Ship of Fools: Homosexuality and Christianity

Printer-friendly view

»	Ship of Fools » Special interest discussion » Dead Horses » Homosexuality and Christianity (Page 56)

Email this page to a friend or enemy.

Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 ... 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 ... 92 93 94

Source: (consider it)

Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity

Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
First, I'm asking you not to act as though homosexual sins are worse than heterosexual sins. I'm asking you not to spend more time and energy denouncing homosexual sins than you spend denouncing heterosexual sins. I'm asking you not to treat people who are guilty of homosexual sin worse than you treat people who are guilty of heterosexual sin. I'm asking you to treat a gay couple the same way you'd treat an unmarried straight couple. I'm asking you to treat promiscuous gay people the same way you treat promiscuous straight people. I'm asking you not to treat homosexual people as if their sexual sins are worse than the sexual sins of straight people. There is nothing in Scripture or Tradition to support that idea, so I'm asking you not to act as though there is.

Is there anything I have posted that shows I treat people differently? Ciould you quote me please?

I am posting in this thread on the subject of homosexuality and Christianity. As I said above, if a group in the church was trying to say gossip was not sinful, then I'd argue that. If some group was saying covetting was not sinful, then I'd be arguing against that. If someone was trying to say adultery, or sex before marriage, or any other sin was not sinful, then I'd argue that as well. But this is the issue in our age that people are trying to redine as not sinful. And so I'll argue about this is this thread.

But, let me quote myself from the previous page:

quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
[QB] For those who've not met me on the ship before, I'm a fairly conservative sort of ship mate. But I'd agree with what Lep said on the last page about admitting there is a big problem in the way conservative churches treat gay people. I'm sure there would be double standards in many conservative churches towards two couples waliking into church - an un-married couple living together and a gay couple living together. I'm sure in many churches there would be a very different reaction. Most churches would welcome the unmarried couple, but shun the gay couple. I reacon that's not because of the Bible, but more a reflection of homophobia that runs through the whole of society but rarely gets expressed in these more PC days. But it is wrong, and needs to be challenged. All people should be welcomed and loved. There are so many stories here that shows that is not the case. Its totally tragic the way Christians can treat their fellow human beings.

So I think you are trying to condemn me for a sin I am not committing.

Josephine, can I ask, if all people were treated the same, irrespective of thier sexual orientation, and there were no hypocrisy or bullying or mistreating of people, would same sex sexual relations be sinful or not?

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004 | IP: Logged

Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

Posted

Lady of the Lake:

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Psyduck:

I think I'd be rather inclinde to say "Fromage dur..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well as a French speaker I know that this means 'hard cheese', by which I am assuming that you mean that the aforementioned would-be converts should just accept the liberal line of those particular churches or leave ?

You're talking about a constituency of males who don't like the philistinism of those churches which but the homiletical boot into gay people, but who are put off those churches they consider otherwise worthy of their own intellectual and aesthetic attainments, because they are liberal on homosexuality and welcoming towards homosexuals, am I right?

So spiritual blindness, too, comes from being a total wanker...

I blame the dearth of sermons aganst Onanism...

--------------------
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

I posted somewhat in anger, there, as the astute will have noticed.

I ought to make it clear - though I hope it was - that the spleen of my last post was directed against the aforementioned males. I can't imagine why you are offering such special pleading on their behalf, Lady of the Lake. Calibrating your argument by the likes and dislikes of a bunch of Goldilockses sampling the ecclesiastical porrige saps your argument.

--------------------
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

The Exegesis Fairy
Shipmate
# 9588

Posted

quote:
You're jumping the gun here, by assuming that I am asking that people who are closeted homosexuals, as you describe them, should marry.
This is not the issue I'm dealing with. In any case, I've never advocated compulsory marriage.

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear. My point was that if there was a case of someone who was unsure of their sexuality, and repressed it because he was taught it was wrong, he/she would, if they married, likely struggle with this and may end up divorcing their partner because of it. ANd they may marry not because they wish to, and not ostensibly because anyone has told them to, but because they think it is the 'normal' thing to do.

quote:

quote: And if homosexuality becomes widely accepted by churches then new, splinter churches will set up whose main doctrinal difference is that they do not condone homosexuality/homosexual acts/whatever. And if the blokes are so intimidated by gay men in the church, they can always go there.

I'm afraid I simply find this arrogant. There's also absolutely no Biblical warrant for this attitude. In fact quite the opposite.
It would also be counterproductive in all sorts of ways, to found a new splinter denomination on this one issue. A female evangelical Anglican vicar drew my attention a while ago to this problem. She said that in her opinion, this was what had happened with the formation of a new conservative denomination after the United Church of Canada had become affirmative of homosexuality. She was also concerned that people who form a new splinter denomination in this way can throw a lot of the baby out with the bathwater in terms of styles of worship and understandings of the Christian faith.

Fish Fish got it right a few posts ago: those who take the traditional stance have had this issue pushed upon them. They shouldn't have to leave the mainstream churches because of this.

I'm sorry if I seemed arrogant, that was truly, truly not my intention. But most splinter churches I have come across have divided from the previous church on one issue, or a small number of issues.

I'm not saying it's right: I'm giving my forecast as to what may happen.

quote:
quote: Tis a fair point, but there has been a gender gap in churches for a while now. I think only God will change that.

There are debates about why the gender gap exists (you're right; it doesn't simply exist because of this issue).(I noticed that you accepted in your latest post what I didn't see you accepting in your first response to me, which is that this gap exists).
If you look at the surveys to which I linked, you will see that liberal Christians are extremely in favour of same-sex unions, almost more than secular liberals. This suggests that in fact, campaigning for same-sex unions will not in fact bring lots of new people into the church the way a number of liberal advocates have sometimes claimed.

As for thinking that 'only God will change that', well, I am certainly a believer in the possibility of divine influence upon the church, but I rather think that the attitude that God will bring male converts in without the church thinking about the issue is rather analogous to the belief many women have, which is that God will provide them with a husband so they don't really have to be proactive.
The point is, those potential husbands very often just don't exist. God is not going to bring a husband. Either that raises questions about God and his goodness etc. or it raises the question about the human institution of the church. It's possible to hide from a lot of problems behind that sort of attitude that God will do things for us.

I don't believe God hands us stuff on a plate. What I mean is, that if it isn't in The Plan (tm) then it won't happen.

I didn't mean to suggest for a moment any kind of laissez-faire approach to life or evangelism or...husband-hunting, if it comes to that.

But things will be as they will be, I suppose. So we strive to make the things that are better.

As for my not accepting that the gender gap exists: believe me, ma'am, I know it does [Smile]

. I was disagreeing that it exists because of the acceptance (or not) of homosexuality in the church.

--------------------
I can only please one person a day.
Today is not your day.
Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Posts: 500 | From: the clear blue sky | Registered: Jun 2005 | IP: Logged

Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

Posted

First, Fish Fish, I owe you an apology. You have made it clear that you believe that many churches have a double standard with respect to the sexual sins of gays and of straights, and that you believe that double standard is wrong. When I was responding to "you," there were clearly parts of it that did not apply to you personally. I should have noted that, and been clear where I was speaking of you personally and where I was using a generic "you."

quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I am posting in this thread on the subject of homosexuality and Christianity. As I said above, if a group in the church was trying to say gossip was not sinful, then I'd argue that. If some group was saying covetting was not sinful, then I'd be arguing against that. If someone was trying to say adultery, or sex before marriage, or any other sin was not sinful, then I'd argue that as well. But this is the issue in our age that people are trying to redine as not sinful. And so I'll argue about this is this thread.

You might well argue it, Fish Fish. But I don't think you've understood what I'm saying, so I'm sure I've said it very badly. Let me try again.

We agree on an observed fact: No one talks about whether or not gluttony and gossip and covetousness are sins. You believe (if I understand you correctly) that the reason no one talks about them is that everyone agrees they are sins. So there's no real reason in your talking about them. People may still gossip, but at least they agree it's a sin. You'd rather focus your attention on homosexuality, because people are trying to move it from the "sin" bucket to the "not-sin" bucket, and you think it's important that they have it (and not just this one, but all other behaviors) in the correct bucket.

I believe, strongly, that the reason no one talks about gluttony and gossip and covetousness is not that they believe those behaviors belong in the "sin" bucket, but that they have already moved them into the "not-sin" bucket, and honestly aren't even aware that anyone might ever have thought they belonged in the "sin" bucket. They have already defined them so completely as "not-sin" that they aren't even aware that there's anything to discuss.

Given how grave and serious those other sins are, it seems to me that getting them moved back into the "sin" bucket might be at least as important as making sure that homosexual acts don't get moved to the "not-sin" bucket.

quote:
Josephine, can I ask, if all people were treated the same, irrespective of thier sexual orientation, and there were no hypocrisy or bullying or mistreating of people, would same sex sexual relations be sinful or not?

You know this isn't a yes/no question for me, don't you?

I don't think the Church's disciplines regarding sex and marriage necessarily apply outside the Church. In a country and culture that allows a man to have multiple wives, is the man with two lawful wives to be considered an adulterer? I'd say not. Likewise, if you have to completely irreligious young adults who choose to live together without getting married, I wouldn't consider them guilty of fornication. Or, if they are guilty of fornication, that matters far less than the fact that they are totally irreligious. They need to know God first; any concern about their sex life can come later. And that applies equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals.

It's more complicated within the Church. Here, I'm talking about the Orthodox Church, of course. For us, sexual relations are permitted only within marriage, and there is no provision currently for gays and lesbians to marry. The easy answer then is to say that homosexual relations are therefore wrong. But I am not sure that answer is right.

For us, the ideal marriage is a unique, sacramental relationship between a man and a woman. Anything else -- such as my own marriage, which is a second marriage for both my husband and me -- is less than the ideal. But less than ideal doesn't mean inherently sinful. Sometimes, in a fallen world, less than ideal is the best you can do.

For a long time, the Church didn't bless second marriages. If you were a Christian, you were expected to marry once, and if your spouse died or if you were separated or divorced, you were expected to stay single. But not everyone was able to do that, and some Christians did remarry. They couldn't remarry in the Church, though -- second marriages were what we'd today call civil unions. And while people who contracted a second marriage were excommunicate for a time, there was no expectation that they'd end their second marriage.

Eventually, the Church decided to accept and bless second marriages. The Church did not decide that they were the same as a unique, sacramental marriage. There is a separate rite for second marriages. It is understood, clearly, that a second marriage is not normative, that it is permitted as a concession, for the salvation of the individuals involved.

It seems to me that homosexual relations perhaps fall into the place that second marriages once fell into -- not accepted by the Church, but not inherently wrong. And I think it is quite possible that the Church could, eventually, choose to accept homosexual unions the same way it did second marriages -- not as the ideal, but as a concession, for the salvation of those involved.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

saysay

Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
In all your post you don't really seem to care what God says or thinks. Now while it is admirable and comendable to not want to be a stumbling block to people causing them to sin, we also need to encourage one another in right living and holiness.

The Bible is far from silent on homosexual activity. To say as much is blindness. Same sex activity is defined as a sin in the old testament, not challneged by Jesus in the new, and reiterated by Paul in the new. Its a clear thread that runs through the New Testament. You may not like it. You may ignore it. But its there.

I have no doubt that I may have given the impression that I don't care what G-d says or thinks, especially to people who believe the Bible contains the whole of G-d’s message. However, if I really didn’t care, I would have done what most people I know have done and walked away from the whole Christian mess. (I’ve tried. It doesn’t work. On some days I’m crankier about that than on others.)

However, you are correct in thinking that I don’t care much what some self-appointed representatives of G-d and defenders of the faith think G-d says. But since I think you’re wrong, I also think it is my duty to point this out.

Apart from a Bible verse condoning a type of relationship that didn’t exist at the time (and I think we can all agree that it’s not there) what would constitute acceptable proof that G-d does not condemn homosexuality?

--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."

Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004 | IP: Logged

Welease Woderwick

Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424

Posted

I thank my God that I am gay. It is a great joy to me and it gives me an insight into life that I may not have had otherwise. In turn my gayness has helped other people to look at their views and helped them to challenge and change them.

I thank my God that my community of faith doesn't give two hoots about so-called narrow biblical definitions of sin.

I thank my God that when I joined my community of faith it was as an "out" gay man and I was welcomed as such without any reservation.

I thank my God that my community of faith has, since its inception, had an emphasis on seeking the good, that of God, in people rather than looking at the concept of sin.

I thank my God that my community of faith believes in a continuing and continuous revelation of God to man, not something that was formed and set two thousand years ago and then subject to arbitrary choices as to what should be and should not be included in the canon.

I pray that the homophobes within the Church and within other communities of faith may actually look at what they are saying and at the damage they are doing to the psyche of others. I do not hate them, though at times it is tempting, but I do pray for their conversion.

quote:
Take heed, dear Friends, to the promptings of love and truth in your hearts. Trust them as the leadings of God whose Light shows us our darkness and brings us to new life.

(Advices and Queries of Britain Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, para #1)

[Angel]

Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005 | IP: Logged

Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

Posted

saysay:

quote:
what would constitute acceptable proof that G-d does not condemn homosexuality?

Oh, for me it would have to be something really big. Ginormous. Like he took flesh, dwelt among us, and didn't say anything about 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

RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
saysay:
quote:
what would constitute acceptable proof that G-d does not condemn homosexuality?
Oh, for me it would have to be something really big. Ginormous. Like he took flesh, dwelt among us, and didn't say anything about it...

We've got a pamphlet where I work that says on the outside, "Everything Jesus Ever Said About Homosexuality." The inside is blank.

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

Luke

Soli Deo Gloria
# 306

Posted

You could have a whole series of phamplets.....

Everything Jesus ever said about women in leadership
Everything Jesus ever said about Internet forums
Everything Jesus ever said about the environment
Everything Jesus ever said about advertising
Everything Jesus ever said about technology
Everything Jesus ever said about television
Everything Jesus ever said about abortion
Everything Jesus ever said about suicide
Everything Jesus ever said about drugs
etc
[Biased]

--------------------
Emily's Voice

Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

Posted

I had an interesting day- in a good way.

A couple came to my church today looking for a faith community. The priest was doing errands and I was answering the phone. About the first thing they said besides that they wanted to find out about our church was that they had concerns about tolerance. Uh-huh. I smiled and invited them in and told them I'd help in any way I could. They told me that she was RC, he was ECUSA, and they had two kids. They had been going to the nearby University Newman Center but had become disturbed by recent attitudes expressed there on homosexuality. They didn't want their kids going to a church that told them their family friends were particularly bad sinners for being gay. I smiled and said you won't have that problem here. [Big Grin]

They told me they had checked out a number of churches, and when they broached the topic the church representatives had gotten a funny look like, "Do they want us to be tolerant, intolerant, or cautiously traditional but kind?" I admitted that they probably saw that on my face, too, but that I knew I was going to give them the truthful answer anyway. And then our priest came back and basically reiterated and amplified our stance and then went into details about various church programs.

So, cool! [Cool]

We probably have a new family that chooses for inclusiveness!

By the way, josephine, please accept my accolades, too! [Overused]

And Lady of the Lake, I have experienced plenty of misogyny from heterosexual men but none that I can recall from gay men. If I did it was so subtle as to be unnoticeable. (Wait! Maybe one guy. But I think he was a natural snot to most people, male or female. He rather thought he was superior to most of humanity. But it might have been misogyny.)

Any man who was so anti-gay that he would leave a church that welcomed gay people, I wouldn't marry anyway. Who would want to marry a guy who judges people as persona non grata to worship with because he believes they sin in one, to him, intolerable way? Since you seem feel that's somewhat sad (for the guy who feels forced to leave) but acceptable, perhaps you wouldn't mind, but not me.

--------------------
"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

Luke:

quote:
Everything Jesus ever said about women in leadership
Everything Jesus ever said about Internet forums
Everything Jesus ever said about the environment
Everything Jesus ever said about advertising
Everything Jesus ever said about technology
Everything Jesus ever said about television
Everything Jesus ever said about abortion
Everything Jesus ever said about suicide
Everything Jesus ever said about drugs

But none of them will do you any good unless you are prepared to accept the liberation Jesus of Nazareth brings. And the responsibility.

--------------------
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

Luke

Soli Deo Gloria
# 306

Posted

Sarcasm doesn't work very well in print! [Smile]

I agree with you Pysduck, silence is an important fact to notice when understanding the Bible. However, I wanted to draw RuthW's attention to the fact that Jesus says very little about a lot of topics people are passionate about but that doesn't mean the principles of Jesus can't be applied to those topics.

--------------------
Emily's Voice

Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

Posted

I would dispute that, Luke. That Jesus spoke on some things and was silent on others showed that he had priorities. And I think it's a fairly strong argument to say that if Christianity is anything at all to do with the imitation of Christ, then that means abandoning our own priorities and adopting Christ's. If he spoke no reported word on homosexuality, then why should I?

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003 | IP: Logged

HenryT

Canadian Anglican
# 3722

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
...This diocese is not brimming with eligible Christian men....

If eligible implies "single", I have doubts that any diocese is, be it ever so conservative. To validate your thesis, you pretty much have to come up with a church (say, the RC) that is full of single straight males in the congregation on Sunday.

--------------------
"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

Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Does your scenario also involve World Peace, International Socialism and Pope Benedict declaring himself to be a Prayer Book Catholic?

That’s a nice list, but you forgot to include a miracle cure for ME/CFS and compulsory classes in Intelligent Design Theory for all. [Razz]

quote:
In any event, when the Revolution comes it will, presumably, be because people no longer disapprove of permanent, faithful and stable gay partnerships. So, by definition, they won't leave the church over the issue.

When the revolution comes, people like me will either be shot or sent to a Siberian salt mine. Either way, we won’t be around, and the revolutionaries will then be able to claim that a consensus has now been achieved.

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Right-fucking-on comrade!

I see your normal eloquence has deserted you. [Razz]

quote:
The discovery that some black people are not keen on gays has been amazing in inspiring the religious right to suddenly discover the cause of black people.

Remind me again, who was at the forefront of abolishing slavery in the UK? Was it that well known figure from the 19th century “religious right”, William Wilberforce?

My father was involved in the technical education of many people of racial origin and as a young boy I can remember African and Asian students coming to our house for a meal. I am enormously grateful for that example in my upbringing. I treat your smears on my racial attitudes with complete contempt. [Disappointed]

quote:
Of course, all gay people are rich and white.

You’re misrepresenting me. I’ve not said that at all.

quote:
Of course, all supporters of gay equality in the church are rich and white.

I’ve not said that either. You’re misrepresentations are getting very tiresome. [Snore]

quote:
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a rich white man checking in forty years too late for the real fight.

Read what I write, not what you’d like me to write. Tutu played no part in the critical watershed years for black civil rights in the USA.

The USA civil rights struggle of the 1960s/70s was wholly a black American’s fight, with some honourable exceptions. Most white Americans – rich or poor - stayed well away in from it then. Now things have changed markedly, of course.

Neil

--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe

Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002 | IP: Logged

The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347

Posted

Psyduck,

you said in your second reply to me that your first post was posted in anger. Your second reply was simply inexcusably rude to me. I am not willing to accept the sort of language you directed at me in your second posting, especially seeing as in your replies to me you have not actually had the courtesy to reply to the actual points I've made.
I expect an apology for the way you have written to me, here on the boards asap, thanks very much.

Let me also say this: I've noticed that nobody who has posted who has met me at Shipmeets has badmouthed me or flamed me despite disagreeing on various points, either on this thread or others. You and I have never met IRL, despite living in Scotland. Let's hope that if we ever do actually meet in a Shipmeet, you will not be rude and evasive towards me in general conversation like this again. It's far too easy for someone to become obnoxious by sitting behind a keyboard and not seeing their interlocutor face to face.

--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.

Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003 | IP: Logged

Callan
Shipmate
# 525

Posted

What you wrote was, apropos of the gay rights movement was:

quote:
This is just rich white guys checking in 40 years too late for the real fight.

This, if it means anything, implies that homosexuality affects neither the poor nor the black. And like Queen Victoria, you have completely overlooked the existence of lesbianism.

I stand by what I wrote about the religious right. Politically progressive African bishops who were active in the fight against apartheid like Tutu and Walter Makhulu have tended to be sympathetic towards gay Christians. Those in the anti camp have come from a more politically quietist background, such as the Archbishop of Nigeria, who famously told the current Archbishop of Cape Town that "human suffering is not an issue" when ++Ndungane had the temerity to suggest that there may be more important issues affecting African Christians than the domestic arrangements of a middle aged clergyman in New Hampshire and are bankrolled by figures like Howard Ahmanson and Richard Mellon Scaife. The invocation of the civil rights struggle in this context is risible.

[ETA - Cross posted with Lady of the Lake, lest there be any doubt.]

[ 11. October 2005, 15:03: 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

The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347

Posted

Jillie Rose,

thanks for your reply and clarification.

In response first to your clarification, you are saying that:

quote:
they may marry not because they wish to, and not ostensibly because anyone has told them to, but because they think it is the 'normal' thing to do.

This would differ from case to case IMHO. My own acquaintance with people who have ambiguous sexual orientation, both in and outisde the church, tells me that it is not the case that every such person who is a Christian is being pressurised, however subtly, to marry because it is 'normal'. Also, I've known cases of non-Christian bisexual women who only want to date men because they do not want to realise their same-sex attractions. These women were not being pressurised by anybody. They were in environments where entering lesbian relationships was considered acceptable.

I'm sure you're right that splinter churches often start up because of one issue or a cluster of issues. As a forecast, well, it's interesting; I hadn't thought of it myself.
One Shipmate PMed me to ask about the Canadian denomination that started up. I had to say I couldnt' actaully remember the official name, but my (hazy) memory tells me they're congregationalist (that could mean all sorts of things). A google search might help.

Thanks for your clarification re: reasons for gender gap. I would say, to clarify my own points, that whilst it didn't start off due to revisionist views on homosexuality, it may well be widened by this. Again, detailed surveys of the sorts that are available are of real help here in trying to gauge the issue. Personally I think that those doing the survey would do well to investigate whether there are connections between differing attitudes to homosexuality and other issues. My own experience of different churches suggests that attitudes to homosexuality might not necessarily be a good predictor of attitudes to other issues.
(It won't do to play the race card. The black Christians, both Afro-Caribbean and African, that I come across tend to have conservative views on sexual ethics. The churches in sub-Saharan Africa certainly do, though maybe for different reasons to why people in the west hold them.)

--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.

Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003 | IP: Logged

John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

Posted

Dear Lady --

The United Church of Canada is an amalgamation of (most) Methodists, (more than half the Presbyterians) and all the Congregationalists in Canada. The union dates back about 75 years, as I recall.

It has not split.

The two streams that were there in the beginning (I know about that because my mother, aunts and grandparents were there and lived through it) are still there: In southern Ontario, Alberta and parts of BC a fundamentalist, literalist stream that is very conservative on the one side. In the rest of Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan and the Atlantic provinces a more liberal, social gospel stream. (Of cousre neither of those geographic groupings is true of every UC member). The second stream has always been dominant and, given the structures of the UC, it is almost certainly representative of the majority.

What has happened is that a number of UC congregations have withdrawn from UC mission work and from supporting the denominational structures. But they have very noticably not withdrawn from the pension plan for ministers. NOr have they attempted (apart from one or two specific cases) to remove their buildings and so on. As well, they continue to send delegates to Presbytery meetings and to General Assembly. Principle only goes so far it seems, especially if it means you may have to compensate your minister for lost pension entitlements.

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
I wanted to draw RuthW's attention to the fact that Jesus says very little about a lot of topics people are passionate about but that doesn't mean the principles of Jesus can't be applied to those topics.

Did you honestly think I had never noticed this? [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
My father was involved in the technical education of many people of racial origin

"People of racial origin"? WTF?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
My father was involved in the technical education of many people of racial origin
"People of racial origin"? WTF?

In context, an ellipsis for "people of non-caucasian racial origin". The subsequent phrase in the same sentence makes that clear.

Neil

[change word to subsequent]

[ 11. October 2005, 21:56: Message edited by: Faithful Sheepdog ]

--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe

Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002 | IP: Logged

Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

Posted

Lady of the Lake:

quote:
Your second reply was simply inexcusably rude to me. I am not willing to accept the sort of language you directed at me in your second posting, especially seeing as in your replies to me you have not actually had the courtesy to reply to the actual points I've made.

Here is the post of mine to which you refer.

quote:
I posted somewhat in anger, there, as the astute will have noticed.

I ought to make it clear - though I hope it was - that the spleen of my last post was directed against the aforementioned males. I can't imagine why you are offering such special pleading on their behalf, Lady of the Lake. Calibrating your argument by the likes and dislikes of a bunch of Goldilockses sampling the ecclesiastical porrige saps your argument.

I think it would be nice if you could explain to me what in this post is "inexcusably rude" to you. I wouldn't mind hearing just exactly where you think I am making any sort of personal attack on you.

You allude to other posts of mine. I've done a quick check, and find that I responded to you on p. 55, on 09 October, at 17:33, and again on 10 October, at 18:36. That was the post in which I responded that my response to the winges of the heterosexual males whose inability to find a combination of intellectually and aesthetically pleasing worship and a condemnation of homosexuality robust enough for their taste was likely to be "Hard cheese." Note that it's perfectly clear that my strictures were directed at the constituency you delineate as for some reason the objects of your special solicitude. That is - listen carefully - not you. It was the fatuity of your reply that prompted me to the outburst in my first post, of which, as I indicated immediately, I was not terribly proud - but I went on to make it clear that, once again, "my spleen" was directed at that constituency of "I want my Christianity just the right mix of intellectual, appealing and anti-gay" men whom you seem to feel the whole life of the church should be organized to take into account.

You then have the brazen affrontery to accuse me of being horrible to you personally in a way in which nobody who has met you in the flesh has ever been or would ever be. In other words, of being a horrible person.

I'll say this. If you can show me what I've said that's hurt you personally, beyond, that is, my being too brusque for your taste with your tissue of special pleading for a bunch of men who think that Christianity should be organized round their tastes and prejudices, , then of course I will apologise.

I shall even forego any expectation of an apology from you for the very personal attack you made on me. In fact I formally do so.

--------------------
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

quote:
brazen affrontery

I can't believe I said that...

Effrontery... [brick wall]

--------------------
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

Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:

quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
My father was involved in the technical education of many people of racial origin
"People of racial origin"? WTF?
In context, an ellipsis for "people of non-caucasian racial origin". The subsequent phrase in the same sentence makes that clear.

No, not really.

I figured that might be what you meant, but it wasn't at all clear. Also, it sounds as if THEY are of racial origin, and WE are not.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged

mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

Posted

It's an offensive term. A gloss in the following sentence doesn't make it any less so.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

saysay

Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
The USA civil rights struggle of the 1960s/70s was wholly a black American’s fight, with some honourable exceptions. Most white Americans – rich or poor - stayed well away in from it then.

Source?

--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."

Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004 | IP: Logged

Luke

Soli Deo Gloria
# 306

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I would dispute that, Luke. That Jesus spoke on some things and was silent on others showed that he had priorities. And I think it's a fairly strong argument to say that if Christianity is anything at all to do with the imitation of Christ, then that means abandoning our own priorities and adopting Christ's. If he spoke no reported word on homosexuality, then why should I?

So you really believe that Christians cannot comment with any certainty about any topic Jesus didn’t mention? Take suicide for example, it doesn’t matter because Jesus obviously couldn’t be bothered mentioning it therefore it mustn’t be an important topic to discuss!

But yes I sort of agree, Jesus’ main and most mentioned topics are the ones that should be the core of what we are about. However I see no theological reason or anything from what Jesus said that excludes us from applying his core message to topics he did not mention.

Jesus talked several times about sexual relationships. It’s interesting that he did not regard homosexual relationships worthy of a mention when discussing adultery. He assumed no doubt that adultery would occur in a heterosexual relationship. We are able to apply Jesus’ direct comments about sexual relationships, and Jesus’ inferences. Jesus says don’t lust after a woman in your heart. Does that mean women are allowed to lust after men or that men are allowed to lust after other men? It seems fairly mainstream theological practice to apply that particular comment of Jesus to both men and women. In other words applying a principle of Jesus to something Jesus did not mention.

--------------------
Emily's Voice

Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
First, Fish Fish, I owe you an apology. You have made it clear that you believe that many churches have a double standard with respect to the sexual sins of gays and of straights, and that you believe that double standard is wrong. When I was responding to "you," there were clearly parts of it that did not apply to you personally. I should have noted that, and been clear where I was speaking of you personally and where I was using a generic "you."

No worries! [Yipee]

I just get frustrated cos I feel stuck in the middle sometimes - with liberals on one side, and bigoted hate filled people on the other.

quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
I believe, strongly, that the reason no one talks about gluttony and gossip and covetousness is not that they believe those behaviors belong in the "sin" bucket, but that they have already moved them into the "not-sin" bucket, and honestly aren't even aware that anyone might ever have thought they belonged in the "sin" bucket. They have already defined them so completely as "not-sin" that they aren't even aware that there's anything to discuss.

Given how grave and serious those other sins are, it seems to me that getting them moved back into the "sin" bucket might be at least as important as making sure that homosexual acts don't get moved to the "not-sin" bucket.

I think people do talk about these as sins. Actually, when i am teaching in church, we work our way through books of the Bible. So when gluttony or hate comes up, we talk about those. When homosexuality is talked about, we talk about it as well. So if one sin is given more time in the Bible, then we give it more time in church. Thus we keep our priorities as the Bible's priorities and so God's priorities. But of course that does mean that we do teach that homosexual activity is sinful because that is what the Bible says.

Can i make the point again, the reason conservatives are focussing on Homosexuality so much currently, however, is not because we put it on the agenda. Its the gay lobby that has brought this issue centre stage in the life of the church - we are simply responding.

Thanks for the answer to my yes /no question.

quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
It seems to me that homosexual relations perhaps fall into the place that second marriages once fell into -- not accepted by the Church, but not inherently wrong. And I think it is quite possible that the Church could, eventually, choose to accept homosexual unions the same way it did second marriages -- not as the ideal, but as a concession, for the salvation of those involved.

Well I guess this is where we'd differ again. The Bible seems to accept that in some circumstances marriages break down, and so the area of remarriage is a grey one. But the teaching of homosexual relationships in the Bible is not grey - its consistent throughout.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
We've got a pamphlet where I work that says on the outside, "Everything Jesus Ever Said About Homosexuality." The inside is blank.

As with all things, context is vital. In the Jewish context in which Jesus worked and spoke, there was a clear understanding of sexual morality as laid down in the law. Homosexual activity was known to be unlawful. Since Jesus was happy to reinterpret the law as he saw fit, his silence on this issue speaks volumes. If I was on the liberal wing of the church, I’d certainly not be arguing that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. He needed to say at least one positive thing about same sex relationships for you to claim you know the mind of Jesus.

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004 | IP: Logged

Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

Posted

Luke: Hope you don't mind me chipping in with my 2p worth, since I was the one who raised the issue of Jesus's silence here.

quote:

So you really believe that Christians cannot comment with any certainty about any topic Jesus didn’t mention?

Doesn't that depend on what you mean by "certainty"? In I Corinthians 2, the searching of the depths of God, and the bestowing of the mind of Christ, are the work of the Spirit. It's certainly not a matter of interpolation or extrapolation from text to lacuna in the Gospel texts - there weren't any then. Note, too, that the argument from Jesus's silence on this matter to a liberal stance on the whole issue is precisely the one that doesn't interpolate or extrapolate, i. e. dosn't fill Jesus' silence with Leviticus. By the way, it's also of a piece with the ancient Christian belief that Jesus is bigger than Leviticus. I'm not sure this thread has really dealt yet (!!!) with the extent to which anti-gay attitudes are basically a reaction to a perceived threat to Bibliolatrous attitudes, which subordinate Christ to the Bible, and treat the Bible as primary in terms of revelation.

quote:
Take suicide for example, it doesn’t matter because Jesus obviously couldn’t be bothered mentioning it therefore it mustn’t be an important topic to discuss!

No, of course not. Though the Gospels' attitude to Judas is a very interesting study in this regard. Christians have always constructed, and will always construct, synthetic arguments out of the elements of faith, differently weighted. But your observation only really carries weight if you also assume that on any given question there is a Right Christian Answer™ waiting to be constructed, and that as a matter of principle we always have enough out of which to (re)construct this Right Christian Answer™. I don't think that's so. Right Christian Answers™ are an optical illusion generated by the fact that we all do our Christianity in traditions, which by and large have developed a high degree of internal consistency - which means substantial agreement on what they allow as evidence, and what they leave out. You can see this at work over and over again on this thread. What is interesting is when these traditions come into conflict, and you find yourelf talking to Christians whose assumptions about what count are different to yours.

quote:
But yes I sort of agree, Jesus’ main and most mentioned topics are the ones that should be the core of what we are about. However I see no theological reason or anything from what Jesus said that excludes us from applying his core message to topics he did not mention.

I'm not suggesting necessarily that you fall into this category, Luke, but it never fails to amaze me that people who would take the greatest offence at any suggestion that the most important thing about Jesus was that he was a "Great Teacher™" seem to fall back so readily on the importance of Jesus' teaching, and our obeying it, as the central things in our salvation. And how often that opens the door to the unexamined assumption that Jesus just taught what the rest of the Bible teaches.

quote:
Jesus talked several times about sexual relationships. It’s interesting that he did not regard homosexual relationships worthy of a mention when discussing adultery. He assumed no doubt that adultery would occur in a heterosexual relationship.

So you are accepting that the silence of Jesus on homosexuality is significant. But I'm not sure what you're saying here. If you're saying that Jesus assumed the possibility of adultery in a homosexual relationship, are you not also assuming the validity of such a relationship in Jesus' eyes? If you're saying that he assumed such a possibility, but that to him it didn't matter because homosexual relationships didn't count - isn't that an odd use of language? Apart from all the historical questions it begs?

quote:

We are able to apply Jesus’ direct comments about sexual relationships, and Jesus’ inferences. Jesus says don’t lust after a woman in your heart. Does that mean women are allowed to lust after men or that men are allowed to lust after other men?

Jesus doesn't say this. He says that if you have lusted adulterously in your heart, you have broken the commandment already. In other words, he says, to people who think that you can satisfy the Law by just not doing stuff, "You have broken the commandment already." Which, by the way, is the deathblow to that disingenuous argument that what the Bible condemns is "genital sexual acts" of a particular type. That's not the way Jesus thinks. To tear this from its first century context, and cram it into a twenty-first century Procrustean bed, it seems to me that the closest we can get to rearticulating this for our time is that Jesus is saying that relationships are either committed or not, and that we are all guilty of giving houseroom to those impulses that would destroy committed relationship in the name of lust.

quote:

It seems fairly mainstream theological practice to apply that particular comment of Jesus to both men and women. In other words applying a principle of Jesus to something Jesus did not mention.

Yes, but see above.

--------------------
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

quote:
the extent to which anti-gay attitudes are basically a reaction to a perceived threat to Bibliolatrous attitudes,

That came out wrong. I didn't mean to imply that all the difficulties that people have with this issue are Bibliolatrous. I do think that at one end of the spectrum, however, we go way beyond the reservations that conservatively Biblical Christians have about the fact that there are those verses in Leviticus and Paul, and deep into the territory of the stance that a modification of attitudes towards gay people is an erosion of a particular kind of authority structure.

--------------------
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

Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
The USA civil rights struggle of the 1960s/70s was wholly a black American’s fight, with some honourable exceptions. Most white Americans – rich or poor - stayed well away from it then.
Source?

I suggest you look at the film clips of USA civil rights protests from the 1960s era. It is nearly always a large body of black people making the peaceful protest, and nearly always a smaller number of white people attacking the protesters verbally or physically, sometimes viciously so.

No doubt there were white Americans who disagreed with the tactics used by the white protesters, and even some who agreed with the whole idea of civil rights for black Americans, but on the film clips these white Americans aren't to be seen protesting alongisde black Americans and taking the risks accordingly.

I also suggest that you may wish to do some wider reading in the culture of 20th century USA. In my case it has been in the history of jazz. It is impossible to make sense of that phenomenon without reference to the disadvantaged position of black Americans for much of the 20th century.

In the first half of the century, white jazz musicians were frequently complicit in keeping the black jazz musicians "in their place". Only in the latter half of the 20th century did the racial barriers in music start coming down.

Neil

--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe

Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002 | IP: Logged

Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

Posted

Faithful Sheepdog:

quote:
I suggest you look at the film clips of USA civil rights protests from the 1960s era. It is nearly always a large body of black people making the peaceful protest, and nearly always a smaller number of white people attacking the protesters verbally or physically, sometimes viciously so.

No doubt there were white Americans who disagreed with the tactics used by the white protesters, and even some who agreed with the whole idea of civil rights for black Americans, but on the film clips these white Americans aren't to be seen protesting alongisde black Americans and taking the risks accordingly.

I'd guess that this filmic material mostly comes from the southern states? Doesn't this rather fall into the category of vast generalizations about America? Doesn't it fail to take account of even the numbers of white people in the segregated south whose opposition to the prevailing culture there was necessarily muted, and often courageous for all that?

It seemed necessary for someone from this side of the Atlantic to say that - and I'll await with interest the reaction from Over There...

--------------------
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

Luke

Soli Deo Gloria
# 306

Posted

I don’t mind you chipping in Psyduck. Please explain again if my answers don’t quite match what your saying because I didn’t quite follow you the whole time. You raised several points. The issue of Jesus and his relationship to the Bible, the validity of arguments from silence, the weight of different arguments in different Christian groups and some comments about certainty.

You have raised an important and potent question about my perception of Jesus and how I view his teachings in relation to the rest of the Bible. Although I made a sarcastic response to RuthW about the topics on which Jesus said nothing, I would like to say I view Jesus and what he said in conjunction with the rest of the Bible. I’d take the Bible as whole but Jesus as the starting point. Its a circular argument but I would take the overall pattern of the Bible as pointing to Jesus. So yes in some ways I would focus on Jesus as the way to understanding the whole revelation but I would also understand the whole revelation to be internally consistent.

Arguments from silence are only one of the tools we can use in the process of exegesis. Hopefully the Holy Spirit guides us in this process and our use of the various tools. To say it is only way of determining meaning from scripture strikes me as a little limited especially if no reasons are provided for rejecting other tools.

You commented on the the weight of different arguments in different Christian groups. Yes, its interesting that even within the confines of an English speaking Christian forum there can be such a diversity of argument styles, beliefs and expectations. However I would hope all this sword sharpening on this forum would takes us towards the truth, or as you put it the Right Christian Answer™.

quote:

quote:
Jesus talked several times about sexual relationships. It’s interesting that he did not regard homosexual relationships worthy of a mention when discussing adultery. He assumed no doubt that adultery would occur in a heterosexual relationship.

So you are accepting that the silence of Jesus on homosexuality is significant. But I'm not sure what you're saying here. If you're saying that Jesus assumed the possibility of adultery in a homosexual relationship, are you not also assuming the validity of such a relationship in Jesus' eyes? If you're saying that he assumed such a possibility, but that to him it didn't matter because homosexual relationships didn't count - isn't that an odd use of language? Apart from all the historical questions it begs?

Well it is interesting that if Jesus approved of homosexual relationships which I don’t think he did, that he made no direct mention of them when talking about sexual relationships. I guess the counter argument would be that Jesus didn’t care about homosexual relationships and therefore they did not rate a mention. But we don’t know what went on in Jesus’ head and why can’t we apply the principles of what he said in other places to homosexual relationships?

quote:
Jesus says don’t lust after a woman in your heart.

I was paraphrasing the meaning as I understood it, I’m not sure I fully agree with your understanding but I get what your saying. I’ll have to think more about that one. I guess its interesting that Jesus uses a heterosexual example which demonstrates not only first century culture but a biblical norm of heterosexuality.

Thanks for asking the questions.
Luke

--------------------
Emily's Voice

Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

Posted

Luke:

quote:
I’d take the Bible as whole but Jesus as the starting point. Its a circular argument but I would take the overall pattern of the Bible as pointing to Jesus.

So, basically, would I. However we do diverge:

quote:
So yes in some ways I would focus on Jesus as the way to understanding the whole revelation but I would also understand the whole revelation to be internally consistent.

It seems to me that Jesus Christ substantially modifies and determines the revelation to Israel in the OT. In particular you see this in the "antitheses" of the Sermon on the Mount ("You have heard it said... but I say to you...") and explicitly in Paul's letters, though the whole of Mark is about Jesus transcending the categories of OT expectation. I do worry that with many conservative forms of Christianity there seems to be a reversion to an expectation that we are actually justified by our obedience to the Law.

quote:
Arguments from silence are only one of the tools we can use in the process of exegesis. Hopefully the Holy Spirit guides us in this process and our use of the various tools. To say it is only way of determining meaning from scripture strikes me as a little limited especially if no reasons are provided for rejecting other tools.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is here, though it's clear that you think we on this isde of the argument are overplaying our hand. Maybe if I put it like this:

It seems to us (I think!) that since Jesus Christ is for Christians the complete and authoritative self-revelation of God, to Whom Scripture witnesses, if he doesn't say anything about homosexuality then it is an "adiaphoron" - a "thing indifferent" in itself. Its ethics then would be no different from the relational ethics that are binding on all Christians.

It seems to me that for the other side of the argument, Jesus Christ, though God incarnate, is reduced to a sub-phenomenon of a total revelation which is contained in - or maybe even is - the Bible. In that case, you can fill Jesus' silences from the rest of the Bible with consistency , assuming that your understanding is that the Bible is a perfectly self-consistent revelation.

We, on the other hand, hold that the Bible is internally inconsistent, and that parts of it are inconsistent with the revelation in Jesus Christ - notwithstanding that that revelation is rooted in the Biblical witness.

Sort of Christ-entirely-one-with-the-Bible versus Christ-is-bigger-than-the-Bible.

Does that sound fair? It's bound to be a bit biased, coming from one side of the argument. Maybe it could be re-expressed from the other side.

I think the antithesis about lusting in your heart is very important to this debate, but clearly we are using it very differently.

Thanks for the clarification. [Smile]

--------------------
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

HenryT

Canadian Anglican
# 3722

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
...I suggest you look at the film clips of USA civil rights protests from the 1960s era. It is nearly always a large body of black people making the peaceful protest, and nearly always a smaller number of white people attacking the protesters verbally or physically, sometimes viciously so....

"The revolution will not be televised", remember! What happened in front of cameras was only a part of the movement.

You neglect the Freedom Riders, the Mississippi Civil Rights worker murders, and all the other things where whites worked alongside blacks. Little of this is truly on-topic, however.

--------------------
"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

John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

Posted

Faithful Sheepdog --

No doubt there are US shipmates of a certain age who can speak to this with more authority than I, but I do have one advantage (in this case) over you -- I was watching during much of the civil rights stuff in the US.

Of course it was primarily a black thing -- but there were lots of whites involved as well. Remember this was a movement over several years and through much of the US, not just in the South, and not just the "highlight" events that are likely to be on your film clips.

JOhn

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

Posted

Okay, let me shift the argument slightly.

I am perfectly willing to concede that Jesus said nothing in favour of what some people are calling "homosexual acts" -- which I take to be a euphemism for male on male anal or oral sex. For one thing, in the cultural context, no one was going to ask about them (and please note how much of what is recorded is Jesus respondng to questions). I'll go further and freely admit that if asked, in the cultural context of the day, he would probably have said they were wrong. Rather as Paul, unless he was granted quite anachronistic awareness, quite clearly condemned man on man sex. Because what they both would have been saying is that straight men, probably assumed to be married as well, ought not to engage in man on man sex.

But the issue of same-sex orientation was not and cannot have been in front of him, and that is what matters to me when I work out what my approach is. And while Jesus may have known about such orientation (I personally doubt that his divine nature extended to omniscience, though you may accept it does), nothing he said or might have said about that would have made sense at the time. Rather as if he had suddenly uttered a couple of sentences in flawless 20th century english.

So I'm driven to reflect on how Jesus said we were to treat others -- a basic principle, that is, not a specific legalism. And, to cut a long story short, I've concluded that Jesus would want to encourage faithful same sex relationships for those who are born with this orientation, and I'm happy to call it marriage.

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I am perfectly willing to concede that Jesus said nothing in favour of what some people are calling "homosexual acts" -- which I take to be a euphemism for male on male anal or oral sex. For one thing, in the cultural context, no one was going to ask about them (and please note how much of what is recorded is Jesus respondng to questions). I'll go further and freely admit that if asked, in the cultural context of the day, he would probably have said they were wrong... I've concluded that Jesus would want to encourage faithful same sex relationships for those who are born with this orientation, and I'm happy to call it marriage.

So you'll concede that Jesus, Son of God, the Living Word of God, probably thought homosexual activity was wrong. But that you, simple sinful man like me, can conclude he was mistaken! That strikes me as astoundingly arrogant - that you should know better than Jesus!

What's to stop me using exactly the same logic as you. Let me use it on Jesus' teaching you refer to - on the way we are to treat others. I conclude that his teaching was given in a non-capitalist society. But in my 21st century capitalist culture, I can conclude that Jesus would probably have treated people as commodities to exploit, as dirt to trod under my feet. An equally logical conclusion to draw!

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004 | IP: Logged

Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

Posted

Fish fish - now read John's post again and actually address his real argument, rather than your strawman version of it.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347

Posted

Hi Psyduck,

To answer your question, what I found rude in one of your replies to me was this:
‘Calibrating your argument by the likes and dislikes of a bunch of Goldilockses sampling the ecclesiastical porridge saps your argument.’

The general tone you used was dismissive of the argument I’d put forward, rather than engaging with it. (So I'm sorry to have got my wires crossed here; your language was directed at my argument, not at me). This language is compared to your original questions directed to my original posting, where you weren’t dismissive. I see that I have not yet replied to your questions there. I apologise for that; they’re fair questions it seems to me. If you don’t mind, I will reply to them in a future posting as this one is long enough. See below.)

I do accept that the post you said was written ‘in anger’ wasn’t directed against me.
In fact I never assumed that it was directed against me.

In the second paragraph of my post to you, I haven’t actually accused you of ‘being a horrible person’. I was taking issue with being rude from behind a keyboard, and wondering whether you would be quite so likely to treat the matter in hand so dismissively had we actually met previously in the flesh. (The reason I say this is that I tend to compare exchanges over the internet with real-life exchanges. It is my experience that disagreement between friends or other acquaintances, when expressed in real life, tends not to be expressed in such a dismissive manner.) It was intended as a comment about how discussion was proceeding, not as a personal attack.

Now back to the issue and your original reply, which you admitted was written in anger at the people to which I was referring. I do have some problem with how you’ve expressed your views there, for the following reasons.
It seems to me that you were misrepresenting a) churches that take a traditional line on homosexuality (as ‘[putting] the homiletical boot into gay people’, b) my interlocutors. They were not looking for a church that was ‘worthy of their attainments’ as you put it; nothing was said about their ‘attainments’ in any area. They were looking to be inducted adequately on those (intellectual and aesthetic) levels into the Christian faith. The attack on them (‘being a total wanker’) – was a particularly unfortunate attack given that the said people were potential converts (do we have any right to attack potential converts in this way ?) and then simply ridiculing the whole issue (‘I blame the dearth of sermons against Onanism’).

I'll get to deal with your original questions to me in a future post like I said above, as I'm guessing this might lead to seeing where the discussion leads when not conducted in anger.

John Holding,
thanks for the info on the UCC. To me that sort of info does matter to the discussion. I'll have a look at it later when I have some more time. [Biased]

--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.

Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003 | IP: Logged

Callan
Shipmate
# 525

Posted

Originally posted by Fish Fish:

quote:
So you'll concede that Jesus, Son of God, the Living Word of God, probably thought homosexual activity was wrong. But that you, simple sinful man like me, can conclude he was mistaken! That strikes me as astoundingly arrogant - that you should know better than Jesus!

I know better than Jesus about all sorts of things. So, probably, do you. Not because either of us are morally better than him (God forbid!) or because we are cleverer than him (it is possible you might be, the doctrine of the incarnation does not oblige us to believe that Jesus was the cleverest man who ever lived) but because we live in a society in which we have access to all sorts of knowledge which Jesus, by definition could not have had.

I know that democracies, whilst imperfect, are the least worst form of government ever devised. You will scour the pages of the gospels in vain for any kind of discussion about the benefits of constitutional government. I know that slavery is a grave moral evil. Our Lord was silent on the subject and St Paul affirmed the teaching of the Old Testament on the subject (where have I heard that before?).

The doctrine of the incarnation obliges us to believe that the Son of God became human assuming the limitations of that state, save that he was born without sin. It does not oblige us to believe that our Lord was omniscient. In the nineteenth century similar arguments were advanced to demonstrate that Moses must have written the Pentateuch. Jesus said he had and that settled the matter. As no scholar nowadays would take that position we are forced to concede that our Lord's true humanity does not make him infallible. In fact I think it would be rather docetic to suggest that he was.

Enough of such radicalism. Personally, I believe that in matters upon which our Lord reflected and pronounced definitively - and I include his teaching recorded in the Gospels under that heading - there can be no surer guide but I am not prepared to ascribe infallibility to something which we deduce that he might possibly have said, or what we deduce that he might possibly have meant, based on the cultural assumptions of a period which is less well informed than our own.

If our Lord had a)known about faithful, monogamous and stable same sex partnerships and sexual orientation and b) pronounced such partnerships sinful then clearly, this entire discussion would be a waste of time. As the first is highly unlikely and the second, if it occurred, not recorded in the Gospels, I suggest that trying to retro-project our own prejudices back onto Him is really a waste of time. Jesus said nothing explicit about homosexuality and homosexuality (not a word you will find in any document prior to the 19th century) in a classical context did not mean monogamous, stable relationships between two consenting adults. Trying to get a condemnation of homosexuality out of texts from the period is, therefore, like trying to read a criticism of the Norwegian army out of accounts of Viking raids on Lindisfarne in the 8th century.

--------------------
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

John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

Posted

Thank you, Karl (and others). If people won't read one's contributions, I'm not sure why they bother participating on a discussion board.

To be quite blunt, Fish Fish, I don't for a moment believe that Yeshua Bar Joseph knew that the earth revolved around the sun, or that if you combine certain volalite vapours with oxygen in a confined space and then add a spark, you can create an internal combustion motor, or that... You may believe that, but I don't.

Omniscience in the human Jesus is not required by belief in the incarnation. Nor is it required Christian doctrine. It seems to me to be akin to the heresy that saw the human Jesus as a convenient human veil for God, but not really a human being.

Jesus seems to have talked to the real people of his time in language, using concepts and accepting the mythologies of that time, he clearly wasn't omniscient, or else he chose not to disabuse them of key misconceptions in their world view. Possibly because he thought that love and service and doing God's will were more important.

Jesus the Word of God, the Logos, the Second person of the Trinity knows. But for me, any idea that God's omniscience could have been contained and expressed through a standard human body/brain is nonsense.

Try again, Fish Fish, and see if this time you can understand what I'm trying to say -- I wouldn't dream of asking you to agree with it.

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

Posted

I would have thought the most literalist fundie would have to conclude that Jesus was not omniscient:

quote:
No-one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

That evil liberal Matthew 24:36

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004 | IP: Logged

Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I know better than Jesus about all sorts of things. So, probably, do you. Not because either of us are morally better than him (God forbid!) or because we are cleverer than him (it is possible you might be, the doctrine of the incarnation does not oblige us to believe that Jesus was the cleverest man who ever lived) but because we live in a society in which we have access to all sorts of knowledge which Jesus, by definition could not have had.

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
To be quite blunt, Fish Fish, I don't for a moment believe that Yeshua Bar Joseph knew that the earth revolved around the sun, or that if you combine certain volalite vapours with oxygen in a confined space and then add a spark, you can create an internal combustion motor, or that... You may believe that, but I don't.

I may accept that Jesus' knowledge of all future inventions and scientific discoveries may have been limited by the incarnation. But the inference of John's post is that Jesus was lacking in moral knowledge - and I cannot accept that. Callan says that Jesus was limited in his incarnation in all ways but that he did not sin. There may, then, be a limit in his understanding of many issues – but sin was not one of them. He must have had perfect knowledge of right and wrong to avoid sinning.

Jesus was without sin. He and the father's will were the same. Their moral standards were the same. So if Jesus thought homosexual sex was wrong (by your admission), and it wasn’t, then he was morally flawed, and so not morally perfect. By your logic we’d introduce a moral flaw into the Trinity.

Furthermore, I stand by the logic of my previous post. If we can say Jesus is morally mistaken in one area of life, logically we can say he is flawed in whichever other we choose.

[ 12. October 2005, 18:47: Message edited by: Fish Fish ]

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004 | IP: Logged

Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

Posted

John Holding:

quote:
To be quite blunt, Fish Fish, I don't for a moment believe that Yeshua Bar Joseph knew that the earth revolved around the sun, or that if you combine certain volalite vapours with oxygen in a confined space and then add a spark, you can create an internal combustion motor, or that... You may believe that, but I don't.

Omniscience in the human Jesus is not required by belief in the incarnation. Nor is it required Christian doctrine. It seems to me to be akin to the heresy that saw the human Jesus as a convenient human veil for God, but not really a human being.

I think this is an important point as far as it goes. I do think that FishFish is in danger of (1) Apollinarianism i straightforwardly identifying the human Jesus with God in flesh, and short-circuiting the implications of the orthodox doctrine that he had a human soul, and (b) reverse Apollinarianism, in reading off the human ignorance of the incarnate Christ onto God and converting it into ontological truth. (If Jesus didn't know it, God doesn't know it, so it isn't so.)

However I also think that FishFish has a point:

quote:
I may accept that Jesus' knowledge of all future inventions and scientific discoveries may have been limited by the incarnation. But the inference of John's post is that Jesus was lacking in moral knowledge - and I cannot accept that…. There may, then, be a limit in his understanding of many issues – but sin was not one of them. He must have had perfect knowledge of right and wrong to avoid sinning.

I’d much rather defend a strong form of the argument. I don't believe the incarnate Christ said nothing about homosexuality per se out of ignorance of what it would mean in the 21st. century. It isn’t a negative, an omission. If we are serious about accepting Christ as the fullness of God’s self-revelation, then Christ’s humanity, limited and circumscribed as it is, nevertheless is united to his divinity in such a way that, without confusion, there is complete unity of being. That’s my understanding of Chalcedonian orthodoxy. And that suggests to me that the issue isn’t omniscience, so much as the moral as well as the ontological unity of the God-man. Jesus didn’t say anything about human sexuality, apart, that is, from its context in committed love, not because the OT had said it all already, but because God isn’t bothered by it. There is nothing in the revelation in Christ by way of condemnation of homosexuality as such. That’s my position.

--------------------
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

Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Jesus didn’t say anything about human sexuality, apart, that is, from its context in committed love, not because the OT had said it all already, but because God isn’t bothered by it.

I think you're saying that God isn't bothered by how we use our sexuality, so long as its within the context of committed love. (Just clarifying so I don't get slammed for misunderstanding your post). If this is what you are saying, is there any biblical evidence that what you say about God is true? If not, how do you know God isn't bothered?

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004 | IP: Logged

leo
Shipmate
# 1458

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
.....Jesus says don’t lust after a woman in your heart. Does that mean women are allowed to lust after men or that men are allowed to lust after other men? It seems fairly mainstream theological practice to apply that particular comment of Jesus to both men and women. In other words applying a principle of Jesus to something Jesus did not mention.

Incidentally, that maks the 'love the sinner hate the sin.' mentality redundant - a celibate homosexual may not commit the 'sin' but he probably thinks about it - so is still sinning!

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged

Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

Posted

quote:
I think you're saying that God isn't bothered by how we use our sexuality, so long as its within the context of committed love. (Just clarifying so I don't get slammed for misunderstanding your post). If this is what you are saying, is there any biblical evidence that what you say about God is true? If not, how do you know God isn't bothered?

The Biblical evidence is that when God took flesh, he didn't say anything about it. That's a truncation of my argument, but not a misrepresentation. But the meat of it is that Jesus Christ as Lord of Scripture compels us to re-read the whole of Scripture in the light of his coming. I admit that in effect I'm setting Jesus Christ over against the Bible, and certainly over against the OT. But again, I believe that that's biblical. I really do have big problems, with all due respect, with those views that assimilate the NT - and especially Jesus Christ - to the OT. I'm happy to discuss why I believe it's possible to set the Biblical Jesus Christ over against the Bible - which is the seeming paradox that you are worried about - but I'm not sure this is the thread for it.

If you want it in a nutshell, even in Scripture, Christ is greater than Scripture. Even though we dare not preach Christ other than from Scripture, the Christ we find in Scripture is larger than the Scripture that "contains" - but in another, more important sense, fails to contain - him.

Er... that was a coconut shell... [Hot and Hormonal]

--------------------
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

Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 ... 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 ... 92 93 94

Printer-friendly view

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0

sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website