|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Personally, I prefer honesty, which is why I filled in my spouse's name.
Your friend is your friend. Your husband is your spouse. This is honesty and plain language. To insist otherwise is provocative. To expect the Presbyterian Church of NZ to affirm your novel use of words is either naive or dissembling.
In the same way, if I call my wife Princess of Wales, should I be dismayed when people challenge me? No matter how much I love her, my wife is who and what she is, not who and what I imagine her to be.
--------------------
"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
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by grushi:
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?
Good question. Probably for the same reason most people are on this thread. My small weight changes the centre of gravity.
It seems to me that this Ship has pretty much capitulated to a novel and arbitrary morality, an innovation springing from a proud, prosperous and pampered generation. You'd not find a single Saint or great Christian leader from ages past who'd endorse the position that is now seen as de rigeur.
That makes me suspicious.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Mate, I am legally married to my spouse. She isn't just my "friend". Don't be devaluing what you don't understand.
--------------------
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
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Your friend is your friend. Your husband is your spouse. This is honesty and plain language. To insist otherwise is provocative. To expect the Presbyterian Church of NZ to affirm your novel use of words is either naive or dissembling.
No. It is the legally correct term in dozens of jurisdictions actually.
You are a bit naive yourself about this evidently.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
You'd not find a single Saint or great Christian leader from ages past who'd endorse the position that is now seen as de rigeur.
In reading the Desert Fathers (surely you'd count them as saints and great Christian leaders of agest past), I find that they don't much care whether a monk has sex with a woman or with a man. They don't distinguish between fornication committed with someone of the same sex and fornication committed with someone of the opposite sex. It's just not an issue.
Furthermore, while the Desert Fathers believed that sex outside marriage was sinful, they didn't seem to think there was much point in talking about other people's sins. They seemed to think that if you could see your own sins, and repent of your own sins, that was a pretty big deal. Much more important than identifying other people's sins.
In fact, when people went to the Desert Fathers to get them to comment on other people's sins, the Desert Fathers generally refused to do so. That's a pretty common thing to find in their lives and sayings.
I think the Desert Fathers would be mystified by seeing a church where they preached on the evils of homosexuality, with no homosexuals in the congregation. I think they would be mystified by families who embrace a daughter who bore a child out of wedlock, but shunned a daughter who was a lesbian. I think they would be utterly mystified by the huge amount of attention paid to this one sin, and in particular mystified by the attention paid to this sin by people who are not tempted by it.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
It seems to me that this Ship has pretty much capitulated to a novel and arbitrary morality, an innovation springing from a proud, prosperous and pampered generation. You'd not find a single Saint or great Christian leader from ages past who'd endorse the position that is now seen as de rigeur.
Well, not many Christians would endorse stoning queers to death any more either, even if they were really conservative - even Fred Phelps doesn't quite get to actually acting on his words. But that's what's in the bible. So to some extent, unless you actually hold that stoning is right, then you're also adopting a less rigorous stance than the bible calls for. Its one of the things that we realise is wrong these days, I hope.
Otherwise, I will be available for stoning outside the cathedral at 7pm on Sunday night.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Otherwise, I will be available for stoning outside the cathedral at 7pm on Sunday night.
Fabulous! Do you like red wine, or white?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Mate, I am legally married to my spouse. She isn't just my "friend". Don't be devaluing what you don't understand.
Sure. The law's an ass.
Slavery was legal. Child labour was legal. Burning witches was legal. Persecuting Martin Luther King was legal. Lots of absurd things have been deemed legal. Adolf Godwin did everything legally, merely by changing the law. So what?
If God declares the faithful union of a man and a woman to be "marriage", I really don't give a hoot when some Christian gay-rights activist declares the contrary. In the same way, if I'm to love my black brother as myself, I'll say rude things about Christian slavers, Christian racists and Christian Nazis. If the love of money is evil, I'll say rude things about Christian money-lovers.
In precisely the same way, you lot say rude things about the opposition, calling them bigots, homophobes etc. Propaganda words to sway the ignorant.
I've picked my side. You've picked yours. My side is right, however, and you consider that arrogant. (I think it's humility before God's revelation.) You think your side is right, and consider it God's grace. I think it's rebellion and presumption.
Sad, eh, this world where everyone can't be right.
--------------------
"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
Or humble.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I think they would be utterly mystified by the huge amount of attention paid to this one sin, and in particular mystified by the attention paid to this sin by people who are not tempted by it.
There's a misunderstanding here. The few Saints I've read have all been ferocious in denouncing sin. At the same time, they've been tender in their relationships with sinners.
Here's something from the Rule of St.Benedict, as an example:
quote:
The third kind of monks, a detestable kind, are the Sarabaites.
These, not having been tested,
as gold in the furnace (Wis. 3:6),
by any rule or by the lessons of experience,
are as soft as lead.
In their works they still keep faith with the world,
so that their tonsure marks them as liars before God.
They live in twos or threes, or even singly,
without a shepherd,
in their own sheepfolds and not in the Lord's.
Their law is the desire for self-gratification:
whatever enters their mind or appeals to them,
that they call holy;
what they dislike, they regard as unlawful.
St.Fred can preach blistering sermons against drunkedness, but still have great love for drunks. Indeed, how could St.Fred love drunks without condemning drunkedness? On the contrary, to stand up and affirm drunkedness, that would be the act of hatred.
Again, for the preacher to mind his own business is to preach God's word without fear or favour. In the same way, part of my business as a father, teacher, citizen is to discern (as best I can) God's will in the issues of the day and take a stand. To close my eyes and say "It's not my business", that would be the sin.
--------------------
"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
Ah, busybodiness as a Christian virtue. Interesting twist.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dee.
Ship's Theological Acrobat
# 5681
|
Posted
quote:
If God declares the faithful union of a man and a woman to be "marriage", I really don't give a hoot when some Christian gay-rights activist declares the contrary.
Err, well it is not just "some christian gay rights activist" actually the law recognises Arabella's partner as her spouse as well. As I expect does God. Rather like I expect God see's my adopted two younger siblings as my brothers and sisters. There is no explicit biblical precident for it that I can think of. They are not genetically related to me in any way but emotionaly spiritually and psychologically they are my siblings all the same. Is it not wonderful the many ways God invents to put the solitary in families?
--------------------
Jesus - nice bloke, bit religious
Posts: 2679 | From: Under Downunder | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ginga
Ship's lurker
# 1899
|
Posted
Nurks,
Putting aside for a moment the question of whether people who are legally married are actually spouses in your book, please consider the following:
If someone says that their partner is more than a friend, then to tell them otherwise is not only plain rudeness it's an outright lie. You could, if you were feeling invasive and inappropriate, tell them that to have a relationship of that nature was against God's will, but to flat-out deny its existence is to re-write the truth.
People are not either 'spouse' or 'friend', there are many possibilities in between. Whether or not you approve of all of those possibilities is a thing for discussion, whther or not those possibilities exist is not. You might as well argue that there are no colours in the world, only black and white. It's just not true.
There are plenty of people on the Ship who agree with your theology who are not referred to as bigots or homophobes. That is because they do not attempt to write-off actual, genuine, valuable relationships that mean things to people as simply non-existent. They may not agree about the morality of those relationships but they do at least acknowledge that they are real things.
So please, drop the notion that if someone isn't a spouse in your eyes they must just be a friend. "Your friend is your friend. Your husband is your spouse." is missing the point, and that is why some people think you're rude and arrogant, not your theology.
[Not speaking for APW, but explaining how I read it]
Posts: 1075 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dee.:
Err, well it is not just "some christian gay rights activist" actually the law recognises Arabella's partner as her spouse as well. As I expect does God. Rather like I expect God see's my adopted two younger siblings as my brothers and sisters. There is no explicit biblical precident for it that I can think of. They are not genetically related to me in any way but emotionaly spiritually and psychologically they are my siblings all the same. Is it not wonderful the many ways God invents to put the solitary in families?
The law's an ass.
Your adopted brothers and sisters are precisely that. Adopted. If you wished, you could marry one of them without committing incest. Like it or not, they are not the same as blood brother and sister.
A gay couple can love each other dearly and faithfully. One thing they can't do, like it or not, is sprout wings and fly to the moon. Nor can they marry, whatever some MPs might think.
Truly, it is wonderful, the many ways God brings the solitary into families. It's also wondrous, the many ways we corrupt these families.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Ginga
Ship's lurker
# 1899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
A gay couple can love each other dearly and faithfully.
That's more like it,thank you. Now please make sure that everything else you post keeps sight of that fact and we'll all start getting along much better.
PS: I live next door to New Zealand. If the law's an ass, then I'm happy to covet it in this case.
Posts: 1075 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dee.
Ship's Theological Acrobat
# 5681
|
Posted
Errr,
Nooooo, I rather suspect that shagging one of my siblings (ewwwww) would be seen by God as incest as well as by the law.
Any way clearly we are not going to see eye to eye on this one. I have to say that you are completely wrong about my adopted siblings. The are simply no less or more my siblings than the others. I willnot get into that here tho as it will just derail the thread.
I am wondering if you would concider a man and woman married in a civil ceremony in communist China married then. if God is not acknowledged in the ceremony of marriage at all then even if it is sanctioned by the state according to your logic it is invalid.
--------------------
Jesus - nice bloke, bit religious
Posts: 2679 | From: Under Downunder | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
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.
I really do understand. Our (very small) congregation doesn't currently include any openly gay people, but until recently (when they left for other reasons) a married gay couple were heavily involved with us. They had considered the place I believe you attend and rejected it, on the grounds that if they were part of us they were just people named A and B who were married, but there they would have (metaphorically) a large G on their foreheads.
Ran into another friend of mine at synod last month...he and his SO (not yet "married", I think he said, though they've been together for 25 years I'd guess) have always attended separate churches for the same reason as you two -- oddly enough, he's a Synod delegate from a church that I'd not choose, but where he is known to be gay, but elected to Synod because of who he is. I don't think what happens in our place or this other place will change, despite what a new bishop will say (and I have to say, the chances of our diocesan synod doing something anti-gay are next to nil).
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Estragon:
Nurks,
Putting aside for a moment the question of whether people who are legally married are actually spouses in your book, please consider the following:
If someone says that their partner is more than a friend, then to tell them otherwise is not only plain rudeness it's an outright lie. You could, if you were feeling invasive and inappropriate, tell them that to have a relationship of that nature was against God's will, but to flat-out deny its existence is to re-write the truth.
People are not either 'spouse' or 'friend', there are many possibilities in between. Whether or not you approve of all of those possibilities is a thing for discussion, whther or not those possibilities exist is not. You might as well argue that there are no colours in the world, only black and white. It's just not true.
There are plenty of people on the Ship who agree with your theology who are not referred to as bigots or homophobes. That is because they do not attempt to write-off actual, genuine, valuable relationships that mean things to people as simply non-existent. They may not agree about the morality of those relationships but they do at least acknowledge that they are real things.
So please, drop the notion that if someone isn't a spouse in your eyes they must just be a friend. "Your friend is your friend. Your husband is your spouse." is missing the point, and that is why some people think you're rude and arrogant, not your theology.
A spouse is a marriage partner. Marriage is the union of a man and woman. Therefore, a gay couple are not spoused, whatever they or the law may declare.
Those concerned may say they are indeed spouses. I can dispute that claim.
I may say I'm Abraham Lincoln. You can dispute that claim.
No doubt it offends people, to have their most cherished delusions challenged. It's unfortunate. It's the way things are. Ego, habit, inertia. Of course, you people are also trying to challenge my cherished delusions, and do so with narry a twinge of guilt. Nor do you see the irony.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Ginga
Ship's lurker
# 1899
|
Posted
Exactly all of that post misses my point.
I'm discussing the other bit, the bit that takes up a large proportion of what I originally wrote. The bit where in trying to deny the morality of certain relationships, you're deny the actual existence of those relationships.
[Edited to clarify for definite: I understand your stance on gay marriage and I understand your reasons for thinking as you do. I even understand why you think the law is wrong, though I don't understand your refusal to comply with it. Both of these things are beside the point of my post.]
[ 28. November 2006, 04:30: Message edited by: Estragon ]
Posts: 1075 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Estragon:
Exactly all of that post misses my point.
I'm discussing the other bit, the bit that takes up a large proportion of what I originally wrote. The bit where in trying to deny the morality of certain relationships, you're deny the actual existence of those relationships.
I deny the existence of the relationship. You can't have a square circle. You can't have gay marriage. What you actually have is sexualised friendship, friendship defiled by a disordered desire. A lust of the flesh, if I dare say the words. It's not marriage.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Ginga
Ship's lurker
# 1899
|
Posted
Ok, I see the problem, you're using married in an entirely different way to me and everyone I've ever talked to. If I'm right, in your definition, there is no 'dating', no 'going out together', no 'being in love but unmarried'. Do I have you?
So until the moment the ring goes on the finger, people are friends? And marriage is purely, simply and entirely about sex?
In which case, I'll happily leave you alone to your argument and say nothing else because we're using different languages.
Posts: 1075 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
Your adopted brothers and sisters are precisely that. Adopted. If you wished, you could marry one of them without committing incest. Like it or not, they are not the same as blood brother and sister.
This is off-topic for this thread, so I'm starting another one.
In Hell.
[No, on second thought, I won't be starting a new thread, since nurks already has one going. I'll just be adding some comments there.]
[ 28. November 2006, 05:02: Message edited by: Josephine ]
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
this medium is dodgy-as and only social misfits post here.
Hey! I resent that comment. The internet's perfectly legitimate.
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
I'm tenacious, aggressive, contrarian, prone to over-reaction and not afraid to say what I reckon even if it annoys people.
But GSOH, right? The point I think is that the consequences of debating in this manner is about much more 'annoying' people. It's more serious than that. Your 'spouse' comment above is a good example of what I mean.
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
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.
What you're accepting on faith is that the creation story is the last word on sexuality.
Jesus, as you know, referenced this in a discussion about heterosexual divorce. Believing he implied something about homosexuality is your interpretation. I don't agree that it follows.
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
Which starting position? I know full-well I might be wrong.
I'm taking your numbered post on the previous page as your stance on this issue. If, as you say, you accept that you might be wrong, for the purposes of this debate it's your starting position. If you're not willing to debate as though you might be wrong (which is different from knowing privately that you might be wrong), you're only going to get anywhere with those interested in being preached at.
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
This doesn't mean I spend my life vacillating.
So, we have something in common. I don't spend my life vacillating either. But my relationship with Christ is a work in progress. Except for a few basics, so are many of the things I believe. Over the years I've discovered that some of these beliefs had been unquestioned assumptions. That the earth was created in 6 24-hr days was one. That homosexual marriages are sinful is another. When I choose to examine these beliefs, I take the process seriously, don't expect easy answers and trust God to guide me. You seem to consider this capitulating.
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
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.
This is belittling by comparison. You're equating the experience of a Christian who struggles against what they consider their innate homosexuality, with ordinary everyday struggles against sin. Even if I didn't personally know people who can testify that this is nonsense, I find reading the first 5 or 6 pages of this thread does the trick.
You then couch this as though what actually gets up your nose is people going on about homosexuality, when they should be raging against all kinds of sin. Do you really think this? If so I would expect you to start a few other threads, maybe 'Pride and Christianity' or 'Reviling and Christianity'? Surely the complacent sinners in those categories need a swift kick, too?
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
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.
Can I join? Because that sounds great.
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
My God is a refining FIRE.
This comes from Malachi 3:2, right? "Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner's fire or a launderer's soap."
Why does nobody ever say, "My God is a launderer's SOAP"?
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Estragon:
Ok, I see the problem, you're using married in an entirely different way to me and everyone I've ever talked to. If I'm right, in your definition, there is no 'dating', no 'going out together', no 'being in love but unmarried'. Do I have you?
So until the moment the ring goes on the finger, people are friends? And marriage is purely, simply and entirely about sex?
In which case, I'll happily leave you alone to your argument and say nothing else because we're using different languages.
I think friendship is glorious. I'm all for friends loving each other passionately. (Jesus seemed to think it was better than marriage.)
I also think the marriage bed is holy, and not up for moral grabs.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Ginga
Ship's lurker
# 1899
|
Posted
Marriage is not just about the bed.
If I were to stop having sex with my partner, we would still be something other than friends. Your calling us friends would not change the fact that we would be something other than friends.
Friendship can be deep and loving and wonderful yes, but there are still other things that are deep and loving and wonderful that are not friendship and for which sex is not a defining factor.
Just wanting human relationships to fit neat little tick-boxes doesn't make it so.
Posts: 1075 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
In precisely the same way, you lot say rude things about the opposition, calling them bigots, homophobes etc. Propaganda words to sway the ignorant.
Who are 'you lot'? Do you think everyone here shares the same opinions?
I haven't seen anyone here painting all who disagree with them bigots or a homophobes. But I have seen you claiming this in order to take some cheap swipes of your own.
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
I've picked my side. You've picked yours. My side is right, however, and you consider that arrogant. (I think it's humility before God's revelation.) You think your side is right, and consider it God's grace. I think it's rebellion and presumption.
No, I don't think everyone who shares your views is arrogant. I think the statement, 'My side is right' is arrogant. I think unjustified statements like 'you consider that arrogant... I think it's rebellion and presumption' are presumptuous and arrogant. Do you think this is humility?
quote:
Originally posted by Estragon:
There are plenty of people on the Ship who agree with your theology who are not referred to as bigots or homophobes.
Nurks, why do you think this is?
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
If God declares the faithful union of a man and a woman to be "marriage", I really don't give a hoot when some Christian gay-rights activist declares the contrary. In the same way, if I'm to love my black brother as myself, I'll say rude things about Christian slavers, Christian racists and Christian Nazis.
Do you realize that you have implied that lesbians are like racists and nazis? A tad OTT, perhaps?
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
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.
The Metropolitan Community Church has developed a rich liberation theology that has saved it from being a single issue church.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Estragon:
Marriage is not just about the bed.
If I were to stop having sex with my partner, we would still be something other than friends. Your calling us friends would not change the fact that we would be something other than friends.
Friendship can be deep and loving and wonderful yes, but there are still other things that are deep and loving and wonderful that are not friendship and for which sex is not a defining factor.
Just wanting human relationships to fit neat little tick-boxes doesn't make it so.
I think you have too low a view of friendship and too high a view of sex. Hardly a surprise, given the age in which we live. Sex is of the earth, something we have in common with the apes. It's temporal. Friendship is of heaven, something we share with the angels. It's eternal.
My grandmother tenderly nursed my grandfather for close to ten years. (He died at 94). Was that sex or was that friendship?
If I was given a choice: lose my bat and balls, or lose my wife, I know how I would choose.
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by grushi:
I think the statement, 'My side is right' is arrogant.
You also think you're right. If you don't think your side is right, then why are you on it?
As for humility, here it is. I haven't a clue what marriage is. How could I know, for God's sake? Jesus seemed to know, however, and I trust his judgement enough to call it my own. I'm hitching a lift in his truck. Call that arrogant if you will.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Estragon:
There are plenty of people on the Ship who agree with your theology who are not referred to as bigots or homophobes.
Nurks, why do you think this is?
In goes the knife.
Truly, I haven't a clue. Perhaps I'm the next great prophet. Perhaps I'm a complete fool. Perhaps I'm both or neither or something in between. God only knows what I am, and that'll do me.
My turn. Given that the world hated Christ enough to kill him, how come it quite likes you? Perhaps you have a disarming charm that Jesus (regretably) lacked? Perhaps you subconsciously want to go with the flow? (How would you know?) Do you want the world to like you?
Do you see how impossible such questions are?
--------------------
"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
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Do you realize that you have implied that lesbians are like racists and nazis? A tad OTT, perhaps?
Of course they're like racists and nazis. They're sinners, wanting something that's not theirs.
In the same way, I eat myself silly while another starves. God is seriously, seriously pissed off at this stuff. Do you know, I have at my fingertips the power to heal more blind people than Jesus ever did? Just like that. A swish of a pen. I could give sight to fifty people and barely notice the bump in my bank account. But I don't do it.
Interesting, eh?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
Given that the world hated Christ enough to kill him, how come it quite likes you?
Logical fallacy. A implies B does not imply that notA implies notB or as Carl Sagan had it
quote:
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher Wren
Apprentice
# 12084
|
Posted
I have been thinking of going to a 'gay church' like MCC in Camden Town. But wonder why am I wanting to go? To really worship with others who know exactly where I'm coming from, or maybe meet a prospective partner? I have been once or twice, but have often felt they have this one way theology as someone said earlier. Also I love a church where there are all sorts in the congregation. Guess I'm desperate for a partner more than anything to be quite honest.
Posts: 7 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
nurks
Shipmate
# 12034
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
Logical fallacy. A implies B does not imply that notA implies notB or as Carl Sagan had it
quote:
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Alas, Jesus also said "If the world hated me, it will also hate you."
If A, then B.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
Alas, Jesus also said "If the world hated me, it will also hate you."
If A, then B.
Nurks, what's with the persecution complex? Nobody here hates you. They think you are misguided and a whole lot of other things best expressed in another place. But hated? Come on! Of course, there are some Christans who are hated. A small but significant subset of those are your gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Indeed, Jesus said, "If the world hated me, it will also hate you." The logic works both ways.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
The correct thread for the discussion of gay marriage is Gay marriage and blurred boundaries.
Please take all discussion of gay marriage there. This thread is for discussing homosexuality per se.
Louise
Dead Horses Host
--------------------
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
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
You also think you're right. If you don't think your side is right, then why are you on it?
Here's where I stand on this topic, from a couple of pages back:
quote:
Originally posted by grushi:
This might be hard to buy on this thread, but right now I don't have a fixed opinion on this topic. I was raised in Anglican and then charismatic evangelical churches where it always
seemed a given that homosexuality - however practised - was a sin. But I've found that hard
to reconcile with my experience of a loving God, and with the committed and loving relationships I see some of my homosexual friends in.
I'm leaning towards the idea that God is okay with faithful same-sex relationships, but unsure whether it's possible to reconcile with what the bible has to say (and yes, I've read arguments from both sides, including Mel White's mostly excellent pamphlet).
I've taken issue with many of your posts. Most often that's been because of the way you've expressed things in absolutes - 'you must believe a or b, and if you believe b you're off to the burny place'.
In most things I discuss - in real life and here - I argue what seems to me to be right. But I try to listen to others and accept that I might not have all the answers. When you say 'My side is right', I read that and think, 'Well, no point continuing this conversation, then'.
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
In goes the knife.
Fair enough. I posted this in frustration, and was wrong to do do. Accept my apology.
I became frustrated because you continue to argue that people are taking offence because of the truth in your arguments. In fact, as many others have explained better than I am able, what causes offence is the way in which you often argue - without basic respect.
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
My turn. Given that the world hated Christ enough to kill him, how come it quite likes you?
Perhaps you have a disarming charm that Jesus (regretably) lacked? Perhaps you subconsciously
want to go with the flow? (How would you know?) Do you want the world to like you?
I'm pleased you think I'm likeable, but I don't know how you would know this. The question of whether the world likes me is an irrelevance. The world doesn't know me*. Do I want the world to like me? Not particularly, but then I'm not on Pop Idol, so again the question is largely irrelevant.
I'd like for the people who know me to like me. I think that would say something about my character. As I'm trying, in my hugely inadequate way, to be a witness for Christ, I think it would be an advantage.
If someone were to choose to hate me purely because of my beliefs, yes, I would consider that
an honour for the sake of Christ. It's happened once, that I can recall.
Where I take issue is that you seem to be suggesting I should seek this outcome - get as many people offside as possible, claim they don't hate me but Christ and perhaps pick up my martyr sash at the door. To me this would be a perversion of what Christ asks of me - to love my neighbour.
I was raised Christian and have been through a 10-year period of questioning those beliefs. If what I really wanted was to go with the flow, I guarantee you I would not be a Christian today.
*Yet. But it will. Oh, IT WILL! Moohahahahaha!! Oh right. Sorry.
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
Nurks,
I am deeply puzzled at grushi's sudden need to apologise for something written "in frustration" that was actually quite sensible.
grushi got it right the first time. The people-who-share-your-theology-but-are-not-called-names of whom Estragon speaks, are the ones who do not call others names, like "Nazis".
If grushi wishes to withdraw the remark, then so be it. My full agreement with it however remains intact. Perhaps if you ease up on "the knife" you will find that others will respond in kind.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
Logical fallacy. A implies B does not imply that notA implies notB or as Carl Sagan had it
quote:
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Alas, Jesus also said "If the world hated me, it will also hate you."
If A, then B.
OK but follow the logic through. Being hated is B. NotB is being "quite liked". By asking "How come they quite like you?" you were clearly trying to imply if we're not hated there's something wrong i.e. you were drawing an inference from notB - hence the fallacy.
In any case, Jesus wasn't hated by everyone and he wasn't hated all the time. So I would expect from Jesus' words to be hated at times, and when that was the case I'd take comfort. However I'd also examine my conscience to make sure I wasn't being hated* for some other reason.
(*or opposed or disliked. It's been my experience that many people who use this kind of logic to assume that they must be correct vastly over-exaggerate the level of opposition toward them.)
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
quote:
Originally posted by Estragon:
Marriage is not just about the bed.
If I were to stop having sex with my partner, we would still be something other than friends. Your calling us friends would not change the fact that we would be something other than friends.
Friendship can be deep and loving and wonderful yes, but there are still other things that are deep and loving and wonderful that are not friendship and for which sex is not a defining factor.
Just wanting human relationships to fit neat little tick-boxes doesn't make it so.
I think you have too low a view of friendship and too high a view of sex. Hardly a surprise, given the age in which we live. Sex is of the earth, something we have in common with the apes. It's temporal. Friendship is of heaven, something we share with the angels. It's eternal.
My grandmother tenderly nursed my grandfather for close to ten years. (He died at 94). Was that sex or was that friendship?
If I was given a choice: lose my bat and balls, or lose my wife, I know how I would choose.
You're married??!!!
I'd have sworn, based on what you just said about marriage that you had to be single. And celibate. Certainly that doesn't square with anything I or my friends know about Christian marriage.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nurks:
Of course they're like racists and nazis. They're sinners, wanting something that's not theirs.
In the same way, I eat myself silly while another starves. God is seriously, seriously pissed off at this stuff. Do you know, I have at my fingertips the power to heal more blind people than Jesus ever did? Just like that. A swish of a pen. I could give sight to fifty people and barely notice the bump in my bank account. But I don't do it.
Interesting, eh?
I am not sure that I could possibly agree with you less, even if you had said that a walrus was exactly the same thing as a pint of beer and that both lived in trees and sang the British national anthem every hour on the hour and that Tony Blair was a die-hard communist.
BTW - you might be able to pay for the restoration of sight to 50 blind people. Good for you.
I can't.
The lesbians I know personally, and I know a few, tend, on the whole, to be nicer people than the evangelical Christians I know personally, although both tend to be nicer than nazis. YMMV.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tractor Girl
Shipmate
# 8863
|
Posted
quote:
Of course they're like racists and nazis. They're sinners, wanting something that's not theirs.
Nurks, I agree we are all sinners (and in this case we means the whole of humanity, not just those of us with a non-straight sexuality). However, it is not the way we actively acknowledge the way in which God created us which makes us sinners (ie our sexuality), rather it is we are part of a fallen creation.
As I understand it in the eyes of God all sin is equal and we all sin and so are sinners.
However, as we grow in God and are saved by God we start to live as God intended and I would argue (although I know you will disagree) that being honest and celebrating the way God created us (whether gay, straight or bi) in stable committed relationships without fear (because fear comes from Satan not God)is part of grace.
[Edited to fix UBB]
[ 28. November 2006, 18:55: Message edited by: TonyK ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
This is a reminder that personal arguments with Nurks belong on the Hell thread. Once your post is more about the person you are replying to, than addressing the issue itself, it belongs in Hell. Do not post it here. Grushi and John, please take note.
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
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
Noted.
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
Yes, I understand that, not unlike the Anglican Communion at present, the Riverfalls Collective are deeply divided on this issue. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Host Mode <ACTIVATE>
Liturgy Queen
I refer you to Louise's post, a mere 4 above your latest.
Please take note - substituting Riverfalls for Nurks where necessary.
Host Mode <DEACTIVATE>
Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
BTW: The Conservative Jews look like the are going to celebrate gay relationships while calling male-to-male anal sex a sin, per Leviticus. Some interesting quotes:
"It is a compromise, no question," Dorff, 63, said recently at his Beverly Hills home. It seeks "to maintain the continuity of the law to the extent that we can, while at the same time getting rid of the harm it causes."
The authors of Jewish law are always affected by societal changes, said Dorff, who has a doctorate in philosophy from Columbia University.
A restriction on gay anal sex, he said, is similar to rules against heterosexual intercourse during menstruation. But requiring celibacy would be, he said, cruel and "very un-Jewish."
Los Angeles Times: Panel faces tough debate on Gay Jews
They are also worried about schism and losing members over this, however.
(fixed code)
[ 02. December 2006, 02:21: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
