|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
As a "lifestyle" its kind of boring, really. That's why I think when people use the word "lifestyle" they're exercising their fantasies rather than looking at reality.
--------------------
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
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
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.
....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?
Papio, I'll just deal with these two points rather than the whole 'rant'. My point is not that people should be denied freedom of choice - after all good or bad choices are the right of every individual within the law. Christians shouldn't be tempted to 'legislate' about what we consider to be every bad choice. What many of us are doing who you have been describing as 'conservative' is challenging the attempt to change the Church's teaching and position on sexuality without proper theological debate. The onus of proof rests with those who are insisting on a change of Biblical and traditional teaching on sexuality - and the proof they offer hasn't convinced us.
Should we just shut up because we aren't gay? Well some gay people are arguing from a so-called conservative viewpoint as well. And do you really think we're just going to keep silent when we believe that the Church isn't being faithful?
On another matter. I've heard one of my son's friends use the term 'gay' in a derogatory way (a girl of 6). I guess the term is used this way in the school playground. I'm deeply uncomfortable about that because I remember there was a whole lot of homophobic bullying in my schooldays. As parents, my wife and I have always encouraged our children (ages 3, 6, 7) not to be judgemental and to accept everybody for what they are but apart from staying last year with a gay couple we haven't had any sort of discussion with them about homosexuality and I wouldn't have thought at the moment they've got a clue what 'gay' really means. Any advice from people with experience of dealing with this?
[I hope this last question is in order to be discussed in Dead Horses? I'll start a thread in Purgatory if I'm advised to do so.]
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Spawn - I do not understand why you think that gay and lesbian sex, in the context of a loving and committed relationship, is wrong. I genuinely don't understand.
Similarly, I do not understand the conservative view on marriage - the vast majority of marriages end in failure. Marriage, as an instituition, is just a bit of paper. No more. No less. I don't understand why conservatives think it is more imporant than love and faithfulness.
I also don't understand why marriage is considered the exclsuive preserve of a hetty man and a hetty woman. I am also not sure if conservatives think that an unfaithful, violent and unhappy marriage between a hetrosexual cople is "better" than a happy and faithful gay/lesbian relationship. But, if they do, I simply can not understand why. It baffles me utterly. I can not understand it.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
The point about "being open about one's sin": let's allow the Christians to think that homosexual sex is a sin, just for a moment. Any other sin - drunkenness, (straight) fornication, gossip, gluttony - can be discussed openly. People might think you were a backslider, or misguided, or foolish. But they wouldn't throw you out of the church. No, they would feel impelled to "help you" with your problem.*
But mention any form of gayness, and they will recoil, and demand that your presence be taken away from them - ask Arabella. Why is the "gay" sin so much worse than the "gossip" sin? Lord knows, gossip does more definable harm to every church known than most gays could achieve by group raids.
Now, try that homosexuality is defining trait of personality, that one can't avoid - ask Pastor Ted. We would be horrified to kick a blind person out of the church because of his blindness - he certainly didn't choose this affliction. So why should gays, even the celibate ones, be hounded out?
No wonder they can't be open!
* Gluttons and gossips tend to have the valued positions in the church, despite the Biblical strictures.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The point about "being open about one's sin": let's allow the Christians to think that homosexual sex is a sin, just for a moment. Any other sin - drunkenness, (straight) fornication, gossip, gluttony - can be discussed openly. People might think you were a backslider, or misguided, or foolish. But they wouldn't throw you out of the church. No, they would feel impelled to "help you" with your problem.*
But mention any form of gayness, and they will recoil, and demand that your presence be taken away from them - ask Arabella. Why is the "gay" sin so much worse than the "gossip" sin? Lord knows, gossip does more definable harm to every church known than most gays could achieve by group raids.
Now, try that homosexuality is defining trait of personality, that one can't avoid - ask Pastor Ted. We would be horrified to kick a blind person out of the church because of his blindness - he certainly didn't choose this affliction. So why should gays, even the celibate ones, be hounded out?
No wonder they can't be open!
* Gluttons and gossips tend to have the valued positions in the church, despite the Biblical strictures.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
We would be horrified to kick a blind person out of the church because of his blindness - he certainly didn't choose this affliction. So why should gays, even the celibate ones, be hounded out?
Again, I don't know any mainstream christian leader who would hound out celibate homosexuals. If this happens, it is plainly indefensible.
However, we have to accept the weakness of people in accepting change, which is why Paul, one of the great agents of change in the church, almost advocates dissembling in Roman 14 because of people whose conscience was too fussy, and whom he labelled "weaker" for that. Sometimes your freedom has to be between you and God along and some trusted friends.
The only lesbian I know (who accepts tradition christian morality in regard to sex) is in full time christian service. Most of her close friends know of her sexuality and I've never heard an adverse comment about it, despite the fact that she moves in more theologically conservative churches than I would.
If I were to move in those circles, there'd be things about myself which I would need to hide. However, I wouldn't do it, 'cause I don't think these things are sins. Were I a gay man who saw no contradiction between that and christianity, I would be very constrained in my choice of church. But it's just as hard to find a robust believing church which doesn't believe in Hell.
The church is never an easy place for outsiders who unsettle others beliefs and mores, and I would argue from Romans 14, that we can't expect to to be. Sheep are sheep after all.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Spawn - I do not understand why you think that gay and lesbian sex, in the context of a loving and committed relationship, is wrong. I genuinely don't understand.
I'd suggest reading this thread if you truly do not understand because you'll get a range of views. I simply don't have time or the inclination to start from first principles. In any case, I suspect your incomprehension is a rhetorical device just to have a go at those who don't have the same worldview as yourself.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Similarly, I do not understand the conservative view on marriage - the vast majority of marriages end in failure. Marriage, as an instituition, is just a bit of paper. No more. No less. I don't understand why conservatives think it is more imporant than love and faithfulness.
Well, I don't carry a torch for 'marriage as an institution'. But I do think that marriage between Christians is more than a 'bit of paper'. It is, depending on your inclinations, a covenant or sacrament. It is a sign of the love between Christ and the human race, and a making present of that love within the Church community. One doesn't have to be especially 'conservative' to believe this, just a mainstream Christian.
Which raises a point that bugs me - there are important questions to be raised about sexual ethics in the contemporary Church. But it seems to me that liberals and conservatives alike inhabit a false dichotomy, whereby querying any convention places the centrality of marriage to a Christian understanding of sex in question. Liberals will bite the bullet, conservatives won't. I think the shared premise is wrong.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Again, I don't know any mainstream christian leader who would hound out celibate homosexuals. If this happens, it is plainly indefensible.
I know of mainstream Christian groups that hound out celibate gay people. Pentecostal groups like the Assembly of God have that as part of official policy. Anyone who is a homosexual - celibate or otherwise - is considered possessed by a demonic spirit and until that person becomes heterosexual through some kind of divine healing, you aren't a Christian. (And even then you'd remain suspect.) Whether you are celibate or not is irrelevant.
You'll find that kind of mindset amongst many fundamentalist and pentecostal groups. Their comments are regularly posted on Ex Gay watch
--------------------
"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
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
And I should add that while people in the UK may not think these groups represent the mainstream of Christianity, they really do in the US (and Alberta).
The AOG alone claims 50 million members worldwide and is bigger than the Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ or Presbyterian Church is in the United States.
--------------------
"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
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Again, I don't know any mainstream christian leader who would hound out celibate homosexuals. If this happens, it is plainly indefensible.
I know of mainstream Christian groups that hound out celibate gay people.
The Church of England is rather less than squeaky clean on this. Jeffrey John, anyone?
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Surely there is no greater sin than voting Tory? (Well someone had to say it ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) )
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
On another matter. I've heard one of my son's friends use the term 'gay' in a derogatory way (a girl of 6). I guess the term is used this way in the school playground. I'm deeply uncomfortable about that because I remember there was a whole lot of homophobic bullying in my schooldays. As parents, my wife and I have always encouraged our children (ages 3, 6, 7) not to be judgemental and to accept everybody for what they are but apart from staying last year with a gay couple we haven't had any sort of discussion with them about homosexuality and I wouldn't have thought at the moment they've got a clue what 'gay' really means. Any advice from people with experience of dealing with this?
Spawn---I started talking with my son about homosexuality when he was 3, and I had to explain to him why his Uncle P. and I had been married, but weren't anymore. (He had been watching an "Arthur" episode about divorce, and asked me "Mommy, have *you* ever been married before?")
I explained to him that gay and lesbian people were those who wanted to be married to people of the same sex. I believe I phrased it as "Uncle P. needed to be married to a man, instead of to a woman, so he married Uncle M." Simple as that. (Of course, if you've got problems using the word "married" for LGBT people, then that may not work for you---but it's a way of talking about homosexuality in a way that little kids can understand.)
I also had to explain to him that there are a lot of people in this world who are prejudiced against gays and lesbians---and many who, quite frankly, hate them. And that they use the Bible to justify their attitudes. I have spent a lot of time talking with him about this, and giving him the "ammunition" he needs to fight those attitudes.
And I come down HARD on the kids' friends who use "gay" as a derogatory term. It's extremely common here---but I tell them that we have family members who are gay and that using that term in an unloving way is hurtful both to us and to people that we love.
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Spawn - I do not understand why you think that gay and lesbian sex, in the context of a loving and committed relationship, is wrong. I genuinely don't understand.
I'd suggest reading this thread if you truly do not understand because you'll get a range of views. I simply don't have time or the inclination to start from first principles. In any case, I suspect your incomprehension is a rhetorical device just to have a go at those who don't have the same worldview as yourself.
I believe that, one day, arguments which attempt to justify the exclsuion of homosexuals from certain parts of life will come to be seen in precisely the same light as the arguments which attempted to justify discrimination against Black people.
This incluses the argument that because some of them loathe themselves then their oppressors are justified.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Similarly, I do not understand the conservative view on marriage - the vast majority of marriages end in failure. Marriage, as an instituition, is just a bit of paper. No more. No less. I don't understand why conservatives think it is more imporant than love and faithfulness.
Well, I don't carry a torch for 'marriage as an institution'. But I do think that marriage between Christians is more than a 'bit of paper'. It is, depending on your inclinations, a covenant or sacrament. It is a sign of the love between Christ and the human race, and a making present of that love within the Church community. One doesn't have to be especially 'conservative' to believe this, just a mainstream Christian.
Which raises a point that bugs me - there are important questions to be raised about sexual ethics in the contemporary Church. But it seems to me that liberals and conservatives alike inhabit a false dichotomy, whereby querying any convention places the centrality of marriage to a Christian understanding of sex in question. Liberals will bite the bullet, conservatives won't. I think the shared premise is wrong.
I see no reason to prefer marriage over a faithful relationship between two people who are not married.
Perhaps that is because I am a knee-jerk, "liberal" extremist. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
I believe that, one day, arguments which attempt to justify the exclsuion of homosexuals from certain parts of life will come to be seen in precisely the same light as the arguments which attempted to justify discrimination against Black people.
This incluses the argument that because some of them loathe themselves then their oppressors are justified.
Your last few posts have been assertions rather than arguments. What's the point in trying to discuss things with someone who's only on this thread to rant?
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I think the thread has proven that discussion is actually pointless.
The bottom line is that many people consider same-sex acts to be wrong because in their belief God has said they are.
To many, such as Papio and me, the question then is "If He has, why has He? What's He got against it?"
There follows a discussion of God's "intentions" and "norms" for sexuality, which always sounds to me to make God a bit like a parent getting arsy because he's intended to have cheese sandwiches for tea but his child prefers egg. For some reason the parent, having an image of cheese sandwiches as an ideal, declares egg "immoral", the desire for egg to be "disorderd", and insists it's cheese or go hungry. We are inclined to suggest that oranges are not the only fruit, even if it means mixing metaphors, because it's such a good phrase.
And so on it goes.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
Spawn--I have a question for you. WHY are you not convinced by the arguments for full inclusion of LGBT people in the life of the church?
There are many different angles for those arguments. Here are a few that work for me:
- The Bible speaks of homosexuality largely/only in terms of inherently unequal or exploitative relationships. Faithful, monogamous LGBT relationships bear no resemblance to those portrayed in the Bible. (As a side note, they don't bear much resemblance to the heterosexual disastrous marriages I'm familiar with...but I digress.)
- Homosexuality appears to be either inborn or influenced by a complex combination of genetic/biochemical/environmental factors not under the control of the individual. If an individual does not "choose" their sexual orientation, where is the sin in being homosexual? As Karl said, "WHY would God hate homosexuality?"
- Jesus says "By their fruits, ye shall know them." I know many, many LGBT people whose faith and love for God puts mine to shame, and who are much better at living into the call to "Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself" than I am. If their witness is a lie, then Jesus is a liar.
What is the ultimate sticking point for you? Is there anything, short of God Himself coming down and telling you "They got it wrong!" that is going to change your mind?
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
The Bible speaks of homosexuality largely/only in terms of inherently unequal or exploitative relationships. Faithful, monogamous LGBT relationships bear no resemblance to those portrayed in the Bible.
This is something I'd like to pursue, if possible. It might stray into Kerygmania territory, though. Happy to bridge that cross when we get to it.
Some up front admissions / thoughts:
* I haven't had the time to read all the posts on this thread; I've dipped in here and there and haven't found much in-depth discussion of bible passages (perhaps because this thread started out in Purg - or whatever was the equivalent 5 years ago?), so apologies if this takes us where angels have already feared to tread.
* I haven’t been convinced by arguments that the bible absolves homosexual activity. My reading is that the overall message is against it and I get the feeling that attempts to prove opposite have been special pleading or arguments from silence. The message is not so clear on homosexuality per se (discounting sexual activity), but I think the beliefs and presuppositions of the people at the time were that they would not have approved. A lead on this can be taken from attitudes in more modern Near Eastern communities, which are closer to the relevant mind-set than we are in western Euro / N America. Given this grey area, it would be helpful to focus first on the debate around the biblical view of homosexual activity and move from there to other aspects.
* Karl: Liberal Backslider asks the questions relating to same sex acts: If God has said the acts are wrong, then why has He? What's He got against it? These questions are useful because they focus us on seeking biblical principles – if there are any – rather than mere proof-text grenade lobbing.
* I’m a married hetero; can’t say I’m unprejudiced or nicely objective on this issue! However, I have no desire to hurt or offend those who are not heterosexual. So, apologies again if the discussion does just that – I tend to bounce ideas around in ways that in hindsight might appear dogmatic. See my posts in Kerygmania, for heaven’s sake.
* Even if the Bible does send a coherent message against homo activity, that leaves open the next stages of debate: is that message applicable to today or is it culture-bound? Even if it is applicable, in what way – literally or other? What approach should we have, given that we know more about sexuality today than we did even 50 years ago?
One thing at a time, eh?
Nigel
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
NigelM:
I think that like so many issues, this does come down to the question of whether the Bible gives us God's verdict on this. So one DH leads to another.
I can see no line of argument that could show that the Bible endorses homosexual activity. Taking the relevant verses at face value, the idea hardly seems serious. The only way to make it half-serious is to import a lot of assumptions about 1st century homosexual activity, which are unproven, and in my view highly unlikely.
No doubt that life in general was more oppressive. And in many cases homosexuality was viewed as a status thing, so that a Roman citizen could bugger a slave but not v.v. However, SFAIK, these laws were not kept to, and to assume that real homosexual love is just a recent thing beggars the imagination. Why would anyone come to this startling conclusion, except to do special pleading to show why the Bible isn't talking about homosexuality as we know it?
On the other hand, if you free yourself from the need to square your morality with the text of scripture, who is seriously going to advance an argument that homosexuality per se is wrong? On all general morality considerations that I've ever come across, you couldn't get off first base.
However, it is this area of the subject I would like to explore. And if anyone can argue why homosexual sex is wrong based on broad christian principles, I'd be very interested to hear their ideas.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I think that like so many issues, this does come down to the question of whether the Bible gives us God's verdict on this.
...if you free yourself from the need to square your morality with the text of scripture, who is seriously going to advance an argument that homosexuality per se is wrong? ...
And if anyone can argue why homosexual sex is wrong based on broad christian principles, I'd be very interested to hear their ideas.
Yes, I agree that the issue takes us on a journey beyond mere morality, though homosexuality is as good a test case as any other to use as a vehicle for that journey. In focusing on the bible, though, I hope to square the moral and the authority issues: that book - for better or worse - forms the basis for decisions on lifestyle. Is it possible to get broad Christian principles from any authoritative source that does not have at its base the issue of biblical interpretation? I suspect not. To me is seems that if interpretation produces the conclusion that homosexual activity is wrong, then that forms the basis for a Christian principle. Not the only principle, of course: there follow the issues of sexual activity generally, acceptance, attitude... i.e. the moral issues.
So the principles go to the heart of whether an authoritative source (e.g., the bible) says one thing or another and whether we are bound by it. The moral issue, it seems to me, follows from that and is really not one of homosexual activity as such, but more of reactions to homosexual activity.
I guess it's because the bible is so important to many Christians - whether homosexual or not - that these issues need thrashing out. Not to do so might result (probably already has) in people feeling obliged to jettison the book, which is rather like cutting lose the anchor to some.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
I am going to keep on and on asking - are you guys interested in anything but sex? You're talking about real people here, with real lives, who don't see sex as the be-all and end-all of their lives. I am still completely mystified why you express no interest in anything but my sex life.
I guess it means you don't have to interact with anything but your own ideas.
Now, Nigel and Anteater, I don't know anything about you, but let's imagine that you're a bit overweight, gluttony being one of the sins of the flesh. How would you enjoy it if the church took an obsessive interest in your every mouthful of food? Kicked you out because you were over some pre-determined weight and weren't showing any signs of trying to lose weight? Couldn't give a stuff whether you were good husbands/wives and fathers/mothers, gave generous donations of time and money, organised the readers roster, looked after the Sunday School, etc., etc.
Your sin is everything to them, not your person. They tell you that they love you, but they can't love your sin of gluttony and that you are harming others by continuing in sin. You vainly protest "But look at my record. You know I try my best to be a good Christian." But they take no notice at all because after all, all that you are to them is a glutton.
Gluttony is far more clearly expressed as a sin in the bible than homosexuality. There is no argument over translations, no doubt about what is meant. But why are there still fat people in the churches? Because they're "us", not "them". Same with divorce, again, much more clearly stated as a sin in the bible. Much easier to condemn something you're never going to be tempted by like homosexuality, isn't it?
Strangely, the churches have managed to cope with the divorced, on the whole. Some of them are even ordained - quite a lot, actually. And I know lots of overweight priests and ministers. So what's the difference, guys?
*Disclaimer: I do not agree with the argument that fat or divorced persons should be cast out - but I think that if they're not, then what the hell is the problem with people like me?
--------------------
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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
In focusing on the bible, though, I hope to square the moral and the authority issues: that book - for better or worse - forms the basis for decisions on lifestyle.
That statement is not entirely true for those of us who are not sola scriptura types. The Bible is one basis for making decisions about how we live, but not the basis.
And it seems to me that the Bible alone is a pretty poor guide for making decisions about how we live. Without some guide external to the Bible, you might conclude from the Bible alone that physical punishment, up to and including a beating severe enough to kill a child, is right and proper. In fact, that would be a really easy argument to put together. But it would be wrong.
I don't think there are many decisions that can be made based on the Bible alone. You need all of Holy Tradition, along with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
--------------------
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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
In focusing on the bible, though, I hope to square the moral and the authority issues: that book - for better or worse - forms the basis for decisions on lifestyle.
That statement is not entirely true for those of us who are not sola scriptura types. The Bible is one basis for making decisions about how we live, but not the basis.
And it seems to me that the Bible alone is a pretty poor guide for making decisions about how we live. Without some guide external to the Bible, you might conclude from the Bible alone that physical punishment, up to and including a beating severe enough to kill a child, is right and proper. In fact, that would be a really easy argument to put together. But it would be wrong.
I don't think there are many decisions that can be made based on the Bible alone. You need all of Holy Tradition, along with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
You have a better feel than I have for the tradition that builds on the gospel; I certainly accept that those who say they can interpret the bible without tradition are fooling themselves: tradition informs everything whether we like it or not (presuppositions, prejudices, etc.). The issue probably is whether we are aware if it – and to what extent.
I'd also agree with the fact that the bible is not the only source of God's revelation (whether Luther really intended to limit revelation to the text alone when he used that phrase sola scriptura, I can't say - I'm not an expert in that field). However, it seems that even tradition is based on scripture and is often tested by scripture - especially where conflict arises over an interpretive issue in that tradition. Even then, we have examples a-plenty of schools of thought that singularly fail to agree.
What concerns me is that the bible is often taken at ‘face value’ and opinions are formed on that basis. It needs hard work to interpret texts in their contexts – both close and canonical. That forms the guide and I have often been pleasantly surprised by the results! Given that the bible is such a major force in knowing God and his will for our lives, I’d hesitate to gloss over its contents. I’d want to sift the evidence closely to see if my presuppositions are validated or challenged. It certainly challenges those ‘face’ views you mention that allegedly support abuse of other humans.
So ultimately I wonder, do not Christians actually have the bible at base as the main source of revelation? For some it is obviously so (they read it regularly and directly) and they are informed by tradition, for others they hear it through the filter of tradition.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I am going to keep on and on asking - are you guys interested in anything but sex? You're talking about real people here, with real lives, who don't see sex as the be-all and end-all of their lives. I am still completely mystified why you express no interest in anything but my sex life.
I guess it means you don't have to interact with anything but your own ideas.
I think the issues of church and acceptance come a bit further down the line - my starting point is the bible and the interpretations that arise therefrom.
The interest in the activity associated with homosexuality arises because it is exactly that which is raised in the bible. I’m open to hearing arguments that it doesn’t, but as I said earlier, I’ve not been convinced by the ones raised so far. This is an interpretation issue, it seems to me. That really needs sorting out before anyone turns to the question of who and whether anyone needs to be accepted in a church or not, because if it isn’t, then a lot of verbiage is expended on wasted arguments. I have to admit to being slightly surprised that in about 70 pages of this thread so much has been taken for granted about what the bible says without any analysis of whether the interpretations are correct or not – or even more or less likely. That somewhat mirrors the approaches taken on the internet sites that deal with "What the Bible 'really' says about homosexuality."
Sex is clearly an issue in the bible – it forms one of those initial principles in creation. For better or worse (oh – there’s a marriage link!) interpreters have to take account of it.
P.S. Now I need to check up on the relative status of gluttony to sex. Eat and be merry - there's something mssing in there - oh yes: I'm thirsty.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Hmmm, still no acknowledgement of my personhood, only your ideas. From what you're saying, you'd exclude me without knowing me.
There is no definitive interpretation of biblical texts. Even the most conservative theologian, if they are honest, will find glaring holes that can't be plugged - the texts disagree with each other too much. We are heading for the nativity, one of the prime examples. If the bible can't even agree with itself on the birth of Jesus then what are we to do with less loved parts of the text?
I trust theologians who are out working in the prisons and with the sick rather than the ones working comfortably in megachurches - there's more biblical sense in the former than the latter. As for those who preach a prosperity gospel along with an anti-gay message (as is true of a very vocal pastor in my own country), they're interpreting for their own benefit far more than I ever will. I find it interesting that I have frequently been accused of eisegesis when I see much more convincing exponents all around.
My reason for calling myself Christian has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with service to those in need. I'm at a loss to see why this is a problem to the church.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Hmmm, still no acknowledgement of my personhood, only your ideas. From what you're saying, you'd exclude me without knowing me.
It's because that's an issue that cuts all ways that I am proposing some debate on biblical interpretation. Actually, I would place the initial principles found in Gen. 1-2 at the head of the disucssion for the very reason that the status of humans as humans with meaning and purpose can be found there. Jesus and Paul turned to these principles in their debates, which seems to me to be a good steer. How do you read (in the sense of understand) those two chapters when they deal with personhood?
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
There is no definitive interpretation of biblical texts. Even the most conservative theologian, if they are honest, will find glaring holes that can't be plugged - the texts disagree with each other too much.
I would argue that there's a big difference between textual interpretation and contextual interpretation. The one needs the other. I also find that there are consistent principles in the bible. The debates over history that I think you are referring to (i.e., did that event really happen and in what order?) are one thing; the theology something different.
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I trust theologians who are out working in the prisons and with the sick rather than the ones working comfortably in megachurches - there's more biblical sense in the former than the latter.
I agree. Some of the most ardent Christians with a mission are those who believe themselves to be acting on what they read in the bible. I would say that they have read the bible correctly! Similarly, I believe it is possible to tell those who read the bible only textually - or who even make a god out of the text itself; their personality reveals them. As you point out: they interpret more for their own benefit.
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
My reason for calling myself Christian has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with service to those in need. I'm at a loss to see why this is a problem to the church.
Me too. Hence my interest in digging further into the community's foundational document. The debate over 'church' is another issue for me (threads appear from time to time in Purg on that).
So - how do you view the bible? I don't sense that you feel comfortable with it. Is that purely because you have been treated to a barrage of surface level interpretations, or is there something else?
Nigel
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Not at all. I have a good knowledge of, and take comfort from the bible - I have a degree in theology majoring in biblical studies. I will say though that my theology is largely based on the texts of comfort rather than the texts of terror - as I said earlier, Paul's lines on nothing separating us from the love of God speak to me very strongly. I may deal with Paul on the DH some other time when I'm not half asleep - I strongly believe that people read the fruits of the Spirit passage back to front.
I guess my take on the first two chapters of Genesis is that, like every other creation story, it is mythical, based on what the writers knew. There is far too much that is similar to other creation stories to make me believe in its literal truth. Like the other myths, the baseline for human reproduction requires a man and a woman, so that's whats in it. I don't think that's the total story, because the writers were living in a time when survival was paramount.
I'm interested that you mentioned the Greeks earlier, because my understanding of their homosexual relations was that it was expected that men would get married at a certain point. Part of the Greek story is that women were very much undervalued - the Greeks didn't regard women as equal partners, more as a necessary utensil for childbearing. This, to my mind, means that men would be more valuable sexual partners because of higher status and women were a sort of convenience for the continuation of the species.
Now, I don't see the bible telling us much different from that in many ways, although sex is not mentioned, and certainly theology has regarded men as the paramount humans for most of its history. If you are a man, and all your intellectual relations are with men, and you regard women as being of a lesser intelligence then you're already expressing a certain degree of homophilia (not homosexuality).
I wrestled with Calvin's views on women for a church history essay, and he twisted himself into knots over the figure of Deborah, usually acknowledged in theology as Israel's greatest judge. Calvin's view on Deborah was that God was punishing Israel because it didn't have any good enough men. He repeats this theology with almost every significant woman in the bible EXCEPT for Mary, where he twists himself into equally tangled knots glorifying her position as a womb and little else. I almost believe that if Calvin could have found a way for a man to have been pregnant with Jesus he would have been much happier with God.
I don't find it a huge leap from this active disgust with women as human beings to a homophilia that permeates Christian theology. Coupled with a disgust about sex, it leaves us high and dry as any kind of sexual beings.
However, more to the point, the view of the woman-man couple as the epitome of marriage and family is not really set in concrete until after the middle ages, and even then you have to wait until the 19th century for love to creep in as a hopeful addition to the picture - most marriages were made to consolidate property, and women had little say in who they might marry. Those who had no property had lychgate or church door weddings, which were not marriages in the legal sense, and many more couples simply lived together in common law marriage because they were under the radar of the churches.
So if the first two chapters of Genesis are the model, then theology hasn't exactly worked out quite how to deal with the model over the centuries. If you take Paul as your exemplar, you don't get a ringing endorsement of marriage either. What early theologians did with "better to marry than to burn" is better forgotten.
There are a number of histories on marriage and the family and they make interesting reading when you consider these issues.
--------------------
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
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Nigel M: quote:
I have to admit to being slightly surprised that in about 70 pages of this thread so much has been taken for granted about what the bible says without any analysis of whether the interpretations are correct or not – or even more or less likely.
Nigel, I think I've read all 70 pages of this thread, simply by virtue of having been around when it started. While I cannot remember all the details, I am sure that there has been a lot of detailed discussion about the relevant Bible passages in the early stages (maybe the first 10 pages?).
I did have a brief look back to see if I could find something relevant to your inquiry. Instead my eye was caught by this excellent post by the wonderful Joan the Outlaw-Dwarf ; I'm not sure we've moved any further aftre 70 pages of discussion: quote:
I thought I'd inject a little public service announcement into the discussion. Here, for the facilitation of discussion, is a handy cut-out-n-keep guide to the various standard attitudes towards this Question. Now there is no need to spend a page saying nothing new to specify your position, you can simply say for example "I'm a number 1" or "I think 2 and 4". Although the crusaders amongst you will be disappointed at this curtailment of an opportunity to spout, it will make it easy to spot any new and original points and arguments. So here they are:
1) Fags are intrinsically evil and are all paedophiles anyway [I am a bigot]
2) Homosexuality is inconsistent with six passages in scripture [I am the Lambeth Conference]
3) Homosexuality is not part of God's ordained plan for loving relationships, which require the complementarity of male and female [I am a natural law nut]
4) Homosexuals in themselves are sinful [I am judgemental]
5) Homosexual feelings/people are not sinful, but homosexual acts are [I am a dualist]
6) Gays should not be ordained [I have no idea how many already are]
7) I think 2) really, but it isn't that big a deal [some of my best friends are gay]
8) It's all a gray area [I am David Hope]
9) The evidence for homosexuality being inconsistent with scripture is questionable [I have actually looked at context]
10) The argument for homosexuality being inconsistent with scripture is incorrect [I have a gloss and I know how to use it]
11) Male-female complementarity is not the only complementarity for relationships [I think natural law arguments are idiotic anyway]
12) Homosexuals are made that way [I have a clue]
13) Homosexuality is a choice [I've never talked to a gay person]
14) Homosexual people and homosexuality are as good or bad as hets and hettyness, and homosexuality as well as hettyness is to be celebrated as a gift from God [I am incarnationalist, hurrah]
15) Lets go shag whoever we want [I am a rebellious teenager]
===
On a slightly more serious note, please remember that you are talking about people and intimate parts of who they are. If you love someone, try and think about how you would feel if someone told you that your feelings for them were sinful or the result of a handicap, and were not proper love. This precious bond that you share with another person is being declared at best second-class. Be aware of this in your arguments; be sensitive to others' feelings. emphasis added
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
Hmmm, still no acknowledgement of my personhood, only your ideas. From what you're saying, you'd exclude me without knowing me.
Arabella: I've never met you. How, on an internet bulletin board, could I acknowledge your personhood? What have I said to lead you to think I wouldn't, if I knew you?
If you do not think that the church urgently needs to review it's attitude towards homosexuality, then I totally disagree with you. If you think it's important and if you are going to do it, then when you are discussing it, you will appear to be concentrating on sexuality, because you are.
I look forward to a time when this issue will be no more controversial that divorce and re-marriage now is, with only a dwindling minority in the non-authoritarian churches thinking that is puts people beyond the fellowship of the church. But a lot of thinking has to take place, and you can't expect it not to appear to be a bit remote.
You have to have pure maths if you're going to build a bridge. And you have to know the basis of your ethics if you're going to change attitudes. At least IMO.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
To me is seems that if interpretation produces the conclusion that homosexual activity is wrong, then that forms the basis for a Christian principle.
Are you thinking about interpretation as exegesis of the texts that specifically address the issue? or are you wanting an overall interpretation, which allows the possiblity that not all the texts speak with one voice?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I think the issues of church and acceptance come a bit further down the line - my starting point is the bible and the interpretations that arise therefrom.
My own knowledge of the Bible is pretty superficial, but ISTM that Jesus generally did the acceptance thing first, and worried about the rules later. I don't think that was because he didn't have a Bible handy. (Not trying to stifle interpretation (I'm fascinated!), just expressing my own sense of priorities.) 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
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
Nigel---I understand where you are coming from, but I think you are totally missing Arabella's point.
Quite frankly, I don't give a damn WHAT the Bible or tradition says about homosexuality. The great thing about being Episcopalian is that my reason is also reckoned as important in the process of determining what God is trying to say to the world.
Peter was able to tell his Jewish-Christian friends, "The dietary laws aren't necessary anymore. They are getting in the way of the Gospel. It's okay to ignore them."
To me, all the knowledge we have gained about human sexuality is God's way of saying "Look, people---that stuff about same-sex behavior in The Book? It's like the food---it's getting in the way of the Gospel. Get rid of it."
And what *is* the Gospel? Is it "Be heterosexual and you can go to Heaven"? I don't think so!
The Good News is that God loved us so much that he became human, lived among us, suffered in the same ways that we do, and died in order to defeat sin and death. The Good News is that God loves each and every one of us---broken, sinful people that we are---and calls us to do the hard work of loving one another in the same way that God loves us. Totally. Completely. Unconditionally.
Arabella's life is more important to me than those 7 passages in the Bible. The good work that she does is more important to me (and to the people that she does it for) than those 7 passages in the Bible.
As I said, if her witness is a lie, then Jesus is a liar. And I don't believe he is.
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I think the issues of church and acceptance come a bit further down the line - my starting point is the bible and the interpretations that arise therefrom.
My own knowledge of the Bible is pretty superficial, but ISTM that Jesus generally did the acceptance thing first, and worried about the rules later. I don't think that was because he didn't have a Bible handy. (Not trying to stifle interpretation (I'm fascinated!), just expressing my own sense of priorities.) OliviaG
I agree. I think Paul was making the same point in Romans.
8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:8
Interestingly, this is the last time Paul discusses law in this letter and seems to be the point he is trying to make regarding law vs. Gospel.
As long as we are loving God and neighbour we are already fulfilling the requirements of the law. So assuming this is correct and people are obeying the Golden Rule essentially, invite them in, include them and worry about Biblical interpretation later (assuming even, that this is something that we all have to resolve and agree on).
I post on a gay Christian forum where people identify themselves as "Side A" or "Side B" Christians. "Side A" Christians are those who believe that God approves of monogamous same sex relationships and "Side B" Christians believe that God requires gays should be called to celibacy.
Yet we accept that this is a difference in approach and that the Holy Spirit is at work in all of us. There seems to be no hurry to come to a Biblical consensus on what is right. The inclusion and acceptance comes first and we trust God to work out what the rules are later.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Joan the Outlaw-Dwarf, via the Wanderer:
quote:
On a slightly more serious note, please remember that you are talking about people and intimate parts of who they are. If you love someone, try and think about how you would feel if someone told you that your feelings for them were sinful or the result of a handicap, and were not proper love. This precious bond that you share with another person is being declared at best second-class. Be aware of this in your arguments; be sensitive to others' feelings.
I think this is kind of the point, really. I remember a funeral I took a couple of years ago. The deceased and his partner had been together for twenty years, he'd been diagnosed with cancer four years previously and his partner had nursed him through a terminal illness. Now the funeral visit was absolutely identical to any other funeral visit. There were two people who had obviously very much loved each other and shared their lives and the survivor was devastated and one tries, in one's very inadequate way, to help them to cope with the grief and the loss. I dare say there may be people who feel constrained at such moments to mention some of the more outre passages in the Book of Leviticus. I am not one of them. Even if I had less liberal views on the matter than I actually possess, I think it would have been unpriestly to mention the matter.
Now I think the testing point, the point of existential seriousness in all human relations is how we respond in the face of death. The partner responded, as the umpteen heterosexual partners I've had to comfort, with love and grief, just as I imagine I would if something happened to Mrs Callan. I responded, by doing the best I could to make an awful situation slightly more bearable. That meant treating the love and the grief as something important about what it means to be human.
Now the traditionalists would like me to ignore the love the companionship and the nursing through the terminal illness as irrelevant to the real issues, which is that certain sexual activities are frowned upon by Sacred Scripture or want to impose some kind of conceptual doublethink on the clergy. Severe in the pulpit and gentle in the pastoral manner, as it were. I have to say that I find either solution unsatisfactory. On some level I am supposed to concede that the relationship was corrupt. I can't for the life of me see how it was.
--------------------
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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Nigel, I think I've read all 70 pages of this thread, simply by virtue of having been around when it started. While I cannot remember all the details, I am sure that there has been a lot of detailed discussion about the relevant Bible passages in the early stages (maybe the first 10 pages?).
I did have a brief look back to see if I could find something relevant to your inquiry. Instead my eye was caught by this excellent post by the wonderful Joan the Outlaw-Dwarf
The Wanderer,
There’s at least one more! – No. 16 on the list (though not sure where on the order board it fits):
God has more to say in the Bible about humans than has often been recognised (and it is seriously more than 6 passages!).
I did read the first dozen pages, then dip-sampled one in three. I have seen the posts that refer to specific bible passages and I read a discussion on Romans 1 that looked as though it might go somewhere ... but it didn’t. There is a fair amount of circling on the thread – inevitable, I guess, when so many people have joined in. But what I have found is that at no stage have we really looked at the bible in much more than a flat, two-dimensional view. Hence this initiative.
Point taken about approach – as I said up above, there’s no intent to hurt feelings, but I do feel we should explore the assumptions about the bible that float around (probably from all 15 views in the list).
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
...ISTM that Jesus generally did the acceptance thing first, and worried about the rules later. I don't think that was because he didn't have a Bible handy.
Yes, and I’d take it yet another step further, OliviaG: Jesus did both at the same time. He had a really good grasp of the intention that lay behind those rules (God’s intention, that is); he understood how interpreters had expanded on these in ways God had not intended (the traditions of the ruling parties of the day); and he lighted upon specific cases that came his way to demonstrate how God’s initial principles worked. There are times when he merely taught, times when he acted first, times when he taught and then acted. The parts I find fascinating are those where he refers back to creation as in interpretive principles. I hope to get to that in more detail later, but recognise that I should answer the other points raised first.
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
Quite frankly, I don't give a damn WHAT the Bible or tradition says about homosexuality. ... Peter was able to tell his Jewish-Christian friends, "The dietary laws aren't necessary anymore. They are getting in the way of the Gospel. It's okay to ignore them." ... To me, all the knowledge we have gained about human sexuality is God's way of saying "Look, people---that stuff about same-sex behavior in The Book? It's like the food---it's getting in the way of the Gospel. Get rid of it."
Hopefully this is the point I am starting to make: the focus on lexical terms (e.g., the word, ‘homosexuality’) will take us a few steps, but not necessarily in the right direction. We need to focus on the principles contained in the bible. Much more fruitful. I don’t agree, though, that we are bound to apply scissors to those verses that insult us (on whatever subject). I have come to see that even dietary laws reveal something about God’s original intention; not necessarily in the way that they were used traditionally by the Jews of Jesus’, Paul’s and Peter’s day.
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I agree. I think Paul was making the same point in Romans. [ Romans 13:8-10]
We are getting underway, now! Romans is one extremely useful building block in the interpretation of the gospel – and especially where it points out how the gospel is, indeed, contained in the OT, once again, as part of those initial principles.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
We are getting underway, now! Romans is one extremely useful building block in the interpretation of the gospel – and especially where it points out how the gospel is, indeed, contained in the OT, once again, as part of those initial principles.
I'd have to say you have it completely and absolutely backwards. The Gospels are the crown of Holy Scripture. It is through the Gospels that we must understand the rest of Scripture. We don't use the Pauline epistles to help us understand what our Lord says. Rather, we use the Gospels to help us understand what Paul says. Nor is the Gospel contained in the OT. Rather, the OT is illuminated by the Gospels.
If you're putting the epistles first, or the OT first, you'll never get it right. Start with the Gospels, for this and for everything.
--------------------
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
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
If you're putting the epistles first, or the OT first, you'll never get it right. Start with the Gospels, for this and for everything.
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Arabella: I've never met you. How, on an internet bulletin board, could I acknowledge your personhood? What have I said to lead you to think I wouldn't, if I knew you?
I was only using myself as an example and the "you" in the question is anti-gay church people in general. My experience is, as I've said ad nauseum, that anti-gay people don't ever bother with the getting to know me part, they just go straight for the sex. And I am way more than sex or sexuality.
--------------------
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
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Did you know that if you take too long to edit a post, you can't do it? I just found out...
And actually, if you looked around the boards a bit, you'd see that this is not the only thread I post on - you could find out from even a cursory look that I'm interested in books, gardening, cooking and politics. I don't know about you, but I build up a general profile of people on the boards and think to myself that I'd be interested in meeting, for example, Emma, Josephine, Trudy, Mousethief, Ruth, Callan, Esmerelda, psyduck, Duchess..... because they are interesting people. I only know them from their posting.
Just so no one gets offended, this list is not comprehensive nor is it in any sort of order - there are lots of people I'd love to meet if I wasn't stuck down at the bottom of the world.
--------------------
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
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Dear brothers and sisters
I feel puzzled.
I think about the Church's history and the change the gospel brought to the morals of the world. I think about the sensitivity of our Saints and fathers and cannot but feel perplexed when people nowadays point out that the Church's stance must change. Were the gentle and sensitive priests and bishops unable to understand what their people confessed to Christ in their presence? What is it that they saw in sex between members of the same gender that led them condemn it harshly?
With the coming of Christ to the world, the New Kingdom prophesied by Daniel the prophet became accessible to many. The Kingdom being not of this world, we have seen the Saints criticizing and changing the world. I do not agree with those who propose that the people who gave their lives for the gospel of Christ were children of their epoch. I see them being liberated by Christ from the divisions of what has been called the world. I think that what they condemned, they rightly condemned, and what they approved, they rightly approved.
We have read many posts where people speak positively of homosexuals and homosexual relationships. They point to the bond of love that two people of the same sex can develop, which, along with mutual understanding and care for each other, makes homosexual relationships similar to heterosexual relationships. Is this the way homosexuality was experienced in the past?
I sincerely doubt it. In fact, I am bold enough to point out that this is not even the way many people experience homosexual relationships even nowadays. Sick expressions of sexuality have been experienced by our societies from the ancient times. It is against this sickness, which includes abusiveness, that the Holy Spirit's righteous condemnation has been proclaimed. The carnal and profane has no place in the table of the spiritual and sanctified. The sarx of the carnal differs from the sarx of the followers of Christ.
I cannot see how the marital relationship between a man and a woman has been similar to the relationship between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman in the ages before our own. As far as our own era is concerned, I see some of these sick forms of sexuality remaining. However, I also see people talking from personal experience that things between persons of the same sex that form a relationship can also be as honorable as those between two married in Christ. Has there a change taken place?
I cannot give a definite answer to that question. I am but one, and these things are supposed to be discussed by the entire Christian community. Only through the entire body of Christ can we reach at decisions on whether we are to change our view on homosexuality or not. However, the Church has been proven unable to follow conciliatory ways and resolve the issue. Some groups of Christians were formed, each holding to their own view.
In my opinion, a unified view of sexuality should be given by the Church to the whole world, as part of our fulfilling our role as the salt of the earth and the light of the world. But a unified view is difficult to be given in a Christianity that is herself divided and sleeping. I approach the issue theologically. I am neither a pastor, so I do not feel the pressing need to get such a unified view, nor one afflicted by this debate. As a heterosexual, a unified view on sexuality in general will benefit me as well, although it is far less pressing for me than it is for those who are not heterosexual.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mertseger
Faerie Bard
# 4534
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I was only using myself as an example and the "you" in the question is anti-gay church people in general. My experience is, as I've said ad nauseum, that anti-gay people don't ever bother with the getting to know me part, they just go straight for the sex. And I am way more than sex or sexuality.
I have to say that knowing one particular gay man was how I overcame my homophobia. He had been one of my closest friends in high school. He came out to me as we both started grad school. What was particularly effective at demolishing my prejudice was that I had sent him tearful letters over a devastating romantic entanglement with a woman in college, and he had responded with compassion and support while (unbeknownst to me at the time) he had been similarly entangled with a guy.
Hatred of homosexuals is diffuse, anonymous and general. Overcoming bigotry and hatred requires the intervention of grace in the particular. It is always easy to hate "them". It is almost impossible to hate a particular individual once you are integrated into their story and their life.
And you know what? I may be a lowly Pagan, but it seems to me that the Jesus of the Gospel vested himself in particulars. Story after story tells of His meeting individuals in their lives and in the very midst of their sin without condemnation and often with celebration. Contra-wise there are very few stories of his condemning classes of people (Pharisees and temple money-changers come to mind). "Yes", as the argument goes, "but He always demanded that the sinners He met change their ways." As far as I can tell, Jesus did not discriminate: He demanded EVERYONE change their ways. For those closest to Him and those most legalistically and rigorously seeking to live a life of purity, He demanded the GREATEST change.
Sin is a wedge between people and God. But sin is also, ultimately, a wedge between people and each other. Until you can genuinely ask forgiveness for your hatred from one particular individual in the class of people whom you hate, then, truly, how can you condemn their sin as a group? You are broken from them, and, thereby, from the Lord.
Therefore, forgive me, good evangelicals, for any ways that I may have belittled or dismissed your intelligence or your compassion. You strive for that which you believe is correct. You have done much more good than harm: for the poor, for the hungry, for the starving souls of the desensitized, distracted and consumerist world we all have wrought together.
I do not know what world we can build together if and when you forgive me my condescension, but I hope it is one in which you get to know people like my friends John and Carl and Tony and Francis and Thom and Carla and Johanna. They’re all really cool.
--------------------
Go and be who you are:
The Body of Christ,
The Goddess of Body,
The Manifest Song of Faerie.
Posts: 1765 | From: Oakland, CA, USA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Since when were evangelicals intelligent -especially on this issue?
If the people behind the campaign for the abolition of the slave trade, the vast majority of Scottish missions, the Reformation, the Disruption and the temperance movement are all thickos in your book, then you're really not in much of a position to lecture their spiritual heirs on the intelligence of their beliefs.
L.
[ 15. December 2006, 22:29: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I’d like to follow on from Arabella Purity Winterbottom’s earlier post and the impact of Genesis 1 and 2 and see where that takes us, but first I’ll respond to Josephine’s point about ‘Gospel first’.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I'd have to say you have it completely and absolutely backwards. The Gospels are the crown of Holy Scripture. It is through the Gospels that we must understand the rest of Scripture. We don't use the Pauline epistles to help us understand what our Lord says. Rather, we use the Gospels to help us understand what Paul says. Nor is the Gospel contained in the OT. Rather, the OT is illuminated by the Gospels.
If you're putting the epistles first, or the OT first, you'll never get it right. Start with the Gospels, for this and for everything.
In part I agree with this, Josephine, though I would distinguish between the two uses of the word ‘gospel’: the first four books of the NT and the actual message God sent that was proclaimed by Jesus in his life and work. Certainly for someone who is new to Christianity there is good sense in first proclaiming and examining the good news message found in the four books. However, that message will itself raise questions; if the good news is essentially that God has opened a way for reconciliation with him, then naturally we need to answer the question, “Why do we need reconciliation?” That has to bring us back to Gen. 3 and related themes in the rest of the bible. That, in turn, begs the question, “What were we supposed to be like before that rebellion?” There we are, back in Gen. 1-2 and its related themes. I’ve some to see – thanks to many worthy thinkers I’ve listened to or read – that the gospel is indeed there in the OT. God was announcing it through plenty of mouths for those who had the eyes to see or the ears to hear at the time. I note that Jesus spent a fair amount of his earthly ministry wrestling back the Hebrew Scriptures from those who had wrong interpretations of it. When confronted with the bad and ugly in interpretation, he went back to first principles – creation and God’s will for his people (e.g., his use of Gen. 2 in the debate on marriage, Mark 10:1-9). Similarly with Paul, when he had the chance to spend some time explaining the gospel – the book of Romans – includes the OT in his encapsulation (1:4) and then spends the first 4 chapters expounding Genesis. In fact, I agree with those who argue that Romans is really a piece of extended exegesis on Genesis.
Its for these sort of reasons that I would argue that the gospel doesn’t begin with Matthew 1, but with Genesis 1.
Time is a bit squeezed at the moment - but hope to be able to start spinning this out with Genesis later....
Nigel
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Leo:
quote:
Since when were evangelicals intelligent -especially on this issue?
It is rarely wise to assume that people who disagree with you are stupid and never wise to make that assumption explicit in debate with them.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Oddly, the people espousing the bible based argument - and focusing on particular sexual acts as a result - don't take this to its literal conclusion. In other words lesbianism is not contra-indicated and oral sex between men would be fine.
Which suggests a layer of interpretation going on that is not sola scriptura - no surprise there then. I think the interpretations reflect the diffuse homophobia mentioned above - it stops being about the bible at that point.
I also second APW 'It's about the person, people !
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Leo:
quote:
Since when were evangelicals intelligent -especially on this issue?
It is rarely wise to assume that people who disagree with you are stupid and never wise to make that assumption explicit in debate with them.
Unintelligent because they know little of biblical hermeneutics, modern biblical or medical/psychological scholarship and accept the authority of one book, the Bible, and insist that everything else that doesn't fit it be made to bend to fit or else disregard it.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
