|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
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.
But I think that means that there isn't a basis to choose between your argument from silence and my argument from silence.
quote:
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.
Aha, so that's why you think that your argument is better than my argument. You are going on srcipture content from the old testament.
I would argue that I am going on scripture principle from the new testament. In that, I do not see how male or female homosexuality cause harm - and I see Jesus preaching acceptance and love. Therefore I place more weight on that, than I do on the content of the torah.
I mean think about it; we are assuming that the lord of all creation with infinite compassion and an overiding concern with the spiritual welfare of man and womankind - cares less about whether we love and whom we desire - than he does about exactly how we stimulate our genitals to orgasm ?
So you can love a man, you can - according to the torah - lick his entire body and run your hands over every inch of his skin, but God forbid you put your penis through his anus. How does this make any kind of theological or spirtual sense ? Lesbian sex is not mentioned in the bible, are we to assume that means it's OK, but anal sex is not - what kind of sense does that make ?
If it is not the acts themselves, but the affection itself that offends - then necessarily that would bar celibate homosexuals from the priesthood. Which is not the argument you appear to be making.
[ETA Declaration of interest: posted by gay, female Quaker.]
--------------------
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
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
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.
To be honest, I can't see the Scriptural warrant for this at all.
This morning's Hebrew Bible reading was from Judges 8. Here's a section:
28 So Midian was subdued before the Israelites, and they lifted up their heads no more. So the land had rest forty years in the days of Gideon. 29 Jerubbaal son of Joash went to live in his own house. 30 Now Gideon had seventy sons, his own offspring, for he had many wives. 31 His concubine who was in Shechem also bore him a son, and he named him Abimelech. 32 Then Gideon son of Joash died at a good old age, and was buried in the tomb of his father Joash at Ophrah of the Abiezrites.
33 As soon as Gideon died, the Israelites relapsed and prostituted themselves with the Baals, making Baal-berith their god. 34 The Israelites did not remember the LORD their God, who had rescued them from the hand of all their enemies on every side; 35 and they did not exhibit loyalty to the house of Jerubbaal (that is, Gideon) in return for all the good that he had done to Israel.
Got that? Seventy children, many wives, and a concubine. And of course, Gideon is far from being alone in this; the Bible is chock-packed-full of polygamy. It isn't even forbidden anywhere - except, ironically, to Bishops. Which implies that people who don't want to be Bishops may in fact be allowed several wives.
So this "perfect plan" of yours really hasn't been around for very long, and most of the Good Guys in the Hebrew Bible didn't believe in it.
Nobody's arguing about feelings, anyway. What we're arguing about is "fruits of the spirit": love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, and self-control. That's Galatians. We're arguing that we should take Jesus seriously when he says it's not about the externals but what comes out of people's hearts. And we think it's obvious that many partnered gay priests show forth these fruits of the spirit.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
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....
I'd say Reason is entirely on my side and not at all on yours. My viewpoint comes from observation of reality; yours is based in a Platonic sort of "ideal" about sexuality, which follows from your assumptions about "God's perfect plan." But we've already noted the contradiction here; if the world is fallen, there isn't a "perfect plan" of the worldly sort here below.
So you may be right and I may be wrong - but I think I have the better evidence and thus the stronger argument. The "ideal" is not about externals, but about internals; not about certain illicit "sexual acts" but about "fruits of the spirit."
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Doublethink,
Thanks for your ongoing comments and kindly debating!
I wonder whether you introduce too much duality between the 'content' of the OT and the 'principles' of the NT? I see plenty of 'content' in the NT and also 'principles' within the OT. Perhaps you've created too much discontinuity between the covenants?
Contrary to what some might think I'm actually very supportive of the 'progressive revelation' thinking (which is one of the arguments that some make for allowing 'gay ordination' i.e. that God is 'revealing' new truth to the church today etc...) and (to respond to TubaMirum) agree that the Polygamy of the OT is a comment on where they were 'at' at that time. However, on the Polygamy issue, I can hear Jesus' response ' ....but it was not always so, as the scriptures say "for this reason a Man will live his father and mother and be joined with his wife..." '. It's interesting how both Jesus and Paul come back to this 'Genesis pattern', which seems (to them) to be the 'archetype' around which humans are to operate. However due to the 'hardness of hearts...' humans have actually managed to distort this basic principle in all manner of ways and in the NT I very much see the content AND principle of coming back the 'original' pattern.
You said:
quote:
I see Jesus preaching acceptance and love. Therefore I place more weight on that, than I do on the content of the torah
Again I think you're introducing a 'duality' (between Jesus and Torah) which actually isn't there.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 5:17-20 ESV)
I agree that in Jesus Torah is transformed, but it is certainly not trivialised (btw, I just thought that certainly Jesus didn't comment on homosexuality but he ALSO didn't comment on circumcision and we're fairly happy to let the early church decide that 'this one' didn't need to be continued.... ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) )
TubaMirum, I think you do the same thing when you speak of 'externals' and 'internals'. 'True religion' (I love that BCP phrase!) is a sort of both/and rather than an either/or. Jesus said:
“But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others (emphasis mine)" (Luke 11:42 ESV)
I completely agree that we should be looking for the 'fruit of the Spirit', since these fruit declare the presence and the agency of the Spirit of God in a persons life (this keeps with James' Faith+Works theory). However, the 'work of the Spirit' is also to lead us into unity, peace, truth, maturity and obedience to God/Christ (as St. John points out, you can not claim one without the other) and so it is disingenuous to try and pit one 'work of the Spirit' against the others!
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
TubaMirum,
I've just realised why my position might seem 'platonic' (sorry to be so slow, but I'm trying to work, think and type at the same time!). Of course, if one starts talking about the 'higher world' and appears to be denying present physicality then this comes across as very Gnostic!
This is the 'error' that the early Christian 'celibates' often fell into.
This might seem to be my position because I'm trying to emphasis the discontinuity between the two Creations (Old and New) wrt Sex. But this isn't to deny the mysterious purposes of God in creating us currently as sexual creatures, and I would like to hold the tension between how God 'wants' us to be now and how God 'wants' us to be then.
Because I believe that these two 'worlds' aren't only sequential (from a world-time perspective) but are also 'interlocking' (which is how I understand 'eschatological time') there is a present continuity between them. Hence (to echo 'Gladiator'), 'What we do now, echoes through eternity'. How we handle our bodies (and all matter in and around us) 'connects' with the New Creation.
This understanding is how I became 'sacramentally' minded (so, in the eucharist, there is both a connection to the risen 'body' of Christ and the eschatological 'feast') and is an important part of my understanding of Christian 'being' in the present world.
Thus, sexual action (including all the surrounding intimacy which, might, accompany it) sets up 'connections' with what we 'shall be' (either for better or for worse - I'm no automatic universalist!)
Because it's possible to tap into 'cross winds' (rather than purely the Pneuma of God) our use of matter needs to be guided by God (in fact I see all Paganism as a sort of 'false' sacramentality). I would, thus, see Judaic/Christian teaching about heterosexual-lifelong-marriage as 'wisdom' from God about the appropriate 'use' of human sexuality (this would also include the proper 'use' of ones spouse - i.e. in love, kindness etc...)
Now, in our present 'age' we don't always see the consequences of our actions, so it's not always wise to allow ones actions to be 'justified' by apparent 'fruitfulness'. God Grace is such that present 'outcomes' might actually not be as a direct result of our current actions. Even for Paul, his 'judgement' was still future tense.
1 Corinthians 4:
'This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart . Then each one will receive his commendation from God.'
So there is a 'day' to come when all actions - and their consequences - will be 'opened up' and 'revealed'. Present 'fruit' is excellent and good, but shouldn't become a criterion over which we 'trump' the commandments of God.
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Because I believe that these two 'worlds' aren't only sequential (from a world-time perspective) but are also 'interlocking' (which is how I understand 'eschatological time') there is a present continuity between them. Hence (to echo 'Gladiator'), 'What we do now, echoes through eternity'. How we handle our bodies (and all matter in and around us) 'connects' with the New Creation.
This understanding is how I became 'sacramentally' minded (so, in the eucharist, there is both a connection to the risen 'body' of Christ and the eschatological 'feast') and is an important part of my understanding of Christian 'being' in the present world.
Thus, sexual action (including all the surrounding intimacy which, might, accompany it) sets up 'connections' with what we 'shall be' (either for better or for worse - I'm no automatic universalist!)
Because it's possible to tap into 'cross winds' (rather than purely the Pneuma of God) our use of matter needs to be guided by God (in fact I see all Paganism as a sort of 'false' sacramentality). I would, thus, see Judaic/Christian teaching about heterosexual-lifelong-marriage as 'wisdom' from God about the appropriate 'use' of human sexuality (this would also include the proper 'use' of ones spouse - i.e. in love, kindness etc...)
Now, in our present 'age' we don't always see the consequences of our actions, so it's not always wise to allow ones actions to be 'justified' by apparent 'fruitfulness'. God Grace is such that present 'outcomes' might actually not be as a direct result of our current actions. Even for Paul, his 'judgement' was still future tense.
1 Corinthians 4:
'This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart . Then each one will receive his commendation from God.'
So there is a 'day' to come when all actions - and their consequences - will be 'opened up' and 'revealed'. Present 'fruit' is excellent and good, but shouldn't become a criterion over which we 'trump' the commandments of God.
Well, all that is well and good - except that you still haven't demonstrated that gay partnerships violate "the commandments of God."
And I really don't think you can. Leviticus contains a cultural purity code, which forbids many things - including the wearing of blended fabrics and the eating of certain foods. As I've noted, polygamy is the word throughout the Hebrew Bible, and it's not forbidden in the New Testament, either, except to specific people. (And given this, I wonder why you still argue that "lifelong-heterosexual-marriage" is the particular standard, BTW?) There isn't any condemnation of lesbianism in the Bible. The word found in two of the epistles is "arsenokoites," the precise meaning of which is not known, since the word isn't found anywhere else. Paul, in Romans, is clearly condemning idolatry and the lust he believed resulted from it.
None of which has anything to do with what we're talking about. Which, again, is whether gay people cannot be ordained to the priesthood unless they agree to leave their partners and their families, abandoning their commitments. And I really think that "commitment" is a central precept in the Christian life; at Baptism, we are "marked as Christ's own forever." We renounce Satan and turn to Christ and vow to follow Him; we renew these vows at the baptisms of others. At Confirmation, we do it again. In Marriage, we vow to love and to cherish until we are parted by death. Our entire life revolves around commitment - to Christ and to others in Christ's name.
There's no celibacy requirement in the Anglican or Episcopal Church, not even for Bishops. And God doesn't believe in it, either, apparently, or He wouldn't have created a helpmeet for Adam. If you believe that certain forms of sex are illicit - as it seems that you do - then argue against them in particular; perhaps the Biblical case for that is there. But the denial of family life and physical intimacy isn't really in our tradition at all.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Here, BTW, is an article quoting Canon Edward Norman, at that time (2001) canon and treasurer of York Minster and responsible for putting together the new CofE catechism. From the article:
quote:
Written by Canon Edward Norman, canon and treasurer of York Minster, the catechism seeks to define Anglicanism for the first time since Thomas Cranmer wrote The Book of Common Prayer in 1662.
The Prayer Book version was a brief inquisitorial text intended for use in a pre-literate age. Canon Norman's is the first attempt fully to define Anglican teaching.
In the section on sexuality, he contradicts official teaching and the views of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr George Carey.
"Homosexuality," says the catechism, "may well not be a condition to be regretted but to have divinely ordered and positive qualities."
"Homosexual Christian believers," it continues, "should be encouraged to find in their sexual preferences such elements of moral beauty as may enhance their general understanding of Christ's calling."
He's a Catholic now, BTW - and I think also opposed to women's ordination at this point! But it goes to show that I'm not the only who's ever made this argument.
Your argument is directly opposed to this, claiming that there can be no beauty found in our relationships - that they are indeed to be profoundly regretted. Not very "pastoral," really.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
TubaMirum:
quote:
Well, all that is well and good - except that you still haven't demonstrated that gay partnerships violate "the commandments of God."
And I really don't think you can
Part of my approach has been to try and look at the 'thinking' behind biblical commandments. Not that I don't accept the holistic bible witness on this subject, but I thought it would be good to try and look at it from an eschatological POV.
One of the reasons for avoiding getting bogged down in Leviticus is, as you suggest, the various other 'commands' that we don't follow today and if this were the only place where God condemned immoral Sex (porneia) then you might be onto something, but Jesus teaches on marriage (using the Genesis model) and so does Paul. Paul picks up on homosexuality (along with other 'gentile ignorances'), the early church witness follows this line of thought and it's only now, in the past 50 odd years, that this line of thinking is being challenged.
So the 'witness of Tradition' is strongly in my favour.
I don't build my 'case' merely on Leviticus (but obviously this is included within it) but from the whole witness of scripture understood through Apostolic tradition and Patristic thought (I guess this why I'm fairly 'catholic' in my ecclesiology).
I'm not sure where you think Polygamy is 'allowed' within the NT (I can't remember reading that one!) and my holding to the Genesis pattern for humanity is because Jesus and Paul did the same!
quote:
There isn't any condemnation of lesbianism in the Bible
...apart from in Romans (but I'd expect you to reject that fact )....
As for the place of celibacy. I never said that it should be 'requirement' of anyone. It is clearly a 'vocation' (either chosen by or for them - because of circumstance as Jesus himself said) which some experience.
I don't think that one can not be 'fully human' without sexual expression, that has never been part of my argument. Jesus himself (as I see it) was celibate and he was the fullest human ever!
I'm not sure that I can say anything more that will convince you, because you clearly read the text (and receive the biblical witness) in a different way to me.
Anyway, my central 'point' is actually not to try and 'convince' you of anything, instead I'm just rehearsing some thoughts and ideas that I had on this subject, and have been trying to think it through from a more eschatological perspective than I've seen done before.
Go well TubaMirum,
Pace! ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
TubaMirum,
Sorry, you cross posted and I just wanted to respond to this:
quote:
Your argument is directly opposed to this, claiming that there can be no beauty found in our relationships
I have never said (or thought) such a thing! Love is beautiful and humans have great capacity for that.
This is where the argument is so hard to 'have' on this topic. Just because I'm trying to state a theological argument 'against' active homosexual expression doesn't mean that:
a) I think all gay people are 'deviants'
b) There is no 'love' in their relationships
c) They aren't able to teach me how to love
My point (several posts ago) about God's Grace is that he 'makes the sun to shine on all' and this means that humans (whatever their sexual orientation +/- whether they express this orientation) can be vessels for love, mercy and justice.
This is why I would fight the fiercest fundamentalist who tried to deny your place in the body of Christ. The love of Christ is for ALL and that's the final fact!
But I hope you can sense the nuance in what I'm trying to say. I can love you, I can learn love from you, we can laugh and commune together but this doesn't mean that I have to 'agree' or 'accept' your perspective on human sexuality. Like with many things in the body of Christ we may differ, but this doesn't mean that I MUST come round to your way or vice versa.
Should God so open my (or your) eyes to allow either of us to see differently then fine. But one can only adopt the position they are currently 'in'!
I hope this makes some sense.
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
TubaMirum,
Sorry, you cross posted and I just wanted to respond to this:
quote:
Your argument is directly opposed to this, claiming that there can be no beauty found in our relationships
I have never said (or thought) such a thing! Love is beautiful and humans have great capacity for that.
Well, I think your argument does imply that. Here's a quote:
quote:
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.
So this says that gay partnerships are to be viewed as "pastoral exceptions" - IOW, something to be reluctantly accepted but better to be discouraged as deviations from the "ideal." They are "wrong." I believe you think there are aspects - love, for instance - that might cover the multitude of sins involved. But beautiful? I can't see it expressed in that quote.
But then, I think the argument is far too focussed on the "act" itself - which simply can't be divorced from the people involved in it. This is something that I find happens quite a bit. It all becomes very abstract, as if there were no other meaning but the genital.
I think you believe God wants to control our sexual impulses and channel them into something that is productive and not destructive. I completely agree. But for homosexual people, this absolutely cannot be "lifelong heterosexual marriage." That in itself would be wrong - for both people involved - I believe, since there would be little mutuality in the relationship.
If you think certain types of sex violate the body-as-Temple, then that's fine. If you think that a person in a homosexual partnership can't show forth Christ - who never married himself, nor did he have any children - then I must disagree with you. I really do believe the root of most of this is cultural; that many people don't believe that homosexual people ought to be role models, because they believe that children will be influenced by them in a way their parents don't approve of. But this really doesn't seem to be true, and we have about 40 years of increasing acceptance of gay people in society to demonstrate that fact. Plenty of people are still marrying and having children. (This might not be your own argument, but I do think for many people the issue is here.)
But I don't think we'll change our positions. You have your position on this and I have mine; I personally think the evidence supports me, but I doubt I'll convince you of that on the Ship of Fools Forum. I really don't think you're being "mean," BTW, or that you're arguing from a dislike of homosexual people. I just think you're wrong.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
It is the nature and quality of a relationship that matters: one must not judge it by its outward appearance but by its inner worth. Homosexual affection can be as selfless as heterosexual affection, and therefore we cannot see that it is in some way morally worse.
Homosexual affection may of course be an emotion which some find aesthetically disgusting, but one cannot base Christian morality on a capacity for such disgust. Neither are we happy with the thought that all homosexual behaviour is sinful: motive and circumstances degrade or ennoble any act...
We see no reason why the physical nature of a sexual act should be the criterion by which the question whether or not it is moral should be decided. An act which (for example) expresses true affection between two individuals and gives pleasure to them both, does not seem to us to be sinful by reason alone of the fact that it is homosexual. The same criteria seem to us to apply whether a relationship is heterosexual or homosexual.
Towards a Quaker view of sex, 1963
I stongly believe that one of the strongest processes at work in arguments against homosexuality is the emotion of disgust. And the gut level belief that something that one, one's self, finds disgusting can not be of God.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
In a Purgatory thread just closed,
quote:
Originally posted by centurion:
Would a friendly Exorcism cure a person from being Gay?
This is an empirical question. There is no doubt that the thing has been attempted, whether friendly or not. So, you're asking, does it work?
In the Land of the Free, it is not unheard of for parents to have a "sodomite" child bound, gagged, and spirited away from home in the middle of the night to a holy concentration camp that claims to cure them. If exorcism could accomplish this objective, then I guess such places would know about it. Contrariwise, if the cause of homosexuality is evil spirits, then wouldn't it follow that any "cure" is an exorcism, whatever its practicioner may call it?
What the data thus far suggest, however, is at least that attempted cures based on any and all theories fail much more often than they succeed. Several high-profile claimed cures have proven either temporary or illusory.
Given all the doofuses who manage to talk some hapless member of the opposite sex into marrying them, it doesn't seem to be that much of a trick for anyone who wants to do it, even if just because he's out to "prove" something. As to whether one is gay or straight, it proves nothing.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
And all I can say about exorcisms is that, having seen the results, you end up with someone who can't be heterosexual, and is horribly conflicted about being gay. And is very, very unhappy.
And the lesbian couple I knew who went through this are still together, some 12 years later, having raised the five children of their respective marriages. While one of them has come to terms with the spiritual abuse she received at the hands of the church, the other still believes she is going to hell. Believe it or not, they are still churchgoers, although not in the same church.
I'm sorry, but I can't see exorcism as a good piece of pastoral work.
--------------------
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
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
In the Land of the Free, it is not unheard of for parents to have a "sodomite" child bound, gagged, and spirited away from home in the middle of the night to a holy concentration camp that claims to cure them.
(LQ timidly enters thread he has been consciously avoiding).
For those who are interested, Harper's magazine a little while ago published this, which gave me the shivers. Bach is insufficiently Christian?
(LQ curtsies and exits)
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
One wonders what a composer would have to do to be more Christian than Bach. These people take ignorance to new heights.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Clearly they take seriously the notion that 'Christian' music is synonymous with bad music. I hope they are aware of Karl Barth's dictum that anyone who spoke slightingly of Mozart need not be taken seriously.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
I did a double take at this:
"sideburns must not fall below the top of the ear."
That would look very strange indeed. If it's an accurate quote of a rule that has stood in place over a single cycle of, er, happy campers, obviously no one is paying attention, anyway.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Was that what the film In and Out was based on, do you think? Certainly sounds like it. While I thought the film was cheesy, I will always appreciate the scene where Kevin Kline gives in to disco.
--------------------
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
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by liturgyqueen:
Bach is insufficiently Christian?
Yes, the B Minor Mass is a fine example of secular music.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Presumably they're concerned about the Pears-Britten recording of that well known piece of secular music, St. John's Passion.
--------------------
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
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Perhaps it all smacks too much of Cathlickism. 'Cause as we all know, once you listen to a cantanta or two, it's only a matter of time before you're worshipping Mary, dressing up in frocks and acting like a regular girly-man. Repent, repent, I tell you. Ahem...
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
One wonders what a composer would have to do to be more Christian than Bach. These people take ignorance to new heights.
Actually, it make perfect sense to me to exclude Bach. The point seems to be that the only cultural activities permitted to the inmates are those with a clear and unavoidable Christian content.
Since it is quite possible, and is probably quite usual, to attend to Bach purely as music without any particular devotional focus, his work is simply not suited to the indoctrinational purpose that the rules require. However Christian he may have been in his life and intent, his music cannot be seen as having only a Christian interest. It's too good for that.
The rest of the institution's set up is, of course, both deranged and immoral, but that particular bit made sense.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
It is entirely possible to sing choruses because they are modern and 'down with the kids', with no real devotional intent. This, to my mind, is a sign of philistinism of the worst order, but it does happen. It is likewise possible to attend smiley-happy megachurches out of a desire to belong rather than out of a desire to be converted to the Lord. Most peoples' motives are mixed most of the time. The Lord knows the secrets of our hearts. And if they're going to allow Hillsongs in the Christian Colditz they should allow Haydn as well.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Perhaps it all smacks too much of Cathlickism. 'Cause as we all know, once you listen to a cantanta or two, it's only a matter of time before you're worshipping Mary, dressing up in frocks and acting like a regular girly-man. Repent, repent, I tell you. Ahem...
Or, perhaps, ahem, Lutheranism?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by liturgyqueen:
For those who are interested, Harper's magazine a little while ago published this, which gave me the shivers. Bach is insufficiently Christian?
This person actually was in one of those and talks about his experiences in a kind of thought-provoking comedy routine. (Which I've seen and it's fantastic.) He's a Quaker now and very happy to be gay...
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Auntie Doris
Screen Goddess
# 9433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by da_musicman:
Wasn't he at greenbelt this year?
Yeah he was.
Auntie Doris x
--------------------
"And you don't get to pronounce that I am not a Christian. Nope. Not in your remit nor power." - iGeek in response to a gay-hater :)
The life and times of a Guernsey cow
Posts: 6019 | From: The Rock at the Centre of the Universe | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
whitebait
Shipmate
# 7740
|
Posted
Yes indeed.
--------------------
small fry on a journey
Posts: 151 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
It is entirely possible to sing choruses because they are modern and 'down with the kids', with no real devotional intent. [...] if they're going to allow Hillsongs in the Christian Colditz they should allow Haydn as well.
Sure. And it is equally possible to listen to secular music and glorify God. The advantage of explicitly Christian music, if it is the only allowable cultural activity of that type, would be to reinforce the approved form of Christianity on an emotional level.
What happens on the spiritual level can't, fortunately, be as easily controlled. I don't think that the point isn't what can and can't be used in praise, it is to restrict emotional expression and individuality as an aid to indoctrination. If I was trying to do that, Bach, Beethoven, Haydn and Mozart would all be on my shit list, too. It would be a very long list.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
My last (my dad's current) RC pastor was assigned to our quiet residential-area parish on the eve of JP2's arrival in Toronto for Youth Day. He had been Rector of the archdiocesan major seminary before this and according to the grapevine, he had received the boot for being seen as an inadequate disciplinarian toward seminarians who slept together. This is mentioned here.
When I mentioned to my Confirmation sponsor (now an Independent Catholic bishop with a special ministry to gay and lesbian Catholics) who my parish priest was (at the time), he broke his normally demure, French-Canadian shell and exclaimed rather camply "Oh, I know Brian!...by reputation."
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
In a Purgatory thread just closed,
quote:
Originally posted by centurion:
Would a friendly Exorcism cure a person from being Gay?
This is an empirical question. There is no doubt that the thing has been attempted, whether friendly or not. So, you're asking, does it work?
From personal experience, no. Peterson Toscano, referenced a bit further on down the thread, went through 3 of 'em, one of them in Dudley. It goes over the head of his American audiences, no doubt, but when Peterson dramatises that particular excorcism and ends up with a "Poof!", I find it highly amusing and true-to-general-experience.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Arabella is right.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calindreams
Shipmate
# 9147
|
Posted
I watched a program where this guy puts himself up for aversion therapy to see if he can cure himself of his homosexuality, so he could sleep with anyone he wanted to, not just men. He did have his tongue firmly placed in his cheek however.
When he was subjected to electric shocks while watching porn, afterwards he said something like "I don't think it's stopped me being gay, but I think I've been put off porn forever."
--------------------
Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore
Posts: 665 | From: Birmingham, England | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Shades of Clockwork Orange....
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calindreams
Shipmate
# 9147
|
Posted
...or Clockwork Orange as a shade of reality.
--------------------
Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore
Posts: 665 | From: Birmingham, England | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
How a strange forfeit became a most unexpected privilege.
Having just read all the way through this thread, here is a short summary. It is a multi-voiced debate on a difficult issue, containing vulnerable personal testimony, dogmatic assertion, cries of pain and anger, honest and partially successful attempts at engagement, warmth, humour, intransigence, remarkable wisdom and some signs of movement.
Taken all together, the thread certainly illustrates the Ship’s capacity for dissent. But, like "Fields of Gold", it contains memorable illustrations of the communal capacity for compassion and understanding. I found the review to be an eye- and heart-opening experience.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I hope they are aware of Karl Barth's dictum that anyone who spoke slightingly of Mozart need not be taken seriously.
I don't take Barth terribly seriously. His arguments are too fideistic for words. I don't esp enjoy Mozart's music either.
[ 04. November 2006, 07:28: Message edited by: Papio ]
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
I do actually have a question that is vaguely related to the topic, though.
As a young, liberal bloke who is not a commited Christian, I simply see homosexuality as a non-issue. I have gay friends, lesbian friends, bisexual friends, straight friends. It is simply a non-issue. I see no moral difference whatsoever between those sexualities. Absolutely none at all.
Not that I want to be rude, but I don't actually care what some conservative Christians think about gays and lesbians and bisexuals. I just.....don't care. I think they are wrong, and even if they are right....*shrugs*, no-one is perfect, are they? Are they leading totally sinless lives? Nope. They are not.
I'm not sure why Christians who believe, as I do, that sexuality is something that you just have, and in terms of who you are attracted to, is not a choice or a lifestyle. I mean, some people like their own sex, some like the other sex, some like both. Some straight men like blondes, some like brunettes, some like both. So what?
Why do Christians who essentially echo my "so what?" feel the need to justify themselves to some conservative Christians? I don't understand it, personally.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Because we accept that we all are Christians, and those of us who take your position (like me) know that we are changing an understanding that has been part of Christianity from the start. We're the ones rocking the boat, and in fairness to others in the boat, we need to care about them. It's part of being a community. And of course it doesn't always happen and it's never been perfect but I, at least, keep trying. The alternative is to take a kind of "I'm all right Jack" position. And that's not authentically Christian.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tractor Girl
Shipmate
# 8863
|
Posted
I agree with what John is saying.
Papio, I can understand where you are coming from but you have to understand that for those of us in reasonably evangelical churches many of those conservative Christians are actually our friends. What we're doing is not seeking to justify our views (or in some cases our sexualities) rather we're seeking to explain where we are coming from in order that, hopefully, some kind of normalisation can occur & so, as in your world, it can become a non-issue.
Also you have to bear in mind that some conservative Christians view the whole debate around sexuality as a debate around the authority and authenticity of scripture, due to the current emphasis some people are putting on about 5 verses. This means for some of those we are seeking to engage with (rather than justify to) it is actually about a whole load more than just who you happen to fancy.
--------------------
Patience, Firmness and Perseverance were my only weapons; and those I resolved to use to the utmost - Anne Bronte
Posts: 1114 | From: The field of life | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
I don't take Barth terribly seriously.
That's a shame. As something of a natural theology fundamentalist, I nonetheless find lots that is wonderful in Barth.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tractor Girl:
Papio, I can understand where you are coming from but you have to understand that for those of us in reasonably evangelical churches many of those conservative Christians are actually our friends.
Or to those of us from reasonably evangelical backgrounds.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
And for some of us there isn't a choice - we're forced into the argument in order to hang on grimly by the tips of our fingers.
Or not, as the case may be. If one is gay, one can either choose to remain hidden, or spend way too much time arguing, even in the most liberal of churches. One can also leave, which this one has, gosh, nearly three years ago now (and I've been contributing to this thread all that time too, bless it).
I would love to have had the option of just saying "so what?" but that's a luxury I've never been granted in a church. Its how I feel, fortunately for me, but a lot of other queer people don't have that level of comfort, and its up to those of us who do to try and normalise it.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Ok, points all taken. Sorry. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Papio, I don't necessarily think an apology is really needed here. Others have spoken wisely about the issue you bring up, but your question was a fair one in this gay Christian's mind. At the same time I very much agree with John Holding and I try to accept where my more conservative and evangelical friends are in their journey towards Christ.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Billdiv
Apprentice
# 12025
|
Posted
Throughout the discussion on this issue (or, for that matter, gay marriage), there has been one startling problem. It is--out of context and irrelevant Biblical passages notwithstanding--essentially an ethical debate. Anyone versed in ethics knows that one thing is essential in an ethical debate: the points of view of all parties. What is striking in this debate is that the input of actual LGBT persons have largely been ignored or dis-included. Looking over the list, I noticed one which was correctly identified as "I have never actually met a Gay person," or something to that effect. I would propose that, before any future discussion on the matter be held, that actual LGBT persons be brought to the table. What a concept!
Posts: 1 | From: Toronto, ON | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Why do you assume none of the contributors to this thread are gay?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Billdiv:
Anyone versed in ethics knows that one thing is essential in an ethical debate: the points of view of all parties.
Actually, quite a few people versed in ethics would disagree profoundly if your position is 'the points of view of all parties have the bearing on the truth ,or otherwise, of an ethical statement.'
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Billdiv:
I would propose that, before any future discussion on the matter be held, that actual LGBT persons be brought to the table. What a concept!
As RuthW has already implied, there are gay, lesbian and bisexual people on this website. Some of them have indeed posted to this thread.
The opinions offered by them do not seem to massively differ from the opinions of straight people here. Some do not view same-sex attraction as wrong, or as a sin, whilst others do and still others may not be sure. I expect some have always just been attracted to their own sex, some have always just been attracted to the other sex, some have always known they liked both. I expect that there are people who once viewed themselves as straight or gay, who now view themselves as bi. I expect there are some who once viewed themselves as bi who now view themselves as either straight or as gay.
Human sexuality is a complex beast, I think. It's just that I, personally, do not want to apply ethical standards or take a moral stand as long as all parties are consenting, all are adults and none are betraying their partners.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
