|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I would identify with all the above on this issue, excepting ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
= Potato wedges.
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think I'll stop somewhere half way up the wedgie - the middle end of the wedge.
One can't stay angry with God for long; it's not healthy, and doesn't help anyone.
Although, in the mean time..........
Fucking hell, why?
Grilled potato wedgies; ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
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.
Exactly. And don't get me started on what the intention is when one uses so-called natural contraception.
quote:
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.
This is mildly more problematic but subject to the same attack above. The fact that humans require functioning reproductive organs to procreate would suggest that God doesn't want infertile people to be in a relationship.
Or perhaps not.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Complete tangent, but: quote:
One can't stay angry with God for long; it's not healthy, and doesn't help anyone.
I think you can, it may be very healthy, and it might help you a lot.
--------------------
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
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Laura observes that: quote:
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. (Emphasis mine)
"Sooner or later, we all outgrow what we were built to do..." Captain Dylan Hunt, of the Andromeda Ascendant
Discuss, with reference to natural law arguments.
Or not... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
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
Certainly.
I will begin the essay with a definition of Natural Law, a precis of the career of Captain Dylan Hunt, specifically in the context of his service aboard the Andromeda, but with reference to his formative years on Tarn-Vedra, and show his eminent qualifications to speak authoritatively on such matters.
In fact, there's a web site he apparently checks every 24 hours where we could put the question directly to the great man himself.
Judging by current progress, I'll get more sense there than out of the bible on the issue.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peppone:
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?
My meaning may not have been clear. One can't uncouple major themes and strands from the Bible without making it entirely different and therefore not the Bible. The case against sex between people of the same sex doesn't rest upon proof texts, which can conveniently be explained away, but upon the entire 'bias' of the revelation as it follows from creation.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Posted by Spawn: quote:
the entire 'bias' of the revelation as it follows from creation.
I don't understand what this means. Can you clarify?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Spawn: quote:
The case against sex between people of the same sex doesn't rest upon proof texts, which can conveniently be explained away, but upon the entire 'bias' of the revelation as it follows from creation.
Colossal questions are being begged here about the nature and locus of revelation. I think there's a huge prima face inconsistency between wha's being assumed about the Bible as revelation on the one hand and about "revelation in creation" as either the ground or the upshot of natural law on the other.
Is there a revelation in creation? There have been Christians who have denied this (Barth) or who have qualified it severely (Brunner).
And even if there is, who is qualified to read it? And in what light?
--------------------
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
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Posted by Spawn: quote:
the entire 'bias' of the revelation as it follows from creation.
I don't understand what this means. Can you clarify?
Because I don't have much time - I'm posting between finishing various pieces of work for weekend deadlines. I'll leave it with this quote from Paul Zahl by which I'm intending to show the domino-effect of a change of the church's teaching on sexuality. If I was putting it in my own words I'd go on a bit more about how creation sets out the Judaeo-Christian anthropology from which all the Bible's teaching about relationships (not just between men and women but between God and his people, and Christ and his Church flows). This at any rate shows where I'm coming from.
quote:
Why is the issue so important?
First, we believe the gay position as we hear it undermines the anthropology of the Gospel. It undermines the teaching concerning the inherent sinfulness of the creature before the Creator. It wants to exempt a particular category of persons, gay men and women, from Original Sin on the basis that they are "created" a certain way, therefore how can it be wrong? For reasons beyond our human understanding we are all created sinners: distorted, inverted, libidinal and narcissistic. Our baggage is psycho-genetic, not the sum of our deeds. The gay argument confuses creation with redemption – as in the old 1970’s poster "God don’t make no junk". That was a half truth then, and it is a half truth now. The core, universal, and seemingly impenetrable claim of the gay lobby is this: If I came into the world this way, then how can it be wrong? That claim is in opposition to the classic Christian doctrine, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant, of the human being as being intrinsically and inherently fallen in all cases. The claim is Arminian explicity and Pelagian implicitly.
If the anthropology is flawed, then inevitably the soteriology is flawed. If "God don’ t make no junk", then what need is there for a Savior? Why did Christ have to die on the Cross, if the need of the human race were not rooted in our paralysis and inability to help ourselves? The result of an overly high anthropology is an overly low soteriology.
The result of an overly low soteriology is a weak Christology. If Christ is not a Savior in the full and plain sense of the word, then He did not have to be God. The whole encounter of Jesus with the Pharisees in Mark, Chapter Two, when he made a connection between his divine authority and the forgiveness of sins, ceases to mean anything. High anthropology means low soteriology means inadequate Christology.
Finally, the Trinitarian implications of the weak Christology implicit in the gay lobby’ s argument – become now the Episcopal Church’s argument – are devastating. The Son who is no Saviour becomes automatically subordinate to the Father. We are quickly into Arianism and what we today call unitarianism. Now most theological liberals I know in ECUSA insist that they are Trinitarian Christians. And I believe them. But I wonder whether they have realized the implications for the whole of theology of the overly high anthropology of the arguments we have been hearing from the gay lobby and their friends. Please, think through the implications of a weakened profile of Original Sin.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
... The case against sex between people of the same sex doesn't rest upon proof texts, which can conveniently be explained away, but upon the entire 'bias' of the revelation as it follows from creation.
So, what about the gay penguins? At least 20 pairs are reported, in 16 acquaria in Japan, and in New York , of course.
quote:
One particular book is helpful in this case. Bruce Bagemihl's "Biological Exuberance," published in 1999, documents homosexual behavior in more than 450 animal species. The list includes grizzly bears, gorillas, flamingos, owls and even several species of salmon.
(Althought from what I know of fish reproduction, the last seems dubious.)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I don't think I've ever read a bigger load of nonsense - or witnessed the setting-up of a strawier man - than in that passage from this Zahl person, whoever he is.
Let's lay aside for a moment that the Western understanding of "original sin" is not a part of Orthodox theology, as Zahl claims. Let's also lay aside the questionable philosophy and theology of classical original sin altogether. Let's concentrate on Zahl's claim that to be pro-gay means you're claiming some kind of exemption from this "original sin" - well, what utter rubbish! There isn't a single gay Christian thinker I know of who would claim that, and on that point the whole of Zahl's "argument" falls. Pro-gay thinkers have never wanted to claim to be "better" than everyone else - we just don't like being killed, hurt, or discriminated against by an establishment that thinks we're "worse"!
Spawn, I'm disappointed - even in a hurry, you can do better than this.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Whether it's natural or whether inherited seems irrelevant to me.
Alcoholics might be born with the inherent tendancy for alcoholism.
Does this do away with original sin in the same way as if we claim so for homosexual people?
Even if it's a choice, it might still be right; many aspects of sexual behaviour are cultivated or chosen, some are wrong, some aren't. (eg promiscuity, particular sexual positions, marrying young, not marrying etc etc)
[ 28. January 2005, 15:26: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Thanks, Adeodatus -- I have to say that that passage seemed to me on first reading to equate homosexual orientation with original sin.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Spawn: quote:
the fact that humans procreate through two sexes, created separately by God, suggests that this is God's plan for human relations.
Actually, you could read Genesis 2 as implying that this was plan B. quote:
then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being...The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him...So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
I forbear to speculate on what plan A might have been.
Of course, I suppose it's possible that we're reading in this whole business of "God's plan" to a text that simply isn't and wasn't ever, meant to be about what some of us seem to be trying to make out it is about.
And if with this text, why not others?
--------------------
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
Because I can see it here, and not elsewhere, that's why.
Hmmmmm. Good point.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Posted by Spawn: quote:
the entire 'bias' of the revelation as it follows from creation.
I don't understand what this means. Can you clarify?
Aren't you glad you asked?
It is my understanding that the Orthodox explicitly reject Original Sin. I'm sure if we invited a certain Fr. down here he might confirm/deny.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
It is my understanding that the Orthodox explicitly reject Original Sin. I'm sure if we invited a certain Fr. down here he might confirm/deny.
I'm not a certain father but I'm a certain reader -- hope this will do.
We reject inherited guilt. We understand that due to the sin of our first parents, the world has become a "fallen" place, and it is harder for humans to truly follow after good (which is to say, after God). Harder, but not impossible. We do not believe in Total Depravity; which is to say, we think that when a person decides to turn to God, it is that person deciding, not God reaching inside them and making them do so.
Hope this helps more than hinders.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peppone
Marine
# 3855
|
Posted
It still all seems reductive to me, Spawn- kind of like "God valued heterosexuality so much that he created a heterosexual world."
Hope I'm not wilfully misunderstanding your argument- I may well be misunderstanding it, but I hope you'll believe I'm not doing it with malice. Note I am not arguing for the moment that homosexuality is not a sin, just that, assuming the Bible says it is, we seem to go much, much too far if we therefore insist that it is the central, defining sin by which we might understand sinfulness itself.
--------------------
I looked at the wa's o' Glasgow Cathedral, where vandals and angels painted their names,
I was clutching at straws and wrote your initials, while parish officials were safe in their hames.
Posts: 3020 | From: Hong Kong | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Mousethief, when I was taught New Testament theology by Jimmy Dunn, he used to say that he understood Paul as believing in Original Sin but not Original Guilt. That sounds as though it is the position you have outlined - don't know how influenced he was/is by Orthodoxy or not.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Mousethief, when I was taught New Testament theology by Jimmy Dunn, he used to say that he understood Paul as believing in Original Sin but not Original Guilt. That sounds as though it is the position you have outlined - don't know how influenced he was/is by Orthodoxy or not.
Good (and interesting) question. Where did he stand on total depravity?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
IIRC correctly, he thought that total depravity was un-Pauline. I think it was because of issues such as these that some of the more conservative ordinands started describing Dunn as a "dangerous liberal". This seemed odd to me - a chap does intensive study of the Bible, ends up saying, "I think Paul [or whoever] is saying this," only to be dismissed. Who is sticking closer to the Bible; the one who tries to understand its teaching in as much detail as possible, or the one who has a checklist of points and tries to make the Bible fit into those?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
...or the one who has a checklist of points and tries to make the Bible fit into those?
No-one ever admits to doing that though - it tends to be what one's opponents are doing.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
The Wanderer: quote:
Who is sticking closer to the Bible; the one who tries to understand its teaching in as much detail as possible, or the one who has a checklist of points and tries to make the Bible fit into those?
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.
and this: quote:
My meaning may not have been clear. One can't uncouple major themes and strands from the Bible without making it entirely different and therefore not the Bible. The case against sex between people of the same sex doesn't rest upon proof texts, which can conveniently be explained away, but upon the entire 'bias' of the revelation as it follows from creation.
I don't want to seem to be hounding Spawn, but I think it is worth his noting that for some of us at least, his "natural law" looks a bit like one of the Wanderer's 'checklists'.
This ties in, I think, if I may express it a bit naively (for the sake of stimulating argument!) with the chasm between those for whom Jesus' total silence on this issue is enormously significant (and I'm one), and the people whose position seems to be (and here's the unsubtlety for which I apologise in advance) "Well, Jesus would have agreed with everything that's in the Bible."
I think that's what is taken one step further in the attitude evinced towards JDG Dunn by people who seem to believe "Well, the Bible's bound to agree with everything that's in teh Christian Faith™..."
Maybe I'm hypersensitive on this point, but I am a Minister in a Church which in 1830 threw out of its ministry one of the greatest and holiest theologians Scotland ever produced - for teaching, with the Bible but against the Christian Faith™ as contained in the Westminster Confession, that Christ died for all. By way of contrition, it sometimes seems to me, the Church of Scotland went on to raise some of the finest critical scholars of the Bible, and to imbue generations of her Ministers with a reverently critical attitude. Of course, we're rapidly losing all that now.
But it does seem to me that the urge to say "The Bible says..!" masks the complex truth that "Leviticus says, Paul says something quite different on quite different grounds, and Jesus says nothing at all - and look at how he treats people..."
Do y'all know the joke about the Astronomer, the Physicist and the Mathematician in a train crossing the border into Scotland?
--------------------
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
I'll bite.
No. Do tell.....
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Astronomer, Physicist and Mathematician in a railway carriage crossing the border into Scotland - first time for all of them. As they cross the border, they see a black sheep.
Astronomer: "That's AMAZING!!! Every sheep in Scotland is black!"
Physicist: "Er... no...! All we can say is that one sheep in Scotland is black."
Mathematician: "Actually - no again! All we can really say is that one sheep in Scotland is black on one side..."
I venture to expand.
Three people open the Bible at Leviticus...
(edited to fix UBB)
[ 30. January 2005, 14:44: Message edited by: TonyK ]
--------------------
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
Theologan; This particular sheep is only Black in its current context, within the confines of our current understanding of Black and Sheep. Another sheep in another time....
2nd Theologan; This sheep inerrantly reveals all sheep everywhere - indeed, it makes that claim for itself and I recognize its voice - the voice preserved in the teaching of the church; the true theologans know the voice of the true sheep......
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
I once had a telepathic message from some sheep once. I'd hit one with my Landrover while in the Shetlands. I got out to tend to injured sheep, but it wasn't there. All the other sheep were looking at me in a very spooky fashion, and then I got the telepathic message:
'You baaaaaaaaaassstard!'
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caz...
Shipmate
# 3026
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
I once had a telepathic message from some sheep once.
Who says there's nothing new left to add to this debate?!?!
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"What have you been reading? The Gospel according to St. Bastard?" - Eddie Izzard
Posts: 1888 | From: here to there | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
(Just for clarity - when I made my remark about checklists I was thinking about some specific fellow ordinands who irked me many years ago. I wasn't having a oblique attack on Spawn.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
3rd theologian: "Well, the one eye that I can see on that sheep is surprisingly low on its head, so I predict that the eye on the other side will be closer to the top of its head..."
Biblical Critic: "Ah - a prophecy of Second Eye's Higher..."
--------------------
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
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
It's the third eye that intuits the will of God.
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
I once had a telepathic message from some sheep once.
Heretic. The revelation of the sheep is complete - nothing can be added - setting yourself up as false prophet of the killed sheep is despicible.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Iggy
Shipmate
# 8833
|
Posted
quote:
Where did he stand on total depravity ?
Mousethief
That does sound quite appealing, actually.
--------------------
ig
Posts: 127 | From: Brighton | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Iggy
Shipmate
# 8833
|
Posted
Sorry about the above post. I just came across the phrase in Mousethief's debate and I'm afraid I could not resist it. I actually intended to put Mousethief at the end as in attributing the the quotation to him, but was snared by my relative inexperience with the posting system and it comes over looking like some bizarre proposition.
Total depravity - is that Augustinian ? Very serious concept really. Yes. Yes indeed.
It can feel a bit odd sometimes looking through this thread - as a rather non-worried gay person - and finding oneself so ernestly debated about.
I appreciated the Sheep post. Lorks knows this thread could do with a little more humour from time to time.
Ciao !
--------------------
ig
Posts: 127 | From: Brighton | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
OK - going back a good few posts to Spawn and natural law - here's a quote I came across this morning:
"The appeal to 'nature' has always been a slogan, or Kampfwort; it has been used to beg the question [one of the main rhetorical fallacies, known as petitio principii] in favour of any position which a particular writer wished to defend or promote - or against any one singled out for condemnation." Frank H. Knight, Freedom and Reform
--------------------
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
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Let's concentrate on Zahl's claim that to be pro-gay means you're claiming some kind of exemption from this "original sin" - well, what utter rubbish! There isn't a single gay Christian thinker I know of who would claim that, and on that point the whole of Zahl's "argument" falls.
Nuh-uh. Zahl expressed himself badly but what he (presumably) meant was not that "revisionist" (I know that's such a crap word but it's much better than "pro-gay") thinkers are explicitly claiming immunity from original sin for people with homosexual desires, but that that is what the logic of their position demands, i.e. that they must have been made by God the way they are and therefore it can't be immoral to act on their natural, God-given desires. One of the corollaries of believing in the falleness of human nature is that our desires are completely screwed up and thus to claim that something is OK because one naturally has this desire is therefore claiming an exemption of this desire from falleness.
Note that I am not defending Zahl's argument (though I might be prepared to defend a modified version of it), simply pointing out that if I have read his correctly, your response is not a very good one. A better critique would be to demonstrate that the best representatives (e.g. Gene Rogers, Walter Wink) of the "revisionist" case do not actually make their case on the "Gay people just feel that way so they have to act on it" argument, although unfortunately there are plenty of rather less thoughtful representatives of the case who do.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
A gay person, in his fallen state, by his nature desires a kind, intelligent man to love and cherish. But being fallen, this natural desire is corrupt.
While, I, also in a fallen state, naturally desire a kind, intelligent man to love and cherish. But being a fallen person surely my desire must also be corrupt...?
Even though we want the same thing, my inborn desire (which could well exist in me without being a Christian) is good but a gay man's inborn desire is a product of the fall?
--------------------
"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
Lyda Rose: quote:
While, I, also in a fallen state, naturally desire a kind, intelligent man to love and cherish. But being a fallen person surely my desire must also be corrupt...?
Yes, of course it is. But it happens to coincide with the Rules of the Universe, AKA natural law, so that's OK, isn't it?
quote:
Even though we want the same thing, my inborn desire (which could well exist in me without being a Christian) is good but a gay man's inborn desire is a product of the fall?
Ah, no, you had it there for a moment. You see, your inborn desire is just as corrupt as that of your hypothetical gay man's. But it's legal. (I mean, from a Natural Law standpoint. You know - the Bumper Book of Natural Law™...) Your love for your married partner is beside the point. Irrelevant. Because it too is just as much a product of the fall. All that's relevant is that you be married to somebody of the opposite sex.
Oh - hang on. That can't be right. How could that be an image of Christ's relation to the Church?Hang on. Someone will be along in a moment, to explain it much better...
--------------------
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
By the way - I was being ironic. And I do know that natural law doesn't play the role in this scheme that I've assigned to it. I just want to see what we're left with when people try to take it out...
--------------------
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
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Posted by Sean D: quote:
One of the corollaries of believing in the falleness of human nature is that our desires are completely screwed up and thus to claim that something is OK because one naturally has this desire is therefore claiming an exemption of this desire from falleness.
Actually, Sean, that's only true if you believe in Calvinistic total depravity. Or, to put it in Orthodox terms which I'm more comfortable with, that both the likeness and the image of God in humankind is tainted by original sin. But there is a strong Eastern tradition that while the likeness of God is tainted, the image is not, therefore there is a part of our nature which is still Godlike (the rationale being that, otherwise, how would any communion between God and humankind be possible?). The strongest candidate for what this part of our nature is that's untouched by sin is, of course, love. And not just agapistic love, but the love between human beings that seeks both bodily and spiritual union.
If this is true - that the human capacity for love is the locus of the image of God in us - then any argument that takes as its premise the necessary sinfulness of all human desires is on very shaky ground.
Or, to put it another way - I don't buy into all that Augustinian crap.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Sean D:
quote:
One of the corollaries of believing in the falleness of human nature is that our desires are completely screwed up and thus to claim that something is OK because one naturally has this desire is therefore claiming an exemption of this desire from falleness.
I think there are two problems with this.
Firstly you can't use both this argument and Natural Law. If human nature is "completely screwed up" then one cannot deduce any moral laws from it because the source of one's data is a black, satanic, pulsating mass of fallen evil. This line of argumentation can be found on the recurring OT genocide thread - our abhorrence of genocide derives from our fallen nature and the only sure touchstone for ethics is revelation which, being sent by God, is immune from the biases towards which natural ethical reflection is prone.
Secondly, the extent of the Fall is a contested area in Christian doctrine. An Orthodox Christian, on the one hand and a TULIP Calvinist on the other are going to have quite different of the extent of the Fall. But it is hardly difficult to demonstrate that there exist natural desires which remain largely intact. For example every once in a while the papers report a case where a frail woman has lifted a heavy object to rescue her child. The maternal instinct is a natural desire and in many cases it works reasonably well. The fall means that there are bad mothers, the ubiquity of infanticide in some cultures tells us that it is more prone to corruption than family values advocates are wont to admit, but still it is there and in many cases functions superbly. (In fact, in order to avoid the conclusion that human beings frequently behave well, those taking a 'hard' view of the fall are obliged to suggest that unless the Mother in question is one of the elect her action in saving the child is merely a 'splendid sin'.)
Even Barthians, who have grave objections to the idea of natural law, would be prepared to concede that human beings are created for fellowship with God and with other human beings and their nature reflects this. The fall means that this nature is prone to malfunction on a number of levels but not that it is a completely unreliable indicator as to knowledge of right and wrong. (Or to use more poetic language the Imago Dei is marred but not obliterated by the fall) So one can admit the fall and accept the possibility of the licitness of homosexuality, and that the existence of a homosexual orientation which in many cases appears fixed and is not removable by psychological means, is an argument in favour of this position although not, of course, a conclusive one.
In short, homosexual desire, may be intrinsically disordered but to deny this does not, necessarily, mean taking a position on original sin.
Incidentally, there are conservative Christians who frequently have recourse to the 'ick' factor in insisting that no right thinking person can countenance homosexual activity. If all our natural impulses are intrinsically sinful then the 'ick' factor is just as suspect as the gay couple's physical attraction to one another. What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.
[ 21. February 2005, 11:17: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Firstly you can't use both this argument and Natural Law.
I absolutely agree.
quote:
Secondly, the extent of the Fall is a contested area in Christian doctrine.
Yep. I certainly don't swallow total depravity (although I'm guessing Paul Zahl does), but one doesn't need to swallow it to believe that many human desires are deeply disordered. This doesn't mean total depravity by any means - but it certainly does mean that you have to be pretty careful about basing an argument in favour of expressing a certain desire on the mere fact that one has that desire. There are, of course, natural desires which remain intact, e.g. the desire for food. But in many people (e.g. me) this desire itself is deeply disordered and I want to eat far more than can possibly be good for me. In addition, some of my desires are not simply disordered good ones but wholly bad ones, e.g. the desire to hurt others. Therefore assessing which of these desires is natural and good and which are a result of the fall must resort to other criteria than the simple fact of the desires themselves, e.g. Adeodatus' observation that agape love can characterise gay relationships every bit as much as it can characterise straight ones.
As I said, Zahl's argument is not good, because this is most definitely not the way good "revisionist" thinkers actually do justify loving homosexual relationships. Their arguments use Scripture and tradition as well as reason, and to my mind that is a better refutation of Zahl than what I perceived as Adeodatus' misreading of or unclear response to him (though sorry if I was actually misreading Adeodatus).
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Dear Adeodatus quote:
there is a strong Eastern tradition that while the likeness of God is tainted, the image is not, therefore there is a part of our nature which is still Godlike (the rationale being that, otherwise, how would any communion between God and humankind be possible?). The strongest candidate for what this part of our nature is that's untouched by sin is, of course, love. And not just agapistic love, but the love between human beings that seeks both bodily and spiritual union.
This is not the Orthodox view. It is the image which is tainted, making it difficult to attain to the likeness - i.e. in the fall, we lost the likeness and the image was infected by the sickness of sin. What is natural in us is that with which we were created, what is unnatural is the passions which must be purified. Then the likeness will be restored.
Although we are not totally depraved, neither is there any part in us which is not affected by the passions - even love. You argument is interesting, but not supported by Orthodox Tradition.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
OPd by Angloid on the Anglican primates thread:
It does that from a firm grounding in the tradition, of course; but if we hadn't taken risks at the time of the reformation and since, on things like vernacular liturgy, clerical marriage, abolition of slavery, acceptance of evolution, ordination of women, etc. etc, we should have remained institutionally part of western catholicism.
This is not a good argument - if, indeed, it is intended to represent an argument at all. Leaving aside the rather hubristic way you claim credit for the Anglican tradition for all those innovations (unless you meant the Reformed tradition in general, but the way you referred to the strong sense of tradition suggests not), I assume you do not mean that an innovation is by definition good. There have been innovations, after all, that the Anglican church eschewed, such as the abolition of vestments and lay presidency.
In other words, the onus is on you to show how this innovation is in keeping with the others you described - and it would seem as if not everyone is convinced.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Dear Sean
I deliberately didn't post this on Dead Horses because I think the principle is much wider than gay sexuality. Nor did I intend my argument to come across as anglican imperialism... 'we're superior to you protestant/roman/evangelical/whatever oiks because we're open to diversity'. But you invited the debate and so I will state my case again: somebody within the worldwide church has to take risks unless you don't ever expect christian belief to respond to the wider world. If you (meaning 'one', not you personally... unless you are!) are a creationist this argument will I suppose hardly wash because you won't expect the tradition to ever change anyway.
But to my mind – and I suggest for most mainstream christians - for tradition to be tradition means that it inevitably will change. Just as you don't make an omelette without breaking eggs, you don't grow and develop in faith without taking risks; and risk implies the possibility of mistakes. It may very well be that ECUSA and Canada and those of us who agree with them are wrong in affirming +Gene Robinson. BUt if we believe we are right it would have been cowardice and lack of faith not to do so. It just seems to me, as a catholic anglican, that there is no justification for us to stay outside the mainstream church (which in our western context is the RCC) unless we use our independence to take this sort of risk.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
Sorry for moving the discussion down here - I saw why it was relevant to the thread of course but thought if we discussed it in much depth it would probably head into this particular dead horse quite quickly. Obviously you are right that this principle extends beyond this particular issue. I also agree that tradition develops etc. although I certainly don't buy into a Newman-type theology of development of doctrine.
I still struggle to see how this idea is so obviously relevant here though. Obviously maybe the church has got this issue wrong like it has plenty of others e.g. I think the church was wrong about not ordaining women for countless hundreds of years, on the basis that in the NT church women taught and led (this is a low church not-very-sacramentalist rationale obviously). Same for clerical marriage - no restriction on it in the NT and plenty of counter-examples, i.e. married people in ministry. On creationism no dev of doctrine is needed - for example both Augustine and Calvin both explain that Genesis is not meant literally. The abolition of slavery is a more compelling example though since the NT is much less clear.
But these changes in church teaching and practice come as a result of wrestling with Scripture, tradition and reason. They were not unilateral decisions/actions. The OOOW first took place unilaterally in the AC but in the CofE only took place after agreement (if it can be called that). So whilst I wholeheartedly agree that just because something isn't done at the moment that's no reason to not do it - the church has been wrong before and will be again, and praise God for the prophetic voices who call us back to search our hearts and the Scriptures to see if we are really in line with God's will, e.g. feminism, which woke at least some parts of the church up to the fact that it had obstinately egalitarian Scriptures.
So, risk taking and changes are fine I have no doubt - but there also has to be respect for authority and unity... and a willingness to admit that one might, after all, have made a really, really serious mistake!
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angloid:
It may very well be that ECUSA and Canada and those of us who agree with them are wrong in affirming +Gene Robinson. BUt if we believe we are right it would have been cowardice and lack of faith not to do so. It just seems to me, as a catholic anglican, that there is no justification for us to stay outside the mainstream church (which in our western context is the RCC) unless we use our independence to take this sort of risk.
Angloid, I absolutely agree with what you have said. And on the actual issues, I'm pretty cool with same-sex marriage, although I have to say I really, really wish Robinson had not been elected.
But just to be clear (one of my personal hang-ups) "Canada" has taken no stand on the affirmation of Gene Robinson.
And to extend the point, "Canada's" only stand on the blessing ot same-sex unions is that we are taking three years to make a recommendation as to which level of church government can legitimately be asked to grapple with it. The Synod of the diocese of New Westminster passed a motion under the, I believe, wrong understanding of the question. It did not speak for its province or for the church in Canada.
A profound misunderstanding of how the church in Canada works underlies the Primates' declaration from Ireland, which will lend yet more ammunition to those who think some of those present had an agenda and were not prepared to let facts get in its way.
But that is straying into the territory of a live horse(!), so I will cease and desist.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
OPd by Arabella Purity Winterbottom in Another Place:
Ah, but that's exactly what I tried to do - but then, my definition of sexually pure is different from those who believe that anyone who is lesbian or gay is by definition not pure.
If this is what took place then I am truly very sorry for you (not that you asked for or need my pity)... in my experience most churches make it about whether one is practising or not rather than whether one is lesbian or gay. If it was about whether you were practising or not then that is a separate question however.
quote:
I seriously don't think that two women, sharing their lives in a relationship as committed as any heterosexual marriage, both committed to God's work in the world, are likely to have given Jesus a moment's worry.
I think this sentiment has something going for it but as a fellow Christian trying to discern what Jesus would think/do/say about something I cannot avoid the other passages in the Bible (discussed ad nauseam here of course) which as far as I understand things also reflect Jesus' will. It's not an either/or situation. Of course, that means ones interpretation of those passages will be relevant but to my mind it's not sufficient to say "look at the character of Jesus - he'd have no problem with it". (I don't think this is what you are saying as your views are doubtless a lot more carefully thought-through than that but it's an argument I have heard many a time from others IRL.)
quote:
Believe me, its probably a lot harder for someone in my situation to opt out of hardline pro-gay dogmatism than it is for someone on the other side of the debate!
I don't wish to be rude but I find this slightly patronising. How do you know that I don't know what it's like for someone in your situation?!
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Two things, Sean. First of all, it is nonsense that churches are only interested in practice. I have had several friends who were celibate hounded out of their respective churches. It is a complete fiction that practice is what defines the anti-gay position. The only possible exception is where someone is a gay person who is lying to their church about their sexuality - that's the only situation I know of where sexuality hasn't been an issue for the church, and of course, that doesn't say anything about the damage it does that person. I speak mainly of lay people here, since what are euphemistically referred to as "existing homosexuals", the already ordained lesbian and gay ministers, are more difficult to roust out since they are in a position to do a lot of financial damage to the church.
Secondly, if one is lesbian or gay, one is expected to toe the party line. If one disagrees with the party line, say for instance, by not agreeing with everything one's lesbian minister says, you end up without a church home - in my case this was a matter of arguing for the right to free speech for anti-gay protesters. I realise disagreements with ministers can happen in other churches, but for straight people, it is usually possible to find another church home.
You can feel patronised all you like, but the very painful reality is that more often than not, gay and lesbian people are not actually allowed to have a voice in this debate. Instead they are told to hold back for political reasons, or because we are not human, or because supporters think we will be hurt. Well, I've been alternately bullied, vilified and patronised by various groups, and in the end, I have to trust God, because for sure, the powerful among God's followers in the church are more interested in their power than in God's message. And that's on both sides of the debate.
I've left the church because I feel God's call to ministry. The only way I can follow that call is outside the church, since if I stayed I'd be wasting time arguing about whether I was allowed to minister instead of actually getting on with it. The peace I feel now is something I would never have imagined two years ago - I am getting on with it and I feel God's blessing every day, not being ripped apart by arguments between people who don't want to hear my voice.
And as for how Jesus would have regarded me and my partner, I think there is plenty of evidence in his own words that our lives would be acceptable. You have to go outside the gospels to find the message that queers are unacceptable visitors of those who are sick or in prison, carers for the widow and orphan, feeders of the hungry, etc., etc. And I would dispute the references in the rest of the bible as well - both the Hebrew and Greek testaments are very clear that the first and greatest commandment is loving your neighbour as yourself. It isn't "make God's judgements for God".
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
