|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
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."
In which case I have totally misunderstood your words:
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;
And I apologise for accusing you of accusing me!
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
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...
I think you're right here. We don't agree on this issue, and possibly on many others, because we have a different view on what the Bible says about itself. Again, though, this comes down to God's communication, being, in my opinion, unclear.
I will have a good search, but I think it very unlikely that I will find the verse that will convince you that God approves of sex outside of a heterosexual relationship. In the same way, I think it is very unlikely that you could find a verse or passage that would convince me that the Bible's authority should not be questioned by experience - I have yet to come across anything in the Bible (or outside it for that matter) that is clearcut on the issue of the Bible's authority.
Right, off to look for that verse.......... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"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
Well, phudfan, I know what construction I would put on 2Sam.1.26: quote:
I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
But others would argue that my sinful homosexualist mind was twisting the clear and obvious meaning.
All of which proves nothing more than my original point, that we all start not from scripture but from our own predispositions. I include myself in that, of course.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
phudfan
Shipmate
# 4740
|
Posted
I'm with you 100% Adeodatus. I agree with your interpretation of that verse, and I agree that it comes from my own predisposition. At one time in my life, I wouldn't have been able to make that admission, for fear of what others would think of me. I'm over that now. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Well......for the moment at least......
--------------------
"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
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Well, phudfan, I know what construction I would put on 2Sam.1.26: quote:
I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
That's a pretty desparate attempt, given that
- David is so clearly heterosexual when he lusts after Bathsheba!
- Sex isn't mentioned
- EVEN if this is a reference to sex between Jonathan and David, that doesn't mean we can take what David says as a blessing from God on that sexual relationship.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Well, phudfan, I know what construction I would put on 2Sam.1.26: quote:
I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
That's a pretty desparate attempt, given that
- David is so clearly heterosexual when he lusts after Bathsheba!
- Sex isn't mentioned
- EVEN if this is a reference to sex between Jonathan and David, that doesn't mean we can take what David says as a blessing from God on that sexual relationship.
Which is exactly why I said:
quote:
I think it very unlikely that I will find the verse that will convince you that God approves of sex outside of a heterosexual relationship
...because that verse doesn't exist. There are plenty that convince me, just as, I'm guessing, there are plenty that convince many others. I'll give you four - Matt 22:36-40. quote:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[2] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[3] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
That is enough for me, but I realise it isn't for you. Ces't la vie.
--------------------
"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
quote:
Originally posted by phudfan:
That is enough for me, but I realise it isn't for you. Ces't la vie.
Well, I find it rather ironic that you'd chose that verse to justify your position! You are claiming to want to be obedient to God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, and yet choose a course of action with no Biblical evidence that God blesses what so frequently is condemned. That takes gymnastics of the mind which I for one cannot make. As I say, I wish I could. But what is written is written. And I can't water it down or edit in a way that you seem to find so easy!
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by phudfan:
That is enough for me, but I realise it isn't for you. Ces't la vie.
Well, I find it rather ironic that you'd chose that verse to justify your position! You are claiming to want to be obedient to God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, and yet choose a course of action with no Biblical evidence that God blesses what so frequently is condemned. That takes gymnastics of the mind which I for one cannot make. As I say, I wish I could. But what is written is written. And I can't water it down or edit in a way that you seem to find so easy!
I don't remember saying anything was easy. The 4 verses I quote are 4 of the hardest verses in the Bible - to live at least. I'm not claiming anything - I'm stating my position and trying to explain how I've arrived at that. You can dismiss what I have to say - that is up to you. I don't dismiss what you have to say - I'm challenged by it and it helps me to think through what I believe. If we don't agree - fine. Let's not get personal about it.
--------------------
"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
quote:
Originally posted by phudfan:
Let's not get personal about it.
Sorry! I wasn't intending anything to be personal or insulting. I'm just pointing out how hard I find it to reconcile the Bible to your opinion. Sorry if I came across as being personal.
You know, I do think the debate would be easier and clearer if those who take experience as their authority ahead of the Bible would just admit the Bible doesn't condone same sex sexual relations. It would make life easier for them, instead of trying to squeeze from the text was is so obviously absent.
--------------------
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
Well if it's references to sex you want, of course there aren't any. It just wasn't on the agenda back then - I always thought that was obvious (tribal cultures tend to hold anything taboo that might involve a waste of - shall we delicately say - reproductive fluids). There aren't any references to God approving to playing Scrabble, either, but it doesn't stop me - and that's a great deal more often than I have sex, I can tell you.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle
Shipmate
# 4792
|
Posted
Originally posted by Phudfan:
quote:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[2] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[3] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
I've always thought those verses are all about the true meaning of the law? Not the letter of the law, but the spirit behind it. I feel that Jesus of all people showed us that where the letter of the law prevents a greater good, the principle of the law should prevail and not the letter. Of what use is it to keep the law about not working on the Sabbath if keeping the law causes a death? That is not what the law is intended to do.
As someone who would cheerfully wear wool/linen mix clothing – and indeed often wears either trousers and/or my boyfriend’s sweaters (Deut 22: 5 and 11) – I find it hard to insist that other people must follow part of a law I feel free to ignore.
--------------------
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 Adeodatus:
Well if it's references to sex you want, of course there aren't any. It just wasn't on the agenda back then
We're going in circles here - but what evidence do you have to say homosexual sex was "not on the agenda then"? For that argument died a death over the previous few pages from lack of evidence to back it up.
Add to that the negative statements about sex outside heterosexual marriage throughout the bible, and that stance becomes unjustifiable.
[Editted 4 Splelling]
[ 15. November 2004, 16:04: 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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Fish Fish. Read what La Sal wrote again.
Now tell me. Why does God want La Sal to give up this relationship which gives such fufilment and happiness, and be unhappy?
Let's cut out the middle bit - why does God want La Sal to be unhappy?
Or, as Rowan Atkinson said, again, why does God "hate poofters"?
Because for most people who are gay, this is what it comes down to. 'Why does God want me to be unhappy?'
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
*Yawns* There really isn't much point to this. We're only doing the first thing I'd said, which is to use scripture to back up what we believe in the first place. Hell, the only reason we argue about the inapplicability of the Levitical holiness code is because we like the taste of bacon. If we didn't, we'd let Leviticus stand. It's only because it's politically incorrect to burn witches that we've had to give up that innocent pleasure - plenty in scripture to back it up (note to Mertseger et al.: I'm being ironic).
If we weren't wound up about homosexuality, we'd turn as blind an eye to it as we do to a ton of other stuff. And if you, Fish Fish, really believe that doesn't apply with you, then you really are a one-in-a-million. I know what my endless nights of soul-searching tell me about myself - that who I am conditions my theology, not the other way round. If God wants it otherwise, he's just going to have to do something about it himself, because I can't.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by La Sal:
My sexual orientation is deeply who I AM in this world. Is your sexual orientation deeply part of your identity in this world
Quite seriously, for most straight men it isn't.
It's the unmarked behaviour, the default, so its not something they think about much, unless the subject is brought up by others.
A less emotionally charged (in this context) example of the same sort of thing might be the way that most white people in parts of Britain where neatly everybody is (or was until recently) white don't (or once didn't) think of themselves as "white". It wasn't particularly a category we used much until generated by juxtaposition with large numberd of people who weren't white.
And the same sort of thing with "sexuality" - a category that has only really been available for discussion or thought for the last generation or so. Most people who were straight (as we would now say) would not have thought of themselves as possessing, or characterised by, some innate "sexuality". Insofar as such a thing exists it was invisible because default, unmarked, "normal".
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Yes, but that doesn't mean that being straight isn't part of your or my identity, ken -- it just means we don't have to think about it very much.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
I'm not sure that's true. These aren't objective realities like molecules or manta rays, they are names of things, tools to think with, symbols. There is a real sense in whch they don't exist until and unless people define them.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Ooh - have you been reading Michel Foucault, ken?
He and others actually make the very credible point that homosexuals didn't exist before 1868, when the word was invented. Before that, you did your duty on your wife (literally) while she lay back and apparently thought of England, and some chaps we don't really talk about kept a stable-lad or a gardener on the side. And it was only later in the 19th century that the idea of sexual orientation began to make its way into the mainstream. Interestingly, the word "homosexual" was invented before the word "heterosexual", which gives added credence to Foucault's idea that dominant and oppressive cultures (white, heterosexual, etc etc...) invent categories of people who are "different" in order to assert their own insecure identity. Certainly, heterosexual European men in the mid- to late-19th century were having their identity and power threatened, not only by newly assertive female voices (bad enough!) but also by "feminine" or "effeminate" men in the aesthetic movement (horsewhip the b*ggers!). They needed to separate themselves from these threatening tendencies and - abracadabra - the homosexual was invented. Effeminate (boo! hiss!) and sodomites to a man (hurrah! the Bible says we can kill them!) - and the heterosexual European male breathed a sigh of relief and went off to beat the servants before tea.
In a similar way, "white" people invented the category of "black" when they felt under threat and needed to reassert their identity. It's no coincidence that they found scriptural evidence to back up the persecution of black people, either (in fact, didn't the Dutch Reformed Church drop the God-hates-blacks doctrine only a handful of years ago?). One hopes that in time to come, people who use scripture to keep homosexuals oppressed will feel as embarrassed as people who used it to keep black people oppressed do today.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...He and others actually make the very credible point that homosexuals didn't exist before 1868, when the word was invented. Before that, you did your duty on your wife (literally) while she lay back and apparently thought of England, and some chaps we don't really talk about kept a stable-lad or a gardener on the side. ...
Note, for example, that Oscar Wilde was married and had two sons.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
My priest sent me this essay The Elephant in the Middle of the Room which I find very interesting from an Anglican perspective.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Ooh - have you been reading Michel Foucault, ken?
Sounds more Judith Butler to me.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Because for most people who are gay, this is what it comes down to. 'Why does God want me to be unhappy?'
That aproach to morality is very weak - it must be right because it makes me happy. There are a miriad of situations where that could be said. If so, when can anyone ever say any action is wrong?
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
If we weren't wound up about homosexuality, we'd turn as blind an eye to it as we do to a ton of other stuff. And if you, Fish Fish, really believe that doesn't apply with you, then you really are a one-in-a-million. I know what my endless nights of soul-searching tell me about myself - that who I am conditions my theology, not the other way round. If God wants it otherwise, he's just going to have to do something about it himself, because I can't.
Well I'll take that as a compliment then.
I used to be very liberal in my attitudes and morality. My stance on this issue, and many others, has had to change because of my understanding of the Bible. My view is NOT a result of pre-Christianity prejudices.
Again, you fail to recognise there are many homosexual people who accept the teaching of the Bible and remain celibate. They do not come to the issue with the prejudices and bias you seem to think everyone has.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by La Sal:
My sexual orientation is deeply who I AM in this world. Is your sexual orientation deeply part of your identity in this world
Quite seriously, for most straight men it isn't.
I beg to differ. I'm a straight man (in sexuality rather than comedy terms ), and my sexuality is deeply part of my identity in this world. Wether I like it or not, my sexuality has a big influence on how I am feeling and how I behave. This, in turn, is a big part of my identity. Ok, I don't have the same issues to deal with that a homosexual man has to deal with, and I agree with the points you make in that regard Ken, but if I was told that I would never be able to have a sexual relationship that would be looked on favourably by God, then this would have a big impact on how I felt about God, and also about myself. I think sexuality is an issue for all of us, whatever our orientation.
Fishfish, please accept my apologies for being so sensitive, and thankyou for your response. I certainly think, like Adeodatus, that my theology is shaped by who I am and my experience of life. Does this mean I let this influence how I interpret the Bible? Definitely. Does this make my interpretation wrong? I'm not sure. (Honestly - I'm not sure, it might do, it might not ![[Confused]](confused.gif) .) Like I said earlier, I think we have different starting points as how we see the Bible differs. I appreciate your sincerity and integrity and I don't believe there is anything I can say to convince you to change your view. I don't seek to. I (as well as many others I think) simply seek to show how a different understanding to yours can be just as valid. (And many others do this a lot better than I!)
--------------------
"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
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
I think many straight people talk about their sexuality a lot, without realising.
For instance, a group of straight guys together eyeing up the local talent: 'Whoa! She's nice!' etc. Vice versa with women.
If gay men or lesbians made comments like that, it would be obvious that they were announcing their sexuality, but when straight people do it, they don't usually realise.
If asked to introduce oneself and tell a bit about oneself on a course, or something, one of the first things usually said is: 'I'm married' which also is an announcement on heterosexuality without realising.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Because for most people who are gay, this is what it comes down to. 'Why does God want me to be unhappy?'
That aproach to morality is very weak - it must be right because it makes me happy.
At first glance I agreed with you, but that's not what Karl was actually saying, I think.
If you give reason a place in interpreting scripture at all, then you'll find that, at the least, most of God's commandments are actually not that difficult to understand in terms of the harm they prevent or the good they do. (The problem I have is keeping them, not realising why I should keep them). Or so it seems to me, when you look at them in the light of the two greatest commandments.
So, rather than being simple hedonism, it's a reasonable question to ask. "Why does God want me to be unhappy?" If God is Love, there must be a reason.
Now, you might say that it's because God hates people having sex with people of the same sex intrinsically, but that isn't an explanation of it that satisfies many people if they believe God's primary attitude towards us to be one of love and mercy. I accept that your mileage may vary, but it's true of many people nonetheless.
Murder is bad because we take away a life we didn't create, to the severe detriment of the person whose life we take, the family and friends of that person, etc.
Thieving is bad because we hurt another person by our theft, to our own benefit, in short loving ourselves above our neighbour.
Adultery is bad because we put our own desires to, erm, get up close and personal with someone else above the love of our spouse and ignore the disastrous consequences that relationship breakdown can have.
I could go on, with, monogamous gay relationships in a society that generally accepts them are bad because...
Except I can't finish the sentence. That's the problem. Now, you can trump it if you so choose with a line starting "The Bible says..." but I hope this shows why the issue isn't necessarily so clear-cut if you try to see the Bible as a whole, or perhaps to give the Gospels a more prominent place - and I know cleverer people than I have done all this and come to differing conclusions so I'm not claiming to know the answers.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
Grey Face,
I see what you mean, and I agree that it's more complex than simply "do what makes you happy" or not.
However, there ARE a lot of things that the Bible says we should do simply because they are "glorifying to God", even when they make little sense to us. Indeed Jesus said that following him MAY have some very, on the face of it, negative effects - breaking up families and the like.
Thus, some of God's commandments, God says, are not strictly utilitarian in nature, but in putting them into practice we demonstrate or display something about him.
It is possible that a "command" to restrain from sexual relationships outside heterosexual marriage falls into this category, rather than the "makes society better" category.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
However, there ARE a lot of things that the Bible says we should do simply because they are "glorifying to God", even when they make little sense to us.
Can you give me some examples, particular of those that are reinforced by the New Testament? I can't think of any that make little sense to me, other than St Paul's words traditionally taken to mean gay sex. But that's probably just because it's Monday.
quote:
Indeed Jesus said that following him MAY have some very, on the face of it, negative effects - breaking up families and the like.
Agreed, but your use of "on the face of it" is quite telling there. That shows that you accept the argument that if you are able to look more deeply into things you see that the positive outcome far outweighs the negative. You can obviously make a decent defence by saying that it's unreasonable for us to expect to be able to understand everything, of course.
quote:
Thus, some of God's commandments, God says, are not strictly utilitarian in nature, but in putting them into practice we demonstrate or display something about him.
It is possible that a "command" to restrain from sexual relationships outside heterosexual marriage falls into this category, rather than the "makes society better" category.
The only thing that I, with my little brain, can see that would support in our society today the idea that refraining from sex if one is gay has a deeper good, would be St Paul's assertion that celibacy is better than marriage, either because giving up something good for the sake of the Kingdom is good, or because it's better to be in a stable relationship than to burn (with desire?). I've no doubt you see the problems with the traditional position there - my "deeper reason" is as applicable to hetero sex.
Now that I've taken up Karl's corner I should probably point out that I'm not going purely for the good of society argument in a secular sense. I don't think that's the essence of Christianity - merely to reform society. But if you're going to say that the apparent injunction against gay sex shows us something about God, I have to ask, what does it show? That God hates gay sex? Then why so? I honestly don't know.
From other discussions it's probably plain that I have quite a high regard for tradition, so I'm proceeding cautiously on this one, before I get thrown in with the pagan Episcopalian liberals . If I had to set my stall out, I'd say I'm firmly undecided on the issue, I'm not a priest, bishop, or teacher of any sort, and my pastoral response in the unlikely event one should be called for, would be, it's between you, your conscience and God, and none of my business.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
While I'm on the subject...
My understanding of conservative evangelicalism is that faith is the determining criterion of salvation. If you have faith in Christ, you're saved. Is that fair?
With this soteriology, isn't it much much much much much better to have, erm, practising gay Christians than to have gay people's faith turn sour over the issue of what they do in bed? Is this a contradictory position in conservative evangelicalism?
With a more catholic or liberal soteriology I would actually expect what one does to matter more than it does to an evangelical view, yet that doesn't appear to be the case. I realise this is only tangentially related to the Dead Horse but couldn't see a way to ask the question anywhere else without it getting sent here in two or three posts.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Can you give me some examples, particular of those that are reinforced by the New Testament? I can't think of any that make little sense to me, other than St Paul's words traditionally taken to mean gay sex. But that's probably just because it's Monday.
Well Love the Lord your God springs to mind, but also the flat prohibitions on divorce, the role of women in church, and so on. Of course, if one does not see these as applicable today I can see a consistent case being made on the gay issue.
quote:
But if you're going to say that the apparent injunction against gay sex shows us something about God, I have to ask, what does it show? That God hates gay sex? Then why so? I honestly don't know.
Some people have the "vocation" (a word I hate) to demonstrate the satisfaction of knowing God even if their sexual desires are frustrated. People who live in this ways show something about God and what it means to know him. I was struck last night reading a book about money actually where the author (commenting on the prosperity Gospel) said something like
"The world id not impressed when we have lots of money and thank God. The world is impressed when we give our riches away for Christ's sake and count it gain." I think the same goes for sex.
I don't have time to answer your other point now - later.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
...
"The world id not impressed when we have lots of money and thank God. The world is impressed when we give our riches away for Christ's sake and count it gain." I think the same goes for sex.
...
This applies to many things. I get a "rush" from gambling. But, I count it gain to refrain from it, because I believe it is wrong.
The exercise of self-control is a wonderful thing.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
"The world id not impressed when we have lots of money and thank God. The world is impressed when we give our riches away for Christ's sake and count it gain." I think the same goes for sex.
I can't give it away.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
"The world id not impressed when we have lots of money and thank God. The world is impressed when we give our riches away for Christ's sake and count it gain." I think the same goes for sex.
I can't give it away.
You really should post that type of thing on the prayer requests thread on All Saints.
But sweet of you to share.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Just popping in to point out that Leprechaun's argument, which is the only one I every find remotely plausible, nevertheless implies the following:
(1) Every homosexual has a "vocation" to give up sex (1 Cor. 6.9)*, therefore -
(2) Everyone with money has a vocation to give it away (Mark 10.21);
(3) Everyone with a family has a vocation to hate them (Luke 9.61-62);
(4) Everyone with a home has a vocation to leave it (Luke 9.58).
This is because the argument is, "Everyone in condition X must have a vocation to sacrfice X to God." Now, unless you're going to apply this only in the special case of "X=homosexuality", what I've said applies. I'm afraid that from my point of view, to employ this argument not only demonstrates a rather odd approach to the idea of vocation, but is also cruel and patronising to those to whom it's applied.
(* I still get this feeling of unease when I have to resort to Paul for an argument on sexuality, whereas I can get an argument on economics from Jesus almost without trying!)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
(2) Everyone with money has a vocation to give it away (Mark 10.21);
I really don't see how anyone can argue with this assertion whatsoever. (although I think the case is not made from the verse you quote, it certainly is from elsewhere in Biblical teaching) The other areas are more diffuclt, because Jesus says a number of different things about them. Nevertheless, in our weak attempts to glorify God, nothing should be considered off limits in terms of sacrifice - home or family included.
quote:
This is because the argument is, "Everyone in condition X must have a vocation to sacrfice X to God." Now, unless you're going to apply this only in the special case of "X=homosexuality", what I've said applies. I'm afraid that from my point of view, to employ this argument not only demonstrates a rather odd approach to the idea of vocation, but is also cruel and patronising to those to whom it's applied.
I think you'll find the original quote I made was about money. Which I hope would have made clear that it's not that I believe x always = homosexuality.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
But by applying your argument to a blanket-ban on sexual expressions of homosexuality, you imply (by your own parallelism) that you also believe on a blanket-ban on having money: that in regard to money, God can be glorified only in our giving it away, rather in, say, our wise use of it.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
But by applying your argument to a blanket-ban on sexual expressions of homosexuality, you imply (by your own parallelism) that you also believe on a blanket-ban on having money: that in regard to money, God can be glorified only in our giving it away, rather in, say, our wise use of it.
No, that's not the parallel I'm making. What I'm saying is that in the area of sex, as in the area of money, God is glorified in us following him most when that involves sacrifice.
The fact that some people are of necessity "made" to sacrifice more, because they have a large family or because they have a lot of needy relatives or because their church falls down, or because they don't have much at all, but still more than the person next to them doesn't undermine the principle.
But I realise that you believe the principle in the case of sex between people of the same gender to be different than how I undersyand it. I wasn't trying to "prove" you wrong - we're way past that!
All I was saying is that there doesn't have to be some demonstrable utilitarian benefit to a command for us to be sure it is from God - sometimes the act of sacrifice itself is what God is commanding - for in that we demonstrate an all satisfying trust that witnesses to his greatness.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
All I was saying is that there doesn't have to be some demonstrable utilitarian benefit to a command for us to be sure it is from God - sometimes the act of sacrifice itself is what God is commanding - for in that we demonstrate an all satisfying trust that witnesses to his greatness.
Perhaps the reason I can't just let this question go at that, as you can, is that I believe that everything God commands is for our benefit - especially those things which appear to have no other purpose than to glorify him. Original sin being most likely pride, the ultimate end of man being participation in the life of God, etc.
The trouble is I don't see how the ascetic's argument on giving things up, is different depending on your sexual orientation.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I believe that everything God commands is for our benefit - especially those things which appear to have no other purpose than to glorify him. Original sin being most likely pride, the ultimate end of man being participation in the life of God, etc.
Agreeing with this.
quote:
The trouble is I don't see how the ascetic's argument on giving things up, is different depending on your sexual orientation.
This is getting circular.
This began with you saying "the Bible says so..." is not a good enough reason unless I can SEE the good reason for the command.
I said - sometimes just the sacrifice itself is sometimes the reason.
You said - I think - why should some people have to sacrifice things others don't?
I say - because the Bible says so. And so on and so forth.
Is the problem here that you don't think that different people should have to sacrifice different things?
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Is the problem here that you don't think that different people should have to sacrifice different things?
Perhaps, but I think it's more a case of being unable to classify the particular dead horse as a calling of this nature.
The ascetic argument is giving up something that is good, for the sake of something better (God, the Kingdom, etc). So a St Paul can give up marriage, which is a good thing, in order to be a better Apostle. I can give up a lie in once a week in Lent, and rest is a good thing, to get to an early morning service. A bank manager could give up a well-paid job, and being paid a decent wage is good, to become a priest. A martyr could give up life itself as a witness, and life is good.
This isn't what you're saying with gay sex. You're saying basically that it's a mortal sin* to engage in it, so it's not an ascetic path, it's a requirement of the faith for everyone to turn away from it. And what I can't see is why it's a mortal sin. I accept that I'm open to the charge of setting my own opinion above that of the Church/Bible here but none of the other mortal sins seem anything like as ambiguous to me.
* I'm just using the term loosely - I'm not trying to rope you into an argument about the Catholic view on grace.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Is the problem here that you don't think that different people should have to sacrifice different things?
Perhaps, but I think it's more a case of being unable to classify the particular dead horse as a calling of this nature.
The ascetic argument is giving up something that is good, for the sake of something better (God, the Kingdom, etc). So a St Paul can give up marriage, which is a good thing, in order to be a better Apostle. I can give up a lie in once a week in Lent, and rest is a good thing, to get to an early morning service. A bank manager could give up a well-paid job, and being paid a decent wage is good, to become a priest. A martyr could give up life itself as a witness, and life is good.
In which case I am not making the ascetic argument.
I am saying God makes some commands (not suggestions) because it is good for me, and displays something of Him in my life, to make those sacrifices, even if I cannot understand that.
And I am talking about commands here - not suggestions.
I suppose it's the difference between giving up money - lifestyle choice - and giving up greed - command.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
If you're going to use money as a parallel in order to argue that God asks gay people to sacrifice having sex, you have to argue that all people with money have to give away all of it.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
If you're going to use money as a parallel in order to argue that God asks gay people to sacrifice having sex, you have to argue that all people with money have to give away all of it.
Ok, I've actually addressed this already.
But, at the risk of repeating myself. I am not drawing an exact parallel between money and homsexuality, but money and all of God's gifts (sex being the major under discussion here)
God commands generosity from all of his people with particular responsibilites to family, to the poor, to one's church. For some that will mean much greater sacrifices than others depending on their circumstances, but God, I believe, is glorified in that sacrifice.
As I said before, but I will say again, I am not trying to "prove" that my position on this issue is correct, but merely to say "I can't see a good utilitarian, good for society reason for this" is not a knockdown argument the other way.
God is constantly asking different people to sacrifice different things in different ways for reasons I don't understand - I just think that is a fact of life.
It doesn't work as an argument to say, I don't see any REASON for him to ask anyone to sacrifice this. That is the way he relates to us and reveals himself to the world. I don't see how anyone can deny that.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
God is constantly asking different people to sacrifice different things in different ways for reasons I don't understand - I just think that is a fact of life.
I have no problem with the notion that God asks different things from different people. What I do have a problem with is the notion that God asks the same thing from all gay people. God doesn't ask the same thing from all straight people, from all wealthy people, from all women, etc. God sometimes asks one thing from me at one point in my life and then something else at another point. A blanket ban on sex for all gay people does not fit with the understanding I have of God's demands on people based on my reading of the Bible and my lived experience of God.
I'd ask a further question about this:
quote:
That is the way he relates to us and reveals himself to the world. I don't see how anyone can deny that.
What is the nature of this particular revelation of God? What do we learn about God from a ban on gay sex?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Ruth has put her finger on something that's still bothering me about Lep's argument - i.e. it has what we might call a global scope. All people of class X are called by God to sacrifice Y solely because they are people of class X. I don't buy it. It's like saying "All Belgians have a vocation to poverty. Why? Well, because they're Belgians of course."
Another problem I have is in calling this a "vocation". According to modern western theology (and especially Protestant theology), there ought to be in the individual a sense of vocation - a heartfelt conviction that God is calling that individual to do something-or-other. So why, with all the soul-searching in the world, are so many gay Christians unable to sense their apparent vocation to lifelong abstinence? Unless, of course, that vocation isn't there at all....
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
God is constantly asking different people to sacrifice different things in different ways for reasons I don't understand - I just think that is a fact of life.
I have no problem with the notion that God asks different things from different people. What I do have a problem with is the notion that God asks the same thing from all gay people. God doesn't ask the same thing from all straight people, from all wealthy people, from all women, etc.
This is where we differ. I do think God asks the same thing for all straight people, certainly with regards to sex, I believe he does for all women with regard to their attitude to men (and vice versa) I think there are a number of Biblical instructions that all of the wealthy are expected to obey.
quote:
.What is the nature of this particular revelation of God? What do we learn about God from a ban on gay sex?
That knowing him is better than sex.
I also completely disagree with Ad's definition of "vocation." Which is why I didn't like using the word in the first place - I just couldn't think of a better one.
So, as we always find this discussion, it is reflective of LOTS of different disagreements at a much deeper level.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
.What is the nature of this particular revelation of God? What do we learn about God from a ban on gay sex?
That knowing him is better than sex.
Sorry, but I think this argument is weak.
Why gay sex specifically? Why not hetero sex or anything else, for that matter?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
I know this will be controversial - but hey, nothing new there!
The issue being discussed is why God would want to forbid all gay sex - what possible benefit could there be.
The conservative evangelical understanding of male homosexuality is often this: The absence of strong male affirmation in childhood can lead to feelings of inadequacy in a child. These feelings can turn into jealousy of men who have the qualities the individual feels they lack. These feelings can become sexualised during puberty. Thus the desire for Homosexual sex can be traced back to the desire for male affirmation.
That's a very poor summary of the theory. But, lets assume it is true. If this is the case, then a cause of homosexual desires is a deep rooted desire for affirmation and love. Sleeping with a man does not alleviate these desires. In fact, it only increases the desires and inadequacy. The only salve to that itch is the love and acceptance of God.
I know this is a controversial theory. For various reasons I think it carries a lot of weight. But the reason I suggest it here is not so much to debate the theory (cos I'm sure its been discussed at length inone or two of the previous 38 pages!), but to suggest that if God does dislike homosexual sex, one reason may be that He has a better solution to the deep rooted emotional desires.
--------------------
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
You won't be surprised that I won't assume the theory is true. I know gay men who did receive strong male affirmation when they were children. Their fathers loved them and gave them plenty of emotional support, and yet they're gay. Each of them finds that sex with the man he's in love with is deeply fulfilling. And you haven't accounted for lesbians at all.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I know this will be controversial - but hey, nothing new there!
....
I know this is a controversial theory. For various reasons I think it carries a lot of weight. But the reason I suggest it here is not so much to debate the theory (cos I'm sure its been discussed at length inone or two of the previous 38 pages!), but to suggest that if God does dislike homosexual sex, one reason may be that He has a better solution to the deep rooted emotional desires.
....assuming all hundred assumptions behind your theory are true, maybe.
If there was any serious support for this theory, it might be a better argument. Frankly, I like opponents of gay sexuality much better when they're just laying their cards on the table, e.g., "It's bad because the way I read the Bible, the Bible says it's bad. It doesn't matter how that makes gay people feel. It's just bad." Using unsupported quasi-socio-Freudian twaddle in support of your argument is no support at all.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
