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 71)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  ...  92  93  94 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
Christopher Wren
Apprentice
# 12084

 - Posted      Profile for Christopher Wren   Email Christopher Wren   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hi all, nothing much to say just totting up me posts. Not sure anyone really reads this stuff anyway, couple of times I've added a comment and been blanked. Perhaps it's me cologne
Posts: 7 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi Christopher,
Your posts aren't being picked up on because they don't really fit on this board. This thread is for debating and arguing about the old chestnut of whether homosexuality is sinful or not and how the various churches respond to it, rather than a place to chat with other posters/get advice/fellowship.

If you're looking for advice on attending a church then you'd probably be better to post on Ecclesiantics (which is the all things worship-related board). If you're looking for fellowship/support then the All Saints board might be better.

If you want to discuss the particular subject of attending a gay friendly church and what people can get out of that, that is specific enough to start a thread in Purgatory to discuss things, rather than having it lost in this big general thread.

There's also a private LGBT board on the Ship Fair Havens which you may not know about. PM the host, St Sebastian, to find out more about it.

Hope that helps.

cheers,
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
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've read a lot of this thread, but not all 70 pages. So if I'm posing a question that has been done to death, no doubt I'll get just retribution.

So: Is it now a closed and agreed position that the sinfulness or otherwise of same-sex relations does not depend at all on whether this is the only option open for the people concerned? This immediately puts all question of whether people are born homosexual out of court, since it becomes totally irrelevant.

IF you view them as sinful then no doubt you would view it as a major extenuating circumstance. But if you don't then there would be no reason to constrain the choice of those for whom both options are equally open.

Incidentally, I'm not sure about this, and would like to discuss it if it's not been flogged to death already.

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079

 - Posted      Profile for justlooking   Author's homepage   Email justlooking   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Discussion about homosexuality is far from being a dead horse in some sections of the Church - its almost a defining feature. I'm a member of the forum in the Central Readers Council and one topic about the need for the Church to make its message clearer assumed that the message to be made clearer was a condemnation of homosexuality. I've put my own view - that I don't regard homosexuality as a sin but I haven't yet dared to post an interesting angle on the subject I read in (I think) Stephen Bates' 'A Church at War'. Apparently that well-known homosexual King James 1 was officially called to account by the Privy Council for his relationship with the Duke of Buckingham and he defended himself by claiming that it could not be wrong because 'Jesus did it'. I threw this in to a discussion once and one person's response was along the lines of - 'Wow! suppose it could be proved, that would really settle the issue'. And it would wouldn't it?
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
HenryT

Canadian Anglican
# 3722

 - Posted      Profile for HenryT   Author's homepage   Email HenryT   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher Wren:
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.

I think you're refering to the Church of England Newpaper? I'm afraid it doesn't see much circulation in Canada. What was your point in the letter, and what's the anology with lemmings?

--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788

Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Apparently that well-known homosexual King James 1 was officially called to account by the Privy Council for his relationship with the Duke of Buckingham and he defended himself by claiming that it could not be wrong because 'Jesus did it'. I threw this in to a discussion once and one person's response was along the lines of - 'Wow! suppose it could be proved, that would really settle the issue'. And it would wouldn't it?
This raises another old question about how you defines homosexuality, since SFAIK James' marriage was not only productive but quite happy, until the issue of his wife's catholicism became more of an irritant. He seems to have related emotionally mainly to men and sexuality to both sexes.
I doubt if there's any proof behond the suspicions fuelled by the so-called Erotic Gospel of Mark. I don't think it's certain it ever existed.

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Spike asked Gordon on the occasion of his umptieth calling to Hell:

quote:
Lets look at it another way. If a parishoner (God help them) came to you with similar problems and spoke to you face to face, what would your response be?
Well?

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Callan,
An admin has already ruled this question out of bounds for Dead Horses, it's a question about Gordon's pastoral counselling and how he would personally counsel someone who was gay.

It should be dealt with on the Hell thread as a personal argument with Gordon or a separate Purgatory thread should be started on how people who already think homosexuality is wrong should express that or counsel people who come to them.

Please do not discuss it here.

Louise

Dead Horses Hosts

--------------------
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
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Somehow I missed that. Sorry.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For the sake of completeness:

Member Admin Hat On

The question of what pastoral advice a member of the clergy would give a homosexual member of their congregation is not a Dead Horse. Gordon is welcome to answer Spike's question on this thread if he wishes.

Member Admin Hat Off

Tubbs
Member Admin

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Low Treason
Shipmate
# 11924

 - Posted      Profile for Low Treason   Email Low Treason   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I've read a lot of this thread, but not all 70 pages. So if I'm posing a question that has been done to death, no doubt I'll get just retribution.

So: Is it now a closed and agreed position that the sinfulness or otherwise of same-sex relations does not depend at all on whether this is the only option open for the people concerned? This immediately puts all question of whether people are born homosexual out of court, since it becomes totally irrelevant.

IF you view them as sinful then no doubt you would view it as a major extenuating circumstance. But if you don't then there would be no reason to constrain the choice of those for whom both options are equally open.

Incidentally, I'm not sure about this, and would like to discuss it if it's not been flogged to death already.

ISTM that there seems to be a position taken by Some Authorities that it is OK to be a Gay Person, because God made you that way - but not to actually do anything about it, because God doesn't like that.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Am I alone in thinking that argument is just plain daft, not to mention irrational?

(and apologies if this has been posited before, as I'm sure it has, but not by me!)

Your Duck (coming from the same viewpoint as Anteater...

--------------------
He brought me to the banqueting house, and His banner over me was love.

Posts: 1914 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
MyDuck: I'm not sure what my position is. Nor, exactly what your's is. So are we both undecided on this one or is it just me?

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Is it now a closed and agreed position that the sinfulness or otherwise of same-sex relations does not depend at all on whether this is the only option open for the people concerned? This immediately puts all question of whether people are born homosexual out of court, since it becomes totally irrelevant.

That is certainly the traditional position. Being sexually attracted to people of your own sex is not a sin, buggery is.

I don't think its settled or agreed though. In modern times there seems to be a divergence on the issue. Some people say that as it is "natural" or that because people are born that way, it must be good (I think that is an absurd argument and politically very dangerous but that's irrlevant) On the other side some evangelicals seem to have been claiming that homosexual attraction is itself a sin, or somehow demonic. And the Roman Catholics have got very near to saying that homosexuality permanently excludes a man from the priesthood.

There might be a pastoral problem here, but there is no theological one, at least not for anyone who belives in the Fall and/or Original Sin. All our affections and attractions are tainted by sin, all more or less disordered, all directed towards inappropriate objects. From this point of view the homosexual who abstains is in no worse position than the heterosexual who doesn't commit adultery, the glutton who diets, the alcoholic who goes on the wagon.

quote:
Originally posted by My Duck:
ISTM that there seems to be a position taken by Some Authorities that it is OK to be a Gay Person, because God made you that way - but not to actually do anything about it, because God doesn't like that.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Am I alone in thinking that argument is just plain daft, not to mention irrational?

What's irrational about it? It might be wrong, but I don't see that it is irrational.

More or less all churches teach that sex is supposed to be within marriage. The Roman church still teachers, and the Anglicans taught within living memory, that a divorced person may not remarry.

So as far as the Pope is concerned I'm in the same position as a gay man, unable to be part of any licit sexual relationship. In fact I'm in a worse position, because the gay man is at least capable of valid marriage to someone they don't fancy very much, but there is no-one at all I could validly marriage. Were I an obedient Roman Catholic and were I to wish to have sexual relationships I'd have to pray for my wife's early death. That might be rather unpleasant, perhaps even evil, but its not obviously irrational given the premise.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Low Treason
Shipmate
# 11924

 - Posted      Profile for Low Treason   Email Low Treason   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Me, I'm confused about what other people think (I think).

It seems to me that if one accepts that God made gay people gay, then one has to apply the concept of Gen 1:31.

That means (ISTM) that not living that reality as part of the celebration of the goodness of God is a denial of that goodness, which in its turn means that Gen 1:31 is an error.

errrrmm.... does that make sense?

--------------------
He brought me to the banqueting house, and His banner over me was love.

Posts: 1914 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006  |  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 
I'm not sure that most people who believe same sex sexual activity is wrong do think that it is inborn rather than somehow chosen. But whatever, if they play fair, they say the activity is wrong but the person is no more a sinner {in the Original sense) than the next person. However this isn't always the case, witness the Dean Johns debacle, or witness the discrimination against gay, RC men wishing to be ordained, although they vow to be celibate as do all RC priests.

[ 04. December 2006, 16:25: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]

--------------------
"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
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
Discussion about homosexuality is far from being a dead horse in some sections of the Church - its almost a defining feature. I'm a member of the forum in the Central Readers Council and one topic about the need for the Church to make its message clearer assumed that the message to be made clearer was a condemnation of homosexuality. ...

Yes - I have just read the current issue of 'The Reader' and was pleased to see an article about the Lambeth commitment to listen to LGBT people but then dismayed to see that the author's view was that this would enable'us' to tell them how wrong they were more effectively.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
chive

Ship's nude
# 208

 - Posted      Profile for chive   Email chive   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Having just read the curly hair thread in Purg I was interested (?) to read this by Gordon Cheng:

quote:
you think that homosexual behaviour in a minister endangers not only his own soul but that of those to whom he ministers, you will be more inclined to break with convention and say so.
I disagree with the idea that being gay endangers anyone, I'm gay myself and obviously think it's not a bad thing. But I'm confused by the idea that being gay can endanger everyone you touch. Sort of gay cooties.

Is this an unusual view? It's not one I've come across before.

(Sorry if this is not appropriate here - if it's not just ignore me.)

--------------------
'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost

Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | 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 
Far be it from me to defend the planked one, but I imagine his point would be that a minister living in 'open sin' (as he sees it) would be a bad example for the congo -- showing them that said minister doesn't care a fig (if you'll excuse the fruit) for God's Holy Sexual Regimentation. Which may lead the members of the congo to themselves hold GHSR in low esteem, thus leading them to sin (because if the priest is a poofter, then it must be okay for me to be a lecher or a murderer), thus endangering their souls.

Not saying I agree with this line of reasoning, of course.

--------------------
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 
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
Is this an unusual view? It's not one I've come across before.

I think Gordon's probably arguing that unrepentant homosexuals cannot be saved, in which case it's maybe not a big stretch to say that a minister condoning homosexual practice would also bear some responsibility for those encouraged to sin by that teaching. (Presumably only the souls of already-gay parishoners are at risk, although who knows - maybe Gordon thinks anyone's vulnerable if the preaching is forceful enough).

Of course, if you start with a fundy premise it's not hard to reach a fundy conclusion.

I have no idea whether this is a common view. I dearly hope not, but I'd suspect there's an element of it in some of the arguments against gay clergy.

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 
Sorry, cross-posted with MT in the time it took my putey to freeze, restart and load an old version of the page.
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006  |  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 
Chive it is definitely an argument I've come across. As I've said before, people who hold that view also tend to see queers as a lower order of human from themselves - its why they ignore every other part of our lives in favour of focussing solely on sex. Nothing we can do could ever display the fruits of the Spirit because we are queer. Therefore, we are dangerous, pure and simple. Its also why I never believe anyone who says "love the sinner, hate the sin" because my experience tells me that they don't actually believe I'm equal to them.

It used to make me cry regularly, and I'm a fairly strong individual. It is no wonder that young people growing up believing what the Chengs/Jensens/Akinolas of the world tell them have such trouble if they recognise themselves as gay. Even if Akinola never said the famous line about gay people being like dogs, it was reported enough, and agreed with enough that it rather supports my view.

--------------------
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
David Gould
Shipmate
# 11701

 - Posted      Profile for David Gould   Email David Gould   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Having read some of the posts on this board I am simply glad that in the UK, parliament took absolutely no notice of Christian objections when it introduced civil partnerships and I hope it will continue to ignore such voices with regard to other legislation that gives some dignity to gay relationships. My own approach is based on what Jesus Christ said about homosexuality - nothing. I frankly do not care what St Paul said or indeed what the Old Testament says. I do not dress up my prejudices by recourse to scripture. Saying that, perhaps some Christians should call for the restoration of slavery based on the Pauline epistles.

--------------------
'If the CofE failed it would be found in my parish' Keble

Posts: 145 | From: Gloucester | Registered: Jul 2006  |  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 
Don't knock Paul completely, David. He is responsible for one of my touchstones - Nothing can separate us from the love of God. And ever since I did my first biblical studies paper I've loved the early chapters of 1 Corinthians about being a fool for Christ - that resonated more times than I care to count.

--------------------
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
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by David Gould:
My own approach is based on what Jesus Christ said about homosexuality - nothing.

Be careful of that one, David! Absence of evidence is no evidence of absence. If opposition to homosexuality was in the presupposition pool of the people of the time, then there would be no need to repeat what was obvious to one and all. More convincing would be if Jesus' defended homosexuality - "You have heard it said..., but I say to you..." sort of thing. That would have counted because it would have been against the norm.

Nigel

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  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 
Um, Nigel, I think Jesus said plenty about things people should have known about in his day - money lending in the temple, prostitutes, tax collectors, pride, loving your neighbour....

Woe to you, you Pharisees, etc., etc.

--------------------
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
chive

Ship's nude
# 208

 - Posted      Profile for chive   Email chive   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thinking about it, the reason why I probably never encountered it is because I'm female and as such wasn't regarded as important enough within the church environment I was in to give gay cooties. It may well have been different if I'd been male.

I just think the whole thing emphasises the sheer ridiculousness of the position stated - if you're a sinner you can't be a minister. There would hardly be a large queue to enter the ministry if this was really true, so I think all it does is show that so many in the church are so bizarrely obsessed with sex.

--------------------
'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost

Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | Registered: May 2001  |  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 chive:
I just think the whole thing emphasises the sheer ridiculousness of the position stated - if you're a sinner you can't be a minister. There would hardly be a large queue to enter the ministry if this was really true, so I think all it does is show that so many in the church are so bizarrely obsessed with sex.

Still representing my client, Beelzebub:

I don't think this is actually the position.

If the elders (council, whoever) of your church believe homosexual practice to be sinful, they might very well feel that appointing an openly gay minister would be wrong.

The reasons would be fairly basic, I think. They would want to be sure that any minister would teach (and hopefully also exemplify) biblical truth as they see it. The gay minister would contradict their views on homosexual practice at least by his example and perhaps by direct teaching.

Personally, I may not agree with the starting premise, but I can see how people get to the conclusion. An equivalent might be a minister openly conducting an affair. If you were in his congregation, how seriously would you take his teachings on adultery?

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

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
An equivalent might be a minister openly conducting an affair. If you were in his congregation, how seriously would you take his teachings on adultery?
I'd say he was taking the piss. I assumed that any openly homosexual minister would not rail against homosexuality, or he'd be doing the same.

Has it ever happened where a congregation has called an openly homosexual minuter, where this is against their doctrinal position? It's really hard to see this happening.

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580

 - Posted      Profile for Comper's Child     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Can't think of one, but we have two thousand years of closetted priests preaching against their own behavior.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Um, Nigel, I think Jesus said plenty about things people should have known about in his day - money lending in the temple, prostitutes, tax collectors, pride, loving your neighbour....

Woe to you, you Pharisees, etc., etc.

Yes he did, but in these cases wasn't he challenging the presuppositions that existed in the minds of his audience and, in effect, going against the norm of the day?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I agree with earlier posts that if the RC or other churches genuinely mean it, when they say love the sinner, hate the sin - and see all as sinners in various ways, then there is no reason to oppose gay celibate clergy.

However, I suspect two problems with this. Firstly, they would find it difficult to believe that an ordination candidate who says they are gay truely believes they are saying that their orientation/temptation is a sin. By and large, I think they may be right to be suspicious about this.

I imagine that to live with the experience that all one's sexual feelings are unworthy or sinful would be distressing, probably damaging, and would lead to feelings of intense shame. I don't think you'd volunteer that information outside of the confessional unless you had a pressing need to do so - i.e. having acted on them. So if you are not out and proud, I think you would struggle to be out and deeply ashamed. If you are not, even if you guarantee not to preach contrary to the church's teaching - you are not fully accepting part of the doctorine that is seen as core to the faith.

Secondly, if the church sees the would be priest as piously resisting the call of their own flesh - it sets them up for a philosophical conflict with most modern western society. Who would question the morality of discriminating (i.e. not allowing various life choices) against people solely on the basis of an aspect of a person that is not within their control - such as gender, race, age etc. So the church acts as if, homosexual orientation is a choice - a choice one should not make - therefore avoiding part of the culture clash.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
.....I imagine that to live with the experience that all one's sexual feelings are unworthy or sinful would be distressing, probably damaging, and would lead to feelings of intense shame....

Very insightful. This is why 'traditional Christianity' is psychologically damaging for LGBT people and the gospel is bad news, not good news.

--------------------
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
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 Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Um, Nigel, I think Jesus said plenty about things people should have known about in his day - money lending in the temple, prostitutes, tax collectors, pride, loving your neighbour....

Woe to you, you Pharisees, etc., etc.

Yes he did, but in these cases wasn't he challenging the presuppositions that existed in the minds of his audience and, in effect, going against the norm of the day?
From the Bible, I don't get the impression that tax collectors were exactly the essence of popularity...

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

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
the gospel is bad news, not good news.

At the risk of rehashing an argument earlier on the thread - many of us would hold that the bible in total, and the gospel in particular, does not condemn homosexuality. I don't think I am prepared to blame the gospels for the way they are are interpreted in the present day by various groups.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
From the Bible, I don't get the impression that tax collectors were exactly the essence of popularity...

Some things don't change, do they Papio?!

I see Jesus as going against the norm when he befriended tax collectors. He challenged the prejudices that were common currency at the time. If tax collectors and their fellow Jews were all the epitome of neighbourly love, then there wouldn't have been anything to tackle, I think.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But isn't the point that if tax collectors were unpopular, and Christ had a go at them, then the reason that gays and lesbians were not people that Christ had a go at needn't be their "universal" unpopularity?

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

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
But isn't the point that if tax collectors were unpopular, and Christ had a go at them, then the reason that gays and lesbians were not people that Christ had a go at needn't be their "universal" unpopularity?

Papio, I need to back up a bit and clarify, because I think I may be losing the plot!

The point was made earlier that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality and that this absence of evidence can be taken as a base upon which to build opinion. I pointed out that this is a logical fallacy; we can’t leap from a gap in evidence to an assumption concerning what someone would have thought or said. I based this view on the fact that in linguistic exchanges, we all have presupposition pools – there are topics that in conversations or communities we all hold and which, therefore, we do not need to express. My point was that we have records in the gospels that show Jesus challenging issues that others had as part of their presupposition pool (e.g., avoiding Samaritans, slagging off tax collectors, etc.), but which were skewed or at odds with God’s plan for the world.

Avoiding Samaritans and tax collectors was the norm for Jesus’ audience. We know that because Jesus took the opportunity to challenge that norm. Having donkeys as a personal possession was a norm, but Jesus took no stance on that issue (apart from sitting on one), so we can conclude that he had no objection.

So – just because there is no record in the gospels of Jesus debating homosexuality does not mean that he condoned it. Does it mean he shared an opinion with his contemporaries that homosexuality was as valid an ethic as heterosexuality? To answer that question we would need to know what was in the presupposition pool of the people at the time: were they implacably opposed to it or not? If not, were there shades of opinion and if so, what?

How do you see the argument?

Nigel

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
the gospel is bad news, not good news.

At the risk of rehashing an argument earlier on the thread - many of us would hold that the bible in total, and the gospel in particular, does not condemn homosexuality. I don't think I am prepared to blame the gospels for the way they are are interpreted in the present day by various groups.
Yes - I agree - to clarify my point 'the gospel,(not the gospels) as preached by evangelical fundamentalists, is bad news.'

--------------------
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
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Which may lead the members of the congo to themselves hold GHSR in low esteem, thus leading them to sin (because if the priest is a poofter, then it must be okay for me to be a lecher or a murderer), thus endangering their souls.

What was that about justification by faith alone?

I miss Gordon.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nobody believes in salvation by faith alone. Some of us admit it.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Indeed.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The quote below is taken from this article in today's New York Times.

“The church has created a double standard that all of us are sinful and have temptations and need to be open about that — unless you’re gay,” Mr. Lee said.

Several of our posters have indicated the same sort of thing. How does what is often the church's attitude need to be shifted so that some aspect of the love commanded by Jesus could be shown?

(A related article in the same edition opens up some other lines of discussion.)

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
all of us are sinful and have temptations and need to be open about that — unless you’re gay
I don't know any church leader in the mainstream who would take that view, although some caution about how publicly open one should be is surely wise.
But surely the point is most GLBT christians have no interest in being open about their temptations to the sin of homosexual sex, since they don't think it's a sin at all. They would rather see the sin in the rejection they experience based on a legalistic rather than love-centred morality. Or it least, that's the impression I've always had.

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Horseman Bree, quoting Mr. Lee from the New York Times:
quote:
all of us are sinful and have temptations and need to be open about that — unless you’re gay
(Speaking as Lucifer's soliciter, of course)

I think the problem for most is not the existance of temptation per se, but the willingness, even pride, in indulging said sin. The problem isn't that some people have homosexual inclinations, but that they pursue them to the detriment of God's grace.

Though this does apply in the case of celibate homosexuals.

On the other hand, I suppose the moniker "homosexual" implies a sexuality. I suppose by one theory, a celibate should be an "asexual" if anything. Of course, this is probably almost never the case, but I imagine it's what they, in theory, are shooting for.

[ 13. December 2006, 15:22: Message edited by: mirrizin ]

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
On the other hand, I suppose the moniker "homosexual" implies a sexuality. I suppose by one theory, a celibate should be an "asexual" if anything.
I can't see why you want to use words in ISTM odd senses. Asexual has a quite definite meaning, describing people with no sex-drive either homo- or hetero-, and they are very likely to be celibate, unless dragooned into marriage and parenthood by social pressures.

The terms active and celibate homosexual seems perfectly ok to me. OK there a bit long, but they say what they mean.

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I can't see why you want to use words in ISTM odd senses. Asexual has a quite definite meaning, describing people with no sex-drive either homo- or hetero-, and they are very likely to be celibate, unless dragooned into marriage and parenthood by social pressures.

The terms active and celibate homosexual seems perfectly ok to me. OK there a bit long, but they say what they mean.

I agree with you. I just try to figure out what the opposing reasoning is and state it for the sake of argument.

What I meant by asexual was that the identity of homosexual is sexualized in a way (for most people) that heterosexual isn't. That's probably a flaw in our current society, but nonetheless it exists.

One might suppose that, given the choice, if one chooses to be celibate of any sort, then why bother adopting the identity of a homosexual if one never intended to indulge it? If you choose not to have sex, why take on a social label that exists mainly in a sexual context? I mean, is there anything else that makes gay folk different?

Priests, I imagine and possibly hope, don't spend too much time contemplating their identities as heterosexual celibates, as they're celibate and, I suspect, not supposed to be spending that much time dwelling on their sexuality in the first place. That a homosexual would examine his/her own sexuality enough to realize that they're gay...that might raise a few questions in the minds of the established conservative clergy. Not being one (homosexual or conservative clergy), I don't know, but that's a hypothesis.

Of course, if being homosexual is jsut like being blue eyed (a trait with little or no intention involved), then the whole argument is silly. The trouble with homosexuality is that in addition to being a trait it is also a social identity, and social identities are, in the minds of some, to some degree, chosen, not assigned. Just because I may sometimes, or even frequently desire to steal something doesn't mean I self-identify as a thief.

And I don't intend to compare robbery to homosexuality, just to designate the difference between thought, action, and identity. The asexual bit, I think, was trying it highlight the fact that to many, homosexuality only exists as an expression of sexual desire. I know that celibacy is every bit as much a sexualized term, but I imagine that some might not like to see it as such and aren't comfortable seeing it placed in such proximity to a term that expresses not only sexual desire, but tabooed sexual desire. It's not that heterosexuality is asexual, but its sexuality is so accepted that nobody really notices it's there most of the time. It's assumed where homosexuality still sticks out like a sore thumb.

I think someone posted somewhere else that if you start with fundamentalist premises, you naturally reach fundamentalist conclusions, and that's the trouble of it.

I'm also suddenly wondering whether the goal of celibacy is to resist or to eliminate temptation, but that might be a whole other thread...

[edited to fix grammar, though I'm sure I missed something]

[ 13. December 2006, 16:34: Message edited by: mirrizin ]

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  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 
Good point Mirrizin, about some people's socially constructed views of homosexuality being largely about sex. It is certainly true in the church.

I wouldn't say I defined myself by my sexuality at all, anymore. If anyone were to look at my life without considering my sexuality, they'd see someone who does the same things everyone else does - get up in the morning, eat, sleep, work, sing, garden, cook (lots of cooking, that's my favourite) and meet up with friends. In fact, they might assume that I was a married woman with children, since baking is generally associated with having children.

It has always had the power to make me very angry that sex has been the only thing that matters to the church. Again, in my church days, you might have assumed, if you didn't know me, that I was married with kids, since I took Sunday School, polished the wood and silver, played the organ and led study groups.

Somehow, none of that mattered to the wider church. All it was interested in was my (fairly tame) sex life. My social construction of my life is very ordinary, but the church's was lurid. Sometimes, listening to discussions in Assembly, I felt that there were people getting off on their fantasies, because they sure as hell weren't talking about my life.

I guess if you're wanting me to acknowledge sin, Anteater, you're going to have to specify why. I know my sins, and after a lifetime of living with them, I seriously don't think being a lesbian is one of them. I can accuse myself of envy, gluttony and pride on occasion, but I can also acknowledge the fruits of the Spirit in myself. None of that has anything to do with homosexuality, any more than it has to do with heterosexuality.

quote:
But surely the point is most GLBT christians have no interest in being open about their temptations to the sin of homosexual sex, since they don't think it's a sin at all. They would rather see the sin in the rejection they experience based on a legalistic rather than love-centred morality. Or it least, that's the impression I've always had.
My initial response to Anteater's comments was to say, turn your quote around. Do you see "the sin in the rejection we experience based on a legalistic rather than love-centred morality" or do you not see that as a sin at all?

My life is just that, a life. I am one of those who doesn't believe that my sexuality is a choice, or at least its never seemed so to me. I grew up in a conservative Christian household, so conservative that my father thought that if I didn't ever hear about homosexuality I couldn't possibly become one. We lived in an information vacuum - I also missed the Beatles, the Vietnam War and, most oddly, the anti-apartheid protests that ripped NZ to pieces when I was in my last year at high school.

When I discovered that there were gay people in the world when I went to university, it was as though a light went on. I didn't do anything about it, just took in the information (along with all the other information about world news and even NZ news) and mulled over it. But I knew I was gay in that moment. And I felt no horror at the idea, nor did I feel God rise up in wrath within me.

I kept on going to church, and if you were to have observed my "lifestyle" at that time, or at any time in the following 23 years, you would have assumed it was that of a devout Christian, and you would have been right. I was gently coming out, but it had only minor effects on my life, apart from my Dad disowning me.

I feel that those who harp on about my sin should perhaps make more effort to learn about me, the person, and stop seeing only their own masturbatory fantasy of my sex life (which isn't nearly as exciting as they might imagine).

--------------------
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
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
I just try to figure out what the opposing reasoning is and state it for the sake of argument. ...

What I meant by asexual was that the identity of homosexual is sexualized in a way (for most people) that heterosexual isn't. That's probably a flaw in our current society, but nonetheless it exists.
...
One might suppose that, given the choice, if one chooses to be celibate of any sort, then why bother adopting the identity of a homosexual if one never intended to indulge it? ... It's not that heterosexuality is asexual, but its sexuality is so accepted that nobody really notices it's there most of the time. It's assumed where homosexuality still sticks out like a sore thumb.

The major flaw in this argument is that celibacy does not magically eliminate one's sexuality. (Nor does marriage alter it, as Pastor Ted found out!) Just because I haven't gotten lucky in oh, never you mind! doesn't mean I've stopped being straight or female.

And you are correct in saying that no one notices heterosexuality and heterosexual privilege. Which is why whenever I see a straight couple engaging in a public display of affection, I mutter quietly to myself about those awful heterosexuals (well, I use a snarkier word) flaunting their sexuality. Why can't they just have a parade like decent queer folk? I'm just trying to balance things out! [Razz]
OliviaG

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I cannot understand why some hetrosexual, conservative Christians feel that they have the right to tell gays and lesbians to remain celebate. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

As a point of referrence, there is nothing that anyone could say that would make me want to vote for the Tories. I would sooner not vote, or spoil my ballot, then vote for the Tories.

However, rather than wanting to say that no-one has any right to support the Tories, or vote Tory, I would defend their right to be Tories, however vigourosly I may dispute some of their opinions...

I don't, really, genuinely, understand why straight Christians feel that gay or lesbian sex is any of their business, or effects them in any way whatsoever.

I don't get it. [Confused]

People who want to tell people who are gay or lesbian, or love people who are, not to impose our morality on the rest of society... Fuck you, frankly. What is the conservative attempt to demonise sexual minorities if not an attempt to impose a disputed so-called, pretended "morality" on the rest of society? Anything at all? I doubt it.

Why don't people who are straight, and who who don't have gay or lesbian loved ones, just shut up? Seriously? Why don't they just belt it?

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

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
I cannot understand why some hetrosexual, conservative Christians feel that they have the right to tell gays and lesbians to remain celebate. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I think it makes sense if one honestly believes that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice". And that it's a far worse sin than voting Tory. [Biased]

For those of us who believe that sex, sexuality and gender are to some extent innate and unchangeable, and only partially subject to social and environmental factors, it makes no sense. I believe God made my friends queer, straight, and in-between, and God don't make no junk. OliviaG

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  ...  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