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 81)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  ...  92  93  94 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
{{{{Martin}}}}

I know personally how painful it is to wrestle with that concept of God.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580

 - Posted      Profile for Comper's Child     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, Martin, your feelings and beliefs must be deeply painful. I've just said a prayer for you.

Remember the words of Jesus - said so often - "Peace be with you."

Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But how does parroting "Peace be with you" actually help someone who is struggling with the dichotomy between his need for that peace, that understanding of being loved, and the fear of a vengeful killer God?

Isn't that exactly the dichotomy felt by people of any not-perfectly-straight sexuality, between their need for an expression of love from the church and the actual expression of hatred, "get away, you unclean, unsaveable person" shouted out by so many in the church - the ones who claim to love, but won't?

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

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
HB--

ISTM that it at least lets Martin know he's heard and cared about. There aren't any easy answers when you're in his position--every possibility is scary.

I have been there. I'm currently in a sort of middle ground, living my questions and acknowledging the different puzzle pieces. Getting here wasn't easy. But I got tired of being scared of God. So I took the risk of moving on beyond (supposed) sureness. I hope God exists, that She is Love, and that She'll finally bring everyone Home. But I don't know. And I could be wrong. And it's scary sometimes.

[Votive]

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Wow - thank you. Really. That IS compassion. But ... I'm a victim of Stockholm syndrome! [Smile]

I'm working out my salvation with fear and trembling. As it should guys, as it should be.

We are SO close.

And if any orthodox "Christian" tells any one struggling with bondage to sin (in its widest sense!) that they are unsavable THEY are the evil, blind, loveless, naked, stinking bastard who should be disfellowshipped.

The God who opened up the ground under the households of Korah, Dathan and Abiram for trying to establish liberal democracy and burnt them to bits of smoking meat loves us guys.

He loved THEM, He loves THEM, will love them yet, they will be reconciled to Him in the Resurrection as will all of us in human bondage.

Which is all of us.

Lord have mercy.

Especially on those in the bondage of condemnation, in the bondage of hate especially homophobia.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yeah, I'm guessing (hoping, as above) that God can manage the Love thing a bit better than the members of His churches.

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

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580

 - Posted      Profile for Comper's Child     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But how does parroting "Peace be with you" actually help someone who is struggling with the dichotomy between his need for that peace, that understanding of being loved, and the fear of a vengeful killer God?

Isn't that exactly the dichotomy felt by people of any not-perfectly-straight sexuality, between their need for an expression of love from the church and the actual expression of hatred, "get away, you unclean, unsaveable person" shouted out by so many in the church - the ones who claim to love, but won't?

Well, "parroting" wasn't my intention. I find I need to remind myself that, though Jesus rightly condemns many things, he spent more time, in my reading, reminding his followers that God isn't -about- fear, but rather love.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 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 Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I would not turn either adulterers or practising homosexuals away from communion, not that I have any say in that and nor am I ever likely to have.

Bit of a red herring here. The question really is would you think it good for a serial adulterer (as opposed to a person who has made a mistake and regrets it) or a heterosexual cohabitee to be ordained if the church and the selectors knew about it?
If they 'made a mistake and regret(s) it then presumably they should leave their 2nd wife and return to their first????

--------------------
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
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 Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The day the church accepted sinners on sinners' terms is the day the church stopped being the spotless bride of Christ.

Rubbish as usual - God accepts us sinners JUST AS WE ARE.

Maybe he accepts homophobes so that they can be wooed by His love so that they can repent their hatred and fear.

--------------------
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
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The day the church accepted sinners on sinners' terms is the day the church stopped being the spotless bride of Christ.

Rubbish as usual - God accepts us sinners JUST AS WE ARE.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here Leo.

Of course God accepts us as we are, but he doesn't want us to stay like that. Which, I thought, was what Martin said.

The matter of homosexuality aside, you don't think that God accepts sinners but doesn't expect them to repent, do you?

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Doesn't God hope for repentance, whenever it happens? I thought that a number of parables were talking about God holding out his arms for people to turn to him in repentance, and that he will rejoice over the sinners turning to him and repenting, whenever that happens.

I also thought that there were several parables (the reading today in the CofE, Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43 being one) and speeches by Jesus saying that the judgement should be left to God, not to man. To quote Gene Robinson, we are the welcome committee, not the selection conference.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 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 
Indeed - that was what I was about to say.

We had a sermon about today's gospel - the wheat and the weeds - that said that there are too many weed-pullers in the church.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Our sermon said that we should be looking to ourselves and our own Christian witness, not trying to deflect attention away from our own sins by pointing the finger at others. That if we were all trying to be the best Christians that we could be, without reference to our brothers then the Church would be a much better place already. And that there have been many prophesies that the Anglican Communion was about to fail, (no can't remember who was quoted) and it's still here, through the grace of God, not man.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Tuba, if I may be so informal and use your first name.

The hatred of homosexuals is a sin. A truly gross one. A disfellowshippable one. An example of sociopathology at least.

I am very much aware of my own matrix of sexual responses as I would be by now at 54. They are not orthodox by a LONG way. I have been astounded at what has turned me on. How positively flushed and coquettish I have been to say the least. Homosexually so.

We elevate the concept of the sublimation of intense desire, of romantic love, which I know full well homosexuals experience as equally as heterosexuals and the accompanying pair bonding, all of the facets of erotic, philial and selfless, sacrificial love that are entailed.

We judge the horse - orthodoxy - by that cart - overwhelming human experience.

I am a liberal. I'm as liberal as I can possibly be. By inclination. By nature. By disposition. Against orthodoxy that I cannot refute.

Ultimately I dare not.

I FEAR God.

I have championed the killer God who became Jesus here and always will unless I apostasize.

But it must be 12 years and more since I read the Torah, the Pentateuch and Job which it's taken me half a year to - I'm THAT disciplined!

And I have been utterly horrified by God's lethality. God the Son's lethality. Just a week ago, His execution, His total scorched earth, no prisoners war on Korah, Dathan and Abiram. And their households. Although some children at least survived. The SAME God who shone through the window of Jesus. Jesus who is JUST as lethal. He damns us to eternal hell if we deny Him.

Do you see my 'problem'?

To me your liberal God is utterly unrecognisable.

Yes, you may call me "Tuba," Martin. [Biased]

Sorry to be a few extra days getting back; I got busy - and am also tired of arguing over this issue, so I needed a little break.

I don't think God is "liberal" - (whatever that means!) - and I'm not exactly sure what would prompt you to think I did. (I'm not a "universalist," for one example, which you seem to think I am. I'm also not really a political liberal; I'm a conservative in some ways and a centrist in most others, if I had to classify myself.)

I simply don't think that God created human beings in order to turn around in the next moment and destroy them; that makes no sense at all to me. As I said above, I'm not interested in "inclusion" - but in "truth." And it simply isn't true, as it is should be according to the theology, that celibacy makes gay people holier. Also, the Scriptures refer specifically to men, and not to women; that says that "homosexuality" is not the concern here. Also, the arguments against homosexuality all contradict themselves; as I've said on this thread, there isn't any good analogy that can be drawn (to alcoholism or kleptomania or adultery; homosexuality is not like any of these). What does that say? To me, it says that the premise upon which the anti-gay view rests is wrong.

The Scriptures, after all, also say in quite a number of places that we should "test what we think we know." Here's one example:

quote:
16 Be joyful always; 17 pray continually; 18 give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus.

19 Do not put out the Spirit's fire; 20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good. 22 Avoid every kind of evil.

That doesn't sound like a "lethal" God, to me - unless by "lethal," you are referring to the death of the former self. My thinking is that this is where the traditional reading on this topic fails. It has not been tested; it has not really even been considered.

To me, it's time to test it - and that's what all this is about.

Still, if you have another view, that's up to you. That's why it's good that there are places for both of us to go.

[ 20. July 2008, 18:18: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(I'd also like to add - as I'm sure I have on this thread or another one already - that if we had to fear the "lethality" of God for breaking commandments, we're all in the soup already, in a number of ways.

As C.S. Lewis wrote in "Mere Christianity":

quote:
There is one bit of advice given to us by the ancient heathen Greeks, and by the Jews in the Old Testament, and by the great Christian teachers of the Middle Ages, which the modern economic system has completely disobeyed. All these people told us not to lend money at interest: and lending money at interest-what we call investment-is the basis of our whole system. Now it may not absolutely follow that we are wrong. Some people say that when Moses and Aristotle and the Christians agreed in forbidding interest (or "usury" as they called it), they could not foresee the joint stock company, and were only dunking of the private moneylender, and that, therefore, we need not bother about what they said. That is a question I cannot decide on. I am not an economist and I simply do not know whether the investment system is responsible for the state we are in or not This is where we want the Christian economist But I should not have been honest if I had not told you that three great civilisations had agreed (or so it seems at first sight) in condemning the very thing on which we have based our whole life.
So I can't see how or why homosexuality comes in for such extraordinary condemnation here - particularly since there are many, many more references to "usury" in the Hebrew Bible (and maybe in the New Testament?) than there are about "homosexuality."

But, as Lewis says: "Now, it may not absolutely follow that we are wrong...." In all honesty, I can't see why this "it may not follow" wouldn't be applicable in the case we are discussing as well.)

[ 20. July 2008, 19:19: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[brick wall] As I keep trying to say, the issue is not whether homosexual behaviour is a 'worse' sin than any other (it isn't IMHO), but that some people are denying it's a sin at all. For those of us on the conservative side of tings, it's not about whether the Church should welcome sinners - it should - but to what extent it should include impenitent sinners.

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
[brick wall] As I keep trying to say, the issue is not whether homosexual behaviour is a 'worse' sin than any other (it isn't IMHO), but that some people are denying it's a sin at all. For those of us on the conservative side of tings, it's not about whether the Church should welcome sinners - it should - but to what extent it should include impenitent sinners.

Or, maybe, whether or not we are right to make judgements of others supposed sin on such partial and flawed data. I don't see why you can't get this! If we are happy to fellowship with bankers (unrepentant usurers? Presumably they are denying that usury is a sin) why not with homosexuals. There is far more scriptural indication of God's mind towards usury than there is towards gay sex in the context of non-exploitative, committed, marriage-like relationships. The banker we give latitude of conscience towards, why not the gay man or lesbian.

Personally, I have never found the Holy Spirit to be backward in coming forward when convicting me of sinful behaviour. Should we not entrust to Him the responsibility of directing what other people do in their most intimate lives, rather than seeking to take that task to ourselves?

I think that, where other people are harmed by the behaviour of particular individuals, then it may be necessary to challenge such behaviour, but it is very much a "second-best" solution, something recognised as such by Jesus when He ring-fenced the circumstances with talk of planks and splinters. It is a concession to our flawed nature. But here we are talking, not about harm, but about mutual benefit and support, the same helps that straight people can find in marriage, and for which purpose, according to the marriage service, God blesses the institution.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Would you then extend this principle to unrepentant adulterers where 'no-one is being harmed'; I'm talking here of those situations where, for example, the wife doesn't feel 'wronged' but is quite happy that her husband has a mistress. Would you be happy with such a three-some pitching up at your congo on a Sunday morning and being quite open about their relationship and that it's a Good Thing™? What if the Marquis of Bath pops up at the communion rail with two or three of his 'wifelets'? Still happy?

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  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 Matt Black:
[brick wall] As I keep trying to say, the issue is not whether homosexual behaviour is a 'worse' sin than any other (it isn't IMHO), but that some people are denying it's a sin at all. For those of us on the conservative side of tings, it's not about whether the Church should welcome sinners - it should - but to what extent it should include impenitent sinners.

How do you define 'impenitent'?

If someone's consciences tells them that they are not sinning if in a gay relationship, then, from a catholic point of view, they are not sinning.

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

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There are rare cases where adultery could be harmless or justified, but this is irrelevant to putting all loving and faithful sexual relationships by a person into the same category as the most harmful adultery, just because you've got a few bits of koine greek text which say so, according to someone's interpretation. Not because anyone is hurt or harmed, but because of reading a few difficult Greek tests in such a manner as to place a cruel burden of loneliness, stigma and discrimination on others.

Now to me, that's sinful. God knows, I've just waded through a heavy scholarly book on Greek homosexualties, (radically different customs from city to city) and I'm damned if I know exactly what the Corinthians were doing, you cant extrapolate on the customs of one city to another.

Since nowadays I don't see many gay and Lesbian people practising ritual abduction in Crete or temple prostitution in Elis or the Spartan custom of 'always wear your cloak' for a bit of frottage with your apprentice warrior. I don't think it's relevant what St Paul thought of whatever custom he encountered in Corinth, as we have no way of being clear about what that was, or the ages or statuses of those involved, but we have a very clear picture of the modern harm done to gay and lesbian people by this taboo and an equally clear picture that they are not harming anyone else.

To take such a difficult and context-dependent piece of interpretation and wield it to blight the lives of people who are not harming anyone is cruel.

The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath. If you think you've found some exciting holy rule which actually causes cruelty and hardship, then well, let's suppose you may be right that technically by-the-book, it's sinful, but if you use it to harm people, then how much more and worse may you have sinned?

I don't think you can expect most people anymore to accept causing obvious harm to people on the grounds of a religious text - no more than you can expect most Britons to accept the worse forms of sharia on the grounds that it's religious, and the reason for that has as much to do with the way the thinking of Jesus about the Pharisees has seeped through into people's moral thinking as it does with modern social and scientific research which has revealed that women are not inferior and gays are not mentally ill.

It's for this reason that a lot of people with Christian backgrounds abhor what is going on in the Church at the moment, not because they're anti-Christian but because some Christian values have sunk so deeply into the psyche that seeing sections of the church proudly act against them is abhorrent.


L.

--------------------
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
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Personally, I have never found the Holy Spirit to be backward in coming forward when convicting me of sinful behaviour.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If someone's consciences tells them that they are not sinning if in a gay relationship, then, from a catholic point of view, they are not sinning.

... like the Australian evangelist (some decades ago) - the Holy Spirit told him to leave his wife and shack up with another woman.

I know that most Aussies would say that the average bloke has his brains in his 'pants' but apparently the Holy Spirit and his conscience reside there too.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You guys really don't listen to the comparisons you draw before you run your mouths off, do you? [Disappointed]

[ 21. July 2008, 12:58: Message edited by: LQ ]

Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 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 Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Personally, I have never found the Holy Spirit to be backward in coming forward when convicting me of sinful behaviour.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If someone's consciences tells them that they are not sinning if in a gay relationship, then, from a catholic point of view, they are not sinning.

... like the Australian evangelist (some decades ago) - the Holy Spirit told him to leave his wife and shack up with another woman.

I know that most Aussies would say that the average bloke has his brains in his 'pants' but apparently the Holy Spirit and his conscience reside there too.

That is not the 'educated conscience' that the Church teaches.

--------------------
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
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Personally, I have never found the Holy Spirit to be backward in coming forward when convicting me of sinful behaviour.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If someone's consciences tells them that they are not sinning if in a gay relationship, then, from a catholic point of view, they are not sinning.

... like the Australian evangelist (some decades ago) - the Holy Spirit told him to leave his wife and shack up with another woman.

I know that most Aussies would say that the average bloke has his brains in his 'pants' but apparently the Holy Spirit and his conscience reside there too.

That is not the 'educated conscience' that the Church teaches.
And neither is a same-sex relationship, last time the Pope opened his mouth on the subject.

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
[brick wall] As I keep trying to say, the issue is not whether homosexual behaviour is a 'worse' sin than any other (it isn't IMHO), but that some people are denying it's a sin at all. For those of us on the conservative side of tings, it's not about whether the Church should welcome sinners - it should - but to what extent it should include impenitent sinners.

How do you define 'impenitent'?

If someone's consciences tells them that they are not sinning if in a gay relationship, then, from a catholic point of view, they are not sinning.

That's a pretty convenient let-out, isn't it? So if, say, Franco genuinely believed he was doing the right thing by shooting a few Republicans, atheists and communists, then that's OK by you?

[ETA - Louise, isn't it more cruel not to lovingly point out to someone that they are sinning and to seek their repentance for that sin?]

[ 21. July 2008, 13:56: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | 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 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
There are rare cases where adultery could be harmless or justified, but this is irrelevant to putting all loving and faithful sexual relationships by a person into the same category as the most harmful adultery, just because you've got a few bits of koine greek text which say so, according to someone's interpretation. [Italics mine]

That's really the issue right there, in the italics. You interpret the scriptures to say one thing, I interpret them to mean another.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yup. And are we then forbidden, arising from that interpretation, from acting according to it in good conscience (just as you act in good conscience arising from yours)?

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Incipit
Shipmate
# 10554

 - Posted      Profile for Incipit   Email Incipit   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I just wanted to thank Louise for what she wrote in her last post, which expresses very well what I, too, think.
Posts: 51 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yup. And are we then forbidden, arising from that interpretation, from acting according to it in good conscience (just as you act in good conscience arising from yours)?

Wow, there's forbidding going on here? I mean sure the RCC does some forbidding, but I hadn't noticed Louise doing any. Persuading, yes. Or attempts to.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, apparently we're 'cruel' [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
You guys really don't listen to the comparisons you draw before you run your mouths off, do you? [Disappointed]

Actually it was a very serious comparison. Over many years I have listened to countless people justify simply incredible things by appealling either to the Holy Spirit or to conscience. All the time. Really.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
[brick wall] As I keep trying to say, the issue is not whether homosexual behaviour is a 'worse' sin than any other (it isn't IMHO), but that some people are denying it's a sin at all. For those of us on the conservative side of tings, it's not about whether the Church should welcome sinners - it should - but to what extent it should include impenitent sinners.

How do you define 'impenitent'?

If someone's consciences tells them that they are not sinning if in a gay relationship, then, from a catholic point of view, they are not sinning.

That's a pretty convenient let-out, isn't it? So if, say, Franco genuinely believed he was doing the right thing by shooting a few Republicans, atheists and communists, then that's OK by you?
And the shooting of republicans, etc, doesn't come into the exception that we should cause no harm to our neighbour how? (Come to think of it, the practice of usury seems to cause a bit of harm, at least to some, at the moment, as you, Matt, are in a better situation than most to appreciate, I recall.)

quote:

[ETA - Louise, isn't it more cruel not to lovingly point out to someone that they are sinning and to seek their repentance for that sin?

Let us suppose that such loving correction is what is going on at the moment, (and I find little evidence that this is the case) the person who offers that advice should be their Pastor or Spiritual Director, not Joe Bloggs from halfway round the world. Furthermore, the person to whom that correction is administered has every right to say, "I'm sorry, what you are saying is not correct, I haven't sinned in the matter to which you refer." And if that person does say that, we should be gracious enough to trust that God will decide between us.

On the other hand, maybe you'd like to try your approach out on your Bank Manager friends, the next time you go in for a loan?

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580

 - Posted      Profile for Comper's Child     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Well, apparently we're 'cruel' [Roll Eyes]

Well apparently, according to some alternate POVs, we're cruel...

Perhaps all can put down the stones.

Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
[brick wall] As I keep trying to say, the issue is not whether homosexual behaviour is a 'worse' sin than any other (it isn't IMHO), but that some people are denying it's a sin at all. For those of us on the conservative side of tings, it's not about whether the Church should welcome sinners - it should - but to what extent it should include impenitent sinners.

How do you define 'impenitent'?

If someone's consciences tells them that they are not sinning if in a gay relationship, then, from a catholic point of view, they are not sinning.

That's a pretty convenient let-out, isn't it? So if, say, Franco genuinely believed he was doing the right thing by shooting a few Republicans, atheists and communists, then that's OK by you?
And the shooting of republicans, etc, doesn't come into the exception that we should cause no harm to our neighbour how?
Oh, come, come: you're moving Leo's goalposts for him. His argument was "it's not sin if you in good conscience believe it not to be sin". Nothing about whether it might harm someone else.
quote:

quote:

[ETA - Louise, isn't it more cruel not to lovingly point out to someone that they are sinning and to seek their repentance for that sin?

Let us suppose that such loving correction is what is going on at the moment, (and I find little evidence that this is the case)
On this we are agreed - and here is way I part company a fair whack of a distance from the likes of ++Akinola, whose approach can scarcely be described with the word 'loving' [Disappointed]
quote:
the person who offers that advice should be their Pastor or Spiritual Director, not Joe Bloggs from halfway round the world.
Yes and no; we're not talking about any old Joe but someone with whom one is in communion in the same Church.
quote:
Furthermore, the person to whom that correction is administered has every right to say, "I'm sorry, what you are saying is not correct, I haven't sinned in the matter to which you refer." And if that person does say that, we should be gracious enough to trust that God will decide between us.
Again, yes and no; if the pastor or spiritual director has manifestly (in the eyes of others) failed, what then?

quote:
On the other hand, maybe you'd like to try your approach out on your Bank Manager friends, the next time you go in for a loan?
Only if I can use my Ian Paisley voice when I'm doing it. On second thoughts, don't get me fantasising dangerously!

[ 21. July 2008, 14:58: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Well, apparently we're 'cruel' [Roll Eyes]

Well apparently, according to some alternate POVs, we're cruel...

Perhaps all can put down the stones.

No stoning from me; like I said, I'm not ++Peter Akinola.

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  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 Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
[brick wall] As I keep trying to say, the issue is not whether homosexual behaviour is a 'worse' sin than any other (it isn't IMHO), but that some people are denying it's a sin at all. For those of us on the conservative side of tings, it's not about whether the Church should welcome sinners - it should - but to what extent it should include impenitent sinners.

How do you define 'impenitent'?

If someone's consciences tells them that they are not sinning if in a gay relationship, then, from a catholic point of view, they are not sinning.

That's a pretty convenient let-out, isn't it? So if, say, Franco genuinely believed he was doing the right thing by shooting a few Republicans, atheists and communists, then that's OK by you?

[ETA - Louise, isn't it more cruel not to lovingly point out to someone that they are sinning and to seek their repentance for that sin?]

A mature, informed conscience is essential for authentic Christian discipleship. Catholic theology avoids two extremes in its teachings about conscience: It cannot be reduced to either a license for moral relativity or a threatening voice of fear that controls behavior beyond authentic moral norms.

Conscience is too often taught and at times even experienced as almost exclusively a kind of "interior" judge or, worse, a "sense of guilt." While, admittedly, true conscience does involve making a judgment, and failing to heed the call of conscience should result in a sense of true guilt, neither judgment nor guilt comprise the essence of conscience in the Catholic tradition. At the same time, some contemporary ethicists attempt to reduce conscience simply to a "moral methodology" or a "way" of approaching moral decisions, dangerously avoiding any connection of conscience to moral norms.

Conscience is so much more than that. Conscience is "me" coming to a decision. "Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a person. There they are alone with God, whose voice echoes in their depths" (Gaudium et Spes, n. 16)....Catholic moral theology, to use the words of Vatican II, is nourished by Scripture but still depends on and honors the gift of reason that comes with personhood. This concept is explained beautifully in a short paragraph from a document of Vatican II:

"In the depths of their conscience, one detects a law which one does not impose on oneself, but which holds one to obedience. Always summoning one to love the good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience can when necessary speak to one's heart more specifically; do this, shun that" (Gaudium et Spes, n. 16).....We are obliged to follow our consciences if we wish to be Christian disciples, even if in fact, unbeknownst to us, our decision is contrary to what is right. "If the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for their erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to them. It remains no less an evil." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1793). http://www.the-tidings.com/2007/011207/benson.htm

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

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Well, apparently we're 'cruel' [Roll Eyes]

There's a little icon you see at the top of the page called 'printer friendly view'. If you put the thread into that mode you can use control F to go down the whole thread. Try that on this thread and go through Arabella's posts and see what she and partner were put through for people of your views and then tell me that wasn't cruel and that it's worth it to see someone like her driven away from her church.


As for the idea that 'true love' is telling people they're 'sinning' - Oh please! I'm telling you I think your views are awful and damaging, but I'm not going to pretend for a minute that that's loving, I just wish people of your views would leave the harmless gay people alone and just be glad that despite the way they've historically been treated, some of them still have such an amazingly strong faith that they want to serve the church despite what it's done to them.

L.

--------------------
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
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yup. And are we then forbidden, arising from that interpretation, from acting according to it in good conscience (just as you act in good conscience arising from yours)?

[Paranoid] What do you mean "acting on it"? You're free to not enter a same-sex relationship, but not to proscribe them for all.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
You guys really don't listen to the comparisons you draw before you run your mouths off, do you? [Disappointed]

Actually it was a very serious comparison. Over many years I have listened to countless people justify simply incredible things by appealling either to the Holy Spirit or to conscience. All the time. Really.
But the topic under discussion isn't like the Australian evangelist in your anecdote. We're talking about faithful relationships.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Would you then extend this principle to unrepentant adulterers where 'no-one is being harmed'; I'm talking here of those situations where, for example, the wife doesn't feel 'wronged' but is quite happy that her husband has a mistress. Would you be happy with such a three-some pitching up at your congo on a Sunday morning and being quite open about their relationship and that it's a Good Thing™? What if the Marquis of Bath pops up at the communion rail with two or three of his 'wifelets'? Still happy?

Unfortunately, your parallel isn't accurate. What is seen to be sinless is a gay man turning up at the altar rail with his same-sex spouse, to whom he is faithful and who is faithful to him. Neither the adulterer nor the three-some nor the Marquess of Bath provides an appropriate equivalent.

If you keep talking about promiscuity -- which is clearly forbidden to everyone, regardless of orientation -- or about sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage (or its equivalent) -- which is equally disapproved for everyone, regardless of orientation -- I shall begin to think you have not read or understood what a lot of participants on this thread are talking about.

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
But the topic under discussion isn't like the Australian evangelist in your anecdote. We're talking about faithful relationships.

Come on LQ you are deliberately reading extra into what I said.

Even if the first one could be misconstrued my last post was clear. All I was doing was giving an example where sincerely appealing to the Holy Spirit was no guarantee that the action was justified. That's it. That's all. For a comparison to work it does not have to be equivalent on every point... indeed if it had to be, it somewhat removes the need for having comparisons!

Years and years of pastoral ministry have taught me how easy self-deception is. I include myself in that.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yup. And are we then forbidden, arising from that interpretation, from acting according to it in good conscience (just as you act in good conscience arising from yours)?

[Paranoid] What do you mean "acting on it"?


Dealing with unrepentant sinners - not with creulty (contra Louise and ++Peter Akinola - never thought I'd type that on this board! - but lovingly but firmly following the principles laid down by Jesus in Matt 18:15-17.

John Holding, for us, the situations are morally equivalent; they are both fully consensual and claim to be 'doing no harm', yet for us they are sinful and the situations have to be dealt with in the same way. It's not that we don't understand what others have put, it's that we profoundly disagree with it.

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I know you regard orthodoxy i.e. biblical faithfulness, as rubbish Leo. That's understood. Thank you. What awesome company you put me in. Really, thank you.

So, when we come to Christ helplessly in our filth, once in a lifetime, once a day, once every half hour ... it's fine for us just to carry on not being sanctified? Justification is sufficient? There are no works fit for repentance? There is no making amends? Once saved always saved? We might as well rejoice in our depravity?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
But the topic under discussion isn't like the Australian evangelist in your anecdote. We're talking about faithful relationships.

Come on LQ you are deliberately reading extra into what I said.

Even if the first one could be misconstrued my last post was clear. All I was doing was giving an example where sincerely appealing to the Holy Spirit was no guarantee that the action was justified. That's it. That's all. For a comparison to work it does not have to be equivalent on every point... indeed if it had to be, it somewhat removes the need for having comparisons!

Years and years of pastoral ministry have taught me how easy self-deception is. I include myself in that.

That might well be the case, John, but it's difficult to see how we can get round that pesky "freedom of conscience" thing without a return to mediaeval Christendom, which isn't something for which I have seen anyone here arguing. And are you really arguing that all those who regard for the possibility that erotic love between two people of the same gender is licit, are exercising self deception? If so, why are not bankers similarly self deceiving, or even those connoiseurs of the noble borough of Bury's most famous culinary gift to the world. If not, then clearly, there is sufficient doubt about the precise meaning of the six or seven NT verses (in as much as sincere, informed Christians with no personal axe to grind, disagree about their interpretation) to allow lattitude of conscience in these matters. You might not agree, but an admission that a "liberal" view is a legitimate and honourable one, alongside the more conservative one, would defuse much of the current controversy.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I know you regard orthodoxy i.e. biblical faithfulness, as rubbish Leo. That's understood. Thank you. What awesome company you put me in. Really, thank you.


I haven't seen anyone here junking the idea of faithfulness. Quite au contraire

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yup. And are we then forbidden, arising from that interpretation, from acting according to it in good conscience (just as you act in good conscience arising from yours)?

[Paranoid] What do you mean "acting on it"?


Dealing with unrepentant sinners - not with creulty (contra Louise and ++Peter Akinola - never thought I'd type that on this board! - but lovingly but firmly following the principles laid down by Jesus in Matt 18:15-17.

John Holding, for us, the situations are morally equivalent; they are both fully consensual and claim to be 'doing no harm', yet for us they are sinful and the situations have to be dealt with in the same way. It's not that we don't understand what others have put, it's that we profoundly disagree with it.

Oh, but they aren't.

Firstly, adultery is not, first and foremost, sexual sin, though sexual sin will be involved. But the standard conservative position is that homosexual orientation is not, in itself, sinful. So why not use a different sort of sin as your point of comparison, say, unrepentant gossips, or people enslaved to material posessions. To choose the ones you have certainly seems like an attempt to hype up the emotional overtones.

Secondly, though I am not totally comfortable in making sin contigent on harm caused, I think that you cannot exclude that dimension. The fact is that adultery, straight or gay promiscuity, or any one of a dozen inappropriate comparisons which you might like to raise, are breaches of the commandment to love our neighbour as ourselves. Committed homosexual relationships of the type under consideration are not in breach of this commandment, indeed they create a space where this cna be fulfilled for the people concerned and those around them. I cannot see that they are any less an icon for the grace of God than more traditional forms.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I know you regard orthodoxy i.e. biblical faithfulness, as rubbish Leo. That's understood. Thank you. What awesome company you put me in. Really, thank you.


I haven't seen anyone here junking the idea of faithfulness. Quite au contraire
Just to clarify, lest I be accused of selective reading, insert the word "biblical" before "faithfulness"

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Dealing with unrepentant sinners - not with creulty (contra Louise and ++Peter Akinola - never thought I'd type that on this board! - but lovingly but firmly following the principles laid down by Jesus in Matt 18:15-17.

And to go on from that verse, Jesus told Peter that he had to forgive his brother not seven, but seventy-seven times (Mt 18:21) and there are verses and verses telling us that it is not for us to judge, but for God: Mt 7:1-5, Mt 13:24-30, 36-43.

quote:
John Holding, for us, the situations are morally equivalent; they are both fully consensual and claim to be 'doing no harm', yet for us they are sinful and the situations have to be dealt with in the same way. It's not that we don't understand what others have put, it's that we profoundly disagree with it.
Matt, what harm are two consenting homosexual partners doing to anyone else? There are likely to be one or two partners and possibly children who are affected in the case of adultery, so I could argue that adultery is likely to contravene the love your neighbour as yourself commandment. If the homosexual couple are loving God, maybe as part of a church community and are doing their best to live up to all that requires, where do they contravene the commandments?

I really hope that the answer to that is not that they cannot be loving God if they persist in being part of a homosexual relationship. Or that they cannot be loving their neighbours as themselves if they persist in flaunting their homosexuality.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A number of points to make in reply.

Yes, I agree that we are called to forgive, but for that there needs to be something to forgive ie: a sin. It seems to me that if we can't even agree on what is and what is not a sin, then we can't realistically talk about forgiveness eg: what's the point of me emailing +VGR and saying "I forgive your sexual sin"? Surely he will find that rather patronising? Possibly he would respond "Thanks, but as far as I'm concerned I haven't sinned in the area you think I have." That really takes us no further forward, does it?

Secondly, I don't think anyone here is saying that homosexual orientation is a sin. Some of us firmly believe that same-sex genital activity is wrong, and it is that which we would seek to call a sin.

On the 'no harm' issue, I still see no moral difference between a man having a sexual relationship with both his wife and his mistress with the mutual consent of all three parties (and assuming no children) and a man having sex with his boyfriend: both do no apparent harm to others and yet I believe both are wrong as constituting sex outside of marriage.

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
On the 'no harm' issue, I still see no moral difference between a man having a sexual relationship with both his wife and his mistress with the mutual consent of all three parties (and assuming no children) and a man having sex with his boyfriend: both do no apparent harm to others and yet I believe both are wrong as constituting sex outside of marriage.

Possibly the clue is in the word "faithful".

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Secondly, I don't think anyone here is saying that homosexual orientation is a sin. Some of us firmly believe that same-sex genital activity is wrong, and it is that which we would seek to call a sin.

I don't understand the distinction between inclination and act upon inclination. It might be valid in a court of law, where only actual crimes are judged and the heart of the people is irrelevant, but this is not so in theology, where inclination is more important than the actual deed.

If sex with persons of the same gender is unethical, it's unethical because the inclination is sick, and it is with the inclination that the war within the person takes place, as it happens with all others passions.

If the orientation is natural then it is very good and condemning gay sex is a perversion of God's will.

The division between orientation and deed is very artificial and suspect to me.

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  ...  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