|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
dorothea
Goodwife and low church mystic
# 4398
|
Posted
tangent - Wonders idly if Wasteland protests too much- end of tangent. Homophobia within the Anglican Church is a sad fact, it doesn't mean that all Anglicans are homophobic (Or Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Methodists, etc.)
J
[ 11. December 2003, 20:01: Message edited by: dorothea ]
--------------------
Protestant head? Catholic Heart?
http://joansbitsandpieces.blogspot.com/
Posts: 1581 | From: Notlob City Limits | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Wasteland
The "core" of Christianity is Jesus. Please refer me to where he made any comment about homosexuality. You are SO committed to the "rotten to the core" idea that you seem to have forgotten who the core is.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve O
Apprentice
# 5258
|
Posted
Read back as far as I could this time, well at least to the start of my last posting, theres something about this "topic" that just keeps drawing me back, however much I try not to, I know its been said before, but it needs saying again, its not Christianity thats homophobic, but individuals and parts of the church, and those that are I wouldnt personally grace with the prefix Christian. There really is no room for prejudice or hatred in my understanding of Christs teachings whether it be on the issue of race or sexual orientation, IMO both forfeit the "right" to label themselves as Christians.
I have been told I am treading on very dangerous ground by questioning the validity of others professed faith, but I would stress my opinion is based on others prejudice or hatred, I imagine there are some whose objection to homosexuality is based on love, who view it as a "sin" so great it warrants eternal damnation and whose objection is based on compassion for those committing this "sin", although I must admit in my limited experience, listening to some of those that object speak, compassion seems to be the last thing on their mind.
Posts: 32 | From: Leicester, UK | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Since I don't believe that the Bibe condems homosexaulity, and since I am not Sola Scriptura and since I am Bi........ I have a hard time believing that the whole of Christianity is in the doldrums because of a conservative ethic of homosexuality however much I disagree with it.
I am also mot a raging evo but it seems to me that The Wasteland needs to work harder to prove that conservative attitudes re: gay/lesbian rights wil be the undoing of Christianity. There is more to the faith than misguided conservative ethics.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Wasteland
Apprentice
# 4700
|
Posted
Of course it is true to say that people hold homophobic views for reasons unrelated to the Bible. Nevertheless there are homophobic elements present in Biblical texts. Leviticus condemns homosexuality and advocates the death penalty for it. You can’t get more homophobic than that. Saint Paul is homophobic, in his own way, he looks negatively on homosexuality – I think it is delusion to pretend otherwise. However, if you read Paul carefully (especially Romans) you’ll see he follows Plato’s thinking very closely & he seems to view homosexual desire as a punishment in and of itself rather than a sin. In Romans he clearly states that God punished people for turning their backs on him and that their punishment was to be turned into gays and lesbians. That is clearly crazy stuff.
A valid question, however, is to ask where the homophobic elements within the Bible come from? They came from those who wrote it, whether it was Saint Paul or whoever it was that wrote Leviticus. BUT that doesn’t explain where they got their views originally does it. Did God beam it into their heads by magic? I doubt it. Basically they absorbed it from the culture around them at the time. So where did those views come from?
I believe homophobia and racism have much the same cause – fear of people who are “different”. Human beings are often very insecure when it comes to dealing with the unknown or when it comes to relating to other people who are radically different in some way or other. Ultimately this is the root of all homophobia. In that sense it is unsurprising to find some such views absorbed into a compilation of ancient texts that are as extensive as the Bible. After all, there is also a certain amount of xenophobia in evidence in ancient Israelite attitudes to some of their neighbours. There is also a strong emphasis on a patriarchal society and an acceptance of slavery as a social norm.
All of these attitudes represent no more than the cultural values of the ancient world recorded in Biblical text. Hardly, then, a good basis for a timeless set of ethics.
Thus the problem with the conservative evangelical view is the view that the Bible represents the literal and timeless teachings of God. If you adopt such a view then you cannot but absorb the homophobia that naturally goes with it, along with (in some cases) elements of the sexism and other unpleasantness to be found therein. If people are insistent in presenting THAT as Christianity then the demise of Christianity is inevitable.
I suppose Christianity can survive only if people reject the idea of scriptural infallibility and view it more as a collection of “inspired texts”. i.e. if they see it as a rough guide of myths, stories and parables that contains a certain degree of error and lack of clarity in relation to much of the finer detail. I think it is doomed if people continue to cling on the view that it is an absolute and infallible source of doctrine. It needs to move closer to an interpretation more like The Sea of Faith position. Although perhaps you might take the view that the core of Christianity = the teachings & life of Christ and the spiritual significance of the crucifixion and resurrection. Thus the stories and the ethical teachings outside of that represent more of an appendix/background material.
This then allows you to say – YES Saint Paul condemned homosexuality. BUT he did so because he was a grumpy old homophobe who was talking out of his arse. That would then be the end of it. (Strangely enough, I feel that if Saint Paul was alive today & you were to say to him “look mate, this stuff you wrote here was bollocks – you’re just a grumpy old homophobe” – he may well just shrug his shoulders and agree with you, his defence would most likely be “I never said I was perfect”).
If Christianity does want to survive – that would seem the only way forward.
--------------------
but there is no water...
Posts: 27 | From: The wilderness | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Oh dear Wasteland. I don't believe in the infallibility of Scripture! I mustn't be a Christian. I am not a homophobe either and yet I believe in Jesus. What can I do?????
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wasteland:
I suppose Christianity can survive only if people reject the idea of scriptural infallibility and view it more as a collection of “inspired texts”. i.e. if they see it as a rough guide of myths, stories and parables that contains a certain degree of error and lack of clarity in relation to much of the finer detail. I think it is doomed if people continue to cling on the view that it is an absolute and infallible source of doctrine. It needs to move closer to an interpretation more like The Sea of Faith position. Although perhaps you might take the view that the core of Christianity = the teachings & life of Christ and the spiritual significance of the crucifixion and resurrection. Thus the stories and the ethical teachings outside of that represent more of an appendix/background material.
So the only choices available to Christians are conservative inerrantist Protestantism and liberal reductionist Protestantism?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
So the only choices available to Christians are conservative inerrantist Protestantism and liberal reductionist Protestantism?
There are other ways?! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ?!? ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) !?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Shocking I know. But I have heard tell of such things.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Wasteland
Apprentice
# 4700
|
Posted
Well, whatever, the fact is that Christianity is currently perceived (in the UK at any rate) as highly homophobic. To turn that situation around requires a far more overt and obvious response than anything that has been in evidence to date. That means repremanding people like the Bishop of Chester for suggesting that gay people need curing and denouncing people like Peter Aikinola in the strongest possible terms. I think the message also needs to be clear as to whether or not homosexuality is, in and of itself, defined as a sin or not. I think you need to be able to say that it is not a sin AND provide LGBT people with some kind of model as to what you believe a GOOD gay relationship looks like.
If Christianity can't or won't go down that route I really don't hold out much hope for it at all. The direction the Evo-cons would have you go is a road to oblivion. The more vocal they become (and lets face it they have been very vocal recently) they more they become exposed for the homophobes they are. Ultimately, as society continues to change and becomes more and more accepting of homosexuality, those people who continue to persist in condemning it will - inevitably - be seen as no better than BNP racists. To some extent they are already seen like that by many people - and not just LGBT people either.
--------------------
but there is no water...
Posts: 27 | From: The wilderness | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Wasteland
What is "Christianity"? People talk as if it were One-Thing (when it suits of course) ... as if I was responsible for the stupid utterances of a bishop who is not part of my church! ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Grand gestures are not required ... what is required is love and good relationships, (I have not specified who, what, when and where since that's universal).
I will not be tarred with someone else's brush. I will not be told that my belief system is crap simply because they are some crappy people in it who teach crappy things.
I'll stop now or it will get too Hellish!
Deep breath. Ahhhhh ... that's better. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Wasteland, I have a strong aversion to people 'crying fascist'. Unpleasant creatures that many fundamentalists are, they are not like the BNP, nor are they ever likely to be. Unless I am very much mistaken, most members of Anglican mainstream do not want to deport the objects of their wrath nor (as is the case with the more scumbag BNPites) exterminate them. Let's get our outrage in proportion.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
What DOD said.
I wonder precisely how many shipmates are, in the highly worthy estimation of The Wasteland, the sort of Christian s/he is complaining of? My guess is that the actual figure is not very high.
Tbh, I totally agree that "the church" needs to change it's attitudes and beliefs in certain areas (with the reservation that those are somewhat sweeping statements) if the church is ever to regain some measure of credibility. I find it rather patronising that The Wasteland appears to assume that we on the ship have failed to realise that there are problems with inerrantism and/or that the church is held in a negative light. Just who is s/he preaching to?
My turn to preach: posters who only ever post about one topic tend to alienate even those who agree with them. esp when they show little evidence of having even read other threads or any real familiarity with the wide range of perspectives, attitudes and experiences on this here ship.
[ 29. December 2003, 17:52: Message edited by: Papio ]
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Wasteland's moniker is quite ironic in the context, drawn as it is from the poetry of a man who with mild Anti-Semitic sentiment, a rather pompous view of the plebs and who embraced a highly conservative Anglo-Catholicism (which was hardly pro-gay) in his later years.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Fr.G: quote:
What is "Christianity"? People talk as if it were One-Thing (when it suits of course) ... as if I was responsible for the stupid utterances of a bishop who is not part of my church!
Take your point, take your point... But there is a sense in which...
I was taking a meeting of church workers in the summer, at which the question was put: "What are you most afraid will happen during visits to people's homes?" Very tentatively, someone said "Well, in a sense, we're there in a representative capacity. What happens if people ask us what the Church of Scotland's position is on such and such?" I asked for a concrete example, and three people simultaneously said "Well, this Bishop of Reading business..."
So I teased it out a bit: "Well, what do you think?" And the instant consensus was "It's a load of nonsense that puts us all in a bad light, and makes us all look antidiluvian." (I paraphrase, but accurately. And you can have no idea how relieved - and proud - I was!)
So when you say:
quote:
I will not be tarred with someone else's brush. I will not be told that my belief system is crap simply because they are some crappy people in it who teach crappy things.
I sympathize absolutely, and if agreement were the issue, I would agree. But of course, agreement isn't the issue. We are all tarred with the same brush(es). Which is very handy for some people.
I think The Wasteland over-eggs his pudding, and over-emphasizes his point - but he does have a point!
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Sublime poetry though.
True, but I suspect if Pound had been around I'm sure we would have been given 1 1/2 excellent quartets rather than the four patchy ones we got.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Absolutely!
(now, nobody start carping on about Pound's fascism, please. This is a thread about homosexuality)
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Sorry to drag this away from Poetry... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Just a quick sort of update: and another word of thanks for all here.
I'm still a confused person, and no doubt will be for the rest of my life! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) Finding men semi-attractive, finding women semi-attractive...I take it I should call a spade a spade and say I may be bi! Quite a shock for me to write, nay, admit that. [The horrors of my childhood fundamentalist experiences refused to go away...]
For me, I tend to think I am called to some form of celibacy [if that doesn't sound too pompous...I don't mean it that way and heaven knows I'd like a shag one day!] Do any others have similar feelings? What I mean is a 0% desire for sex - I truly have none.
Sorry if this is off topic [probably] or dull [most likely! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ] - just a few thoughts I'd had over the New Year.
God bless,
Ian.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Admiral Holder
Everything that God has given you or not given you can be a blessing. What matters is how you integrate that and use it.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lioba
Shipmate
# 42
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Admiral Holder:
For me, I tend to think I am called to some form of celibacy [if that doesn't sound too pompous...I don't mean it that way and heaven knows I'd like a shag one day!] Do any others have similar feelings? What I mean is a 0% desire for sex - I truly have none.
Sorry if this is off topic [probably] or dull [most likely! ] - just a few thoughts I'd had over the New Year.
God bless,
Ian.
No, you don't sound pompous at all. I think God calls some people to live a celibate life and according to my experience happy and successful celibate people (inside and outside of religious orders) often have very little or no interest in sex as such.
Another thought: I don't know how old you are, but when I tried to figure out if I was bi or a lesbian (and was rather frightened by the implications that had in the context of a very conservative church) I lived a celibate and fulfilled life for about 7 years. I fully believe that celibacy needn't necessarily be for life, but can also be an option for a limited time.
--------------------
Conversion is a life-long process.
Posts: 502 | From: Germany | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
What Lioba says. I've never had any interest in sex except with my partner - I don't fantasise or ogle other people. And before I got together with her, I had no interest at all. In fact I loved being single. She arrived as a bit of a bolt from the blue!
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calypso
Shipmate
# 3692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Admiral Holder:
Sorry to drag this away from Poetry...
Just a quick sort of update: and another word of thanks for all here.
I'm still a confused person, and no doubt will be for the rest of my life! Finding men semi-attractive, finding women semi-attractive...I take it I should call a spade a spade and say I may be bi! Quite a shock for me to write, nay, admit that. [The horrors of my childhood fundamentalist experiences refused to go away...]
For me, I tend to think I am called to some form of celibacy [if that doesn't sound too pompous...I don't mean it that way and heaven knows I'd like a shag one day!] Do any others have similar feelings? What I mean is a 0% desire for sex - I truly have none.
Sorry if this is off topic [probably] or dull [most likely! ] - just a few thoughts I'd had over the New Year.
God bless,
Ian.
I've only just had a quick look at this thread but your post caught my eye and relate to what you're saying. When I was in my late teens and actually went to church my peers would actually tell me there was something seriously wrong with me because I had no apparant sexuality . I still have no desire for a sexual relationship and don't feel that I'm missing out either.
--------------------
Dys dógor þu geþyld hafa wéana gehwylces, swá ic þé wéne to.
Posts: 204 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wasteland:
I believe homophobia and racism have much the same cause ? fear of people who are ?different?. Human beings are often very insecure when it comes to dealing with the unknown or when it comes to relating to other people who are radically different in some way or other. Ultimately this is the root of all homophobia.
We got that wee word in school assembly as well. Or was it Sesame Street?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Admiral Holder:
What I mean is a 0% desire for sex - I truly have none.
Just goes to show how different people are. Thinking about sex, in the broadest sense, including explicit fantasies, or thinking about marriage or having children, or looking wistfully at attractive people, or just feeling totally pissed off and lonesly for being single never goes away, not for more than a few minutes at a time. Year after year after year.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Admiral Holder - You don't sound pretentious in the slightest.
All of your posts on this thread indicate an intelligent and very honest poster. I must admit that my singleness is problematic. I find it hard to be single as I do have a sex drive and I do get lonely sometimes. I want a partner. But neither of us knows whether either of us will find someone or not.
If you can accept that you are called to singleness you are braver than me. I believe God once asked me what I would do if he called me to singleness. I told him he could f**k off then - which I still feel. I can't and won't accept such a self definition.
Thank you for your honest response. I hope you can accept my equally honest response.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Oh! Papio IS the baboon. I was curious. Sorry to interrrupt. Dum-dee-dum-dee-dum .....
Well, I admit it isn't the sexiest of avatars, Fr. Gregory.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Fr Gregory:
[and may I ask what the name of the icon/picture of your avatar is? I'd like to see it in a larger picture]
Thanks to all who have responded: I appreciate your honesty, thoughts, comments and experiences you've shared.
God bless,
Ian.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I will send you the original picture Ian by regular email. It is a (new) fresco of Christ the King (Pantocrator) from the chapel of Metropolitan Elias (Aude) of Beirut.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Thank you very much Fr. Gregory: I shall have a look immediately...
...
...WOW! Thank you. 'Tis an amazing fresco: I shall have to look into more such similar frescos/paintings now...I'm fascinated.
Thanks again,
Ian.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
Louise said:
It's a real headache when you reckon people to be really good sincere Christians*, and at one and the same time you can see the harm their positions can cause to people you love, and you know people who have been really harmed by such attitudes.
Louise, I submit that you have swallowed the “victim” card played with great skill by the homosexual lobby. I also think that you are confusing true agape love with protecting people from any kind of emotional or psychological distress.
In the gospels some people went away from Jesus very unhappy. There are times when agape love has to talk tough, and that is what Akinola has done. In an African context of rampant AIDS, homosexual behaviour is not “something innocuous” that people have “no choice over”.
That Akinola’s words were forceful and hard-hitting I do not deny, and it is not how I would phrase myself. In Nigeria Christians are already on the receiving end of violence, from Muslims and others. Your concern over potential violence in the future seems to exclude the actual violence in the present.
Neil
Talking about 'victim cards' and 'homosexual lobbies' are easy ways for people to let themselves off the hook for the damage some of their co-religionists have done to gay people over the years.
Whether it's by pushing the notion that gay people should be 'cured' or being at the forefront of opposing legislation which seeks rights for gay people, or by being happy to post rhetoric that devalues gay people and their partners and relationships, it's sad to say that quite a few conservative Christians have made themselves conspicuous as anti-gay campaigners. It's also sad to say that a lot of gay people have felt the effects of such campaigning.
And so we come to the old 'tough love' argument.
If I want to go round to my neighbour and tell him that his relationship with his partner is something no normal person would do and repugnant to me because 'not even animals do that' then is that really showing 'tough love' or am I simply fooling myself, by cloaking my prejudices with the word 'love'?
Taking someone else's most intimate relationship with their partner and degrading it as something less than human - not because they are abusing anyone or harming anyone or harming me - but because I think my way is superior, is not 'love' as I understand it.
quote:
In an African context of rampant AIDS, homosexual behaviour is not “something innocuous” that people have “no choice over”.
You use the word behaviour. By using that word, you (deliberately?) isolate gay sex from what gives it its full significance - its part in the context of loving relationships. By doing so you take a reductionist attitude to gay sex. It's merely a 'behaviour' which can be modified and which people should stop. Thus something which is part of someone's most intimate communion with their partner is debased. Something which heterosexual people in committed relationships take forgranted as a way of expressing their love for their partner is transformed into some ugly disease spreading practice which is unfavourably compared to animals.
The biggest factor in the transmission of AIDS in Africa is heterosexual promiscuity but a faithful gay couple are no more likely to spread AIDS than a faithful heterosexual couple. If Akinola wanted to denounce promiscuity - then why didn't he say so?
In fact he made the remark not in the context of AIDS in Nigeria, but in the context of a celibate gay man being appointed to a bishopric in England and in the same breath he characterised that as quote:
a Satanic attack on God's church
.
You also bring up again the accusation which was dealt with at length on this Dead Horses thread earlier that people who oppose these sort of remarks don't care about violence against Christians in Nigeria.
Do you really think that if I thought, as a Christian, I could spare myself persecution under a violent regime by denouncing another group as no better than animals - thus hoping that the authorities would leave Christians alone whilst those other people continued to be at risk - that that would be the right thing to do? I don't.
The trouble with this is the whole 'behaviour' argument. When you unpack it, what lies behind it is assigning to the people whose sexuality is called a 'behaviour' an inferior status.
Our sexuality is a good and holy expression of our most intimate love for our partner. Your expression of it is just a 'behaviour' and one you should stop at once. We claim the right being able to express our love for our partner sexually. You don't get to. We are a little less than the angels. You are not even as good as dogs and pigs and lions because you make love to your partner.
You are clearly a thoughtful and caring person, yet you seem to be set on defending a statement which represents an extreme and ugly attack on gay people. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
L.
--------------------
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
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Go Louise. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
Thank you for that last post Louise. I think an eye-opener to some.....I hope.
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
kerygma
Apprentice
# 5411
|
Posted
I may start repeating things here, sorry if I do, but I haven't read the entire discussion (only got three hours online! lol!) The post preceding Louise's interested me because it raises an issue which seems to often get linked to the 'homosexuality and the church' debate. I don't want to fly off at a tangent here but I think it would also be poignant to point out that the AIDS situation in Africa is not being much assisted by the Catholic Church who provide a great deal (if not ALL in some cases) of the support given to AIDS sufferers and their families. I recently did some research which showed how these people were indeed helped by the Catholic Church in some ways but in others the 'help' they were receiving was appalling ..... ie the Catholic stand on the use of contraception. AIDS sufferers and people who may be at risk of developing AIDS were being told, in no uncertain terms NOT to use condoms as this could CAUSE or SPREAD AIDS. Now, ok, the Catholic Church has an agenda here, and fair enough, they are entitled to their point of view, but to knowingly go around the place giving out totally false information and therefore, by definition, possibly RAISING the spread of AIDS or AIDS-related disease seems to me to be a terrible and utterly unforgivable thing to do. Although, quite why the AIDS argument rears its head everytime homosexuality and the Church are discussed I'm not sure? Surely not prejudice?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
If we all accepted diversity the world would be a much nicer place :o)
Posts: 1 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
For the record here is the remark attributed to Akinola, as Louise quoted it on the “Untrustworthy and Two-faced” Evangelicals thread:
quote:
Akinola has said he "cannot think of how a man in his senses would be having a sexual relationship with another man. Even in the world of animals, dogs, cows, lions, we don't hear of such things."
Louise, I’ll deal with your last point first.
quote:
Louise said:
You are clearly a thoughtful and caring person, yet you seem to be set on defending a statement which represents an extreme and ugly attack on gay people.
Peter Akinola, Nigerian Anglicans and African Christians in general are, so far as I know, not represented on this board. Some may be lurking, but none appears to be posting. Methodologically the debate over Akinola’s stance has therefore been very unsatisfactory for its geographically one-sided nature. I am not an African, but since I am prepared to stick my head above the parapet, it has fallen to me (and a few others) to represent the African position.
Your assessment of Akinola’s views (“an extreme and ugly attack”) are based on tiny fragments of his actual words presented to us by an African news agency. Spawn has already posted about the vivid and vigorous language that is naturally used in the African Church, almost in a metaphorical, and even a non-realist, sense. We do not know the full extent of Akinola’s words, nor do you and I experience the African social context that lies behind them.
quote:
Louise said:
The biggest factor in the transmission of AIDS in Africa is heterosexual promiscuity but a faithful gay couple are no more likely to spread AIDS than a faithful heterosexual couple. If Akinola wanted to denounce promiscuity - then why didn't he say so?
I acknowledge the point that AIDS in Africa has been predominantly spread by heterosexual promiscuity, but that is manifestly not the case in Europe and America.
I don’t have a reference for this, but I believe that Uganda is one of the few places in Africa where AIDS rates are falling, partly due to the churches’ outspoken stance on moral behaviour and abstention. How do you know that Akinola and the Nigerian church have not been equally outspoken about heterosexual promiscuity?
quote:
Louise said:
You use the word behaviour. By using that word, you (deliberately?) isolate gay sex from what gives it its full significance - its part in the context of loving relationships. By doing so you take a reductionist attitude to gay sex. It's merely a 'behaviour' which can be modified and which people should stop. Thus something which is part of someone's most intimate communion with their partner is debased. Something which heterosexual people in committed relationships take for granted as a way of expressing their love for their partner is transformed into some ugly disease spreading practice which is unfavourably compared to animals.
I used the word behaviour to focus deliberately on sexual actions. Unlike our sexual desires, sexual actions are under our conscious control, and we retain responsibility for them. Psychologically we always have a choice over our freely chosen actions. I do not use the word behaviour pejoratively, and I have no problem with my own marriage being subject to a behavioural analysis.
Sexual behaviour is, frankly, the crux of the argument. No one is against friendship, companionship, community life, emotional support, “guy bonding”, or many of the positive things that I have experienced in my own male relationships. Those aspects of same-sex relationships can all be actively encouraged.
However, something that many Christians (including most of the African church) believe is intrinsically wrong (gay sex) does not become right, just because it is practised in a committed long-term relationship. In my understanding, and that of many other parts of the church, gay sex is not “good and holy”, but a serious sin.
If you don’t think that anal sex (used by 91% of gay male couples) and some of the other practices in parts of the male homosexual community (rampant promiscuity and bare-backing, for starters) are an “ugly disease spreading practice”, then I can only recommend more medical research.
quote:
Louise said:
Our sexuality is a good and holy expression of our most intimate love for our partner. Your expression of it is just a 'behaviour' and one you should stop at once. We claim the right being able to express our love for our partner sexually. You don't get to. We are a little less than the angels.
You really are putting words into my mouth now. I would remind you that we are all made “just a little lower than the angels”, and unlike the animals, we are moral agents who have a choice over our actions, even if our desires are not under conscious control. That is why I, no less than you or anyone else, am a sinner who is redeemed only by God’s grace.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
Spawn has already posted about the vivid and vigorous language that is naturally used in the African Church, almost in a metaphorical, and even a non-realist, sense. We do not know the full extent of Akinola’s words, nor do you and I experience the African social context that lies behind them.
Metaphorical and non-realist? Pull the other one!
The brutal fact of the matter is that Akinola and his ilk hate homosexuals. If a European church leader compared Africans to animals and claimed that their ordination to the priesthood was "a satanic attack on God's church" you would, quite properly, be up in arms yet, apparently, this sort of prejudice is entirely acceptable in an African social context.
This may suggest that something is wrong with the African social context, rather than that this sort of prejudice is acceptable.
For those who disapprove of homosexuality, the African church with its deep spirituality, ancient peasant wisdom and pathological loathing of homosexuals is held up as something of a model. In fact it appears to be the case that those societies which are tolerant of homosexuals appear to be those that value civil society and human rights viz. the US, Canada, the UK, Northern Europe etc. The one African church which has consistently come down on the side of tolerance is South Africa which has successfully managed the transition between Apartheid and democracy.
On the other hand those countries whose churches have come down against homosexuality tend to be, at best, those with no lasting or deep tradition of civil society (e.g. Nigeria, Uganda) and at best criminal kleptocracies and failed states (e.g. Zimbabwe). Clearly if traditionalists want their views on homosexuality to be taken forward by western society as a whole the way forward is the impoverishment of society and a military coup d'etat.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
For the record here is the remark attributed to Akinola, as Louise quoted it on the “Untrustworthy and Two-faced” Evangelicals thread:
Peter Akinola, Nigerian Anglicans and African Christians in general are, so far as I know, not represented on this board. Some may be lurking, but none appears to be posting. Methodologically the debate over Akinola’s stance has therefore been very unsatisfactory for its geographically one-sided nature. I am not an African, but since I am prepared to stick my head above the parapet, it has fallen to me (and a few others) to represent the African position.
Your assessment of Akinola’s views (“an extreme and ugly attack”) are based on tiny fragments of his actual words presented to us by an African news agency. Spawn has already posted about the vivid and vigorous language that is naturally used in the African Church, almost in a metaphorical, and even a non-realist, sense. We do not know the full extent of Akinola’s words, nor do you and I experience the African social context that lies behind them.
I think this ignores the effect which religious leaders condemning others can have in Nigeria. If Imams in Kano province with its history of anti-Christian violence started likening Christians to dogs or pigs or saying that their practices were lower than those of animals, we'd be worried and we'd be right. If the Archibishop had used similar words about Muslims in his own country I don't think he'd have been able to get away with telling them it was 'just metaphorical and non realist.'
As for interviews and profiles of Archibishop Akinola - there are plenty nowadays on the web. For instance his letter to Archbishop Ndugane. His views are hardly inaccessible these days.
I've spent much of my life studying societies in which scripture was treated with ultimate seriousness and in which people did not hesitate to use language which would shock us today - denouncing others as idolators, brutes, followers of Antichrist, papist dogs, Babel's brats, filthy Jews etc. In the context of their society, it's unexceptional - nobody sees anything wrong with it, and the results are as you expect: the groups which get branded in this way get it in the neck.
Perhaps in countries where scripture is taken very seriously, religious leaders should be especially careful with using degrading language about others.
quote:
If you don’t think that anal sex (used by 91% of gay male couples) and some of the other practices in parts of the male homosexual community (rampant promiscuity and bare-backing, for starters) are an “ugly disease spreading practice”, then I can only recommend more medical research.
This is just completely irrelevant in the face of people practicing committed relationships and using safe sex practices. I also hardly need to add that this sort of argument falls down totally when applied to lesbians whose sexual expressions are extremely low risk for spreading AIDS or that the same things can be said about unprotected heterosexual sex which is causing an epidemic of stuff like chlamydia at the moment and practices like 'dogging'.
Heterosexual sex is something which can range from the sordid to the sacred but your attitude to the sexual lives of your gay shipmates seems to be that when they make love to their partners they can only be doing something sordid and that hence it is OK for Archbishop Akinola to go around denouncing them as out of their senses and doing stuff no animal would.
quote:
I used the word behaviour to focus deliberately on sexual actions. Unlike our sexual desires, sexual actions are under our conscious control, and we retain responsibility for them. Psychologically we always have a choice over our freely chosen actions. I do not use the word behaviour pejoratively, and I have no problem with my own marriage being subject to a behavioural analysis.
Sexual behaviour is, frankly, the crux of the argument. No one is against friendship, companionship, community life, emotional support, “guy bonding”, or many of the positive things that I have experienced in my own male relationships. Those aspects of same-sex relationships can all be actively encouraged.
However, something that many Christians (including most of the African church) believe is intrinsically wrong (gay sex) does not become right, just because it is practised in a committed long-term relationship. In my understanding, and that of many other parts of the church, gay sex is not “good and holy”, but a serious sin.
And just because you think gay sex is a sin, it does not make it right for you to back Akinola's type of rhetoric. If I decide that celebrating mass is a sin and furthermore a 'behaviour' or practice which Catholics could choose to give up any time they like, and I then back sectarians who claim that Catholics are worse than pigs and that no 'person in their senses would hear mass', it doesn't absolve me from the harm that my position causes or mean that I can shrug off accusations of behaving appallingly to Catholics by saying 'Well as far as I'm concerned it's a very serious sin and an abomination to God and anyway I'm not against Catholics, I am against the awful practice of the Mass!'
Backing someone like Archbishop Akinola reminds me of what people in the Church of Scotland did in the 30s, when they backed the kind of rhetoric on 'idolatry' et al. favoured by 'Protestant Action' and then pretended to be horrified when this led to actual nastiness to Catholics.
When gay bashers jump out on someone in the street - do you think they ask them whether they are a 'practicing' gay or a 'celibate' gay? And if the latter they say 'Oh, OK then, that's fine!' and off they run!
Attacks on gay sex are like rhetoric on the 'wicked idolatry of the Mass' - they are attacks not on the practices but on the people identified with those practices. The former is an attack on gay people, the latter on Catholics. To think this kind of rhetoric is harmless is to kid oneself.
So you think it's a sin - why then do you need to go the step further and defend a statement which goes further and compares gay people to animals? Do you really want to back up this kind of rhetoric?
L.
(That's enough I'm way past my bedtime!)
--------------------
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
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
In fact it appears to be the case that those societies which are tolerant of homosexuals appear to be those that value civil society and human rights viz. the US, Canada, the UK, Northern Europe etc.
I'm glad to see the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns haven't scarred us so badly that we can't still think of ourselves as the world's foremost purveyors of human rights.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
No-one said that modern western society was perfect. Vastly superior to any of its competitors or predecessors in the field of human rights is the modest and entirely defensible claim here.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
I'm finding your post in MW a bit difficult to unpack, Young Fogey.
Are you basically saying, it's absolutely fine for gay people to come to church, but we should on no account approve of their sexual activity? Is that a fair summary or have I got you completely wrong?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Young fogey
Shipmate
# 5317
|
Posted
quote:
Are you basically saying, it's absolutely fine for gay people to come to church, but we should on no account approve of their sexual activity? Is that a fair summary or have I got you completely wrong?
I agree with that statement. Falls under 'love the sinner, hate the sin', just like for straight people.
--------------------
A conservative blog for peace
Posts: 961 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Louise said:
Heterosexual sex is something which can range from the sordid to the sacred but your attitude to the sexual lives of your gay shipmates seems to be that when they make love to their partners they can only be doing something sordid and that hence it is OK for Archbishop Akinola to go around denouncing them as out of their senses and doing stuff no animal would.
For once you’ve said something with which I can wholeheartedly agree. “Sordid” is exactly the right word for anal sex, whether practised in a homosexual relationship, or a heterosexual one. Don’t kid yourself that there is such a thing as “safe anal sex”. I invite you to do some more medical research here.
As a matter of plain fact, a quick search of the web suggests that anal sex, and all sorts of other homosexual practices, have been observed in the animal world. See this web page, and this one, both of which reference the book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl.
So Akinola’s comment about animal behaviour is, strictly speaking, factually incorrect – there are actually many animals indulging in the behaviour he denounces.
quote:
Louise said:
Backing someone like Archbishop Akinola reminds me of what people in the Church of Scotland did in the 30s, when they backed the kind of rhetoric on 'idolatry' et al. favoured by 'Protestant Action' and then pretended to be horrified when this led to actual nastiness to Catholics.
It’s perfectly possible to discuss one’s disagreement with a theological and moral outlook without degenerating into the racist and violent politics of Scotland in the 1930’s (and today, for that matter – I have witnessed a fist fight in Glasgow during an Orangemen’s March). Do you think that violent thugs pay any attention to what anyone in the church says today, least of all an African bishop?
Your historical analogy here is completely overblown, and far from being exact. In present UK society, gay sex and gay relationships are completely acceptable in a secular context. Even the Police are now represented on Gay Pride marches. I am unaware of any secular voices in the UK arguing against gay sex – possibly the military - but I may be wrong.
quote:
Louise said:
Attacks on gay sex are like rhetoric on the 'wicked idolatry of the Mass' - they are attacks not on the practices but on the people identified with those practices. The former is an attack on gay people, the latter on Catholics. To think this kind of rhetoric is harmless is to kid oneself.
I will agree with you that megaphone rhetoric is far from ideal, and I would not have expressed myself in Akinola’s manner. However, you should acknowledge the blunt and offensive rhetoric that has already permeated this debate from the revisionist side. If you are going to cry “foul”, then at least acknowledge the provocation Akinola received.
I refer to the offensive likening of the 1998 Lambeth Conference of Bishops to a “Nuremberg rally”, and the contemptuous dismissal of African Bishops whose loyalty could be bought for a “chicken dinner”, as well as the patronising attitude of effortless superiority well illustrated by Callan’s posts above.
I could turn your whole thesis on its head, and discuss the actual violence already being meted out in the UK to conservative Christians perceived not to be in favour of the homosexual agenda, e.g.:
- Martin Hallett of True Freedom Trusthas received physical intimidation and the disruption of his speaking engagements.
- Archbishop George Carey had services disrupted and received physical intimidation from Peter Tatchell and Co.(ask Spawn).
- Peter Tatchell and Co. invaded last year’s C of E General Synod, subjecting the synod members to verbal abuse and emotional distress. He was explicitly supported by at least one poster on SoF.
- Bishop Oketch of Kenya was assaulted last year in London by two English priests, on account of his views on the immorality of homosexual behaviour. See here, and also this article, which mentions Oketch, as well as a church janitor in the USA beaten for a pastor’s sermon.
- The official intimidation, including a Police interview, handed out to the Bishop of Chester for his fair and reasonable remarks regarding the possible value of psychiatric therapy to some people experiencing same-sex attraction.
I’m sure that more could be added to the list, but already it strikes me as an exceptionally sad and frightening litany. Our recent discussion began over Callan’s unfunny quip of “gay bashing”. Somehow I didn’t think he was referring to the list above. How much longer before the viewpoint I have outlined is silenced for supposed hate crimes?
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
From Faithfuol Sheepdog
quote:
For once you’ve said something with which I can wholeheartedly agree. “Sordid” is exactly the right word for anal sex, whether practised in a homosexual relationship, or a heterosexual one. Don’t kid yourself that there is such a thing as “safe anal sex”. I invite you to do some more medical research here.
So what exactly are you arguing against then - homosexual physical relationships or anal sex? The latter will include a large percentage of heterosexual couples who have at least 'tried' it, and the former will include a load of lesbians/bisexual women for whom anal sex is hardly an issue.
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Gracious rebel said:
So what exactly are you arguing against then - homosexual physical relationships or anal sex? The latter will include a large percentage of heterosexual couples who have at least 'tried' it, and the former will include a load of lesbians/bisexual women for whom anal sex is hardly an issue.
My fundamental argument is against homosexual physical relationships on theological and moral grounds using my understanding of Christian revelation.
I am also arguing for the wrongness of anal sex in any relational context, using a philosophical natural law type approach. It’s just possible that Romans 1:27, “men…receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error”, is an explicit reference to anal penetration (i.e. due penalty = penis), but I’m not basing my case on that specific interpretation.
I am aware that some male couples do not practice anal sex (although over 90% do), nor do those lesbians who only have sex with other women (some will be bisexual). I am not sure that a “large” percentage of heterosexual couples have tried anal sex, but I agree that some certainly do.
So is anal sex per se moral for the Christian, even in heterosexual marriage? To answer that question involves asking further questions. What are the consequences of encouraging anal sex? What are the specific medical problems associated with it? What are the physical consequences of long-term use of the practice? What are the emotional and psychological consequences?
As a first stab at an answer, I will speak as an engineer. The anus was designed to excrete soft waste matter. When it is used to receive a hard penis, it is operating well outside its design parameters, so even as an engineer I would expect problems. From my reading of the medical evidence on the Internet, I think there is ample evidence that anal sex is an exceptionally unhealthy practice associated with many serious medical conditions.
So, in one sentence, I am arguing against both homosexual physical relationships and anal sex.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
I refer to the offensive likening of the 1998 Lambeth Conference of Bishops to a “Nuremberg rally”, and the contemptuous dismissal of African Bishops whose loyalty could be bought for a “chicken dinner”, as well as the patronising attitude of effortless superiority well illustrated by Callan’s posts above.
So harsh language by liberals is patronising and offensive. Incitement to hatred by conservatives is "metaphorical and non-realist". Glad we've got that one sorted out.
When ECUSA consecrated Gene Robinson, Akinola claimed that ECUSA was under the control of Satan. Doesn't that bother you at all?
[ 15. January 2004, 21:39: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
so using your reasoning oral sex is presumably out too
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Faithful Sheepdog, as an engineer you (I hope) would design structures that can put up with conditions considerably exceeding 'normality'. Even if the anus was designed for 'soft matter' - that varies according to diet I would think - perhaps the efficient engineer that is natural selection gave it specs. above minimum requirements..
Incidentally it does amuse me that, when it comes to sex, a certain type of evangelical thinks that God's exact purposes can be deduced from biology. That's very un-evangelical you know. You really ought to be about the otherness and incomprehensibility of God, the falleness of nature and sinful humanity's need for revelation. At least this Anglo-Catholic thinks so.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
