|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Doublethink: quote:
Why do I feel the need to shout things like Piaget, Kohlberg, Gilligan, Bowlby - because everybody seems to think developmental psychology stopped with Freud ! ...Freud died in 1939, that is 67 years ago, like every other discipline psychology has moved on - sometimes building on his work, sometimes not, but there is a hell of a lot out there.[/
This is fair as far as it goes - certainly from a psychological and clinical-psychoanalytic standpoint. Though it does make assumptions about progress and superceding, which I don't really buy. But it doesn't really address the critical significance of Freud's thought, where the comparison is more with Nietzsche, Husserl etc. The reason Freud is "gone back to" in the way that he is is that his understanding of human subjectivity as decentred - we aren't aware of most of what we think - and of our socialization being at the terrible cost of denying ourselves what we most want when we want it (whereas the results of our gratifying ourselves would also be terrible; Freud is an important corrective to crass interpretations of Nietzsche, but mainly because he's intellectually much closer to Schopenhauer) - and the way in which Freud understands the most beautiful and civilized (and most horrible and civilized!) things about us human beings as derived from the interaction of the drives and the structures put in place to modulate them. This is, when all said and done, way more than aa "developmental psychology", and usually isn't offered as such. When Freud is read as a "developmental psychology", you tend to find him being used, as by the anti-gays, to make out that homosexuality is "arrested development". (Louise alluded to this several pages back.) The true Freudian position would be "So what?" Because the true Freudian position would be that our sexuality is constructed anyway. And Freud's account of this is very hard to answer in its own terms. I think that Doublethink is correct, that there is some confusion in teh debate here, and I just wanted to make it clear in waht sense I read - and offer Freud.
I also offer Freud to a debate which I think needs to be understood as highly overdetermined.
Sharkshooter: quote:
Neither has he given any reason why he is right to do so - unless I missed it.
You missed it.
noelper: quote:
Whatn is the difference between Freud's assertion and that of Sharkshooter ? Aside from a difference in comparative status, when all is said and done, Freud 'asserted' the existence of sexuality in myriad contexts, many of which are highly suspect.
No, Freud offered a great deal of interpreted case-material. Freud is nothing if not closely argued. You may not accept the arguments, of course.
quote:
As for the notion of penis envy....
Ignoring the open goal... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Psyduck, do you fancy having a bit of a debate on this in purg ? If so I could copy what you have just written over into the OP - and then give my response ?
[ 13. June 2006, 16:22: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
...You missed it.
...
I had been hoping for more than "Freud said it, so it must be true."
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
teddybear
Shipmate
# 7842
|
Posted
The local RC archdiocesan newspaper has an article by the archbishop. I find it makes me very angry. My lived experience with homosexualy, both in my own and other's lives, it nothing like what he or Rome says about us. With all the gay priests, bishops, religious and laity you would think the Roman Church would get a clue.
Posts: 480 | From: Topeka, Kansas USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Sharkshooter: quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Psyduck:
...You missed it.
...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had been hoping for more than "Freud said it, so it must be true."
Well, I'm still embarrassed at the length of what I said on p. 64, but it did aim to be a bit more than "Freud said it so it must be true..." Which I will grant you would fall well short of debate. If that really is all I seemed to be saying, then sorry.
Doublethink: Aye, go for 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
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
If youlook through green glasses, everything looks green. Freud was obsessed with sex, seeing where it was and where it wasn't. That is no reason to believe it is everywhere he thought it was.
Of course, much of our current day western society sees things that way as well.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
As Bill Clinton said, sometimes a cigar is just a good poke.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
And sometimes, gentlemen, an assertion is just an assertion. And sometimes assertions just don't stand up to scrutiny. Usually, assertion unbacked by argument just means "This is what I want to be true, so I won't look at any other possibilities." Shame it wasn't Freud who said that denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Anyway, a few posts ago, Freud wasn't a tangent, but now he's becoming one. Give us something like an argument, huh?
--------------------
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
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
Psyduck
quote:
And sometimes, gentlemen, an assertion is just an assertion.
Ohhh! How I wish I had a penis! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Give us something like an argument, huh?
There have been about 60 pages of them.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noelper:
Psyduck
quote:
And sometimes, gentlemen, an assertion is just an assertion.
Ohhh! How I wish I had a penis!
Assertion, not in...
I give up.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
And sometimes, gentlemen, an assertion is just an assertion. And sometimes assertions just don't stand up to scrutiny. Usually, assertion unbacked by argument just means "This is what I want to be true, so I won't look at any other possibilities." Shame it wasn't Freud who said that denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Anyway, a few posts ago, Freud wasn't a tangent, but now he's becoming one. Give us something like an argument, huh?
Freud makes assertions; the burden of proof is on him (or his supporters). It does not lie with people who do not believe his assertions.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Freud was obsessed with sex, seeing where it was and where it wasn't. That is no reason to believe it is everywhere he thought it was.
The problem, I suppose, is that psychoanalysis (which is a broader thing than Freud) can explain your reluctance in its own terms as 'resistance'. Whereas the anti-psychoanlysis people have to explain why it does seem to be the case that sometimes sexual desire lurks beneath our surfaces and pops up (pun not consciously intended) where we don't expect it. One epistemological point to psychoanalysis for explanatory comprehensiveness, surely.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Mousethief: quote:
Freud makes assertions; the burden of proof is on him (or his supporters). It does not lie with people who do not believe his assertions.
I don't deny this. Freud does indeed make assertions, inasmuch as he says that certain things are the case. My point is that Freud's assertions emerge as interpretation from a coherent body of theory grounded in clinical material. Sharkshooter's appear to emerge from a dislike of what Freud is suggesting, grounded in nothing.
DOD: I'm glad someone else mentioned "resistances". I was holding off, on Christian grounds. Seriously, though, I do find it fascinating that the suggestion, eked out from Freud, that there may be a significant sexual component in all human friendship, coupled to the further point - which was, after all, my real point - that if you accept this, it's actually very difficult to tell from the text (I'd say impossible) whether or not David's and Jonathan's relationship is "mere" friendship (and notice how you have to ratchet it down a few points in order to classify it this way!) or a homosexual relationship.
There is another point as well. Why should we particularly care? There's this story in the Bible about a relationship that binds two people together. It may or may not be a story about a sexual relationship between two men. Why would it bother us? Unless we feel we have to make it consistent with Leviticus and Romans? But maybe, to do that, we have to trash Freud...
And even then, this text won't go away. Because we still have no way of pinning it down. Unless, because we really want it to be about a "deep, non-sexual, male friendship" the wish (based on Leviticus, etc.) is enough to make it so. Wishful thinking, anyone. Oh, hi, Siggy. Back so soon?
--------------------
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
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
...Unless we feel we have to make it consistent with Leviticus and Romans? But maybe, to do that, we have to trash Freud...
...
I know which of the three would be the first I would toss out the window.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Kentucky Freud Chicken, Mother F**kin' Good
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
From a tangent to a Purgatory thread,
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
sorry, just sitting here wondering how one can justify rectal penetration from a physiological standpoint.
In men, it's the way to the g-spot? (Link's pure text but may be NSFW).
quote:
Is anything 'suppposed' to go 'up there'?
Enemas? Suppositories? (And that's just taking the perspective you're outlining.)
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
I'm just sitting here wondering how one can justify people of Northern European ancestry living in a semi-desert climate with fairly intense sun exposure throughout most of the year -- it really doesn't make sense from a physiological standpoint, does it? And yet here I am. (Now excuse me while I put on sunblock and head outside.)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rowen
Shipmate
# 1194
|
Posted
The Uniting Church in Australia had its national assembly (meeting) this week. Homosexuality and ministry were main agenda items. The statement on sexuality and leadership has just been released today.
Maybe some of you are interested.
It was controversial, and I think some clergy will leave the denomination. Some people wanted a definative "no".(But not me, to both things. I am just relieved it wasn't a blocking and exclusivity affair.)
--------------------
"May I live this day… compassionate of heart" (John O’Donoghue)...
Posts: 4897 | From: Somewhere cold in Victoria, Australia | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dorothea
Goodwife and low church mystic
# 4398
|
Posted
Very interesting Rowan. I wonder whether the Anglican Church will ever make such public statements?
J
[ 13. July 2006, 18:59: Message edited by: dorothea ]
--------------------
Protestant head? Catholic Heart?
http://joansbitsandpieces.blogspot.com/
Posts: 1581 | From: Notlob City Limits | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rowen
Shipmate
# 1194
|
Posted
The response from the more conservative members of the Uniting Church can be found on website here
--------------------
"May I live this day… compassionate of heart" (John O’Donoghue)...
Posts: 4897 | From: Somewhere cold in Victoria, Australia | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
TubaMirum,
I think this is as good a place as any to continue the debate....!
I recently discussed this topic with another Ship member on a private message. I'll preserve anonynmity but one of my posts was this:
Re: Homosexuality. Yes, it's so hard to cover every base of this subject and do it justice within a limited time and space.
I'm a GP and have looked into the very models proposed re: psycho-sexual development etc... I think there is a lot more to homosexuality than we currently understand but I think the 'single gene' hypothesis lacks any evidence. To my mind I think we are looking at personality types (which is probably multi-genetic) synthesised with enviromental factors (both hormonally and immunologically intra-natally as well as psycho-socially extra-natally). Even so, different factors will be at work in different individuals who possess a homosexual orientation so I don't think anyone can generalise about the exact cause in 'this or that' person.
However, whatever the determining factors, I guess I need to ask myself whether homosexual expression (namely the sexual expression) is in keeping with God's model for human sexuality. This is tricky. From an evolutionary perspective it's hard to see how anything other than heterosexuality is the 'natural design' for human sex (being the only route to pro-creation), however nature herself is full of evidence of homo-sexual acts/behaviour and also not every human will engage in heterosexuality - so if we're appealing to nature to 'condemn' homosexuality then it seems that all forms of celibacy (including Jesus') come in for condemnation as well!
The other problem is that human sexuality does not appear to be the final end point of human existence and identity (re: Jesus' comments about the lack of 'marriage' in the new creation). It appears that sexuality per se is only an experience of this present dispensation/economy and one (which although providing for the propogation of the species) also provides a form of 'typology' of the Kingdom (hence Pauls analogies of Christ and the Church, Bridegroom and Bride, flowing from the Husband + Wife institution.
Other factors include the stance of the Mosaic covenant towards homosexuality. And, although much within the mosaic covenant is 'transformed' within Christ, he said he came to fulfill and not destroy this Law. Post Christ we see the early church making all sorts of revisions to the Mosaic covenant (including circumcision/sabbath and food laws - which Christ himself relativised during his earthly ministry) but we DON'T see a relativisation of the moral aspects of the Torah. It's been said before, but the cultural millieu of the kerygmatic church was one of widespread acceptance of homosexuality (Nero himself undertook a homosexual marriage) which knew options for homosexuality which the Western world is only recently exploring, but the early church witness maintains a position against 'arsenokoite', and from St. Pauls theology he even points to same-sex-affections as 'proof' of the general distortion of God's original creation project (like any good 1st century Jew would have done....).
I think I put all these points together thus:
a) Sexuality (although a temporary experience for humanity until the new 'heavens and earth' are made) is to be experienced and expressed within a life-long covenantal relationship of Husband+Wife
b) This, then forms the 'ideal' for present sexuality
c) However....since sexuality belongs to this present economy it is NOT required of every human being seeking to experience the imago Dei, hence the valid witness and experience of Celibacy (as per Jesus/Paul and the Tradition of celibacy within the church).
d) Due to 'Original Sin' (according to the Orthodox notion of such a term and NOT the Augustinian version!!!) the creation is not how it should be. We are created and born in a corrupted system. Pregnancies abort, children inherit genetic defects, society distorts God's values and the fragile human mind is shaped by the storms and confusions of a species living somewhat alienated from God. All this means that aspects of human experience may result in orientations and behaviours that are distortions from God's perfect intention.
e) Thus the homosexual experience is not 'sin' per se, but does represent a distortion from the norm.
f) We are all, in other and many ways, caught up in this 'distortion from the norm' and thus we are all in need of 'healing' and 'restoration'
g) However, such healing and restoration has, as it's ultimate goal, the new creation and, since sexuality is part of this economy, it may be that the 'healing' will not be towards heterosexuality (for Gay people) but beyond it to the fuller Theosis to which we ALL look - in this case celibacy may not be the 'life sentence' as much as the 'fast-track' to theosis depending on whether one is open to this perspective or not
h) However...God deals with us where we ARE and works his theosis through us in accordance with our ability to respond (ask me to tell you about the SatNav illustration I have for this one sometime!). Thus, there will be those - of a homosexual orientation - who are unable to bare the vocation of Celibacy. I believe, that within this scenario, there needs to be pastoral accomodation and assistance to help such people find the vocation they CAN bare. For those who are more 'promiscuous' (or, to quote St. Paul, who 'burn') this, surely, may be life-long fidelty to one partner. The Lords table, surely, is still open to those who have found such control and stability within the 'faith that they have'?
i) But, but, but....When it comes to leadership within the Church, the vocation of leaders is, amongst many other things, to be the imago Christi to the community. Now, since Christ was the 'perfect humanity', this means that the criteria for leadership becomes quite exacting since they need to 'demonstrate' the possibilities and 'goal' of humanity within their ministry (again St. Paul, 'imitate me as I imitate Christ')
j) This will mean that the pastoral 'compromise' of life-long faithful homosexuality can't be the higher expression of the image of Christ (which would be life long celibacy in this instance), thus Christians with a homosexual orientation who decide to settle for a life long relationship are - in this same decision - disqualifying themselves from community leadership.
k) Since leadership is the gift of God (and not every Christian's 'automatic right' - I sometimes think we're more like the Corinthians than we realise with all our talk of 'rights'!) it is not a 'gift' that is ours to snatch, demand, expect or dictate the terms and conditions of.
Thus, in summary, I agree that the pastoral dimension of homosexual expression requires further support, but without diminishing the 'ideal' shape of human sexuality (Man+Woman) and especially without overlooking the entire goal of humanity (which doesn't involve sexuality at all) and thus allowing leadership to express the highest/higher forms of humanity to us.
All the best,
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
d) Due to 'Original Sin' (according to the Orthodox notion of such a term and NOT the Augustinian version!!!) the creation is not how it should be. We are created and born in a corrupted system. Pregnancies abort, children inherit genetic defects, society distorts God's values and the fragile human mind is shaped by the storms and confusions of a species living somewhat alienated from God. All this means that aspects of human experience may result in orientations and behaviours that are distortions from God's perfect intention.
e) Thus the homosexual experience is not 'sin' per se, but does represent a distortion from the norm.
There's a glaring contradiction here which I think is the issue at the center of this debate.
d) says that the world is corrupted and distorted.
e) assumes that that heterosexuality is the one thing that is not.
But if we all are fallen, why is heterosexuality itself not fallen as well? In heaven, no one is taken or given in marriage. Heterosexuality is itself a corruption of the ideal.
So I don't think you can argue that it is instead "God's perfect intention." Your argument is from Nature, not from Imago Dei. Which is OK, but we should notice this fact, don't you think?
Will think more and post again.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
quote:
There's a glaring contradiction here which I think is the issue at the center of this debate.
d) says that the world is corrupted and distorted.
e) assumes that that heterosexuality is the one thing that is not.
But if we all are fallen, why is heterosexuality itself not fallen as well? In heaven, no one is taken or given in marriage. Heterosexuality is itself a corruption of the ideal.
Yes - if one argues from the imago Christi alone (with his 'example' of celibacy). But we live between two ages and we have God's clear 'blessing' on heterosexual union as a valid entity within 'this' current creation.
I agree that the goal of humanity is a-sexual, but according to the order in which we currently live, this is how God intends human sexuality to function (as the prayer book says, 'Jesus himself was a guest at the Wedding in Cana' thus declaring God's 'blessing' on marriage).
Why does God allow this present situation? Well, the propogation of the species appears to be one reason...but also marriage (as Paul points out) is a sort of Ikon of the internal Divine relationship (either between Father and Son, or between the whole Trinity) and provides us - in this life - with a 'pointer' to ultimate Divine realities.
However, when we 'know as we are already fully known' then we will finally put off all 'childish things' and grow into the fullness which God intends for the whole of creation (and which doesn't involve human sexuality).
This is part of the tension between the 'now' and the 'not yet' that we see all the time in Christian life. This is what led Paul to announce that marriage is 'good' and that celibacy is also 'good'. No dualistic 'either/or' but instead a sort of present 'both/and' and a working out of the vocation to which one has been called ('some become 'eunuchs' for the kingdom....').
This tension is why we have to argue part from 'nature' and part from 'imago Christi' since both positions provide us with the knowledge of what we 'are' and the sight of what we 'shall be'.
I don't think I've come across this line of argument that much in this whole debate. Since the argument often restricts itself to the requirement to be 'fulfilled' sexually in 'this life', and much argument is made from the 'satisfaction' that people experience from various present human relationships. Now I'm 'not' saying that we shouldn't find 'satisfaction' within human relationships (after all, this is exactly how we're designed to operate) but I wonder if an overfocus on the present economy of 'sexuality' (esp. within a very 'oversexualised' western environment) causes our vision to 'distort' from the goal to which we all aim.
I think that in this light, even heterosexual marriage shouldn't be entered into 'lightly' (as per Paul's recommendations to the Corinthian church) and, if entered into, should submit itself to the image of God and the ways in which it can be 'transcended' to allow the coming 'age' to come...(e.g. through the opening of ones home and family to the wider community to be a blessing and a support for those engaged with more 'focused' work).
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Yes - if one argues from the imago Christi alone (with his 'example' of celibacy). But we live between two ages and we have God's clear 'blessing' on heterosexual union as a valid entity within 'this' current creation.
I agree that the goal of humanity is a-sexual, but according to the order in which we currently live, this is how God intends human sexuality to function (as the prayer book says, 'Jesus himself was a guest at the Wedding in Cana' thus declaring God's 'blessing' on marriage).
Yes, marriage is blessed. But this says absolutely nothing about gay partnerships. It doesn't follow that since Jesus attended a wedding, gay partnerships are forbidden. That's like saying that if Bob likes chocolate ice cream, that must mean he doesn't like butter pecan.
And we do have the examples of David and Jonathan, and of Ruth and Naomi, as exemplars of same-sex friendship. We have the example of the Centurion and his servant. I'm not saying that any of these were sexual, necessarily, but certainly they involve faithful love and loyalty between members of the same gender. The rite of marriage doesn't talk about sex, either, you know.
And I beg to differ that "this is how God intends human sexuality to function," since it quite obviously doesn't function like that in gay people. Perhaps you're wrong? Perhaps homosexuality is exactly what it's supposed to be, and thus is in fact what God intended. Suppose, for example - this is just an example - that homosexuality is an adaptation that works to prevent a particular gene from being passed into the population? Or suppose it's an adaptation that creates a tiny minority of people who don't have children, so that they can dedicate their lives istead to working for the betterment of society? These are just examples, again. It's hard to accept the argument, given what we know about its persistence across time and culture, and given that homosexual people seem to be about as well-balanced on average as the rest of the population, that homosexuality is some sort of malfunction.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
I don't think I've come across this line of argument that much in this whole debate. Since the argument often restricts itself to the requirement to be 'fulfilled' sexually in 'this life', and much argument is made from the 'satisfaction' that people experience from various present human relationships. Now I'm 'not' saying that we shouldn't find 'satisfaction' within human relationships (after all, this is exactly how we're designed to operate) but I wonder if an overfocus on the present economy of 'sexuality' (esp. within a very 'oversexualised' western environment) causes our vision to 'distort' from the goal to which we all aim.
I think that in this light, even heterosexual marriage shouldn't be entered into 'lightly' (as per Paul's recommendations to the Corinthian church) and, if entered into, should submit itself to the image of God and the ways in which it can be 'transcended' to allow the coming 'age' to come...(e.g. through the opening of ones home and family to the wider community to be a blessing and a support for those engaged with more 'focused' work).
But that's not the argument being made. The argument, currently, is about marriage, and not at all about "sexual fulfillment." Gay couples have families, too - parents, brothers and sisters, children - and desire to care for their extended families. Many, many gay couples care for their elderly parents, something that's always been true, long before gay couples started adopting children. Many care for brothers or sisters - or friends - with disabilities, also. (Another possible adaptation?)
The argument is really not about sex; if that were all it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now and this thread wouldn't have 6,524 posts on it. People who desired gay sex would simply engage in it, go to confession, be forgiven, and return to their families. It's about orientation, and who people fall in love with. Apparently men think about sex every minute or so, while women think about it every couple of days (new research I just read about yesterday!). So that's why this conversation looks and sounds the way it does.
But you're in the wrong ballpark. Gay people look to find partners, not simply sex partners. It is not good for the man to be alone.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(In any case, Christ redeemed the world as it is. All sorts and conditions of fallen men and women - including heterosexuals! - come within His saving embrace. All sorts and conditions of people are made whole - in the way that Christ chooses, not we - and put to use to work for His kingdom.
The first convert to Christianity was the Ethiopian eunuch. Celibate monastics and priests have kept the Church, and the culture itself, alive in various times and places. If God had meant to hallow heterosexuality in particular, why is it made absolutely crystal clear that non-reproductive people play important and even central roles in Christian history?)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Hi TubaMirum,
You raise a number of points and (because I'm trying to type whilst I consult!) I can't address everyone of them.
I think this may (not knowing you from Adam!) be an issue somewhat closer to your heart than mine, since I detect a lot of passion in your posting!
I do think, however, that you've distorted some of my points since I never said that heterosexuality was the only 'valid' option. I entirely agree with you that all sorts of people have contributed to the churches life, but that's not the issue - the debate is the 'boundaries' within which God wants us to operate sexually.
quote:
In any case, Christ redeemed the world as it is. All sorts and conditions of fallen men and women - including heterosexuals! - come within His saving embrace. All sorts and conditions of people are made whole - in the way that Christ chooses, not we - and put to use to work for His kingdom.
er....I've never disagreed with this. The fact that you need to 'make' this point suggests that you probably haven't 'heard me out'!
quote:
And I beg to differ that "this is how God intends human sexuality to function," since it quite obviously doesn't function like that in gay people
Well, that is argue the position from the wrong point..i.e from the position of what we 'are' rather than what we 'should be'. I've no doubt that homosexual expression feels very 'right' to those concerned, however this can't be the ground of the debate (since 'the heart is deceitful blah blah....' and our own 'feelings' might be very wrong).
I do agree with your comment about very close same sex relationships. The CofE house of Bishops had to comment on the recent Civil Partnerships in England and they made this same point. It's sad that in our over sexualised society any 'same sex' relationship is automatically assumed to be sexual - many aren't. However, many are, and I suggest that it is this same 'over sexualised society' which has contributed to this fact (although not the 'cause' of it since, as you say, homosexuality is universal and trans-cultural).
However, we're not discussing homo-philia (in the true meaning of the greek word), but the 'sexual act' itself and it is this which God wishes to contain within heterosexual marriage.
What if I'm wrong? Well....what if you're wrong? And from Scripture, Tradition AND Reason (although I guess we reason differently ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) the case stacks more strongly in favour of my position than yours.
I also think that this issue IS important. But often the debate gets overheated. To comment 'against' homosexuality is often to branded a 'homophobe' or such like...(like how criticising the current Israeli government gets one accused of anti-semitism ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) ). What we do with our bodies IS important, and what God has to say about this (through the above modalities) IS important. If heterosexual marriage is God's 'vehicle' for human sexuality then to choose otherwise is to sail into un-chartered waters. Now God is Gracious (with a cherry on top) and doesn't treat us 'as we deserve' etc...so I fully expect him to bless all sorts of relationships and decisions (even if they seem wrong to me), but this doesn't provide an 'excuse' to do what one thinks to be wrong.
We should never build theology of the 'pastoral exceptions' of God's Grace, and our anthropology must reflect what God has revealed and what humanity 'should' be. However, having done this 'thinking' we can only start where people are 'at' and, as you said, God may well choose to do other things in peoples lives (in his sovereign wisdom) so we can only 'follow' where God is leading/acting.
But....when it comes to leadership within the community of Christ I simply don't see any mandate for permitting those 'chosen' to have any 'pastoral exceptions', since these are the very people who must reflect the 'ideal' back to us all. An actively homosexual Bishop is (to my theology and ecclesiology) simply an oxymoron.
Enter Windsor....
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max900
Apprentice
# 10119
|
Posted
Excuse me for not reading all 66 pages prior to posting, but what did Jesus say about homosexuality? Not Paul or St. Augustine or any of the other "church fathers" but Jesus? After all, it is the christian church, right? Not the Paulian church or the Augustinian church. And Jesus was the only one who claimed to be a god, right? So what he had to say should have some priority over what anyone else says. And why do you suppose that homosexuality never shows up in the gospels? Do you think there were no homosexuals back then?
--------------------
"We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great nation.” George W. Bush from "Bush at War" by Bob Woodward
Posts: 38 | From: Detroit | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caz...
Shipmate
# 3026
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Max900:
Excuse me for not reading all 66 pages prior to posting, but what did Jesus say about homosexuality?
I realise you're new (and welcome BTW), but do you not realise how rude and arrogant this sounds? Like suddenly you're going to swopp in and reveal what 66 pages of discussion have not managed to unearth? Did you read any of it?
--------------------
"What have you been reading? The Gospel according to St. Bastard?" - Eddie Izzard
Posts: 1888 | From: here to there | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
However, having done this 'thinking' we can only start where people are 'at' and, as you said, God may well choose to do other things in peoples lives (in his sovereign wisdom) so we can only 'follow' where God is leading/acting.
I think I agree with you here, but I think one very important part of where people are 'at' on the issue is that there is legitimate room for debate whether homosexual practice is a sin (or sub-optimal) at all. I'm not sure that you have fully taken account either of those Christians who can see no difference in sexual morality because of a difference in their partner's gender, or of those for whom all homosexual conduct is absolutely unacceptable.
Your analysis suggests to me a set of ascending steps towards perfected humanity: promiscuity to gay cohabitation to straight marriage to angelic celibacy - which is by no means an unreasonable view, but it certainly does not represent any sort of consensus. I would expect more Christians to ask "is what I am doing obedient or sinful?" rather than "where am I on the scale?".
quote:
But....when it comes to leadership within the community of Christ I simply don't see any mandate for permitting those 'chosen' to have any 'pastoral exceptions', since these are the very people who must reflect the 'ideal' back to us all. An actively homosexual Bishop is (to my theology and ecclesiology) simply an oxymoron.
That I don't get. We don't ask for perfection in our bishops - so I can't see that one particular sin (if sin it is) is an automatic bar to consecration. Would you depose all bishops who have ever committed fornication?
Or, to take another example, would the fact that a man is a persistent, unrepentant, and publicly open cigarette smoker make him ineligible for leadership in the church? Like homosexual cohabitation, smoking is a continuing, possibly life-long, practice. Like homosexuality, there is room for debate whether it is sinful at all. More so than homosexuality, it can be a bad public example, and might be considered unworthy in a man who images Christ.
I think that what you propose may be defensible as a matter of compromise, but the best argument for it is pragmatic. It is a way of keeping both practicians and opponents of gay sex in the church. I don't think it is defensible as a matter of consistent analysis.
[ 09. August 2006, 10:51: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Hi,
Well, I would say firstly that this is an 'argument from silence', just because Jesus didn't 'explicitly' mention something doesn't automatically mean it's 'okay'. I agree that his historical context was a world in which homosexuality was an 'option' (perhaps more explicitly so than even today...even the emperor had a 'gay marriage' - I can't quite see any world leader plumping for this option currently...), but (whilst we're on his cultural context) he was also a Jew among Jews, and such sexual options were simply 'anathema' to all Jews - if he didn't mention it it is far more likely because it simply wasn't a 'going concern' for his Jewish mission (don't forget Christ's mission on earth was to Israel essentially, it was the vocation of the 'renewed Israel'=The Church to 'go to the nations'. And what we do see in Paul's 'nation ministry' is a transference of his 'Jewish scruples' and a comment against homosexuality).
There is another dimension to your comment, which is that we can have 'no access to Jesus' without going 'through' the church. I mean that our 'witness' to Christ is dependant on the Apostles witness to him - those who walked and talked with him. What we have recorded (in terms of the words of Jesus) is only a little (like St. John said, the whole world could not contain all that 'could' be said...) and we have no option but to look to the Apostolic traditions in working out how Christ intended his people to 'work'.
I do think this is an important point since all manner of 'heresies' in the early church appealed to 'secret traditons' of Jesus (what Jesus 'really said...') and the safeguard that the church took was to point to the witness of the Apostles. I think trying to read Jesus 'contra' the Apostolic witness is to mirror those same early errors.
Now St. Paul's writings provide us with the most comprehensive Apostolic witness as the 'traditions of Jesus' engaged with the gentile world, and thus it's not surprising (to me) to see a typically 'Jewish' (and I would say 'Jesus') comment on the practice of homosexuality.
The question is, 'what has changed' over the intervening years to mean that this 'tradition' is now to be overturned? (Other than we now live in a society where homosexual expression is increasingly seen as a 'valid' lifestyle option..)
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Sorry Eliab,
I cross posted with Max900.
Thanks for your insightful comments.
I do agree with you about the 'scale of purity' as it applies to church leaders. None of us are 'perfect' and we are all (in some way or other) acting in ways contrary to God's intention on our lives (that is why we must still pray repentance within our liturgy), but - although none of us have 'made it' - we must still define some sort of 'criteria' for those who are to lead.
St. Paul certainly thought this way (not given to too much wine, good family man, respected by 'outsiders' etc...) so the church must apply some sort of 'moral boundaries' around the priesthood even if the position within the rest of the church is to invite un-bounded inclusivity.
So...who decides what's acceptable or not? Well one could apply the Pauline criteria, but this was partly situational (for instance actually 'having children' isn't necessarily to be an automatic 'given' - even if it might be 'pastorally' wise!).
I think the problem with the 'Gene Robinson situation' is that particular Diocese/Province took a unilateral decision that being 'actively Gay' should not exclude someone from being a priest when the rest of the body of which this Diocese/Province was merely 'a part' took a different view.
I guess I would have to say that it is only the church catholic that can set the 'criteria' and that what we're seeing in and through this painful situation (and I'm convinced it's causing pain on all sides) is the challenge to the church's 'catholic authority' by a minority movement within it.
Of course Rome has the 'external apparatus' to put down any such 'rebellion' but this doesn't deal with the deeper issue (and merely forces it 'under ground'), yet I feel that the Anglican communion is (perhaps) one of the only churches which is trying to 'process' this issue in a way that might lead to transformed perspectives on both sides.
If I personally take a pragmatic approach it is because I long for love and unity and wish to commune with all my brothers and sisters of whatever orientation and 'persuasion'
Go well,
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
k) Since leadership is the gift of God (and not every Christian's 'automatic right' - I sometimes think we're more like the Corinthians than we realise with all our talk of 'rights'!) it is not a 'gift' that is ours to snatch, demand, expect or dictate the terms and conditions of.
Except, of course, where the person who believes they have been given the gift is like me, a lesbian. Then the church thinks it can dictate every which way.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Richard, I don't understand why you think it is God's goal for humans to be asexual.
I think it is useful to think for a moment about handedness. Most people are right-handed (80% I think), some people are left-handed. Jesus never preached on this issue. For a very long time and probably at the time Jesus was living, and amongst orthodox Jews, being left handed was seen as signfying something bad. People were actively discouraged from living a left-handed life. There is no reason to think that Jesus would have thought it was OK to operate left-handed.
If; it is God's plan people to be right-handed, the majority of people at Jesus' time would have thought active lefthanders to be evil and Jesus never contradicted this view - why can we not use the same reasoning applied to sexuality and argue that ultimately it's Gods goal that everyone should be ambidextrous but right-handeness is morally preferable to left-handedness. Consequently we should not ordain left handed clergy ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Doublethink,
I know the example your citing - I think the Latin word for left is 'sinister'...nuff said.
My comment about asexuality was regarding the (yet to come) New Creation. I'm taking Jesus at his word when he said that people, 'would not be married nor given in marriage, but would be like the Angels'.
So I don't agree that the 'goal' (teleos in Gk) of humanity involves any form of sexuality. Sex is firmly part of this creation and will not survive into the next. In fact this is interesting, because it appears (to my quick mental concordance) that this is the only 'good' thing from this creation which won't last into the next (food seems to be very much 'on the menu' ).
No, there's something quite unique about human sexual intercourse and, even if you read Genesis mythically, sex was 'given' before the fall so is a 'good' and 'sanctioned' thing. My 'gut instinct' is that we've yet to get a balanced anthropology which does justice to sex without overdoing it (which is IMO the 'issue' confronting the Western church) or underdoing it (like Augustine... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ). Maybe this will be the 'fruit' of the current controversy through which we are living?
Re: Jesus and lefthandedness, I know where your trying to go on this one. My concern with this position is that in 'contextualising Jesus' in this way we overemphasise his 'humanity' (inc. his culturally-limited knowledge etc...) to the detriment of his 'divinity'. Jesus then becomes an 'un-enlightened' 1st centuary Jewish 'prude' like every other un-enlightened 1st centuary Jewish prude. I'm not so sure. In Christ we very much see the 'unchanging' God in action and we simply don't know just how much Jesus 'knew' but accomodated himself to the thinking of his time. Certainly there is enough within his teaching/ministry to show that his 'thoughts' were a 'paradigm shift' outside the culturally-linked boundaries of his Jewish contemporaries.
Can you show me where the Torah forbids lefthandedness? Was this a case of primitive human 'superstition' at work, or do we see Yahweh legislating against this 'option'?
Arabella,
I completely hear you when you mention how others speak of a 'personal sense of vocation'. I, too, had such an 'experience' and was utterly convinced (as were the 'leaders' around me) that this was the 'will of God for my life'. Needless to say a nervous breakdown and a complete failure of this vocation acted as a 'wakeup' call to the self-deceit that we can inflict on ourselves.
Now, my little bit of autobiography wasn't intended to intimate that they're utterly self-deceived, instead it was a personal revelation about the ways in which our own 'feelings' regarding a situation may be 'off key'. How, then, do we know whether a vocation is 'from God' or not? This is where the 'canons' of the church catholic must play a discerning part, and this is why (IMO) ones 'vocation' is never the result of ones own 'interpretation' (to paraphrase St. Peter!) but must also rely on the wisdom of the rest of the church.
Hard teaching for us western, self-deterministic, types.
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
It seems to me your last paragraphs describe a searching of individuals as individuals - not according to their sexuality.
There is a difference.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Richard Collins, what do you mean to convey by your many 'quotemarks'?
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Doublethink,
I know the example your citing - I think the Latin word for left is 'sinister'...nuff said.
My comment about asexuality was regarding the (yet to come) New Creation. I'm taking Jesus at his word when he said that people, 'would not be married nor given in marriage, but would be like the Angels'.
Perhaps angels are gay More seriously, maybe he meant in that situation love would not be confined and constrained by human institutions - why does it have to be a statement about sex ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
I completely hear you when you mention how others speak of a 'personal sense of vocation'. I, too, had such an 'experience' and was utterly convinced (as were the 'leaders' around me) that this was the 'will of God for my life'. Needless to say a nervous breakdown and a complete failure of this vocation acted as a 'wakeup' call to the self-deceit that we can inflict on ourselves.
Mate, are you trying to suggest that any queer who hears a call is self-deceiving? As it happened, my parish recognised the call, as did the regional presbytery. I was put forward to national level and the whole thing stalled because of anti-gay lobbying in Assembly. A vocation can only begin with some sort of personal call - doesn't matter how many people say one should become a minister, one still has to accept that challenge, because it isn't them who are going to have to test the call.
I left the church because I felt the need to follow that call. Spending all my time arguing about whether I should be allowed to minister was a waste of time when I could be getting on with the work of Jesus in the world. I could see myself still arguing in 10-20 years and I didn't think the church was worth it.
I'm a queer person with a lifelong (until 2 1/2 years ago) active membership of the church. I'm far more committed to doing the work than arguing about whether I should based on what other people think of my sex life.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Richard Collins, what do you mean to convey by your many 'quotemarks'?
Nothing, other than emphasis (takes less time than cut/pasting into italics).
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Arabella,
quote:
Mate, are you trying to suggest that any queer who hears a call is self-deceiving?
Did you read the next paragraph?
I think we'll struggle to find agreement in this issue (to avoid needless circular argumentation) because my understanding is that the church contains the 'means' of 'serving Jesus'.
To go against the church on a quest to serve Jesus is an odd position to be in, and suggests (IMO) that one might be on the wrong track.
But then I've got a very high view of the church (catholic and orthodox) and submit my own thinking to the wisdom of my other brothers and sisters.
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Doublethink,
quote:
Perhaps angels are gay More seriously, maybe he meant in that situation love would not be confined and constrained by human institutions - why does it have to be a statement about sex ?
er....interesting theory. Not sure I can honestly sign up to that one though.
Why do you think that Sex has any purpose in the New Creation?
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It seems to me your last paragraphs describe a searching of individuals as individuals - not according to their sexuality.
There is a difference.
Mdijon,
Could you please explain this a little more? It's probably the early hour of the morning in the UK but I struggled to get what you were saying.
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I meant that there is a difference between suggesting that leaders or the church might determine certain individuals have had experiences or abilities which mark them out as unsuitable for the ministry.... and suggesting that certain groups of people are unsuitable for the ministry.
quote:
To go against the church on a quest to serve Jesus is an odd position to be in, and suggests (IMO) that one might be on the wrong track.
There was a time when Martin Luther King found himself in a similar position.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Why do you think that Sex has any purpose in the New Creation?
Why do you think that sex has any purpose in this creation ? It would have perfectly possible for God to create humans that reproduced asexually - a lot of organisms do that anyway. Why don't you think that Sex has any purpose in the New Creation?
Seems to me that at some level you are assuming that sex = dirty or sex = imperfect, therefore absent from a more perfect creation, and I don't why you are making that assmuption.
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
mdijon,
quote:
I meant that there is a difference between suggesting that leaders or the church might determine certain individuals have had experiences or abilities which mark them out as unsuitable for the ministry.... and suggesting that certain groups of people are unsuitable for the ministry
ahhh, thanks for the clarification. Well, I agree that one doesn't necessarily create 'automatic disqualifications' since people's lives are complex and one can not stereotype certain positions. Divorce and Remarriage would be one such issue as well, where each 'case' may be substantially different and one needs to discern the background situation.
All to often the debate against openly 'practicing' gay individuals being priests slides into a debate against people who have a homosexual inclination (but who may be living celibate) and the church needs to resist this (as it singularly failed to do with Dr. Jeffrey John).
quote:
There was a time when Martin Luther King found himself in a similar position
Did you mean Luther King or Luther? And if the first, what examples do you mean (I'm a bit of an ignoramus with American history, having had a disasterous experience with it at school!).
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Why do you think that sex has any purpose in this creation ? It would have perfectly possible for God to create humans that reproduced asexually - a lot of organisms do that anyway. Why don't you think that Sex has any purpose in the New Creation?
Seems to me that at some level you are assuming that sex = dirty or sex = imperfect, therefore absent from a more perfect creation, and I don't why you are making that assmuption.
Perhaps we are both arguing from silence here? Let's face it, neither of us know exactly why God choose for humanity to be 'sexual beings' and neither of us have an inside track on the 'look' of the New Creation. The Apostles were face to face with it in the risen Jesus and even they struggled to recognise and describe it!
So.....this brings us back to what has been revealed and so, regarding present human sexuality, I'm one who goes with the Torah, the NT and the Patristic (as well as the Talmudic) witness on the God instituted context for human sexuality.
Although....( ) I would still suggest that within this same group of witnesses there are the 'hints' of what the New Creation might consist of, and it looks like a transformation of humanity as we know it (inc. marriage). However to try and plead 'in reverse' that, because human sexuality in the New Creation might allow homosexual expression, we should be 'open' to it now (when this cuts across the whole 'tradition of sexuality' from Moses to the current Patriarchs) seems (to me) to be on a hiding to nowhere.
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Doublethink,
Also on your point here:
quote:
Seems to me that at some level you are assuming that sex = dirty or sex = imperfect, therefore absent from a more perfect creation, and I don't why you are making that assmuption.
Would you say that the Temple of Solomon was 'dirty' of 'imperfect' because it wasn't the fullness of what God intended (i.e. Christ himself=The Temple)?
I remember C.S.Lewis saying something about this once, when he described our inability to comprehend any future 'fuller' experience because of the limits of our present experiences. I think he went on to say that, to a young child, the statement that Sexual Intercourse is 'better than chocolate' (although I know that, for some, the verdicts still out ) would make no sense, since chocolate to a child is their 'heavenly' be-all and end-all!
By saying that the New Creation isn't a 'sexual' creation I'm in no way downgrading sexuality, but am merely trying to say that (perhaps) there is a way of being human which 'trumps' sex, and perhaps this experience is being in the very presence of God (the ultimate 'ectasy'!).
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Well, I agree that one doesn't necessarily create 'automatic disqualifications' since people's lives are complex and one can not stereotype certain positions. Divorce and Remarriage would be one such issue as well, where each 'case' may be substantially different and one needs to discern the background situation.
All to often the debate against openly 'practicing' gay individuals being priests slides into a debate against people who have a homosexual inclination (but who may be living celibate) and the church needs to resist this (as it singularly failed to do with Dr. Jeffrey John).
Well that sounds like a reasonably nuanced view.
However, when you posted "Well some people aren't suited to the ministry" in response to an "I'm queer and feel called to the ministry" I'd never have guessed a more finely nuanced view lay behind it.
I did mean MLK - in that the church as a body had a fairly hard time dealing with racism at one time.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
