|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
|
|
feast of stephen
Shipmate
# 8885
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
[tangent]
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
which seems to be the principle on which this whole debate is conducted.
Not unironically, it also seems to be the principle on which Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins et al. reject God.
[/tangent]
Good point! Dawkins really annoys me. His atheism is as much a religion as Christianity, he just doesn't get the irony of his position. There is no evidence either way 'scientifically' for the existence of God or otherwise, so he unknowingly mocks himself with his strident anti-religion views.
So this is my first post by the way, hello all.
I was interested in something someone (forgot his name, duh) posted earlier, regarding whether it's more important to be honest than to rock the boat.
I find that a struggle myself. I have a great desire to see the Church come together and not fall out over practising gay sex, but on the other hand in order for this to happen there inevitably has to be some messy compromise that pleases no-one.
On the point made about fathers playing an influential role in whether their kids will turn out gay, Freud seems to agree with this. Indeed it appears that not just in this but in our attitudes to sex generally and other matters, our parents play a crucial role in how kids turn out. As the poster points out though, these factors are complicated and just because a father is distant/unloving, this doesn't automatically mean his son will become gay.
Thinking about my own father and some of my friends, I notice in myself that I lack confidence deep down and secretly feel the need for male affirmation alot. Though I do admire goodlooking confident guys alot, I don't really want to sleep with them even though I can be very attracted to them. I think though that alot of guys feel this way, and that alot of the time we're ('straight guys') acting confident, acting how we think a guy should act etc. And so we make gay jokes and and jokes pretending we want to chase every girl etc, when we might not actually be in the mood at all and be just as happy playing playtation or eating a big mac or going to sleep!) I've heard a friend of mine who actually joined a group to 'change' his orientation from gay to straight say alot of stuff about how his father's role was important and how God is our ultimate perfect father who we should look to, especially if we had a bad earthly father. I'm a little concerned for my bud and reckon perhaps he should just accept himself as he is, but at the same time he thinks he will be happier with a wife and kids. I feel I'd be happier with a wife and kids than on my own, so I sympathize with that. I guess aswell as he says, society never really accepts gay people, and so if he was with another guy into old age, the neighbors might twitch their curtains, keep their kids away etc. I can see how this would make him unhappy, after all we all want to be accepted.
It's hard to know just how much of scripture is true and how much we should take with a pinch of salt eh? I find that in my own life. Sometimes I wonder if I'm just making excuses for myself 'yeah sure I can do this, that part of the Bible is OT and therefore not applicable anymore', but then some of the most challenging stuff is in fact NT, with regards really loving your neighbor as yourself, and leaving everything behind to follow Jesus, and I don't follow this either alot of the time. I feel deep down that God does exist and Jesus is his Son, and yet I find it hard to accept all the stuff the Bible says, I find the OT especially hard with regards 'genocide' as we'd now call it with all the slaying of the Caananites etc, the Flood etc. So with regards biblical edicts against gay sex, should we take heed of that or put it to one side along with animal sacrificices and divorce edicts? Is it ok to be in a gay relationship if you love one another and follow God? Or is it not as good as a man-woman combination but still ok, or does God just really think it's an 'abomination' after all? How can we know? Any answers?! It appears from our 21st century standpoint that using owrds like 'abomination' is too harsh, and that the writer must e human and mohophobic. But maybe we're too influenced by our current cultural circumstances, (even though I do think actually that abomination is a very harsh word to use.)
Anyway, this post has probably veered way off the point but I find this thread very interesting and also the varying viewpoints, I seem to have some sympathy with just about something of everyone's posts I've read.
I think my problem maybe I'm just too 'liberal' and so can't make up my mind about anything! How does one form a position on anything if you weigh up all the arguments?
Forgive me if I've really waffled too much!
[ 23. December 2004, 01:16: Message edited by: feast of stephen ]
--------------------
"A man who does not think for himself, does not think at all" Oscar Wilde
Posts: 85 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
There's a lot in your post, feast of Stephen, but let me address just one issue: I have never found being liberal an obstacle to making up my mind about anything.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
In fact (at risk of starting a huge tangent), the people who seem to find it hardest to make up their minds about anything are those who have been taught to ask God for a direct sign of his will in any situation (and when it doesn't become obvious are unsure of what to do). There is a deep irony that these are often the same people who are firmly anti-gay, regardless of any sign at all.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
thats so so true choirster.
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Good post, feast of stephen. Those are issues I've wrestled with: how much of scripture is a product of its time and culture, and how much is sound principle that continues to guide us? and how do we judge such things and make our choices? And everyone does make choices about how they look at scripture from the most stringent inerrantist who needs to somehow join together a number of seemingly contradictory concepts eg the wrathful OT God as opposed to the merciful NT Abba, to the most open-minded liberal who at some point needs to pin down what s/he actually can confidently assert about her/his faith.
I think some of the ideas that you bring up about the nature of homosexuality are ones that have pretty much been set aside. I don't believe most mainstream mental health people believe that sexual orientation has much if anything to do with a father being distant or a mother over-bearing. No definitive answer has been found to the whys and wherefores but there are intriguing strands of evidence that point to early hormonal influences in some cases. In others...? Perhaps the dynamics that Freud noted were not causes but results of the family's unacknowleged awareness of the child's orientation. Perhaps an already emotionally cool father, uncomfortable with his son for reasons he can't quite grasp, withdraws further. And the mother, sensing that her son isn't quite like the rest of the boys, rushes in to do the emotional heavy-lifting. These things might arise because the boy is gay, not to cause the orientation. Just a thought.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
feast of stephen
Shipmate
# 8885
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
In fact (at risk of starting a huge tangent), the people who seem to find it hardest to make up their minds about anything are those who have been taught to ask God for a direct sign of his will in any situation (and when it doesn't become obvious are unsure of what to do). There is a deep irony that these are often the same people who are firmly anti-gay, regardless of any sign at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
In fact (at risk of starting a huge tangent), the people who seem to find it hardest to make up their minds about anything are those who have been taught to ask God for a direct sign of his will in any situation (and when it doesn't become obvious are unsure of what to do). There is a deep irony that these are often the same people who are firmly anti-gay, regardless of any sign at all.
Yes that's a good point. I think it would be comforting to feel as though God will give us signs as to what to do in whatever situation or what to think about this or that etc. However in my experience this hasn't happened. That hasn't made me very anti-gay though, just ..err, confused on the issue I guess. The main thing (I think) is to be loving about it, we can't help the way we feel about anything, being straight or gay, or being someone who accepts gay sex or not, so my default position is to try to get on well with everyone and find common reference points or things we can agree on or hobbies we might share etc. I guess to cut a long story short just to love your neighbor as you love yourself - so overused it sounds like a cliché - but it's one bit of the Bible that isn't confusing and works in any cultural/time context, phew ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"A man who does not think for himself, does not think at all" Oscar Wilde
Posts: 85 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
feast of stephen
Shipmate
# 8885
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Good post, feast of stephen. Those are issues I've wrestled with: how much of scripture is a product of its time and culture, and how much is sound principle that continues to guide us? and how do we judge such things and make our choices? And everyone does make choices about how they look at scripture from the most stringent inerrantist who needs to somehow join together a number of seemingly contradictory concepts eg the wrathful OT God as opposed to the merciful NT Abba, to the most open-minded liberal who at some point needs to pin down what s/he actually can confidently assert about her/his faith.
I think some of the ideas that you bring up about the nature of homosexuality are ones that have pretty much been set aside. I don't believe most mainstream mental health people believe that sexual orientation has much if anything to do with a father being distant or a mother over-bearing. No definitive answer has been found to the whys and wherefores but there are intriguing strands of evidence that point to early hormonal influences in some cases. In others...? Perhaps the dynamics that Freud noted were not causes but results of the family's unacknowleged awareness of the child's orientation. Perhaps an already emotionally cool father, uncomfortable with his son for reasons he can't quite grasp, withdraws further. And the mother, sensing that her son isn't quite like the rest of the boys, rushes in to do the emotional heavy-lifting. These things might arise because the boy is gay, not to cause the orientation. Just a thought.
Thanks LyndaRose.
Yes I don't know much about the metal health field in general you're probably right, though I've read up quite a bit on Freud and Lacan and I think those guys are quite set on the idea our parents have by far the biggest impact on our lives and that distant/overly harsh fathers have specific impacts on kids that last into adulthood, which can result in a variety of outcomes, not necessarily homosexuality. Though Psychoanalysis tends not to take account of such things as our biochemistry, or if it does, will put it down to our psychological state affecting our body as opposed to the other way round. I guess Pscychiatrists would disagree with that ordering. Yes I've heard aswell that hormone levels in the mother's womb can have an affect. I guess there's a very complex combination of factors at work in determing our sexuality and I won't wade any deeper into that since I'm already out of my depth
Regarding the inerrantist/liberal take on the Bible, you put that very well. I think I veer towards the liberal and have the problem of pinning down exactly what I believe, though I don't have any problems with the basics, who Jesus is etc, he came to save us etc, just other bits like the Flood, creation vs. evolution etc, and I guess the whole gay sex issue aswell.
--------------------
"A man who does not think for himself, does not think at all" Oscar Wilde
Posts: 85 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
A goodly amount of Freud's work has been discredited in recent years, I am told, though he was indeed a pioneer in the field.
I am wondering exactly what you mean when you say "liberal" because it doesn't sound quite like what some of us mean.
It's only a short time till your special day, isn't it? You and King Wenceslas... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
feast of stephen
Shipmate
# 8885
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
A goodly amount of Freud's work has been discredited in recent years, I am told, though he was indeed a pioneer in the field.
I am wondering exactly what you mean when you say "liberal" because it doesn't sound quite like what some of us mean.
It's only a short time till your special day, isn't it? You and King Wenceslas...
Yes I think he is considered as discredited by some psychologists and psychiatrists (Freud that is, not Wenceslas , but not by most psychoanalysts, but as always I guess it depends on the field, I think Lacanians and other 'Freudians' still reckon he's the main guy, whereas others like Jungians and think he overemphasized the importance of things like the eodipus complex which he 'discovered' etc.
I wish I could have had a feast with King Wencesles! I wonder if such a thing really happened, I'll have a to google search to find out...
Hm, I guess when I say 'liberal' in this instance I mean...open minded about things which I feel there is insufficient evidence/good enough reasons accept or decline.
But perhaps I shouldn't use the word liberal there, since most capital L liberals I guess would be sure that is is ok biblically/with God regarding having gay sex. Whereas I'm torn between my inerrantist inclined view of the Bible and my life observations. I have the same problem with creation/evolution too. So what would be a good word for me, 'Confused'!? Maybe 'open minded', it's more flattering!?
Posts: 85 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
"Open-minded" has a lot of possibilities, I think, and is certainly worthy of respect.
--------------------
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
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
The Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, Canada has put out a strongly anti-gay pastoral letter. News coverage such as the Globe and Mail shows a storm of protest.
This quote is remarkable:
quote:
Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the State must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good.
It is sometimes argued that what we do in the privacy of our home is nobody’ s business. While the privacy of the home is undoubtedly sacred, it is not absolute. Furthermore, an evil act remains an evil act whether it is performed in public or in private.
I think he's running for Ratzinger's job!
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
Not really related to anything recently gone before on this thread, but I just wanted to get this off my chest as it was making me so mad.
Sermon this morning was on the 2nd half of Romans 1. Which naturally introduced the topic of homosexuality. Apart from repeating that cringeworthy 'God didn't create Adam and Steve' soundbite, what really got my heckles up was when we were told that sexual orientation is something that has been invented by the political correctness mob - ie basically the pastor didn't seem to think it even existed. Goodness knows how any gay people in the congregation would have felt about that. (I'm not aware of any, but that's the whole point isn't it, we just don't know). The whole tone was how 'we' should related to 'them', not for a moment considering that, perish the thought, there might even be people there who struggle with these issues themselves.
There, I just needed to get that off my chest. Any comments?
Out of interest, how does a 'pro gay relationships' Christian interpret those bits in Rom 1? It does seem very damning to me. But that's not my main point, just the insensitive way it can be handled, like the way it was dome today.
[ 23. January 2005, 21:15: Message edited by: Gracious rebel ]
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Gracious Rebel
The prospect of reading backwards through 44 pages must daunt but I'm sure Romans has been tackled here before.
As to sensitivity ... that depends on:-
(1) Humility, (openness to change, willingness to listen, to research)
(2) Understanding, (use and abuse of Scriptures, insights from contemporary science)
(3) Empathy, (compassion, not judging, a desire to share sorrows and joys)
The very nature of this task, since it touches all aspects of church life, may seem daunting but with God all things are possible.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Out of interest, how does a 'pro gay relationships' Christian interpret those bits in Rom 1? It does seem very damning to me.
There's an excellent discussion of all the verses in the Bible that seem to deal with homosexuality which is available as a downloadable .pdf file from www.soulforce.org.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
My experience of life, and hearing discussions from homosexual christians makes me feel unwilling to be part of the persecution they suffer.
I have read many discussions of the passages which deal with homosexuality in the bible, and find they have many good points - including the ones linked above.
However, I am left with an uncomfortable feeling that if God wanted to spare all the needless suffering over this issue, he/she had but to ensure a rather less misleading translation of the bible be in use throughout the millenia. Can we accept God was so unable to influence the bible we have in our hands today that it has become so completely misleading?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Mdijon,
Ask the same question with regard to slavery and women.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
The question on slavery is easily dealt with; the OT legalises a particular version of it, vigorously opposes another verision of it. The NT suggests slaves should get their freedom if they can, but isn't overall that bothered about it.
The question on the role of women in the church is harder; and I could easily ask the same question; how could God possibly have allowed these passages from Paul about full submission, silence, under authority etc. to get into the bible?
At least there is a little to balance it with women; the reference (I am told) to a female apostle, female prophets etc.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
mdijon - it maybe says something about where I'm coming from on this that I read your sig as a continuation of your last post! Sorry...
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
But more seriously - maybe God was just happy to let us know what Paul thought? Just as he was maybe happy for us to know what a bunch of guys in the 5th century BC (Leviticus) thought.
One of the problems I have with a Biblical literalist, infallibilist approach to this question is this.
I assume that for most people of this standpoint, homosexuality is unacceptable because "the Bible says so". (I'm assuming here - and it's not my own standpoint - that "the Bible says that homosexuality is unacceptable" is a true, meaningful statement.)I do find myself asking "What if the Bible didn't say so?" Would people's problems with homosexuality then disappear?
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Not really related to anything recently gone before on this thread, but I just wanted to get this off my chest as it was making me so mad.
Sermon this morning was on the 2nd half of Romans 1. Which naturally introduced the topic of homosexuality. Apart from repeating that cringeworthy 'God didn't create Adam and Steve' soundbite, what really got my heckles up was when we were told that sexual orientation is something that has been invented by the political correctness mob - ie basically the pastor didn't seem to think it even existed. Goodness knows how any gay people in the congregation would have felt about that. (I'm not aware of any, but that's the whole point isn't it, we just don't know). The whole tone was how 'we' should related to 'them', not for a moment considering that, perish the thought, there might even be people there who struggle with these issues themselves.
There, I just needed to get that off my chest. Any comments?
Find a new church that isn't pastored by an idiot.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
I assume that for most people of this standpoint, homosexuality is unacceptable because "the Bible says so". (I'm assuming here - and it's not my own standpoint - that "the Bible says that homosexuality is unacceptable" is a true, meaningful statement.)I do find myself asking "What if the Bible didn't say so?" Would people's problems with homosexuality then disappear?
Three cheers for Psyduck! When I was still with the church I often wished that we could place an embargo on the Bible and force ourselves to go without it for maybe a couple of years. Then we might come back to it with our minds just a wee bit cleaned out and see how it looked.
But of course, I am now churchless and don't have to worry about what the church says. Or I wouldn't if the governments of the world didn't seem so intent on introducing a new theocracy.
Grumpy, wheezy and out of sorts in Wellington!
--------------------
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
|
|
Rowen
Shipmate
# 1194
|
Posted
I like what this theologian tells me about reading those "difficult "passages.... Ways of interpreting the Scriptures....
He trys to be even-handed, at least in my opinion.
--------------------
"May I live this day… compassionate of heart" (John O’Donoghue)...
Posts: 4897 | From: Somewhere cold in Victoria, Australia | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
But more seriously - maybe God was just happy to let us know what Paul thought? Just as he was maybe happy for us to know what a bunch of guys in the 5th century BC (Leviticus) thought.
One of the problems I have with a Biblical literalist, infallibilist approach to this question is this.
I assume that for most people of this standpoint, homosexuality is unacceptable because "the Bible says so". (I'm assuming here - and it's not my own standpoint - that "the Bible says that homosexuality is unacceptable" is a true, meaningful statement.)I do find myself asking "What if the Bible didn't say so?" Would people's problems with homosexuality then disappear?
If the Bible wasn't absolutely clear on this subject it wouldn't be the Bible and I guess I wouldn't be a Christian. If I wasn't a Christian, I suspect I would view homosexuality as on a spectrum of sexuality from normal to abnormal to outright dangerous. I probably wouldn't view homosexuality as a particular problem, but like a large number of the people I know would view it as something that ought not to be advertised outside the circle of consenting adults.
Sorry guys, the natural law argument makes perfect sense to the vast majority of non-Christians who are prepared to be tolerant but not neccessarily accepting.
[ 24. January 2005, 20:48: Message edited by: Spawn ]
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Spawn: quote:
If the Bible wasn't absolutely clear on this subject it wouldn't be the Bible and I guess I wouldn't be a Christian.
I don't understand the bit I've highlighted.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Sorry guys, the natural law argument makes perfect sense to the vast majority of non-Christians who are prepared to be tolerant but not neccessarily accepting.
Evidence for this assertion?
As for the Bible, there are a lot of things it isn't clear about. Heck, the writers of the Bible can't even agree about the nature of God. So I have a hard time worrying about what they say about gay sex.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
Perhaps I am mistaken about what the "natural law" argument is. Is this the assertion that same-sex relationships are never seen among the "lower" animals? Because that is certainly not true. I think maybe I am not getting it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
I'm very interested in the relationship between Scriptural and natural law arguments in this whole area, which is why I asked, in all seriousness, what people's attitudes would be if there were no (supposed*) Scriptural prohibition on homosexuality.
How does one tell the difference between a stance founded on a "natural law" understanding and mere prejudice?
What other examples might there be (granting the premiss of my question) of something which is a thing indifferent in Scripture but which people might regard as prohibited by an understanding of natural law?
The real difficulty I have with this is my increasing exposure to Christians who produce all the required rhetoric about love and understanding and support, yet clearly, by their words and actions, are under the sway of a strong dislike of homosexuals, as well as homosexuality - while there are others who, to simoplify, clearly wouldn't have a problem with homosexuality did they not perceive it as prohibited in Scripture.
*By which I mean a prohibition in Scripture which some contemporary Christians feel is binding on them. There are, of course, many "prohibitions in Scripture" which hardly any of us accept as binding on us as Christians.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Spawn said: quote:
If I wasn't a Christian, I suspect I would view homosexuality as on a spectrum of sexuality from normal to abnormal to outright dangerous. I probably wouldn't view homosexuality as a particular problem, but like a large number of the people I know would view it as something that ought not to be advertised outside the circle of consenting adults.
Not a particular problem but not to be advertised. Yeah, right. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
The reason people decide gay sexual orientation should not be a matter of open knowledge is because some people (evidently you among them) think that don't-ask-don't-tell takes care of the the problem of bigotry. News flash: it doesn't. Like separate but equal in education and housing didn't, and apartheid didn't reduce bigotry, treating people's sexual orientation as something to be tolerated just ghettoizes a whole category of people and encourages people to think of homosexuals as having horns and tails.
edit: Of course, perhaps I'm giving you too much credit; you don't care if people are discriminated against. Maybe you'd just rather not be aware of people's orientation because it flatly makes you uncomfortable to be around people you identify as being in your dislike column.
[ 25. January 2005, 06:32: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Spawn: quote:
Spawn:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Bible wasn't absolutely clear on this subject it wouldn't be the Bible and I guess I wouldn't be a Christian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand the bit I've highlighted.
Update - I don't understand any of it...
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Is clarity the test of canonicity?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I agree, dyfrig - does Spawn mean that the Bible is absolutely clear on every single issue it discusses? That way lies the even deader horse of tattoos, prawn sandwiches and whether it's permissible to switch on a light on the Sabbath.
And in my experience (and yes I do mean experience) the "natural law" argument is only ever used these days (in the UK at least) by bigots who don't have a religion to back up their bigotry.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peppone
Marine
# 3855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
If the Bible wasn't absolutely clear on this subject it wouldn't be the Bible and I guess I wouldn't be a Christian.
I've never been convinced that there are conservative Christians for whom homosexuality is the central issue of their faith- but the quote above seems really telling. If you weren't sure that the Bible condemned homosexuality, you wouldn't be a Christian? Isn't there more to our religion than that?
Posts: 3020 | From: Hong Kong | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Spawn: quote:
I probably wouldn't view homosexuality as a particular problem, but like a large number of the people I know would view it as something that ought not to be advertised outside the circle of consenting adults.
That sounds awfully like "I've no problem with homosexuality as such - it's (identifiable) homosexuals I don't like..."
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Isn't the term natural law being misused anyway? If I understand it correctly from my ten minute study of St Aquinas, it goes like this:
There are three "goods" that come from sex, in this order (according to St T) that are the basis of a natural law approach.
1. Procreation
2. Uniting the partners
3. Pleasure
Rejecting any of the three is sinful, because it's rejecting good, so we can argue that homosexuality is against natural law because of the impossibility of procreation. Equally of course, we'd then have to rate masturbation as the worst sexual sin possible, and we'd be hard pressed to say that a gay couple was in a different category to a straight couple in which the woman had had a hysterectomy, for example.
The RC way round the last bit is usually to say that as long as there's a procreative intent, however unlikely a positive outcome, then Good #1 is not being rejected. If this is an acceptable get-out clause then frankly the whole natural law argument against homosexuality is shot down in flames as far as I can see, because it would take a high order of miracle either way.
The natural law argument isn't, unless I'm very much mistaken, "Well, it's unnatural, innit."
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Grey Face: quote:
...because it would take a high order of miracle either way.
Rats! I now have running around in my head Errol Brown and Hot Chocolate singing "I believe in miracles/Where you from/You sexy thing!" Which is not going to ease my intelligent participation in this debate...
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
As someone who struggles with what my conscience tells me versus what I read in the bible......I'd answer the question; yes, I'd be delighted if this Paul guy hadn't opened his mouth about homosexuality and I could be accepting as well as tolerant (tolerance alone isn't very Christ like it seems to me) without worrying that I was flagrantly ignoring scripture.
On the other hand, as Christina Marie pointed out earlier, most of us ignore scriptures on women and slavery.
I can handle a non-literal view of the bible.
What threatens my faith is the idea that God could have allowed it to be so completely misleading.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
mdijon quote:
What threatens my faith is the idea that God could have allowed it to be so completely misleading.
Doesn't that really depend on a particular view of what the Bible is, and how it came into being, though? (Not that I want to be driving a chariot propelled by two yoked dead horses!)
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Be careful Mdijon. Tis the slippery slope on the thin end of the wedge.
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
What threatens my faith is the idea that God could have allowed it to be so completely misleading.
Very briefly -- what "God allows" is a very difficult thing. God seems to allow all sorts of things all the time of which God cannot, according to our revelation, approve and has not intended.
I take refuge in the awareness that, as God has given every person free will, in any given case, some persons (yea, most of us some of the time) willfully or ignorantly do the wrong thing -- producing results, even from the apparently godly, that are not what God wills. That's the downside of free will. And God seems to be able to put up with it, and our mistakes. Including, I would suggest, some of of the writers of scripture including the odd bit that was not from God, and the church choosing to interpret doctrine according to one standard long after another is called for (place of slavery, role of women for two examples, shape of the earth for another if you like).
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Grey Face: quote:
...because it would take a high order of miracle either way.
Rats! I now have running around in my head Errol Brown and Hot Chocolate singing "I believe in miracles/Where you from/You sexy thing!" Which is not going to ease my intelligent participation in this debate...
So, in order to bring things in line per St.T, as long as the gay guys were fully intending to procreate or open to that possibility, what they're doing is okay, or certainly as okay as the couple where the wife has no uterus. Pregnancy is equally impossible in either situation, so the intention is what would matter.
The other side of the "natural law" argument is the "complementarity" argument which, boiled down, is I think that the fact that humans procreate through two sexes, created separately by God, suggests that this is God's plan for human relations. I reject this argument, but it has a certain power in certain circles.
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Be careful Mdijon. Tis the slippery slope on the thin end of the wedge.
Well exactly. Although the intellectually honest thing to do would probably be to become an atheist if that was the only argument.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
mdijon, you can't conceive of God behaving in a way you don't expect him to -allowing scripture writers in their free will to be possibly unclear or even fallible- without becoming an atheist? It's a make or break deal for your faith? God lets things like the tsunami happen and yet you would believe, but if God, though his followers, isn't 100% clear on one type of behavior among hundreds, it's grounds for serious soul searching?
You do seem to be on the edge. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Probably.
I'm not wildly crazy about God's inactivity in the face of human and natural disaster either. But I can understand some of the reasons why this kind of thing goes on, despite what I believe about god.
When you say "100% ability to be clear" that sounds like a nitpick with the details of salvation through works or grace.......but here we are talking about a scripture that has caused untold suffering of christians. And it's not just a failure to be clear - we are talking about scriptures written in what seem on first reading of the current English translations to be totally condemnatory.
So yes, that does put me on the edge - one thing for God to allow suffering to enter the world through a damaged creation, or evil humans - another thing for him/her to allow such suffering because of what is written in the bible.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Doesn't that really depend on a particular view of what the Bible is, and how it came into being, though? (Not that I want to be driving a chariot propelled by two yoked dead horses!)
A bit - although I'm not talking about inerrancy here - I'm talking about not leading to oppression and condemnation.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
A bit - although I'm not talking about inerrancy here - I'm talking about not leading to oppression and condemnation.
mdijon---the Bible quite clearly presents people who had forms of mental or physical illness as possessed by demons. The amount of suffering this has caused through the centuries is incalculable.
Now we know that epilepsy and mental illness are biological states, not spiritual ones. As a result, we no longer condemn people as demon-possessed for things over which they truly have no control.
I see these two issues as analogous for the purposes of this discussion (please note that I am NOT declaring homosexuality to be a mental or physical illness).
Presumably God knew these people were not demon-possesed. Using your argument, why did He not ensure that the Scriptures made this plain and avoid inflicting the pain that inevitably followed?
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I'm not sure the bible really does do that; demon afflication/demon possesion can be differentiated.....and this can be allegorical; in a sense, all human suffering is the work of the kingdom of darkness.
But if it did; what then? Does a second error help resolve the situation?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Be careful Mdijon. Tis the slippery slope on the thin end of the wedge.
Slippery slopes and thin ends can often result in wedgies. Is there a smiley wincing in pain?
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I would identify with all the above on this issue, excepting ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
