homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Homosexuality and Christianity (Page 69)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  ...  92  93  94 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
As it is, I apologize - I spent a considerable time writing that post, and stupidly didn't check for updates. I am sorry.

Apology accepted.

I was meant to be taking a break from the boards but thought i was ready to come back. Obviously not. I shouldn't have called you stupid and I apologise for doing so.

This is NOT aimed at you specifically, but I just don't like conservatives (note the small c) using religion to try and push GLBT people around. You may say it works the other way 'round too. maybe it does. I don't know. I haven't seen that side of things so much, personally speaking. I just know how a number of gay and lesbian people I care about have been treated by the church and, sorry, but it makes me very angry.

--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Take the personal attacks to hell.

Are you a host here then?

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

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

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
...I apologise for doing so.
...

Thank you.

--------------------
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
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks for apologising - personal arguments belong in hell. Can we draw a line under this?

Louise

Dead Horses Host.

[ 23. November 2006, 18:27: Message edited by: Louise ]

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Quilisma
Shipmate
# 10936

 - Posted      Profile for Quilisma   Email Quilisma   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by grushi:
Forgot to add: same sex marriage is legal in NZ now? Good for you lot! I've been away from Australia for a couple of years, but can I assume the same isn't yet true across the Tasman?

I understand there's some type of civil registration in Tasmania, but in none of the other states or territories. The ACT Government passed (widely supported) legislation allowing same sex civil unions but it was disallowed by the Federal Government.
Posts: 117 | From: Melbourne | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034

 - Posted      Profile for nurks   Email nurks   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I try to reduce things to the simplest form to find clarity.

1) I don't know if these's a God.

2) If there's no God or a bad God, we're stuffed.

3) I hope in a good God since I've nothing to lose, but everything to gain.

4) Looking around, Jesus is the best God in the derby, preferring to die than see his enemies destroyed. So I put my money on him.

5) Jesus said one man/one woman/one flesh, no divorce, no lusting after alternatives. Myself, I really wouldn't have a clue. How could I? Again, I put my money on Jesus.

6) He said "I don't condemn you. Now go and sin no more." Unconditional love isn't license. Love brings an obligation to change. Very few, myself as much as anyone, want to hear this.

7) He said "Unless you repent, you will perish." Again, I haven't a clue, but this is where I put my money. Others choose to back a different horse, redefining sin rather than rejecting it. They're allowed to do so, and I'm allowed to oppose them.

8) He said "If they hated me, they'll hate you." Yes. That's true.

Anyway folks, this will be my last post for a while.

--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."

Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
Anyway folks, this will be my last post for a while.

Teaser.

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

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

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
5) Jesus said one man/one woman/one flesh,

He did? <whacks Bible and looks again> Hmmm.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
Anyway folks, this will be my last post for a while.

Teaser.
Hosting

Mousethief,

Name calling is a commandment 3 violation. Only a few posts ago, I gave an informal warning to people to stop hellish behaviour on this thread. This is a formal warning - no more name calling on this thread.

Louise

Dead horses Host


Hosting off

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes ma'am. [Hot and Hormonal]

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938

 - Posted      Profile for koshatnik   Email koshatnik   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nurks, firstly, thanks for the straightforward post.

quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
I don't know if these's a God.

I'm surprised by this to be honest, because it seems inconsistent with the style in which you've often posted. If you have this fundamental doubt, why argue as though only you have the truth?

quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
3) I hope in a good God since I've nothing to lose, but everything to gain.

I believe in that good God (which is not meant to imply you don't). So tell me, given your first statement and this one - why couldn't the good God you hope for and I believe in accept a loving, faithful homosexual relationship?

quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
Jesus is the best God in the derby, preferring to die than see his enemies destroyed.

It's a small point but - which enemies?

quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
5) Jesus said one man/one woman/one flesh, no divorce, no lusting after alternatives.

This is not what Jesus said. It's your interpretation of a number of composite things Jesus said. If you believe this is what Jesus meant, you're going to have to argue it.

I was going to extend the benefit of the doubt here and deal with the rest of your points. But I've just reread them and, strung together as they are, I'm unsure that's possible. I read what you're saying like this:

Points 1-3: I don't know for sure, but I hope for a good God and Jesus is the best of the bunch
5-7: Unrepentant homosexuals are going to hell in a handbasket
8: Anyone who disagrees does so because they hate me[/b]

Now, I hope I'm missing something, or perhaps misinterpreting. I'd love for you to tell me that I am. But it worries me that I'm not.

Regardless of what you have to say, I think the way you're saying it here has major problems.

I've been reading through from the beginning of this thread, and it has been running for years. Hundreds of people have contributed their views. They are informed, conflicting, overlapping, reactive, wise, heated, impassionate. This is not a place where you can preach your views. You need to argue them. This requires accepting (or at least arguing as if) your starting position might be wrong.

As has already been demonstrated on the previous page, and is evident much further back in the thread, this is an issue that causes real people real pain. To toss off a statement like "Love brings an obligation to change. Very few, myself as much as anyone, want to hear this" is simplistic, and an insult. This is obviously not an abstract theological issue for everyone. For many it is a life-long struggle. Failing to acknowledge this is at worst obnoxious and at best shows a lack of empathy.

When I read your arguments, I'm often struck most by what you leave out. Here's an example:

God's love for us has nothing to do with our desire or ability to change. It is unconditional. It will always be there. We can choose to accept or reject it, but we don't have to earn it. Nothing we can do can make it go away.

Even if you're going to carry on with the rest of what you say, why isn't this point 5 in your argument?

Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938

 - Posted      Profile for koshatnik   Email koshatnik   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Quilisma:
I understand there's some type of civil registration in Tasmania, but in none of the other states or territories. The ACT Government passed (widely supported) legislation allowing same sex civil unions but it was disallowed by the Federal Government.

Cheers. Could be quite a long wait in Australia by the sounds of it.
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Can any expert in natural law explain to me why, if homosexuality is wrong because sex is ordered towards procreation, chewing gum is not sinful even though the mouth is ordered towards eating?

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

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Can any expert in natural law explain to me why, if homosexuality is wrong because sex is ordered towards procreation, chewing gum is not sinful even though the mouth is ordered towards eating?

It ought to be - disgusting practice that it is.

That aside, energy is still received through chewing gum. I suppose it's much like chewing sugar cane: you chew and then spit it out after a while, but in the process, you're receiving vitamins and sugars from it and so it is still geared towards nutrition of the body.

(As for the question of how nutritious gum is, well...)

--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis

Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not sugar-free gum. [Biased]

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Re: natural law. I realise that a lot of the arguments against homosexuality (esp. male) are centred around rectal intercourse. Although I'm no great promoter of the Greek way, I've come to the conclusion that it is akin to self-intinction: neither morally problematic nor ideally hygienic.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Not sugar-free gum. [Biased]

Perhaps the law of unexpected consequences comes into play? Some sugar-free gum (sweetened with xylitol) actually helps prevent cavities.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034

 - Posted      Profile for nurks   Email nurks   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by grushi:
I'm surprised by this to be honest, because it seems inconsistent with the style in which you've often posted. If you have this fundamental doubt, why argue as though only you have the truth?

Good question. First, this medium is dodgy-as and only social misfits post here. Second, I'm tenacious, aggressive, contrarian, prone to over-reaction and not afraid to say what I reckon even if it annoys people. Third, fundamental doubts don't mean lack of commitment. I've chosen my side. I hope Jesus is the image of the unperceiveable God. Tho I'm a million miles from where I ought to be, I try to take what he says seriously.

quote:

I believe in that good God (which is not meant to imply you don't). So tell me, given your first statement and this one - why couldn't the good God you hope for and I believe in accept a loving, faithful homosexual relationship?

I've no idea why God made female Eve for male Adam, but this is the order in creation that Jesus affirmed, and so I take it on faith.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
Jesus is the best God in the derby, preferring to die than see his enemies destroyed.

It's a small point but - which enemies?
Jesus said "Father forgive them", as they nailed him down. Paul said: "While we were yet enemies, Christ died for us."

quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
This is not what Jesus said. It's your interpretation of a number of composite things Jesus said. If you believe this is what Jesus meant, you're going to have to argue it.

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

I think those who want to introduce their novel sexual unions need to do the justification.

quote:

I was going to extend the benefit of the doubt here and deal with the rest of your points. But I've just reread them and, strung together as they are, I'm unsure that's possible. I read what you're saying like this:

Points 1-3: I don't know for sure, but I hope for a good God and Jesus is the best of the bunch
5-7: Unrepentant homosexuals are going to hell in a handbasket
8: Anyone who disagrees does so because they hate me[/b]

Now, I hope I'm missing something, or perhaps misinterpreting. I'd love for you to tell me that I am. But it worries me that I'm not.

I don't know that Jesus is God but I take that punt. This Jesus tells me that God loves us enough to die for us, that sin is serious, and that we need to die to it. I believe most of us will end in hell, and that hell is the refining fire of God. In hell, we'll learn to die to sin.

quote:
I've been reading through from the beginning of this thread, and it has been running for years. Hundreds of people have contributed their views. They are informed, conflicting, overlapping, reactive, wise, heated, impassionate. This is not a place where you can preach your views. You need to argue them. This requires accepting (or at least arguing as if) your starting position might be wrong.

Which starting position? I know full-well I might be wrong. This doesn't mean I spend my life vacillating.

quote:
As has already been demonstrated on the previous page, and is evident much further back in the thread, this is an issue that causes real people real pain. To toss off a statement like "Love brings an obligation to change. Very few, myself as much as anyone, want to hear this" is simplistic, and an insult. This is obviously not an abstract theological issue for everyone. For many it is a life-long struggle. Failing to acknowledge this is at worst obnoxious and at best shows a lack of empathy.

Sin is a life-long struggle for all of us. The thing that really gets up my nose is telling one group of sinners to struggle while the rest of us do bugger-all against our own demons. The solution to that is not to give even more license, but to give the complacent a swift kick.

quote:
When I read your arguments, I'm often struck most by what you leave out. Here's an example:

God's love for us has nothing to do with our desire or ability to change. It is unconditional. It will always be there. We can choose to accept or reject it, but we don't have to earn it. Nothing we can do can make it go away.

Even if you're going to carry on with the rest of what you say, why isn't this point 5 in your argument?

I'll go further. The good God I hope in not only loves you unconditionally, but he will not stop until you have been perfected in glory. Whatever it takes, however much it hurts God, however much it hurts you, God will not stop. His love is ferocious, jealous, terrible, relentless, patient, wise, tender (tho we may well think otherwise). My God is a refining FIRE.

[ 26. November 2006, 03:19: Message edited by: nurks ]

--------------------
"And does that surprise you?" asked Owleye. "Can a rock understand rocks, or a tree, trees? Only the great can understand the small, and only the greatest can understand all."

Posts: 361 | From: Too far from my shed | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dennis the Menace
Shipmate
# 11833

 - Posted      Profile for Dennis the Menace   Email Dennis the Menace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am not sure that this post belongs here. Today at church we had the Nation Church Life Survey, carried out in all churches in Australia this month. One of the questions related to 'marital status' to which none of the seven answers that one was supposed to tick were applicable to a gay relationship. I said a fairly loud voice to those seated around my partner and myself "I'm having trouble with my marital status". That raised a snigger or two from but did'nt provide any clues as to how to answer the question. Does 'de facto' cover it?? Or do we lie and say 'never married'??? In the end we ticked both!!

--------------------
"Till we cast our crowns before Him; Lost in wonder, love, and praise."

Posts: 853 | From: Newcastle NSW Australia | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Christopher Wren
Apprentice
# 12084

 - Posted      Profile for Christopher Wren   Email Christopher Wren   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi guys, I'm new around here any tips? [Smile]
Posts: 7 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961

 - Posted      Profile for Mr Clingford   Email Mr Clingford   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher Wren:
Hi guys, I'm new around here any tips? [Smile]

Pray, join in fellowship with others and have a nice smile and good hygiene habits?

Welcome!

--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.

If only.

Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
TonyK

Host Emeritus
# 35

 - Posted      Profile for TonyK   Email TonyK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher Wren:
Hi guys, I'm new around here any tips? [Smile]

Hello, Christopher Wren, and welcome to the ship.

There is a thread in All Saints here for newbies - I've pointed you to the current page, but some of the earlier ones may be of interest, with various hints and tips.

Other than that, visit the other Boards (link at bottom right on the screen as Go To: ); read the Guidelines for each Board and feel your way around the Ship.

Oh, and have fun!

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses

Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Christopher Wren
Apprentice
# 12084

 - Posted      Profile for Christopher Wren   Email Christopher Wren   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
many thanks Tonyk, presumably there is an on going dialogue in here re gay sexuality and the church?
Posts: 7 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Christopher Wren
Apprentice
# 12084

 - Posted      Profile for Christopher Wren   Email Christopher Wren   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
GHi all am a new sailor so be gentle, how's all?
Posts: 7 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
TonyK

Host Emeritus
# 35

 - Posted      Profile for TonyK   Email TonyK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher Wren:
many thanks Tonyk, presumably there is an on going dialogue in here re gay sexuality and the church?

Yes indeedy, Christopher Wren, all 69 pages (and counting) of it.

Feel free to join in, but I'd suggest reading at least the most recent 5 to 10 pages to see what has been covered recently.

The purpose of the threads in the Dead Horses Board is to keep those topics that aren't going to be resolved this side of our Lord's Second Coming away from the main Boards. You'll find more active (and perhaps more interesting) discussions on the other Boards.

But if you think you have something useful to contribute here then go ahead!

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses

Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Can any expert in natural law explain to me why, if homosexuality is wrong because sex is ordered towards procreation, chewing gum is not sinful even though the mouth is ordered towards eating?

I think if Paul had addressed it, it'd be more of an issue.

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ok. I understand that, in Genesis, God created Adam and Eve and that in responding to a question on (heterosexual) divorce, asked by the Pharisees, Jesus referred to Adam and Eve and affirmed the permanence of these relationships, where I get lost is why this leads one to believe either of these statements is a commentary on sexuality or that this means that EVERY individual has to be in a heterosexual relationship.

I am lost when it comes to this leap in logic.

Does the fact that one sort of relationship is blessed, mean that all others are automatically cursed?

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
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.

This is a brilliant post. The constant arguing has driven many gay friends I know out of the church.

Unless you attend a "gay church" you are always on the defensive, and after a while, it grinds you down so that you get to the point where you'd rather just spend Sunday morning in bed and seek spiritual development elsewhere, than venture out in the cold and spend the morning walking through an emotional minefield.

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
...why ...this means that EVERY individual has to be in a heterosexual relationship.
...

it doesn't. Some individuals can remain celibate.

--------------------
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
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938

 - Posted      Profile for koshatnik   Email koshatnik   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nurks, before I get stuck into your last long post, can I ask a short question, no hidden agenda?

Why are you here, on this thread?

Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Some individuals can remain celibate.

Whose decision is that?

--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
...why ...this means that EVERY individual has to be in a heterosexual relationship.
...

it doesn't. Some individuals can remain celibate.
That doesn't really help me. What about people who are constitutionally homosexual and can't remain celibate?

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
... What about people who are constitutionally homosexual and can't remain celibate?

I don't for a minute buy the "can't remain celibate" part.

--------------------
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
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
... What about people who are constitutionally homosexual and can't remain celibate?

I don't for a minute buy the "can't remain celibate" part.
LOL. It doesn't matter whether YOU buy it or not. It exists. Not everyone is called to celibacy and this includes gay people as well as straight.

What about them?

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
...What about them?

There exist, in my mind, two choices:

1. Do as you will.

2. Do what is right.

The question, which is undecided* in 69 pages so far, is, "What is right?"

* as in, I don't think anyone has changed their mind.

--------------------
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
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
... What about people who are constitutionally homosexual and can't remain celibate?

I don't for a minute buy the "can't remain celibate" part.
LOL. It doesn't matter whether YOU buy it or not. It exists. Not everyone is called to celibacy and this includes gay people as well as straight.

What about them?

Well, that makes them unrepentant sinners that good Christians need to bash for the good of their souls. (said sarcastically) We'll just forget that relationship with God is what "saves" us, and that continually throwing their sexuality back in their faces actually pushes gay people away from God. And we'll forget we all have logs in our eyes as far as our own states of moral health, and that if people in churches threw our perceived sins in our faces continually, we'd likely get out of Dodge, too, or surrender into quivering puddles of guilt.

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So, stop throwing it out there, if you don't want it thrown back in your face.

--------------------
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
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
...What about them?

There exist, in my mind, two choices:

1. Do as you will.

2. Do what is right.

The question, which is undecided* in 69 pages so far, is, "What is right?"

* as in, I don't think anyone has changed their mind.

Even Paul recognized that not everyone could live a celibate life and said that it was better to marry than burn.

For those of us who can't marry heterosexually, are you saying that it is better to burn, fall off the wagon again and again than being in a marital relationship?

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Christopher Wren
Apprentice
# 12084

 - Posted      Profile for Christopher Wren   Email Christopher Wren   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi all, just had a letter printed in CEN, page 25 heading 'Lemmings'.
Just thought I'd let anyone interested know it's on our fave subject.

Posts: 7 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
So, stop throwing it out there, if you don't want it thrown back in your face.

So, let's summarize shall we?

1) Whether or not any gay or lesbian has sex that is meaningful to them or has a sexual relationship that is meaningful to them, is up to sharkshooter. If sharkshooter says it is wrong, then it must be, and that should be good enough for them.

2) If gays and lesbians don't want people like sharkshooter to tell them waht to do, they should stop "flauting" their sexuailty. I.E pretend to be straight, and never mind that the fact that straight people often display their sexuality publically.

3) Every single homosexual can remain celeibate, because sharkshooter tells them to, regardless of the what heterosexuals can do. It is not important that one is for life and the other may just be temporary,

Yeah, right.

Whatever. [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
So, let's summarize shall we?

You summarized what you would like me to have said.

If that makes you happy, then so be it. [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
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
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am afraid that "homosexuality is not a moral issue" is one of the things that I am resolutely immobile on. There is nothing whatsoever that you or anyone else could ever say that would convince me otherwise.

--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
So, stop throwing it out there, if you don't want it thrown back in your face.

Okay, then what do you mean? Who's throwing what where and getting it thrown back? I was speaking of gay people being stigmatized in churches for being gay, and considered more clearly unrepentant sinners than those at church who have less open "sins" such as greed, maliciousness, hard-heartedness, and coveting, to name a few. If a pastor preaches a sermon on any of these "sins", is it likely that the congo will turn and look pointedly at alleged perpetrators in the pews and bar them from participating in church life until they have mended their ways to the church's satisfaction? It might happen sometimes in some places, but from what I've seen, people who are good at malice and hard-heartedness are often the ones running the church either from the pulpit or as the lay governors. They can bully until they get their ways. In Christian love, of course.

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Arabella Purity Winterbottom

Trumpeting hope
# 3434

 - Posted      Profile for Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Email Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And as for "throwing it out there" it is my painful experience that it wasn't me that threw it. I honestly answered one question on a form, Name of Spouse, and the church was the one doing the throwing. Up until that point I'd just been trundling along being a good church member, who hoped that years of service and faithfulness would be what mattered in an application. But no.

Who put out press releases? Not me.
Who refused to acknowledge church processes? Not me.
Who went to the media and argued with a properly made church court decision? Not me.
Who spent hours in Assembly debating this? Not me.
Who was completely unable to muster even common politeness? Not me.

The answer to all of these is "The Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand".

It is very easy to blame us queers for making the fuss, but in my case, it was the church doing it all the way. They even started tracking me on the internet, which is why even now, I'm pretty reluctant to use my real name on an internet forum.

To be fair, I knew that answering honestly would cause problems, but I had no idea that one single aspect of my life would become more important than any other. Maybe I was a bit naive, but I really did think that the work I had done and the experience I brought would not simply be ignored.

--------------------
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
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
... What about people who are constitutionally homosexual and can't remain celibate?

I don't for a minute buy the "can't remain celibate" part.
LOL. It doesn't matter whether YOU buy it or not. It exists. Not everyone is called to celibacy and this includes gay people as well as straight.

What about them?

Hold on a moment. I know I'm intervening after a number of further posts, but still...

the two of you (ToujoursDan and SS) are using one word to describe two different concepts.

I think TD is talking about people being "called" to celibacy -- of whom, whether gay or straight, there are very few. Unless you count being gay as an automatic "call", which I for one certainly don't.

SS, I believe, is using celibate as a euphemism for "not having sex" -- as a single straight man not yet married but ready, able and willing, might be.

SS is perfectly right, in one sense -- no-one has to have sex with another person. But that may simply reflect lack of opportunity (or ability, or interest). It stretches the meaning of celibacy to the point of meaninglessness to use it this way.

TD, for my money, is using it more appropriately -- very few people are called by God to celibacy -- and many of those who are, probably have lots of opportunity as well as ability and interest in having sex, but (if obedient to the call) forgo it.

What TD has implictly raised is the case of those, gay and straight, who are not called to celibacy but who are not married (and as we're all three Canadians, that could be a hetero or a single sex marriage).

I'd agree with what I think SS would say -- that these people ought not to be having sex with other people. But I happen to believe that gay people do properly have the right to get married, and therefore to have sex inside marriage.

The trouble for gay men (at least) is that because marriage has not been available until recently, their default behaviour has been that of unmarried straight men, who typically sleep around wherever and whenever they want (not all of them, of course, but as a standard of behaviour in the real world).

For me, as a Christian (and straight), the problem is two-fold: to convince the majority of straight men that they shouldn't have sex outside marriage and then (because it's actually a smaller problem, there being far fewer gay men to start with) convincing gay men they ought to do the same.

And BTW, TD, you don't always have to go to a "gay" church to escape the pressure -- there are at least a couple of other parishes in our mutual anglican diocese that aren't "gay" the way yours is, but where a gay man, in or out of a single-sex marriage, won't be pressured the way you mean.

John

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

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
I am afraid that "homosexuality is not a moral issue" is one of the things that I am resolutely immobile on. There is nothing whatsoever that you or anyone else could ever say that would convince me otherwise.

No kidding. That is why I'm not wasting much effort trying to discuss rationally with you.

--------------------
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      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
... I honestly answered one question on a form, Name of Spouse, and the church was the one doing the throwing. ...

You could have left it blank. Perhaps your church doesn't recognize a homosexual partner as a spouse, anyway.

It seems to me that when the church has to respond to a statement, that should not be seen as throwing it back in your face, as Lyda*Rose so eloquently phrased it. A statement such as "I have a homosexual relationship with xxx" must be responded to by any church that considers it a sin. To expect them to do otherwise is irrational.

--------------------
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
Arabella Purity Winterbottom

Trumpeting hope
# 3434

 - Posted      Profile for Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Email Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So the media releases, etc., were not excessive then? That's all part of dealing with sin? The story went to the media only because the church took it there.

Personally, I prefer honesty, which is why I filled in my spouse's name. A church which prefers secrets and lies is not a church for me. And it isn't as though I could hide her, is it, being as we had been together ten years by then. It also makes her into a thing, rather than a person who is dearer to me than any other. She, like me, is a deeply committed Christian and supported me throughout.

But you see, Sharkshooter, nurks, and your ilk, you only see one thing about me too, which I find really sad. Like the church, you can't see that someone is more than who they have sex with (I'm not going to use the word "love" since you don't think it applies). I see no recognition of that from you. You go straight to the "sin" rather than seeing all the blessings.

It has taken me a good three years to be healed of the crap the church "threw". I realised as I was doing a three month social work placement this year that actually I was good at the kind of work I had been doing in the church. Under any normal standard of assessment, I would have flown through as I did this year. I had lost any sense of that until I tested it, working with mentally ill kids.

I was somewhat ironically amused by an argument in an Assembly when someone said that they thought they didn't mind if queers did community work, just that they shouldn't do it in the church. There was general agreement with this statement, possibly meant as a pastoral way forward.

And I was sad, because of what it what it said about the church's commitment to the community. Get rid of your sinners out of the churches to minister in the community, because they're not good enough for the church.

--------------------
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
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting

Papio and Sharkshooter,
No more personal arguments on this thread

quote:
Commandment 4. If you must get personal, take it to Hell. If you get into a personality conflict with other shipmates, you have two simple choices: end the argument or take it to Hell.
Bear in mind that you've both had an informal warning for this already.

Louise

hosting off

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And BTW, TD, you don't always have to go to a "gay" church to escape the pressure -- there are at least a couple of other parishes in our mutual anglican diocese that aren't "gay" the way yours is, but where a gay man, in or out of a single-sex marriage, won't be pressured the way you mean.

I sincerely appreciate your post and what you are saying here. [Smile]

The difficulty in mainline denominations like the Anglican Church, is that while I may not personally be involved in the bickering or feel the pressure to defend myself in an interpersonal way, I feel like there is an huge emotional stake in the bickering that is going on. People like me are being blamed for the destruction of the Anglican Communion.

While today, my s.o. and I may be welcome (to varying degrees) in church, there is that thought in the back of our minds that the door can slam at any moment. That because of a decision the Bishop or the Synod makes, our status within the church can instantly change or we can be locked out altogether. The General Conventions of the ECUSA and Synods at the ACC are nail-biters for many gay people because of this.

So we go to different churches but have never felt like we can unpack our suitcase and make ourselves at home.

ITOH, I find the "gay churches" I have attended hard to take because of the one-dimensional theology. They seem mostly geared at healing refugees from fundamentalist Protestantism and Catholicism and never seem to progress beyond "It's okay to be gay and Christian" to what's next. But I appreciate the work that are doing and they seem to be the best of a bad situation at the moment.

I would love to be a member of a church with a rich denominational and liturgical tradition that is made up of all sorts of people: gay, straight, rich, poor, English, French, allophone, all races, old, young, amazing youth ministry and outreach: one that reflects the rainbow of humanity.

But deepest down, I would really like to be a normal guy at an average church. And I would like, more than anything, to be looked at as a person rather than a thorny issue.

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  ...  92  93  94 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools