|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Curiosity killed ... and Organ grinder
quote:
I can't offhand think of one successful monogamous heterosexual relationship.
quote:
The modern theologies of marriage owe very little to the bulk of examples shown in scripture.
An interesting point! But what are we supposed to make of it?
Some might say that the biblical recognition of the difficulty of relationships is helpful, and that the modern obsession with finding the perfect relationship that will fulfil all of our emotional needs is unbiblical - and probably likely to end in disappointment anyway. Others might say that the Bible is of absolutely no use when it comes to relationship advice! Others might look for positive biblical principles that could apply to marriage, rather than looking for biblical examples of happy marriages.
Modern understandings of marriage do seem a bit muddled, though. People seem to have conflicting desires. Vaguely religious ideas have seeped into the general culture, 'infecting' the secular marriage, but no longer proviing the underpinning for it. Romantic ideas circulate, but so do cynical ones. We dream of 'true love forever', but the exciting emotions that we think of as romantic love are generally only short-lived; divorce is a sign of failure and of personal liberation at one and the same time. We admire brides, but tease bridegrooms....
Confusing.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
And the conservatives have pretty good colorable theological arguments on their side, while theology in favor of the liberal position relies on general statements of God's love and the fact that we don't know exactly what Paul was talking about.
ISTM that the same critique could be made of the abolitionists of the 18th and 19th Century. The "conservatives" in that debate had quite a body of scripture that asserted that slavery was acceptable, even regulated by God himself. The OT has a body of regulations about how slaves were to be treated. Jesus said nothing against the practice. Paul tells slaves to submit to their masters (1 Peter 2:18, Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22) and sends Onesimus back into bondage.
The "liberals" in the argument didn't have any scripture to fall back on. There is nothing in the Bible that outright condemns slavery. So the "liberals" had to also rely on statements about God's love and human dignity and all that.
So this is hardly the first time the debate has been framed in these kind of terms.
[ 12. July 2012, 15:06: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
What we make of those points is your argument doesn't stack up.
And what's your argument, again? That the Bible's a bit useless?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I'm not trying to argue that to be Christian I should be against homosexual couples or same sex marriage. Or that the Bible provides a pattern book for heterosexual coupledom.
My argument would be that the Bible isn't clear on these things so we do really have to make up our own minds in the light of where we are
[ 12. July 2012, 15:56: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
Point of clarification: there's only one reason I don't wish to be referred to as "Organ Grinder"--we have a shipmate who uses that moniker already (though, come to think of it, I haven't seen him around in a while). It doesn't offend me at all, but I think it's best to avoid unnecessary confusion.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Point of clarification: there's only one reason I don't wish to be referred to as "Organ Grinder"--we have a shipmate who uses that moniker already (though, come to think of it, I haven't seen him around in a while). It doesn't offend me at all, but I think it's best to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Sorry!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I'm not trying to argue that to be Christian I should be against homosexual couples or same sex marriage. Or that the Bible provides a pattern book for heterosexual coupledom.
My argument would be that the Bible isn't clear on these things so we do really have to make up our own minds in the light of where we are
Of course. I don't think I was saying any different. People extrapolate. The points I made above were examples of how people of a more orthodox bent might interpret the text in a way that would influence their ideas about straight relationships. (I'm sure there are many other possibilities than I mentioned.)
Equally, people interpret the Bible in different ways when it comes to making a judgement about gay relationships. I never said that the Bible was 'clear' on all these issues; there's disagreement because it's not clear, obviously.
And as I said, there's a spectrum of views. I don't froth at the mouth on this subject; many conservative evangelicals I've come across would take me as too liberal overall, on this and other issues. Each to his own.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Given that quite a lot of the Bible has to be interpreted in relation to the situation of the moment, whatever situation that may be, one would have to think that the charitable (look, there's Paul!) outcome would be one that doesn't involve beating people down or otherwise harming them.
Then we come to the Second Great Commandment. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a corollary to this.
Do the condemners of gays, women,...whoever actually want to be treated as badly as the gays or the women have been?
No, they scream blue murder if anyone even suggests that they should be separated out or mistreated because of their nasty views. They are quite happy to condemn others, but don't understand it when it comes back to haunt them.
Have you examined just how much mistreatment is implied in the rejection of gays? Merely saying "Oh, I don't think it causes any harm" is just a mealy-mouthed way of saying that "they" should put up with mistreatment because it is their fault in the first place that this was ever mentioned.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I presume this was aimed at me. I apologise if you think I was trying to condemn gay people, or trying to sanction other people being mean and nasty. That's not the intention at all.
There should be many more churches that are theologically prepared to nurture people who are
in same-sex relationships; it seems to be a big gap in the market, and I can't understand why that gap hasn't been rectified. I might join such a church myself, depending on its wider ethos and mission.
But I'm not going to condemn all churches that aren't in that position; neither am I automatically going to condemn churches that disapprove of premarital sex, or of adultery between loving couples who can't get married, or of remarriage after divorce. If you wanted me to criticise such churches then I'd do so on a case by case basis, looking at how loving they are in spite of their teachings.
Loving your neighbour doesn't have to mean that you find theological acceptance for everything that you neighbour does and how he or she lives. It might mean that you have to part company in love - not hate! You can still be brothers and sisters in Christ.
I also want to be realistic. The state might - and possibly should - sanction gay marriage, and the different churches should accept that, as they presumably have in Scandinavia, etc. But churches will always differ among themselves on matters of sexual morality. Yet the normalisation of diversity means that Swedish Catholic divorcees who want to remarry can leave the RCC for the Methodist Church, and Swedish gay couples who want to marry can leave the Pentecostals and join the Lutherans. Yes, leaving a church can be painful, but people leave churches all the time. Maybe we need to normalise the process of changing churches, rather than supposing that everyone should be at home everywhere; it's not going to happen. I'm in a process of transition myself, so I know!
What we need is not a single, dominant, all-pervasive attitude on sexuality and sexual relationships (or on anything else), but an acceptance among Christians than we can love each other in spite of our theological and denominational differences.
I'm sorry if this seems 'mealy-mouthed', but it's not a charter for abuse: quite the opposite.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
quote:
Maybe we need to normalise the process of changing churches, rather than supposing that everyone should be at home everywhere; it's not going to happen.
I don't know about Great Britain, but in the USA it is quite common for people to change denominations. Why a person would want to stay in a denomination he strongly disagrees with I have no idea, unless there's some kind of ethnic component involved.
[ 13. July 2012, 18:08: Message edited by: Unreformed ]
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
But it's possible to agree with a denomination on most theological issues and to be most comfortable with that denomination's worship praxis and polity, yet disagree stringently with the denominational stance on particular social and/or sexual issues. It might thus be difficult to make a move to another denomination, even more so if there are multiple aspects of denominational loyalty involved and if one is "picky" about some of them. You would think that RCs disaffected over their Church's stance on issues of human sexuality could easily move to TEC or the ELCA, but this only happens in relatively few cases -- most suffer in silence, fight for their cause from within, or simply drop out of active communion with the Church altogether, in the worst case losing their faith. Likewise, less high church protestants from hostile denominations don't seem to all go flocking to the UCC. I would think, however, it's worst of all for LGBT Southern Baptists and Pentecostalists, who may have nowhere comfortable to go if they are scrupulously opposed to paedobaptism, for example. And although I don't consider them part of the Church by any definition, LGBT Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses seem to have a particularly difficult time with separating themselves from their hostile faith communities, much less finding their way to some part of the Una Sancta.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
quote:
And although I don't consider them part of the Church by any definition, LGBT Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses seem to have a particularly difficult time with separating themselves from their hostile faith communities, much less finding their way to some part of the Una Sancta.
That's because they're basically cults. Mormons and JWs have a difficult time leaving for any reason, especially if you're one from the cradle. Essentially your entire family disowns you from what I understand. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
Also I think it would be much harder to be gay in conservative Protestant denominations because celibacy is not really seen as an option there. They often, in fact, highly elevate the heterosexual nuclear family as the ideal for everyone. This leads to all kinds of problems from closeted gays marrying heterosexuals, to the so-called "ex-gay" movements.
Whereas in Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) celibacy is actually seen as a higher calling than being married, and the parish congregation won't (or at least isn't) supposed to see it as weird.
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I've known a couple of cradle ex-JW's. They weren't disowned by their families per se, but until they definitively left the cult, they were paradoxically encouraged to attend worship meetings whilst being formally shunned by the congregation - weren't supposed to speak to anyone at the "Kingdom Hall" and wouldn't be acknowledged by their co-religionists. IIRC, they will let you back into the good graces of their cult one time only; any more f'g up results in permanent disfellowship. The thing is, however, while it is possible IME for some people to actually make a break with that cult, it is seemingly almost impossible for them to find their way to communion with a Trinitarian Christian Church. That suggests, of course, that they never quite psychologically separate themselves from the cult. It seems to be much the same with Mormons, although research has shown that there are many adult converts who drop out after a few years and may then return to a Christian denomination. The deal with Mormons it seems is that the LDS "Church" won't recognise that they have ever actually, definitively left and so keep using any opportunities available to influence the would-be ex-Mormon to return to active membership in the fold, although it may be that for a few "notorious sins" like homosexuality they will kick you out (as one movie about a gay Mormon youth depicted -- I've no idea whether or not that's accurate). In any case estranged cradle Mormons IME don't normally involve themselves with the Trinitarian Church (I realise that's a redundancy), and seem rather fearful of the prospect of involvement with actual Christian denominations.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
quote:
The deal with Mormons it seems is that the LDS "Church" won't recognise that they have ever actually, definitively left and so keep using any opportunities available to influence the would-be ex-Mormon to return to active membership
God have mercy, if the Mormons want to stop being referred to as a cult I think it behooves them to drop one of the classic signs of, you know, being a cult.
[ 13. July 2012, 19:13: Message edited by: Unreformed ]
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
The deal with Mormons it seems is that the LDS "Church" won't recognise that they have ever actually, definitively left and so keep using any opportunities available to influence the would-be ex-Mormon to return to active membership in the fold, although it may be that for a few "notorious sins" like homosexuality they will kick you out (as one movie about a gay Mormon youth depicted -- I've no idea whether or not that's accurate).
In all fairness I believe the Roman Catholic Church holds a similar position, that if you're baptized a Catholic you're a Catholic for life, barring an explicit excommunication.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
The deal with Mormons it seems is that the LDS "Church" won't recognise that they have ever actually, definitively left and so keep using any opportunities available to influence the would-be ex-Mormon to return to active membership in the fold, although it may be that for a few "notorious sins" like homosexuality they will kick you out (as one movie about a gay Mormon youth depicted -- I've no idea whether or not that's accurate).
In all fairness I believe the Roman Catholic Church holds a similar position, that if you're baptized a Catholic you're a Catholic for life, barring an explicit excommunication.
First, excommunication does not mean you are no longer Catholic. It only means you're cut off from the sacraments.
Second, no. Once baptized, always baptized, that is, it leaves an indelible mark on your soul forever. But anyone can leave the Catholic Church, which basically just means getting your name off the parish and diocesan rolls which is quite easy. You'll no longer be counted as Catholic then.
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I've known a couple of cradle ex-JW's. They weren't disowned by their families per se, but until they definitively left the cult, they were paradoxically encouraged to attend worship meetings whilst being formally shunned by the congregation - weren't supposed to speak to anyone at the "Kingdom Hall" and wouldn't be acknowledged by their co-religionists. IIRC, they will let you back into the good graces of their cult one time only; any more f'g up results in permanent disfellowship. The thing is, however, while it is possible IME for some people to actually make a break with that cult, it is seemingly almost impossible for them to find their way to communion with a Trinitarian Christian Church. That suggests, of course, that they never quite psychologically separate themselves from the cult.
I know one person brought up as a Jehovah's Witness who was shunned off and on by her family after she left the JWs; the shunning became permanent when she was baptized in the Episcopal Church. She's still an active and devout Episcopalian.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Sorry: bit of a tangent...
Originally posted by Unreformed: quote:
Once baptized, always baptized, that is, it leaves an indelible mark on your soul forever. But anyone can leave the Catholic Church, which basically just means getting your name off the parish and diocesan rolls which is quite easy. You'll no longer be counted as Catholic then.
So if I turn up at a Catholic church and claim to have been baptised Catholic but had my name taken off the parish and diocesan rolls what happens?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Sorry: bit of a tangent...
Originally posted by Unreformed: quote:
Once baptized, always baptized, that is, it leaves an indelible mark on your soul forever. But anyone can leave the Catholic Church, which basically just means getting your name off the parish and diocesan rolls which is quite easy. You'll no longer be counted as Catholic then.
So if I turn up at a Catholic church and claim to have been baptised Catholic but had my name taken off the parish and diocesan rolls what happens?
I'm not a priest, so take this with a grain of salt, but I'm pretty sure a record of your baptism would be on file somewhere, even if you leave the Church, so this could be verified. I know TEC still has a record of mine even though I'm no longer on their rules.
[ 13. July 2012, 20:46: Message edited by: Unreformed ]
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Originally posted by Unreformed]: quote:
I'm pretty sure a record of your baptism would be on file somewhere
So I'm still on the books? I'm failing to see your distinction from the LDS?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Originally posted by Unreformed]: quote:
I'm pretty sure a record of your baptism would be on file somewhere
So I'm still on the books? I'm failing to see your distinction from the LDS?
No, you're not. You are no longer counted as Catholic. Just counted as baptized. Being baptized is not the same thing as being Catholic. There are people who are validly baptized, but not Catholic. Hundreds of millions, in fact. Some of them are on this very board!
But I suppose if you insisted, you could get your diocese to completely erase any record that you were ever baptized.
[ 13. July 2012, 20:53: Message edited by: Unreformed ]
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
quote:
The deal with Mormons it seems is that the LDS "Church" won't recognise that they have ever actually, definitively left and so keep using any opportunities available to influence the would-be ex-Mormon to return to active membership
God have mercy, if the Mormons want to stop being referred to as a cult I think it behooves them to drop one of the classic signs of, you know, being a cult.
That's not a hallmark of a cult. Many religious groups that are perfectly mainstream take the position that if you no longer adhere to the religion, you are still (insert religion) even though you are not practicing. I am, for example, both an Episcopalian and a Jew. I was baptized in the Episcopal Church, making me a Christian. I converted years ago to Judaism. I didn't become unbaptized and was therefore a Christian under Christian theology, even though I no longer associated with the religion.
When I left Jewish religious practice and returned to the Church, I didn't unbecome a Jew from their perspective. I'm just not an observant Jew. I could repent and return to the synagogue without having to reconvert. And when I returned to the church, I didn't have to (indeed, I couldn't) be re-baptized.
I don't think either Anglicanism or Conservative Judaism are cults.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
quote:
The deal with Mormons it seems is that the LDS "Church" won't recognise that they have ever actually, definitively left and so keep using any opportunities available to influence the would-be ex-Mormon to return to active membership
God have mercy, if the Mormons want to stop being referred to as a cult I think it behooves them to drop one of the classic signs of, you know, being a cult.
That's not a hallmark of a cult. Many religious groups that are perfectly mainstream take the position that if you no longer adhere to the religion, you are still (insert religion) even though you are not practicing. I am, for example, both an Episcopalian and a Jew. I was baptized in the Episcopal Church, making me a Christian. I converted years ago to Judaism. I didn't become unbaptized and was therefore a Christian under Christian theology, even though I no longer associated with the religion.
When I left Jewish religious practice and returned to the Church, I didn't unbecome a Jew from their perspective. I'm just not an observant Jew. I could repent and return to the synagogue without having to reconvert. And when I returned to the church, I didn't have to (indeed, I couldn't) be re-baptized.
I don't think either Anglicanism or Conservative Judaism are cults.
Judaism is much trickier and I can't really comment on something that's part religion, part ethnicity, part cultural tradition.
But as to the point about baptism, I'm going to say it again--being baptized is not the same thing as being counted as a member of a particular denomination. I am no longer an Episcopalian. Period. My name was stricken from the rolls. But I am still, and will always be, baptized. The same would be true if I had become an atheist instead of a Catholic.
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
Anyway I'm through with this tangent. The original question was "can someone leave the Catholic Church?". Yes. Yes they can. Nothing further needs to be said.
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
If you want to discuss what is and is not a cult- can you take it to Purgatory please?
Thanks!
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Levavi
Shipmate
# 14371
|
Posted
I KNOW that his name has come up (how many times?) on the 90+ pages of this thread (on which pages, I'm not sure), but to get what I might be tempted to view as the best of the 'other side' I've read some of Robert Gagnon's articles recently. He seems to be smart and certainly well-researched. But just more than a little pompous and lacking in charity? Possessed of a really perverse worldview where same-sex love is about the worst offense one can commit, maybe even worse than murder? His views are perhaps (?) internally consistent, but to my view seriously warped. What do others think? (One more thing; to him homosexuality should not be compared with slavery, racism, and ill-treatment of women, but rather compared to incest: he doesn't seem to understand that no one is born with an incestual orientation.)
--------------------
Christ, Mighty Savior, Light of all creation.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
Yes, he is precisely one of those who have a perverse and unbecoming fascination and loathing for those who have a more interesting life than his own.
Less charitably, one of those who has inherited a mutated and particuarly cankerous gene. I'm sure in the decades to come, with more research, he can be cured.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Just to add to the evidence, Tyler Clementi's suicide and the religion of his parents is discussed in the NYT.
quote:
At the time Tyler sat down to tell his parents he was gay, she believed that homosexuality was a sin, as her evangelical church taught. She said she was not ready to tell friends, protecting her son — and herself — from what would surely be the harsh judgments of others.
and
quote:
In the months after Tyler’s death, some of Ms. Clementi’s friends confided that they, too, had gay children. She blames religion for the shame surrounding it — in the conversation about coming out, Tyler told his mother he did not think he could be Christian and gay.
But it is one thing to leave the club over a disagreement about the rules, and a totally different one to think one has to commit suicide because the club (which preaches LOVE) makes you ashamed and guilty
and because of the judgmentalism that is clearly NOT included by the Founder in the rules.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Levavi:
to him homosexuality should not be compared with slavery, racism, and ill-treatment of women, but rather compared to incest: he doesn't seem to understand that no one is born with an incestual orientation.)
Homosex isn't known for producing babies with two heads or webbed fingers, either.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
There are people who are validly baptized, but not Catholic. Hundreds of millions, in fact. Some of them are on this very board!
Are you sure about that? They might not be actively or fully Catholic in the sense of receiving other sacraments, but there is only one church. Anyone who is validly baptized is baptized into the Catholic Church even if not in a Catholic church.
That is the doctrine unless I am mistaken. Any call for a second baptism would be based upon some doubt as to whether the first one was properly performed, when certainty is desired. (Perhaps, for instance, the officiant used the right words but sprinkled water rather than pouring it. This would not be satisfactory per Anglicanism, strictly speaking, as well as the RCC.)
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
And just who IRL actually cares? I can't think that God does, since He sees intentions rather than surface .
Why not let this tangent go to some other place?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
And just who IRL actually cares?
A case from RL where a lot of people cared. You'd think if there were an easy way to "de-Catholicize" someone, Mortara or his parents would have done it.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I'm quite sure that there have been many cases where people were harrassed, attacked or even killed over doctrinal issues.
Maybe I should have said "Who, now, cares?"
One of the joys of the Internet and other communication media is that everyone must realise by now that many people believe many different things, and that NONE of them are totally right (and, possibly, not totally wrong)
It is interesting that my history students find it amazing, and distressful, that people would fight physically over doctrinal issues. This helps to explain why so many of said students are not churchgoers. The churches are, apparently by definition, incapable of actually loving or just tolerating anyone but themselves, whatever the Founder said.
This also explains why we have a 4500+ thread on the "issue" of gayness, which shouldn't be an issue at all
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
This isn't really the thread for this, but there isn't one better, and I don't think it's worth starting a thread of it's own for it, so I'll mention it here anyway.
The recently released children's movie ParaNorman has a secondary character who, at the very end of the movie, reveals himself to be gay. Thus becoming the first openly gay character in a children's animated movie.
I just thought it was an interesting first.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
So, after a couple of months, I have finally reached the end of this thread.
*sighs with exhaustion*
Now I'd like to add my own bit, mainly about how my views have changed over the last decade. (Because I found it rather interesting how, back when this thread started, I would have thought so differently.)
I used to think that homosexuality was sinful and depraved. That was... a while ago now.
Things that have made me change my mind:
1) "What's So Amazing About Grace", and the chapter on Yancey's gay friend. Especially talking about walking in a Pride parade, and the contrast between some Christians standing nearby screaming that God hates gay people, and some lesbians responding with "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so".
2) Adrian Plass writing a short story about Jesus visiting a church, and being way more interested in talking to a gay man about his love of snooker than about his homosexuality.
3) Becoming friends with a fictional gay person (Willow Rosenberg), and then some real ones - and discovering that, actually, gay people were pretty much just people...
4) Discovering some Christians who believed that homosexuality wasn't sinful, and listening to them.
Step 1 happened back in 1997 or thereabouts. Step 4 happened in 2010. What I find really interesting is that, for most of a decade, I was fairly sure that homosexuality was sinful - but fairly convinced that what God wanted from me was love, love, and more love. Since 1997, I have believed that, until gay people were hearing MORE about God's love then they were about God's condemnation, I needed to forget about anything other than loving them right where they were.
I wouldn't have listened to people telling me that homosexuality wasn't sinful, back then. But, interestingly, after a decade of trying to love gay people as best as I could, I started listening - and by then, it reached my ears almost as... old news. Like I'd known it for ages.
To anti-gay people: I'd like to submit that Jesus calls us, first and foremost, to love those around us.
To pro-gay people: I'd like to submit my own life as possible proof that, if someone loves people for long enough, they'll end up changing their mind to match their actions.
...and now I can finally take this ridiculously long thread out of my browser! Hurrah!
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Hats off! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Also
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aelred of Rievaulx
Shipmate
# 16860
|
Posted
quote:
In all fairness I believe the Roman Catholic Church holds a similar position, that if you're baptized a Catholic you're a Catholic for life, barring an explicit excommunication.
Not so: there is a process by which a person who was baptised a Catholic can kind of "divorce" the church and get a certificate saying that they are no longer RCs. I know because my partner who is an atheist did this.
--------------------
In friendship are joined honor and charm, truth and joy, sweetness and good-will, affection and action. And all these take their beginning from Christ, advance through Christ, and are perfected in Christ.
Posts: 136 | From: English Midlands | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
I think it would be much harder to be gay in conservative Protestant denominations because celibacy is not really seen as an option there. They often, in fact, highly elevate the heterosexual nuclear family as the ideal for everyone. This leads to all kinds of problems from closeted gays marrying heterosexuals, to the so-called "ex-gay" movements.
Surely, the advantage of being a gay Pentecostal over being a gay Catholic or a gay Anglican is that Pentecostals routinely start their own churches. Schism is normal. It wouldn't be a case of gay people being cruelly cast out into the darkness, but of gay people doing God's work by founding a more righteous church, as they see it. Pentecostals part company over all sorts of issues, and since people routinely disagree on sexual morality, I'm not sure why they shouldn't part company over this issue as well.
The notion of suffering in silence doesn't strike me as a very Pentecostal thing to do, but it would be interesting to explore why this is acceptable for some issues but frowned upon in relation to others.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The notion of suffering in silence doesn't strike me as a very Pentecostal thing to do,
This strikes me as very funny, although perhaps unintentionally so. Silence isn't very Pentecostal at all!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
May I just say ... sorry. For everything. I'm not out of the woods yet. Don't know if I ever will be. Theologically. Whatever that means. But for every homophobic remark, joke I have EVER made ... and now I'm in tears as I was a ringleader in persecution of a gay guy, 'THE' gay guy in my school of 250 guys, 40 years ago.
In my HYPOCRISY. And worse.
I've tried to atone for that, once with him, tacitly, inadequately a decade later.
Not good enough.
I tried a couple of years ago too.
I'm sorry.
As for the 'theology', some years ago, before I got side-tracked in Evangelicalism, it came to me who am I to judge another man's servant.
Thanks to Brian McLaren, that's come back. I won't lose it again.
Thank you.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Horseman Bree
quote:
Why are you insisting that the only position is to be totally separate...
Assuming that you're referring to me, I'm not insisting on anything, really; people are free to do as they wish, and to develop their church theologies as they see fit. People who disagree can remain quiet or just leave, rather than disturbing the developing consensus of their church.
You could say I'm arguing for clarity rather than separation, and argument rather than emotions. Having a church where there are different rules for the clergy and the laity seems muddled rather than clear (although you could say that dividing Christians into a clergy and laity is itself a way of fostering confusion).
ToujoursDan
quote:
When New York's marriage equality law passed in 2011, Bishop Provenzano ordered all gay clergy in partnerships to get married within 9 months. Gay priests got married and everyone moved on. In fact, in a diocese with a very large Caribbean and African population, the lack of outrage at this directive was refreshing.
That's interesting. It fits in with what I was saying about clarity. Everyone knows where they stand.
In a city with so much diversity of churches and theologies, Caribbeans and Africans who remain within the Episcopalian Church are probably doing so out of a deliberate loyalty to their inherited faith tradition; those whose evangelicalism was a higher priority would already have left that church for one of the alternatives, I would have thought.
There are surely social factors at play. If the other local black churches are dominated by African Americans, it's likely that Caribbeans and Africans might feel less comfortable there than in a church whose racial and cultural divisions (black/white) are something they find more familiar and more tolerable. (It's well-known that the relationship between Caribbeans and African Americans is somewhat problematic.) Some start their own churches, but others might see this as a marginalising activity that will only draw them away from the mainstream of American culture.
Caribbean and African people are often used to belonging to churches that have a strong European cultural influence, and if maintaining this link is important to them then I can't imagine that gay married clergy would be a deal-breaker.
I always had my money on the Mormons to flip from "gays can't marry" to being the first to say "Gays must get married and raids little Mormons". The above is clergy specific but I'm beginning to think that I may lose that wager. :-)
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
...I always had my money on the Mormons to flip from "gays can't marry" to being the first to say "Gays must get married and raids little Mormons"...
My impression of gay Mormons isn't that "gays can't marry", but rather that they are expected to marry heterosexually and raise a family like everyone else. But I must admit to be working from a very small sample set.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[qb]The notion of suffering in silence doesn't strike me as a very Pentecostal thing to do, [/b]
Silence isn't very Pentecostal at all!
Indeed! That was my point. (I have Pentecostal relatives.) But knowing that there are many very knowledgeable people on these boards, I didn't want to make a blanket statements about how Pentecostals don't do silence at all, because there may be exceptions. Clearly, some of them do prefer silence, if the alternative is to come out of the closet.
I know a Pentecostal theolagian in the UK who is looking forward to the development of a liberal, 'affirming' Pentecostalism over here, but hasn't yet found anything that meets his criteria. I think he's setting up some kind of fellowship group. He's very impressed with Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church in Chicago, which is heavily influenced by black church traditions (as is Pentecostalism) yet has also taken on board liberation theology, while belonging to a mostly white denomination.
I think this kind of church probably has more chance of success in the USA than in the UK, though. It would be very interesting to do a study of this particular church to see how and why it succeeds as a gay-friendly church (as far as I understand), and succeeds in so many other areas as well.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Thanks Martin.
--------------------
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
|
|
Aelred of Rievaulx
Shipmate
# 16860
|
Posted
What Arabella just said. Thank you indeed, Martin.
--------------------
In friendship are joined honor and charm, truth and joy, sweetness and good-will, affection and action. And all these take their beginning from Christ, advance through Christ, and are perfected in Christ.
Posts: 136 | From: English Midlands | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You are all too kind and I do NOT deserve it.
That's grace for you.
I work with macho IT guys and only today heard myself put on a camp accent for 'comic' effect.
It smote me. For the stupid stereotypical clich'e too.
[ 20. September 2012, 19:52: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
