|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Gagnon is definitely worth looking at so you can see where people like Sheepdog are coming from, Ruth, but be advised that Gagnon ignores authors like Craig Williams whose findings support your viewpoint.
Louise, reading Gagnon is a little more than just seeing where people like FS are coming from (a subtle ad hominem). The review you cite I think describes Gagnon's book well and appreciates the merits of his view. Undoubtedly the research and work in this area moves fast and no-one can say I have read Gagnon and don't need to do any further reading. I, like the reviewer, would have felt happier with a book where the views of the author are not presented so forcefully. That seems to be an increasing hallmark of modern academic approaches.
Nevertheless, the significance of Gagnon's book is that his account of the Biblical evidence is exhaustive. It is the best academic resources the Church has at the current time, and undoubtedly informs the debate. I haven't seen a weighty and detailed rebuttal of Gagnon by any liberal academic. I hope there will be because it is in this way that the debate moves on.
Have you read 'The Bible and Homosexual Practice' yourself?
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And since we know this is bullshit, and only works if you define any paedophile who abuses boys as a homosexual, regardless of their self-identified orientation, and their sexual orientation wrt adults, I think we know exactly how high an esteem to hold Gagnon's work.
Genuine ignorance - you say "And since we know this is bullshit" - are there other studies that show this not to be true?
IIRC, studies show that adult heterosexual males are the most likely individuals to abuse children. I will try to find out the details for you.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
http://www.robincmiller.com/gayles4.htm
Interestingly, Cameron's site was the first that my Google search brought up, and indeed he does make it look like child molesters are disproportionately gay. As my link points out, this is because he defines as a homosexual a man who abuses a boy, regardless of the man's adult relationships and orientation.
In other words the "homosexuals" who abuse boys are not the same individuals as the gay men involved in adult same-sex relationships and seeking to be able to turn these into marriages whom we are tallking about in this discussion. Indeed, these "homosexuals" are primarily either heterosexual in their adult attraction, or are not interested in sex with adults at all.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
he defines as a homosexual a man who abuses a boy, regardless of the man's adult relationships and orientation.
How else would you suggest he does it?
The only alternative is to have some sort of theory of a socially-constructed homosexual community based on an innate orientation.
Which is fine for self-description, but in this case leads to the rather odd situation of having a group of men who have sex with men who don't count as homosexuals, and another group who don't, who do.
You can't do a forensic analysis like that. No doubt at least some od these men don't describe their behaviour as child abuse.
We're talking about people who we have arrested and locked up - who we are fundamentally not allowing to define themselves, and on whom the state imposes definitions in order to restrain their behaviour. If you don't use someone's behaviour to categorise them, what do you use?
If there is any use in defining the rape of children as homosexual or heterosexual (& is there? I'm not sure why there should be) then the only way to do it is by looking at the actual sex of the attacker and the victim, not by some theoretical construct of orientation.
You could also pretty easily work up an argument that even if homosexual behaviour was entirely dependent on an innate homeosexual orientation, many men, for whatever reason, are unable or unwilling to express it in adult or equal relationships, and so even if these men have heterosexual adult relationships they might have unfulfilled needs they were taking out on children.
Of course if you believed that (& I think I probably don't - it smacks too much of the idea that rape is a sexual behaviour rather than a political one, which I suspect is mpore often nearer the truth, and it also implies some belief in irresitible sexual urges, which is I think a nionesense idea and the rapist's classic excuse, after "they asked for it") if you believed that then the way to protect future generations of children from these men would be to actively promote homosexuality as a reasonable lifestyle choice, so that men with such innate urges found socially acceptable ways to live them out with other adults.
Which should play well in Peoria.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Cheesy said:
I don't understand the relevance of this to the homosexuality debate, but you clearly weren't paying attention in your school Latin lessons, FS, otherwise you would not have written such garbage. Roman empire slavery was not benign by any definition. I agree it was not exactly the same form as US slavery, but to suggest it was somehow better beggars belief. Clearly in Jesus' time there were some people who were more considerate about their slaves, just as there were some in the southern states.
Stop talking rubbish and give us all a rest.
Cheesy, it was not me that first introduced the subject of slavery onto this thread. You’ll find looking back that it was The Wanderer. One of my first comments to him was that the subject of slavery was irrelevant to this discussion.
Nor have I used the word “benign” in connection with Roman Empire slavery in an absolute sense – in fact I specifically repudiated that description. I have only ever used the word “benign” in a comparative reference to the uniquely pernicious Negro slavery in 18th and 19th century America. I have done that because The Wanderer chose to use the word “benign”, and the shared vocabulary gave us a common point of reference.
If you have some substantive points to make on this thread, then please make them. However, if all you want to do is hurl personal abuse in my direction, then I suggest you open a thread in Hell and get it out of your system. In the meantime I would be grateful for an apology for the non-purgatorial language in your post.
quote:
The Wanderer said:
Forgive me - I haven't read Gagnon and given the way things are at the moment I'm not likely to in the immediate future. However I'm afraid this line of argument fails to convince me. Jesus uses a general term which may or may not show that he was thinking of homosexuality at the time. If he was condemning everything covered by the Levitical law, is he also outlawing having sex with a woman during her period (Lev 18.19)? "Wickedness" could include planting two different types of seed in the same field (Lev 19.19), "foolishness" could include trimming your beard (Lev 19.27). If you expand Jesus' words here to include everything forbidden in Leviticus you end up letting far too much through.
The Greek term porneia means sexual immorality. Discussion in Leviticus about beards, seeds and other non-sexual issues are therefore not relevant. The term “sexual immorality” in English is rather vague and wide-ranging in the first instance, but there is lot of information on precisely how first century Jews understood the Greek term behind the English translation.
This comes from its use in the Septuagint (Greek) translation of the OT (circa 200 BC), and its use elsewhere in the writings of inter-testamental and rabbinic Judaism. Invariably, Jewish discussion on the full meaning of porneia works its way back to the Law of Moses, and chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus in particular (part of the so-called Holiness Code).
There is a similar chain of evidence for the meaning of aselgeia, which means sensuality (ESV) or lewdness (NIV). Even the word adultery (also in the plural in the Mark 7:20-23 passage) carries for first century Jews an extended meaning that takes in other sexual misbehaviour.
The Jewish conclusion, which underlies the traditional Christian doctrine, is that sexual activity is reserved for marriage between a man and a woman. Beyond that we are called to chastity.
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
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
http://www.robincmiller.com/gayles4.htm
Interestingly, Cameron's site was the first that my Google search brought up, and indeed he does make it look like child molesters are disproportionately gay. As my link points out, this is because he defines as a homosexual a man who abuses a boy, regardless of the man's adult relationships and orientation.
In other words the "homosexuals" who abuse boys are not the same individuals as the gay men involved in adult same-sex relationships and seeking to be able to turn these into marriages whom we are tallking about in this discussion. Indeed, these "homosexuals" are primarily either heterosexual in their adult attraction, or are not interested in sex with adults at all.
Hardly an unbiased source you cite - nevertheless it is pretty difficult to find a source without an axe to grind. However, I agree with you that homosexuals are no more likely to be paedophiles than heterosexuals and vice versa. I think one area in which I might disagree with you is that many gay men have a much more ambiguous attitude towards teenagers approaching the age of consent than they should. Gay publications, including the magazine of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, have happily included writers who believe that the age of consent is an irrelevance (one writing in 'Lesbian and Gay Christians' that once a boy can both express desire and express themselves sexually there should be no subsequent criminalisation of sexual behaviour). Peter Tatchell is on the public record as supporting an age of consent at the age of 14 and he is by no means alone. There are various causes for this ambiguous attitude towards teenagers and I wonder if seeking antecedents in history for modern forms of homosexuality especially the pederasty of ancient Greece and Rome, have led some to conclude that such behaviour is in the range of 'normal'.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
Cheesy, it was not me that first introduced the subject of slavery onto this thread. You’ll find looking back that it was The Wanderer. One of my first comments to him was that the subject of slavery was irrelevant to this discussion.
Nor have I used the word “benign” in connection with Roman Empire slavery in an absolute sense – in fact I specifically repudiated that description. I have only ever used the word “benign” in a comparative reference to the uniquely pernicious Negro slavery in 18th and 19th century America. I have done that because The Wanderer chose to use the word “benign”, and the shared vocabulary gave us a common point of reference.
If you have some substantive points to make on this thread, then please make them. However, if all you want to do is hurl personal abuse in my direction, then I suggest you open a thread in Hell and get it out of your system. In the meantime I would be grateful for an apology for the non-purgatorial language in your post.
I'm sorry this is not purgatory and I am not going to apologise. Prove your assertion that Roman slavery was 'more benign' than southern state slavery. It wasn't and to suggest such a thing is nonsense.
Frankly, I don't think there are ways to divide slavery - it is never acceptable. To suggest that some kinds are socially acceptable and some are not is just rubbish. And to mention Roman slavery and benign in the same breath shows vast ignorance.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
I'm sorry this is not purgatory and I am not going to apologise.
I thought that calling someone ignorant and accusing them of 'talking rubbish' fell foul of all the Boards except for Hell?
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Spawn, if FS can supply evidence then I will willingly grovel. He cannot because it does not exist.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pob:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But Jesus doesn't say "If" at all. He answers a question about divorce by teaching them what he views to be the truth about divorce and then marrigae. There's no sense of "IF THIS is true about divorce, THEN THIS must be true about marriage."
It's the disciples who say 'if-then' - see verse 10. It's all within the same context. I really don't see your justification for saying 'and then he moves on to marriage and brings gays into it for good measure'.
There is nothing at all hypothetical about what Jesus says.
He does not restrict his teaching on divorce to one hypothetical occasion. All divorce is wrong – unless because of adultery. Its an all inclusive statement about divorce. How could there be further exceptions to what Jesus says about divorce?
He does not say "in some circumstances" marriage is between a man and a woman. Or "hypothetically if people are being divorced, then hypothetically marriage is between a man and a woman". He says marriage is between man and a woman. Period. How can you read Jesus words as suggesting there is an alternative form of marriage than the one he defines?
With this all encompassing teaching about marriage, his disciples ask "If this is right, then its a high standard, and perhaps its better not to marry."
For those who find this too tough to contemplate, there is an alternative - being a eunuch. Period. He does not offer any other alternative. And since his statements on marriage are divorce are so exclusive, then he limits the alternative to marriage to being a eunuch. Not being in a stable same sex relationship. Not being in a gay marriage. Being a eunuch. Period.
The word "Hypothetical" is a red herring.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
I'm sorry this is not purgatory and I am not going to apologise. Prove your assertion that Roman slavery was 'more benign' than southern state slavery. It wasn't and to suggest such a thing is nonsense.
Frankly, I don't think there are ways to divide slavery - it is never acceptable. To suggest that some kinds are socially acceptable and some are not is just rubbish. And to mention Roman slavery and benign in the same breath shows vast ignorance.
C
This thread may be in Dead Horses, but as far as I understand Ship rules Purgatorial guidelines and restrictions still apply to posts. I would be grateful for a hostly clarification on this specific point.
Cheesy, you have have misrepresented my words and ignored everything I said in my reply to you. You have then chosen to throw still more abuse in my direction. I am still waiting for your apology.
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
|
|
Pob
Shipmate
# 8009
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
The word "Hypothetical" is a red herring.
If so, why are you bringing it up and devoting an entire post to its discussion?
I really think you must have badly misunderstood my point. Please look again at verse 10. Jesus tells the crowd that Moses gave them permission to divorce because of their hardness of hearts, but that to do so for any reason other than adultery is to commit adultery. The disciples then say, 'blimey! If you can't divorce the missus, it's better to not marry.'
Jesus then says 'not everyone can accept this word.' I take that to mean the word he's given the crowd - that divorce is a Bad Thing. He then says that some are born 'eunuchs' - which I presume to be a metaphor for 'sexually unable to function' - and some are made that way, and some renounce marriage because of the kingdom of heaven; this I assume to be a reference to taking a vow of celibacy. I'm not sure why he interjects this, but you have come up with no evidence other than your own unsupported hypothesis to suggest that he is referring to homosexuals in any of it. He certainly doesn't command anyone to become a eunuch, whether literally or figuratively. He then reiterates that the one who can accept his teaching (on divorce) should do so.
--------------------
As the expensive swimming trunks, so my soul longs after you.
Posts: 738 | From: Gloucestershire, and jolly nice it is too | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Ok, here are the appropriate parts of the posts, just to show that I have read them.
quote:
First from The Wanderer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Paul Mason:
So has the Church had it wrong all these centuries?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes - just as it was wrong for centuries about owning slaves, and the position of women. Next?
quote:
Then you said
Slavery as it existed in the 1st century Roman Empire had important differences from the slavery in 18th and 19th century America. The latter is one of the most pernicious forms of slavery known to history. By comparison Roman Empire slavery was relatively benign, though not as benign as that for Hebrew slaves in Israel.
This is bollocks.
Then you said both some other stuff about homosexuality and slavery (which I am not arguing about here).
quote:
Here The Wanderer was arguing from your assertion:
Sheepdog, just a thought. You admonish me for treating slavery as an absolute, without realising that it has taken many different forms in different times. Slavery in Jesus' time, you assert, was benign while at other periods in history it has been cruel and oppresive. Is it not at least possible that homosexuality has meant different things at different times too? Condemning the exploitation of children, or rape, could be a very different thing from condemning a partnership which adults have entered into of their own free will.
quote:
Then you said this:
Roman Empire slavery was certainly much more benign that the uniquely pernicious slavery in 18th and 19th century America. I’m not sure I would use the word “benign” for all Roman Empire slavery, but it was not a slavery based on skin-colour alone.
It was certainly possible to purchase one’s freedom, and then acquire full rights of citizenship. Some slaves were legally married with families, and others were educated people with high responsibility
Which is still bollocks, no matter how many times you repeat it.
Do you really want me to drag some statistics up about slaves in the Roman empire?
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
Thanks whitebait for correcting the link I provided. This thread is moving fast, so I'll repost it. "Born Eunuchs"
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pob:
I really think you must have badly misunderstood my point. Please look again at verse 10.
<snip>
Jesus then says 'not everyone can accept this word.' I take that to mean the word he's given the crowd - that divorce is a Bad Thing.
<snip>
He then reiterates that the one who can accept his teaching (on divorce) should do so.
The key question in the interpretation of verses 10 to 12 is whether "this word" in verse 11 refers to the teaching on divorce on verse 2-9 (which is actually very close to one of the standard rabbinic schools of teaching), or whether it refers to the disciples' comment in verse 10 about "better not to marry".
I think it highly unlikely that Jesus would have concluded his teaching with the lame comment that the one who could accept his teaching should do so. It is much more likely that his punchline refers to the tough choices open to people - married or eunuch. Hence "this word" in verse 11 refers to the disciples' comment in verse 10.
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
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pob:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
The word "Hypothetical" is a red herring.
If so, why are you bringing it up and devoting an entire post to its discussion?
Because you are! It's the only explanation of Matthew 19 which is being proposed - it its left wanting in my view.
quote:
Originally posted by Pob:
Jesus then says 'not everyone can accept this word.' I take that to mean the word he's given the crowd - that divorce is a Bad Thing. He then says that some are born 'eunuchs' - which I presume to be a metaphor for 'sexually unable to function' - and some are made that way, and some renounce marriage because of the kingdom of heaven; this I assume to be a reference to taking a vow of celibacy. I'm not sure why he interjects this, but you have come up with no evidence other than your own unsupported hypothesis to suggest that he is referring to homosexuals in any of it. He certainly doesn't command anyone to become a eunuch, whether literally or figuratively. He then reiterates that the one who can accept his teaching (on divorce) should do so.
One widely accepted rule of interpretation of a verse is to take its immediate context. Lets do this with verse 11.
You say verse 11 is about divorce – “' I take that to mean the word he's given the crowd - that divorce is a Bad Thing.”. I say verse 11 is about marriage. So lets take the context into consideration in solving our dispute.
The context before verse 11 speaks both of marriage and divorce, so we can't solve our dispute that way.
However, look at verse 12. With your interpretation, verse 12 makes no sense - as you acknowledge - "I'm not sure why he interjects this". However, if we interpret verse 11 as being about marriage, then verse 12 makes complete sense – being a Eunuch is the alternative to marriage. This also makes sense of the “For…” at the start of verse 12. Not everyone can accept marriage for (because) they are eunuchs. In favour of my argument, the scholars translating the NIV understands the meaning of the section to be marriage – “and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.”
Taking into account the context, then, my argument makes sense of the whole passage, and yours does not. You have no explanation of verse 12. Your argument is left wanting. Find an explanation of verse 12 from your approach, and perhaps your theory will carry some weight. At the moment it does not.
So, if I am right, then Jesus is being exclusive about marriage and celibacy. In which case, what he says is totally relevant to the discussion on homosexuality.
[ 11. November 2004, 12:17: Message edited by: Fish Fish ]
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
<Host Mode - ACTIVATE>
OK guys - this is getting more than a bit heated and must stop. I cannot give the matter the attention it needs (I am at work at the moment) so I am CALLING A HALT to this thread at this point until I have sufficient time to analyse the apparent wreckage.
PLEASE DO NOT post further until I have resolved this matter. This applies to all shipmates - not just those who have posted recently.
Sorry to disrupt your discussion - but a timeout might be of benefit to all
<Host Mode - DEACTIVATE>
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pob
Shipmate
# 8009
|
Posted
2 points to begin with, Fish Fish:
1. I don't believe I've introduced or discussed hypotheticals once on this thread, and would challenge you to point out a single instance where I have. On the contrary, I would suggest that you're the one bringing in hypotheses: 'Suppose that he's talking about gays here - then this would make sense because...'
2. It is not a valid argument to say 'you can't come up with an alternative reading for verse 12, so mine must be right'. Nor does it make sense to say that Jesus switches topic and doesn't flag this up in any way, but that because you can interpret the next verse in that context your interpretation makes the most sense.
A reading that seems to me more coherent than yours would be the following:
- Jesus tells the crowd that divorce is a Bad Thing.
- The disciples say, 'in that case it would be better not to marry!'
- Jesus says, 'Yes, you're going to find this tough, boys, but there are three types of eunuch - those who are born without their nadgers, those who have them cut off, and those who choose not to use them for the sake of the kingdom of heaven - in other words those who choose not to marry to avoid the risk of upsetting God by getting divorced later on
I have as many problems with this reading as with yours - assuming Jesus was being completely serious, and not just teasing the guys with a bit of bawdy humour - but it seems more consistent and straightforward, and has the advantage as an interpretation that you don't have to assume any hypothetical changes of subject on Jesus' behalf, as your reading does.
[ETA - sorry, cross-posted with Tony K]
[ 11. November 2004, 12:40: Message edited by: Pob ]
--------------------
As the expensive swimming trunks, so my soul longs after you.
Posts: 738 | From: Gloucestershire, and jolly nice it is too | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle
Shipmate
# 4792
|
Posted
Sorry to butt in – but I’ve been reading the contentious Matthew passage. I don’t think it’s interpretation is easy. In context I would say that Verse 11 is about divorce. The whole conversation is about divorce to begin with. Jesus tells them that anyone who divorces his wife, except for infidelity, and marries another woman commits adultery. The disciples – clearly thinking they may not be up to this standard – say it would then be better not to marry if divorce is such a bad thing. Jesus – responding to their doubts – says ‘Not everyone can accept this word (about divorce) but only those to whom it has been given (which I would take to mean given to accept). He then adds the comment about eunuchs.
The sentence about eunuchs is all about not being married. The disciples have just said – then it would be better not to marry. Jesus then talks about those who are not married. There are those who are eunuchs because they were born that way – ie it was out of their control. There are those who are eunuchs because men made them that way – again – it was out of their control. There also those who are (metaphorically) eunuchs because they have consciously chosen to live that way – because of the kingdom of heaven. Perhaps he is saying here that to be unmarried is certainly a valid choice – and perhaps referring obliquely to himself.
--------------------
where am I going... and why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 318 | From: Kent, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pob:
2 points to begin with, Fish Fish:
Want to reply
Respect the hosts
Respect the hosts
Respect the hosts
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Admin Looms, Menacingly
Okay, since several people ignored Tony's request for time to sort out the mess, I am temporarily closing this thread so that he can get to it when he gets to it.
And here, as everywhere except Hell, personal attacks are not allowed. Play nice, or go away.
Temporarily Closed for Evaluation
(I also thank Fish Fish for forbearance even in the face of temptation to reply by others)
[ 11. November 2004, 15:26: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
<Host Mode - ACTIVATE>
OK guys - I've had the time to look at what's gone on and it's not quite as bad as I first thought.
First - Pob and Belle. Thank you for PM'ing me so promptly following your inadvertant postings after mine - clear cross-posting. And Fish Fish - thanks for your (not so subtle!) reminder!
Generally - in the first place I think we have probably got all the juice we can out of the slavery issue in this context - it is getting tangential and needs a thread of its own if any wish to follow it up. Please drop it here.
Also - we seem to have hit an impasse on the bible passage from Matthew. It is unlikely that all parties are going to come to any agreement on it. By all means continue to use it, but I think we should be presenting our closing arguments on it in the near future. I very rarely try to dictate the course of a discussion, but in DH I am not allowed to close threads, and we sometimes need to curtail a particular aspect of a thread. I will do so in this instance should it prove necessary.
And specifically- Cheesy. I think that your remarks to Faithful Sheepdog have gone too far. Your wording was too strong for DH - which, while not actually Purgatory, is certainly not Hell and is for serious (purgatory-type) debate. There is no need for FS to 'provide evidence' before you will 'grovel'. I am not asking you to grovel - but a simple apology to Faithful Sheepdog, and your fellow shipmates, is required.
But several others have come close to offending - as I mentioned before. Could I ask all contributors to this thread to re-read the 10Cs and the preamble to the Board before continuing. No further warnings will be given!
Discussion can now restart
<Host Mode - DEACTIVATE>
[Edited for typo]
[ 11. November 2004, 21:28: Message edited by: TonyK ]
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Sorry everyone. I have no excuse and I know better.
Slavery is something that touches a nerve so I will refrain from posting again here.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Sorry everyone. I have no excuse and I know better.
Slavery is something that touches a nerve so I will refrain from posting again here.
C
Thank you Cheesy, apology accepted.
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
|
|
Paul Mason
Shipmate
# 7562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Mason:
So has the Church had it wrong all these centuries?
I'd like to re-visit this question if I may. I suspect it was perceived as making a point - however it was a genuine question.
I'd love to believe that we can read into Jesus' silence that he was affirming of gay relationships - but those closest to him historically didn't seem to think so.
Of course the church can get things wrong - but, as far as I'm aware, it's been pretty consistent on this for a long time until relatively recently. And what does it say about God if he is happy to have his church misrepresent him so badly for so long? That either he doesn't care or isn't able to intervene.
I don't find any of the alternatives very appealing, sadly.
So my question, to those who think Jesus, if he'd spoken clearly on the matter*, would have affirmed homosexuality rather than attacked it - my question still is - did the church get it wrong all these years? Why the discontinuity between the church and her head? If you believe Jesus wasn't anti-gay how do you deal with the fact that the church has been?
Thanks.
*sorry but I don't buy the Matthew 19 passage as 'clear'
--------------------
Now posting as LatePaul
Posts: 452 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
Is it possible that we have not come forward at all in the past couple thousand years? I know there are people who try very hard to duplicate the conditions under which the earliest Christians operated--is that the dynamic at work here? Are we just assuming that we have learned nothing at all of any consequence since the 1st century? I think that is the gist of that now out of bounds tangent; that we perhaps have grown somewhat from those days, and have some greater understanding in some areas than perhaps they did then.
It would be sad if in all these centuries Christians haven't learned anything whatsoever about how the world works, and how people function. Is that what is being put forth here? That first-century understanding is all that we should put into practice when evaluating the status of women, or minorities, or gays? Perhaps it is.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
The issue of cultural conditioning is a difficult one. It's not as though we can 'distill' some pure deposit of revelation apart from culturally and socially conditioned history. The word of God was spoken in first century Aramaic in a particular society to particular people. There is no ahistorical kerne;, that is a gnostic myth.
But, no, we are not supposed to become first century imitations. We couldn't if we tried. The risen Christ sends the Spirit to the Church, enabling that word spoken two thousand years ago to speak to us, and giving us power to discern what is enduring. The process of discernment is often messy, and this is what the Church is going through at the moment in relation to sexuality.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Mason
Shipmate
# 7562
|
Posted
The problem for me is that it's not just the 1st century, but pretty much every one since.
And it's what it says about God that bothers me. It seems to imply that either
a) the 'historical' understanding of this is correct - i.e. God thinks gay sex is wrong
b) that God is not really involved in the process the church goes through grappling with these issues
c) that God really doesn't care that much about it - which would be fine but that equates to not caring about those people who've been hurt by the prevailing view
All pretty unsatisfying ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Now posting as LatePaul
Posts: 452 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Or possibly
d - that his people were not listening to God's leading (as they clearly weren't, in my opinion, on the role of women in the church)
e - that God was waiting for a time in which new understanding was possible.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Mason
Shipmate
# 7562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Or possibly
d - that his people were not listening to God's leading (as they clearly weren't, in my opinion, on the role of women in the church)
e - that God was waiting for a time in which new understanding was possible.
Both of which make God into something of a poor communicator.
--------------------
Now posting as LatePaul
Posts: 452 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
God is not a poor communicator. But finite beings are necessarily imperfect communicators. And God can only make God's self-communication present to us as a finite being.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Two paragraphs from the The God Gene thread, copied here to prevent that thread going off on a tangent. quote:
I said:
There was a lot of fuss a year or two back when it was announced that the human genome (the total number of genes) were to be mapped out, because some assumed that the gay gene would be found and this could be used as a basis for discrimination against gays, or of preventing gays to be born.
In the end the genome was smaller than expected, making it more unlikely that there is a gay gene, although the possibility that it is caused by a combination of genetic factors is still there.
Please note that in my opinion it doesn't really matter if nature or nurture are the main factors in determining sexuality. What matters is that it is not the fault of the person that they are gay or straight, and they should be treated accordingly.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Mason
Shipmate
# 7562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
God is not a poor communicator. But finite beings are necessarily imperfect communicators. And God can only make God's self-communication present to us as a finite being.
Sorry if God himself is not a poor communicator but can only communicate through imperfect communicators, whose imperfection leads to miscommunication on this scale then it amounts to the same thing.
But let's be clear. This is a fairly simple concept - that same-sex relationships are as valid as hetero-sex ones - and God - through whatever means - can't get that across to his representatives on earth in 20 centuries?! I was being generous when I merely said 'somewhat poor'.
I mean is this concept more complicated than 'Blessed are the meek' or 'turn the other cheek'?
Am I the only one this bothers? Is it really so easy to brush aside all that church history?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Now posting as LatePaul
Posts: 452 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
I don't want to brush aside church history at all, but it is a strange mixture of the inspiring and the depressing. Given the generally negative view of sex held by the church for the past 2000 years (and the damaging results of this for various groups, including women) it does not seem shocking to me to say that the church has got a lot of things wrong in the entire area of sex.
It used to be widely held that the main reason for sex was to make babies. Once you admit the possibility that sex may be pleasurable in and of itself, and that God might have planned it that way, it seems to me that a whole range of issues have to be reexamined in the light of this new understanding.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Mason:
I mean is this concept more complicated than 'Blessed are the meek' or 'turn the other cheek'?
Am I the only one this bothers? Is it really so easy to brush aside all that church history?
You choose a particularly strange pair of lines to explain how easy it is to understand history! Show me the meek Christians or the Christians that are turning the other cheek, particularly in international politics right at this very moment. By my reckoning, "pre-emptive" strikes do a lot more harm to the notion of Christianity than than my relationship with my partner.
Historically, of course, Christians have been enthusiastic warmongers, so your argument may still hold water. But I seriously question whether war is in any way what Jesus preached.
--------------------
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
|
|
Paul Mason
Shipmate
# 7562
|
Posted
Arabella,
I wasn't quoting those phrases to 'understand history', I was quoting them as examples of clear communication. I stand by that.
I don't know how to respond to you. You live with this in a way I don't. Nevertheless I can't pretend to be comfortable with the historic position on this issue, nor that I can dismiss it with the idea that we've finally (after all this time) figured out with Jesus really meant. It causes me great discomfort and I'm afraid that the conclusion I come to is that if there is a non-homophobic God, then he is not represented at all by the Bible or the church through most of its history.
I'd like to believe otherwise but it's the only position that makes sense to me.
--------------------
Now posting as LatePaul
Posts: 452 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
And if Jesus preached peace, well, there isn't much evidence of it in historic Christianity. So did the message reach us or not? That was my point.
I don't think that the history of Christianity is necessarily a good place to look for the practice of the message of God through Jesus. And the Sermon on the Mount is perhaps the most beloved piece of direct instruction that isn't adhered to by most Christians. Certainly the historic church hasn't prized meekness, peace-making, poverty, etc in its leaders.
I think that "love one another as I have loved you" is easily understood, too. But I don't often feel loved by other Christians. In fact, a large percentage of other Christians deny that I should be allowed to call myself Christian. And yet, you know, I lead a loving life, doing my best to follow Jesus. There are individual Christians doing their best to live life as Jesus would have us do, but the Church corporate proclaims, through its leaders and some prominent Christians, that the message of love and peace given to us from the mouth of God in Jesus, is in fact a gospel of war, hatred and power.
I am reminded, once again, of the young woman, who when challenged that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, replied, "But Jesus is only a small part of the bible." Jesus is everything, Jesus is God. And what Jesus said was "love."
--------------------
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Mason:
Sorry if God himself is not a poor communicator but can only communicate through imperfect communicators, whose imperfection leads to miscommunication on this scale then it amounts to the same thing.
When I talk to my friend's 15-month-old, she doesn't understand everything I say, despite my best efforts to use gestures and tone as well as words to convey my meaning. Am I therefore a poor communicator? When she's six, will I be a better communicator?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Mason:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Or possibly
d - that his people were not listening to God's leading (as they clearly weren't, in my opinion, on the role of women in the church)
e - that God was waiting for a time in which new understanding was possible.
Both of which make God into something of a poor communicator.
No -- it makes us poor receivers.
After all, with respect to (d) at least, the (Anglican) church now broadly accepts that women can be priests -- a position that goes against the practice of the last 1,900 years, or thereabouts. Now I would argue that it was always possible for women to be priests (indeed, that there were female presbyters in the first century) but that by following cultural norms and not listening to God, the church didn't do it for a very long time. Are you suggesting that God should have forced the church to move on this? By and large God doesn't seem to work that way. And I don't know his game-plan -- do you?
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Mason:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
God is not a poor communicator. But finite beings are necessarily imperfect communicators. And God can only make God's self-communication present to us as a finite being.
Sorry if God himself is not a poor communicator but can only communicate through imperfect communicators, whose imperfection leads to miscommunication on this scale then it amounts to the same thing.
But let's be clear. This is a fairly simple concept - that same-sex relationships are as valid as hetero-sex ones - and God - through whatever means - can't get that across to his representatives on earth in 20 centuries?! I was being generous when I merely said 'somewhat poor'.
Uh, Paul. What we're talking about is called "sin". Human beings don't -- can't -- receive perfectly what God sends. ANd they can't communicate perfectly even what they do receive.
There's also a thing about the ongoing inspiration of the Holy SPirit -- you remember where Jesus promised that it would lead us into all truth. I don't remember a time limit on the leading or the truth.
God doesn't change his mind, but it seems to me he asks different things of different generations. And he seems content -- it's his game plan, after all -- to let us screw things up really badly from time to time.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
phudfan
Shipmate
# 4740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Mason:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Mason:
So has the Church had it wrong all these centuries?
I'd like to re-visit this question if I may. I suspect it was perceived as making a point - however it was a genuine question.
I'd love to believe that we can read into Jesus' silence that he was affirming of gay relationships - but those closest to him historically didn't seem to think so.
Of course the church can get things wrong - but, as far as I'm aware, it's been pretty consistent on this for a long time until relatively recently. And what does it say about God if he is happy to have his church misrepresent him so badly for so long? That either he doesn't care or isn't able to intervene.
I don't find any of the alternatives very appealing, sadly.
So my question, to those who think Jesus, if he'd spoken clearly on the matter*, would have affirmed homosexuality rather than attacked it - my question still is - did the church get it wrong all these years? Why the discontinuity between the church and her head? If you believe Jesus wasn't anti-gay how do you deal with the fact that the church has been?
Thanks.
*sorry but I don't buy the Matthew 19 passage as 'clear'
Personally, I believe the church has 'got it wrong' all these years, about many things, and will probably continue to do so to. A lot of people seem to think that the Bible is crystal clear about what it teaches on many issues - there are others, like myself, who find that the Bible is incredibly unclear and difficult to interpret with any sort of certainty.
Does this make God a poor communicator? I have no idea. If God wanted to communicate in a way that made things clearer, then I guess He would. For some reason, He doesn't. I don't understand this, and it often causes me difficulties. I struggle to see why a loving God would want to leave us confused and uncertain, even about something like His existence. I can only think that God knows more than me, and has actually chosen the more loving option. Maybe the lack of clarity is a good thing. Maybe clarity would be incredibly hard for all of us. I don't know.
In the mean time, I believe we should try to interpret what God has told us in the light of all we have learnt. If you don't learn from your mistakes, then you keep making the same mistakes. This doesn't stop them from being mistakes.
--------------------
"It's funny how, things work out, when you're lonely and your life is full of doubt"
Posts: 365 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
For what its worth on this debate on God's ability to communicate...
It seems clear to me the only people who say God finds it difficult to communicate or that people find it difficult to hear are those who would like to see a change in Christian morality!
The fact is that the Bible has absolutely nothing possitive to say about any sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage. No one has ever shown me one verse to challenge that view. Now if it was God who couldn't communicate, or we who couldn't hear aright, then the message would be somewhat garbled. But the one sided nature of the Bible on this issue should surely give us pause for thought!
And it strikes me as rather arrogant to assume that in the last 30-40 years we have suddenly found the mind of God, and that its a completely different mind than the rest of Christian history has heard. Even leaving aside the Biblical material, this should make us very concerned about changing direction. But coupled with the Bible's clarity, we should accept what God says, and try to come to terms with it rather than try and change it.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
But Fish Fish, what we don't have is a reason why, in the immortal words of Rowan Atkinson in his NTNON sketch on the subject, "God's like that. He hates poofters!"
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But Fish Fish, what we don't have is a reason why, in the immortal words of Rowan Atkinson in his NTNON sketch on the subject, "God's like that. He hates poofters!"
Firstly, you are changing the issue there. Are you disputing my argument that the Bible and church history are univerally negative about sex outside heterosexual marriage?
Secondly, as I've said many times before, God does not hate poofters. Not aproving of some behaviour does not mean God hates anyone.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
phudfan
Shipmate
# 4740
|
Posted
Fishfish, let me address your points one by one:
quote:
It seems clear to me the only people who say God finds it difficult to communicate or that people find it difficult to hear are those who would like to see a change in Christian morality!
I have no idea if this is true or not, but it seems a rather large generalisation. I'll put my cards on the table though - yes, I would like to see a change in traditional christian morality, if that means that say, men and women are viewed as equals.
quote:
The fact is that the Bible has absolutely nothing possitive to say about any sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage. No one has ever shown me one verse to challenge that view. Now if it was God who couldn't communicate, or we who couldn't hear aright, then the message would be somewhat garbled. But the one sided nature of the Bible on this issue should surely give us pause for thought!
What do you mean by 'heterosexual marriage' here? The Bible seems to endorse having several partners. Is the teaching on this clear to you, cause it isn't to me.
quote:
And it strikes me as rather arrogant to assume that in the last 30-40 years we have suddenly found the mind of God, and that its a completely different mind than the rest of Christian history has heard. Even leaving aside the Biblical material, this should make us very concerned about changing direction. But coupled with the Bible's clarity, we should accept what God says, and try to come to terms with it rather than try and change it.
I don't think this is the assumption. Over the centuries, how we understand what is written in the Bible has changed. In the last few decades, the Bible's view of homosexuality has become the 'hot' issue. In the past, the issues have been the equality of the sexes, slavery, grace, hell, contraception, abortion, food, medicine etc etc. Most of these are still issues as well.
If the communication was clear, wouldn't we all agree? We clearly all don't.
--------------------
"It's funny how, things work out, when you're lonely and your life is full of doubt"
Posts: 365 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I think Spawn summed up 38 pages of discussion here when he said: quote:
it is pretty difficult to find a source without an axe to grind.
The passion which this single subject engenders in people who discuss it is so disproportionate to what is being discussed that I think an impartial observer could only conclude that what is taking place is not merely a discussion about God's will for people's moral behaviour. After all, what other topic in Christian ethics comes close to the heat generated on this subject? Where is the passion, the vehement scouring of scripture, the polemic, and the row upon row of books written upon the subject of, say, the Jubilee (on which the Bible is adequately clear, and which in the form of third-world debt causes probably more suffering in the world today than any other ethical issue)?
On this topic, I believe that all argue from positions they would hold even had the Bible never been written. The revulsion that some have was in their hearts before they ever read it on the page; the compassion that others show they would have shown had they never seen a Bible.
By all means, let's discuss, let's get passionate, let's even have a good go at each other about this. But why not let's also first have a sense of proportion, and secondly have a little self-insight about why we're saying what we're saying?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
phudfan
Shipmate
# 4740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
By all means, let's discuss, let's get passionate, let's even have a good go at each other about this. But why not let's also first have a sense of proportion, and secondly have a little self-insight about why we're saying what we're saying?
Well said Adeodatus. This is indeed a subject that fires my emotions. I'm not entirely sure why, although it may have something to do with the 'journey' I have travelled from one side of the debate to the other. I'm basically ashamed and embarrased about some of the things I used to believe. This is where the 'heat' comes from as far as I'm concerned.
--------------------
"It's funny how, things work out, when you're lonely and your life is full of doubt"
Posts: 365 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
Posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
The fact is that the Bible has absolutely nothing possitive to say about any sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage. No one has ever shown me one verse to challenge that view. Now if it was God who couldn't communicate, or we who couldn't hear aright, then the message would be somewhat garbled. But the one sided nature of the Bible on this issue should surely give us pause for thought!
Does it give you pause for thought when you see the fruits (pun intended) of the LOVING homosexual unions which exist in this world, in this point in time, right in front of you everyday?
quote:
Not aproving of some behaviour does not mean God hates anyone.
My sexual orientation is deeply who I AM in this world. Is your sexual orientation deeply part of your identity in this world, Fish Fish?
I talk about my wholeness, which for me includes expressing my love for another (for 30 yrs.!) in a spiritual union which includes SEX.
I cannot deny myself this expression and consider myself whole. Oh God, WHYYYYYY? ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
On this topic, I believe that all argue from positions they would hold even had the Bible never been written. The revulsion that some have was in their hearts before they ever read it on the page;...
For once and for all can we get rid of this myth that conservatives are homophobic?
Do you really believe that those of us who are conservative on this issue are because of some inert homophobia? A few points in repudiation of your view:
- I would happily change my view on this issue if someone could show me one verse where God clearly says anything at all positive about same sex sexual relationships. Just one verse.
- Life would be a lot easier in today's church if I could change my view on this - because of course its not pleasant saying some activity does not please God when the rest of society sees no reason to say this.
- You completely fail to recognise many people with a homosexual inclination have come to the conclusion that the Bible teaches that homosexual sex is sinful - and so abstain from sex. How could they be seen as homophobic?
Please recognise that conservatives take this stance because of their understanding of the Bible. While there are of course some homophobes, that does not explain the conservative stance on this issue.
If any of you can find one verse where God approves of same sex sexual relationships, then please show me so I can change my stance, and also prove the notion that homophobia is the driving force in conservative evangelicalism.
quote:
Originally posted by phudfan:
If the communication was clear, wouldn't we all agree? We clearly all don't.
I don't think we agree because people approach this issue with two different authorities - the authority of the Bible and the authority of experience. Taking the authority of the Bible, are you arguing that the Bible is not wholly negative about all same sex sexual activity? If I am wrong, show me that verse...
quote:
Originally posted by La Sal:
Does it give you pause for thought when you see the fruits (pun intended) of the LOVING homosexual unions which exist in this world, in this point in time, right in front of you everyday?
quote:
Not aproving of some behaviour does not mean God hates anyone.
My sexual orientation is deeply who I AM in this world. Is your sexual orientation deeply part of your identity in this world, Fish Fish?
I talk about my wholeness, which for me includes expressing my love for another (for 30 yrs.!) in a spiritual union which includes SEX.
I cannot deny myself this expression and consider myself whole. Oh God, WHYYYYYY?
Well, here we have the clash of experience against Bible. Unfortunately I have to still stand by what the Bible teaches. While your experiences may seem wholly positive, that does not mean that God says he delights in same sex sexual relationships.
[ 15. November 2004, 13:03: Message edited by: Fish Fish ]
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Fish Fish - nothing in my post accused you of homophobia. Nor did I say or imply that you were one of those who display what I called revulsion. In applying those things to yourself, I can only say, "The words are yours."
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
