to be back later tonight with a more detailed exposition.
He also made them intersex. Not many of them, admittedly, but some. Your exposition will need to deal with that.
It will also have to avoid treading on a vast number of landmine generalisations that risk alienating/invalidating any heterosexual man or woman that doesn't happen to match whatever characteristic you give to an archetypal male or archetypal female. Best of luck with that.
Because, fundamentally, "likes having sex with women" is just one characteristic attributed to an archetypal male. It happens to be one that I break. But there are other characteristics that some other male on the Ship will break.
Yes, I am curious if conservative Christians see sex and gender in terms of basic templates, thus, men are male and masculine, from which divergences occur, thus, some men don't feel male, some don't feel masculine, some don't desire women, some don't desire anyone, some wear women's clothes, and so on. Is the template then some kind of divine archetype, from which it is sinful to diverge? On the other hand, we have, let a 100 flowers bloom.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
He also made them intersex. Not many of them, admittedly, but some. Your exposition will need to deal with that.
I think that can be explained by the fall, so in the creation account we see the model which since has been corrupted to lesser or greater degrees.
But being intersex is not a disability. It can involve disability or a greater risk of certain conditions, but that applies to all sexes, eg XY individuals being prone to prostate/testicular cancer.
Suggesting that being intersex is a disability is awful and inhumane. It is just a different sex, I don't see why that is such a threat to people like you.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
On the text about God making humans 'male and female' I'm aiming/hoping to be back later tonight with a more detailed exposition.
He also made them intersex. Not many of them, admittedly, but some. Your exposition will need to deal with that.
It will also have to avoid treading on a vast number of landmine generalisations that risk alienating/invalidating any heterosexual man or woman that doesn't happen to match whatever characteristic you give to an archetypal male or archetypal female. Best of luck with that.
Because, fundamentally, "likes having sex with women" is just one characteristic attributed to an archetypal male. It happens to be one that I break. But there are other characteristics that some other male on the Ship will break.
Yes, I am curious if conservative Christians see sex and gender in terms of basic templates, thus, men are male and masculine, from which divergences occur, thus, some men don't feel male, some don't feel masculine, some don't desire women, some don't desire anyone, some wear women's clothes, and so on. Is the template then some kind of divine archetype, from which it is sinful to diverge? On the other hand, we have, let a 100 flowers bloom.
I would say that there is a model, for sure. Whether or not any departure from that is sinful, or just the result of sin entering into the world, or both, is a different question.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
He also made them intersex. Not many of them, admittedly, but some. Your exposition will need to deal with that.
I think that can be explained by the fall, so in the creation account we see the model which since has been corrupted to lesser or greater degrees.
One can see anything that one doesn't like as being "explained by the fall". That's not an explanation so much as a hand-waving excuse.
It's very easy to reason "that seems good, so it's from God, that seems not good, so it's not from God", which is in the very opposite of the reasoning process that should occur. What happens when two people look at the exact same thing, and one finds the thing "good" and the other doesn't?
[ 10. June 2015, 13:33: 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 I'm curious, does this mean miscarriages are a result of the fall?
After all, living breathing intersex people are actually a success story of the human reproductive process, relatively speaking. There are a great many embryos that aren't even viable.
And how does this square with species that are known to change gender, as a matter of course? Is this natural phenomenon "fallen"? Of course, I accept that something being "natural" doesn't preclude it being "fallen", but if God created male and female and everything going on the Ark was in pairs because that's the way it was always intended, I now find myself speculating about whether God originally created clownfish male and female but it all went wrong afterwards.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
He also made them intersex. Not many of them, admittedly, but some. Your exposition will need to deal with that.
I think that can be explained by the fall, so in the creation account we see the model which since has been corrupted to lesser or greater degrees.
One can see anything that one doesn't like as being "explained by the fall". That's not an explanation so much as a hand-waving excuse.
It's very easy to reason "that seems good, so it's from God, that seems not good, so it's not from God", which is in the very opposite of the reasoning process that should occur. What happens when two people look at the exact same thing, and one finds the thing "good" and the other doesn't?
It's not an excuse. As I said, we have a model. As for the last part, either one of them is wrong or they're both wrong but they can't be both right.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I'm curious, does this mean miscarriages are a result of the fall?
After all, living breathing intersex people are actually a success story of the human reproductive process, relatively speaking. There are a great many embryos that aren't even viable.
And how does this square with species that are known to change gender, as a matter of course? Is this natural phenomenon "fallen"? Of course, I accept that something being "natural" doesn't preclude it being "fallen", but if God created male and female and everything going on the Ark was in pairs because that's the way it was always intended, I now find myself speculating about whether God originally created clownfish male and female but it all went wrong afterwards.
To the first question, yes. To the second, I don't know.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
He also made them intersex. Not many of them, admittedly, but some. Your exposition will need to deal with that.
I think that can be explained by the fall, so in the creation account we see the model which since has been corrupted to lesser or greater degrees.
One can see anything that one doesn't like as being "explained by the fall". That's not an explanation so much as a hand-waving excuse.
It's very easy to reason "that seems good, so it's from God, that seems not good, so it's not from God", which is in the very opposite of the reasoning process that should occur. What happens when two people look at the exact same thing, and one finds the thing "good" and the other doesn't?
It's not an excuse. As I said, we have a model. As for the last part, either one of them is wrong or they're both wrong but they can't be both right.
I would say they're both wrong in that the premise and the conclusion are the wrong way around.
It's not the case that if something seems good, it must be from God. It's the case that if something is from God, we can reason that it's good.
Ascribing something to the fall because it doesn't seem good to you is usurping your feelings on the subject for God's.
[ 10. June 2015, 15:00: 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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I agree that if something seems good it doesn't necessarily mean that it is, but that's not what I'm say at all and neither is it my reasoning.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Who mentioned disability?
Sorry, I understood things like disability and other harmful things to be a consequence of the Fall - but I don't understand the idea that being intersex is. If it's not inherently harmful then why is it a result of the Fall?
--------------------
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 Ad Orientem:
I agree that if something seems good it doesn't necessarily mean that it is, but that's not what I'm say at all and neither is it my reasoning.
Then what is your reasoning? What basis do you have for connecting the existence of intersex people with the fall other than your own 'ickiness' over the concept of intersex people?
You yourself rejected any equation of intersex with disability. So what other basis is there for labelling being intersex as a problem?
I'm trying to imagine what would happen if you actually walked up to an intersex person and said "your existence is evidence of the fall". I can't imagine they'd be pleased with you.
And the proposition is skirting terribly close to a theological proposition that gets rejected several times in the Bible. Maybe it's not QUITE the same as looking at a blind man and asking Jesus "so who sinned, him or the parents?" but it's still an uncomfortable proposition to me to look at someone's physical state and say "ah yeah, evidence of the fallen state of mankind generally". And unlike homosexuality we're talking about a situation where the notion of "choice" cannot possibly be raised (not that I think that's accurate for homosexuality anyway).
--------------------
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 Alan Cresswell
quote:
Which is an irrelevant tangent. The question (on this thread) is not about whether or not nation states legally recognise same sex marriages. The question is, in countries where the state legally recognises marriage should the Church "bless" (whatever that means) such marriages?
Totally agree on this. I was just trying to make sure everyone else was clear on that. Whether Christians feel it appropriate to 'bless' such a union depends on whether they believe it right in Christian terms. 'Bless' would appear to imply approval - the question is can we approve? Which in turn depends on whether we can show that God approves - which according to the Bible does not appear to be the case.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by leo;
quote:
That's stretching a text - so there are males and females. And there are male homosexuals and female homosexuals.
So what.
You may as well say
that married people aren't worthy to enter heaven.
As regards that last, I don't know of many people - indeed I don't think I know any - who think Jesus was suggesting that marriage in this age means unworthiness to enter the next age! The essentially trick question he was answering was about a completely different concept. This is not your first "You may as well say...." argument which doesn't make sense and has nothing to do with what I'm actually saying. I'm getting fed up of them.
As regards the rest, that doesn't make sense either. Go back to the gospel text and this time think it through properly.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I agree that if something seems good it doesn't necessarily mean that it is, but that's not what I'm say at all and neither is it my reasoning.
Then what is your reasoning? What basis do you have for connecting the existence of intersex people with the fall other than your own 'ickiness' over the concept of intersex people?
You yourself rejected any equation of intersex with disability. So what other basis is there for labelling being intersex as a problem?
I'm trying to imagine what would happen if you actually walked up to an intersex person and said "your existence is evidence of the fall". I can't imagine they'd be pleased with you.
And the proposition is skirting terribly close to a theological proposition that gets rejected several times in the Bible. Maybe it's not QUITE the same as looking at a blind man and asking Jesus "so who sinned, him or the parents?" but it's still an uncomfortable proposition to me to look at someone's physical state and say "ah yeah, evidence of the fallen state of mankind generally". And unlike homosexuality we're talking about a situation where the notion of "choice" cannot possibly be raised (not that I think that's accurate for homosexuality anyway).
My reasoning is this: we have a model which is good, the creation account, how things should have been had our first parents not sinned. Male and female he created them, it says. Yes, I would understand all that much more literally than most here.
[ 11. June 2015, 01:29: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by leo;
quote:
That's stretching a text - so there are males and females. And there are male homosexuals and female homosexuals.
So what.
You may as well say
that married people aren't worthy to enter heaven.
As regards that last, I don't know of many people - indeed I don't think I know any - who think Jesus was suggesting that marriage in this age means unworthiness to enter the next age! The essentially trick question he was answering was about a completely different concept. This is not your first "You may as well say...." argument which doesn't make sense and has nothing to do with what I'm actually saying. I'm getting fed up of them.
As regards the rest, that doesn't make sense either. Go back to the gospel text and this time think it through properly.
I agree - the point is that when you stretch a text to justify something that isn't there, that is what you get.
--------------------
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 leo;
quote:
And there ARE people who interpret the text that way - like that very big church which enforces celibacy upon its clergy.
Awful as the RC Church sometimes is, I don't think even they actually teach "that married people aren't worthy to enter heaven." As far as I know, they also have the usual interpretation that, as the question to Jesus and his answer both imply, marriage in this life is totally worthy.
Honestly, this is getting rather desperate on your side. As I suggested, please pull out and rethink.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Honestly, this is getting rather desperate on your side. As I suggested, please pull out and rethink.
If anything it's your attempts to twist Christ's words to fit a homophobic agenda that look desperate.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Well, I can see this thread has been led a merry dance since I had to leave it to attend to other matters.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
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.
To return to the OP, I think that accommodation is precisely what the EPUdF declaration is about.
Echoing terms that have been used above, I think, quetzalcoatl, that the "male and female" couple in Genesis is indeed an archetype, a word I used a lot here.
I expect this archetype to endure in the long term if only because, when all's said and done, it's the simplest way for humans to procreate.
Post-fall, we all fall short of the mark. That comes out in different ways for different people. There are relationships, gay and straight that fall short of the mark - probably all of them - but I don't think that means they are beyond redemption, transformation, or perhaps most importantly, accommodation.
Jesus did not forbid divorce but allowed it due to the hardness of men's hearts. What I read there is that he agrees to accommodate it, but not to set it up as an example.
Furthermore, I think that "accommodation without holding up as an example to follow" falls within the semantic field of "blessing", although not everyone agrees (this has been discussed at some length in Purgatory here).
To my mind that is where the EPUdF declaration has got to as regards blessing same-sex couples, and, on a case-by-case basis (like the declaration), it's where I currently find myself standing, in much the same way as I do on remarriage of divorcees, dedicating infants, and a host of other non-sacramental, non-civic things church communities do.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
