|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: gay sex - being and doing
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That at times Christians have acted in certain way, or that they have justified those acts using scripture, is not proof that that is what the Church has always taught.
Your handwaving away of historical evidence about what Christians have believed and done, simply shows your whole view of Christianity and Christian history is based on wishful thinking and not on the actual realities. Your concept of this magical church that always gets everything right, never gets anything wrong, never changes its mind, and teaches exactly what you happen to wish it teaches, is purely fictitious and does not exist anywhere except your imagination. It seems to basically be a way for you to bolster your personal views and prejudices with appeals to the (non-existent) authority of this imaginary, idealized, and self-aggrandizing Church of which you are apparently the sole prophet of, who seems self-appointed to communicate the true teachings of this "Church" (ie you) to the rest of the Christians here who keep pointing out all the ways you're blatantly wrong in almost everything you're saying.
I never said I was a prophet of anything. The Church has always taught the same faith. But as I said, that we both have a different understanding of what the Church is is why we disagree here. Our understandings are just too different. We can know these things because the Church is visible. A Church which is fallible on such things is not a Church through which we can be saved, which would make all those who belong to her rather pitiable.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So, "having sex while gay." Which is remarkably parallel to "driving while black."
Just imagine, having sex while driving while being both black and gay!
Wouldn't surprise me if there were one or two Shipmates who didn't have to imagine that...(something I'd only condemn on road safety grounds, BTW)
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Ad Orientem: The Church has always taught the same faith.
And we've always been at war with Eastasia.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
A Church which is fallible on such things is not a Church through which we can be saved, which would make all those who belong to her rather pitiable.
I am saved through Christ, not the C/church.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
A Church which is fallible on such things is not a Church through which we can be saved, which would make all those who belong to her rather pitiable.
What I find so compelling about the arguments for an infallible Church is the tender compassion and sheer, transcendent, grace with which they are invariably expressed. While my reason makes me hesitate, my heart cannot but feel that the fortunate adherents of these sects do have access to a fullness of the gospel that is denied to me.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What I find so compelling about the arguments for an infallible Church is the tender compassion and sheer, transcendent, grace with which they are invariably expressed. While my reason makes me hesitate, my heart cannot but feel that the fortunate adherents of these sects do have access to a fullness of the gospel that is denied to me.
If anyone can smell smoke it's because my sarcasmometer just exploded.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
A Church which is fallible on such things is not a Church through which we can be saved, which would make all those who belong to her rather pitiable.
I am saved through Christ, not the C/church.
A false distinction if one considers the Church to be Christ's body, in which case there is no salvation apart from the Church.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Looking just at the Orthodox Church (the RCC are more consistent on this, at least officially if not in practice), at one time remarriage after divorce was an absolute no-go; now it is permitted under ekonomia. Probably people back in the day were saying it could never be changed because if it were, the church would be abandoning its core faith. They were wrong; it was changed.
The core of the Christian faith is not sexual morality, and anyone who says it is completely fails to understand the Christian faith.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
A Church which is fallible on such things is not a Church through which we can be saved, which would make all those who belong to her rather pitiable.
What I find so compelling about the arguments for an infallible Church is the tender compassion and sheer, transcendent, grace with which they are invariably expressed. While my reason makes me hesitate, my heart cannot but feel that the fortunate adherents of these sects do have access to a fullness of the gospel that is denied to me.
Very droll. However, if one considers the Church to be a merely human institution and fallible, then one also has to admit that we actually know nothing, that we cannot trust the scriptures or anything else of the sort that has been handed down to us through the Church. Sounds like the blind leading the blind if you ask me, and yet if we are to believe the scriptures then our Lord said that precisely such a thing will not happen, which is why he sent the Holy Spirit.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
... if one considers the Church to be a merely human institution and fallible, then one also has to admit that we actually know nothing, that we cannot trust the scriptures or anything else of the sort that has been handed down to us through the Church...
Shame Finland's not competing in the Commonwealth Games. That sentence would win you Gold in the Logical Long Jump.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Mousethief;
quote:
The core of the Christian faith is not sexual morality, and anyone who says it is completely fails to understand the Christian faith.
Agreed - but that doesn't mean that Christian sexual morality is anything we happen to feel like....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Looking just at the Orthodox Church (the RCC are more consistent on this, at least officially if not in practice), at one time remarriage after divorce was an absolute no-go; now it is permitted under ekonomia. Probably people back in the day were saying it could never be changed because if it were, the church would be abandoning its core faith. They were wrong; it was changed.
The core of the Christian faith is not sexual morality, and anyone who says it is completely fails to understand the Christian faith.
Seeing as our Lord does give an exception regarding divorce then Orthodox ekonomia in that context can be defended. And no, I don't think anyone is trying to put sexual morality at the core of the faith, whatever that's supposed to mean. However, that does not mean it's something the Church can change.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Very droll. However, if one considers the Church to be a merely human institution and fallible, then one also has to admit that we actually know nothing, that we cannot trust the scriptures or anything else of the sort that has been handed down to us through the Church.
Sure, but that doesn't mean they're completely useless. The Church and the Bible are guides, rather than lawmakers - and just like any guide book, when the facts on the ground change the book becomes out of date and has to be rewritten to take into account the new way of things.
I don't understand why the idea that the C/church can be wrong about some things scares people so much. It's as if they don't trust God to make things right at all.
quote:
Sounds like the blind leading the blind if you ask me, and yet if we are to believe the scriptures then our Lord said that precisely such a thing will not happen, which is why he sent the Holy Spirit.
The scripture to which you refer says that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. It says nothing about how long it will take to get there, or how much untrue crap we'll believe, preach and declare anathemas against each other because of in the meantime.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
... if one considers the Church to be a merely human institution and fallible, then one also has to admit that we actually know nothing, that we cannot trust the scriptures or anything else of the sort that has been handed down to us through the Church...
Shame Finland's not competing in the Commonwealth Games. That sentence would win you Gold in the Logical Long Jump.
Seems a pretty straightforward conclusion if you ask me. If the Church cannot be trusted on such matters how can we be sure that what has been handed down to us is actually the Apostolic faith?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If the Church cannot be trusted on such matters how can we be sure that what has been handed down to us is actually the Apostolic faith?
I've got a better question - why does that even fucking matter? I'd rather get things right 2000 years after the fact than be forced to perpetuate a falsehood just because the Apostles said it, or because it happened to be the spirit of the age back then.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Very droll. However, if one considers the Church to be a merely human institution and fallible, then one also has to admit that we actually know nothing, that we cannot trust the scriptures or anything else of the sort that has been handed down to us through the Church.
Sure, but that doesn't mean they're completely useless. The Church and the Bible are guides, rather than lawmakers - and just like any guide book, when the facts on the ground change the book becomes out of date and has to be rewritten to take into account the new way of things.
I don't understand why the idea that the C/church can be wrong about some things scares people so much. It's as if they don't trust God to make things right at all.
quote:
Sounds like the blind leading the blind if you ask me, and yet if we are to believe the scriptures then our Lord said that precisely such a thing will not happen, which is why he sent the Holy Spirit.
The scripture to which you refer says that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. It says nothing about how long it will take to get there, or how much untrue crap we'll believe, preach and declare anathemas against each other because of in the meantime.
Such an interpretation is essentially meaningless, that the Holy Spirit will lead his Church into all truth but in the meanwhile he'll let us wallow in grave error, that is, until this fickle God decides otherwise.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If the Church cannot be trusted on such matters how can we be sure that what has been handed down to us is actually the Apostolic faith?
I've got a better question - why does that even fucking matter? I'd rather get things right 2000 years after the fact than be forced to perpetuate a falsehood just because the Apostles said it, or because it happened to be the spirit of the age back then.
Or alternatively you just happen to have a rather low opinion of revelation, that is if you believe in it at all.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Seeing as our Lord does give an exception regarding divorce then Orthodox ekonomia in that context can be defended.
Oh. Well, if what our Lord says is the bottom line on sexual morality, seeing that our Lord says fuck-all about homosexuality, I don't see how being dogmatic about it can be defended.
quote:
And no, I don't think anyone is trying to put sexual morality at the core of the faith, whatever that's supposed to mean. However, that does not mean it's something the Church can change.
Hmm. The divorce rules changed. I completely fail to see why people before that change wouldn't have exactly said this:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If the Church cannot be trusted on such matters how can we be sure that what has been handed down to us is actually the Apostolic faith?
There may be a dominical exception, but the church ruled that it didn't matter. The RCC still says it doesn't matter. THE CHURCH CHANGED ITS MIND. You cannot get around that. And if the church can change its mind on divorce and remarriage, the church can change its mind on anythign that is not core to the faith, it seems to me. That doesn't mean the church isn't trustable. It means the church realizes that some things are for some times and no longer make sense in the world as now constituted. Because they're not core to the faith.
I can show you a metric buttload of rulings of councils that are no longer enforced or expected to be. Things change; things that make sense in one context do not make sense in another. Don't bring your typikon to my monastery isn't a new saying.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Such an interpretation is essentially meaningless, that the Holy Spirit will lead his Church into all truth but in the meanwhile he'll let us wallow in grave error, that is, until this fickle God decides otherwise.
Who said error was "grave"? Maybe - and I realise this may be dificult for you to understand - it doesn't actually matter. Get the big things right - the fruits of the spirit, the love we have for one another - and that'll be enough.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I've got a better question - why does that even fucking matter? I'd rather get things right 2000 years after the fact than be forced to perpetuate a falsehood just because the Apostles said it, or because it happened to be the spirit of the age back then.
Or alternatively you just happen to have a rather low opinion of revelation, that is if you believe in it at all.
I have a perfectly reasonable view of revelation, thank you very much. I just don't think it's stopped yet, or that every single teaching of the C/church is a result of it.
On the current issue of discussion, for example, it's perfectly possible that there hasn't actually been a Revelation From The Lord about it yet, and the teachings thus far have been entirely the product of prejudiced human minds. Or maybe prejudiced human minds thought those teachings up in the first place, but when the Holy Spirit appeared with the Revelation that they were wrong they ignored Her and/or persecuted Her prophets. Maybe what's going on right now is the Holy Spirit trying desperately to get that Revelation through to the C/church leaders, who are busily blocking their ears and saying "we can't be wrong, we can't be wrong" over and over again until the nasty thoughts go away.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Seeing as our Lord does give an exception regarding divorce then Orthodox ekonomia in that context can be defended.
Oh. Well, if what our Lord says is the bottom line on sexual morality, seeing that our Lord says fuck-all about homosexuality, I don't see how being dogmatic about it can be defended.
quote:
And no, I don't think anyone is trying to put sexual morality at the core of the faith, whatever that's supposed to mean. However, that does not mean it's something the Church can change.
Hmm. The divorce rules changed. I completely fail to see why people before that change wouldn't have exactly said this:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If the Church cannot be trusted on such matters how can we be sure that what has been handed down to us is actually the Apostolic faith?
There may be a dominical exception, but the church ruled that it didn't matter. The RCC still says it doesn't matter. THE CHURCH CHANGED ITS MIND. You cannot get around that. And if the church can change its mind on divorce and remarriage, the church can change its mind on anythign that is not core to the faith, it seems to me. That doesn't mean the church isn't trustable. It means the church realizes that some things are for some times and no longer make sense in the world as now constituted. Because they're not core to the faith.
I can show you a metric buttload of rulings of councils that are no longer enforced or expected to be. Things change; things that make sense in one context do not make sense in another. Don't bring your typikon to my monastery isn't a new saying.
Apart from the fact that ekonomia isn't the same thing as saying that what was once immoral is now moral, wow! Really what you're saying here is that morality is determined by the Zeitgeist, it seems. I can hear a rumbling noise. No, wait! It's the saints turning in their graves.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Apart from the fact that ekonomia isn't the same thing as saying that what was once immoral is now moral, wow! Really what you're saying here is that morality is determined by the Zeitgeist, it seems. I can hear a rumbling noise. No, wait! It's the saints turning in their graves.
That may be what you want to read; it's not what I said. Perhaps you think women should not talk in Church? Paul said so. Perhaps you think Blutwurst is sinful? The council in Acts 15 said so. Or perhaps you think these kinds of decisions are decided by the Zeitgeist? Or perhaps what I said is correct, that certain things make sense in some places and times, and not in others.
And can you not quote hundreds of lines just to add two or three? Yeesh.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If anyone can smell smoke it's because my sarcasmometer just exploded.
Seconded. Eliab's post has now been quotesfiled.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
There is nothing in the bible about my clitoris nor, as far as I know, in any official doctrine of the the church - so what am I supposed to do with it Ad Orientam ? And who is allowed to touch it ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There is also a de facto de-homophobization that is going on, surely? There are gay-affirmative churches which are Anglican, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are Catholic ones. Is an Anglican or Catholic priest really going to deny communion to somebody gay?
Careful, you don't want to start Steve's little fan dance of Real, Unlike, Sinning but Real, Unreal and Non Christian categorization.
These affirmative churches just make the homophobic Christians look bad.The behavior of the affirming Churches is in fact the harassment and oppression of aggressive Christians that Steve is complaining about. Other people just judge them on their behavior and not the deep subtlety of their theology.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Palimpsest;
quote:
The behavior of the affirming Churches is in fact the harassment and oppression of aggressive Christians that Steve is complaining about.
Funny, I don't actually see it that way.
by Palimpsest;
quote:
These affirmative churches just make the homophobic Christians look bad.
In whose eyes? And anyway, aren't they the ones who are really scared?
by Palimpsest;
quote:
Careful, you don't want to start Steve's little fan dance of Real, Unlike, Sinning but Real, Unreal and Non Christian categorization.
Leave the poor fallacious Scotsman out of this! He was never appropriate anyway....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
You brought in the Scotsman when you said if your theology encompassed racism you wouldn't be a Christian. As I pointed out huge numbers of Christians have been explicitly racist.
You say you don't see affirming churches as harassing your aggressive Christians. My surmise is due to your refusal to provide the examples of harassment that you said were unjustified due to torturous theological reasoning. If the rest of society thinks that homophobia is bad, they're not going to look warmly on aggressive Christian homophobia.
So why don't you give the examples of harassment you mentioned as unjustified in the original post? You've already said that people who try to pass laws against Gays don't count. I am still waiting for the other examples you think aren't justified due to your theological shenanigans. Is it anything more than the same contempt most people feel toward racists?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
There is nothing in the bible about my clitoris nor, as far as I know, in any official doctrine of the the church - so what am I supposed to do with it Ad Orientam ? And who is allowed to touch it ?
But there is also nothing in Scripture to tell us why a penis is necessary for the performance of religious ritual...
or, for that matter, to tell us why a woman's prayers aren't real until a man has prayed for her.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Perhaps for extinguishing the candles ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Your concept of this magical church that always gets everything right, never gets anything wrong, never changes its mind, and teaches exactly what you happen to wish it teaches, is purely fictitious and does not exist anywhere except your imagination.
Actually I think it does exist--in Heaven. Here on Earth, of course, we have to muddle on...
Um, and isn't
quote:
...It seems to basically be a way for you to bolster your personal views and prejudices with appeals to the (non-existent) authority of this imaginary, idealized, and self-aggrandizing Church of which you are apparently the sole prophet of...
kind of, um, getting personal-attacky? ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The scripture to which you refer says that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. It says nothing about how long it will take to get there, or how much untrue crap we'll believe, preach and declare anathemas against each other because of in the meantime.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Indeed. Or for that matter how many ghastly sins we may commit in Christ's name. And certainly, I think pretty much any church that's been around a while has done that (Crusades, etc.).
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If the Church cannot be trusted on such matters how can we be sure that what has been handed down to us is actually the Apostolic faith?
Trusting Jesus when we have enough certainty to make the leap, I'd say.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
...seeing that our Lord says fuck-all about homosexuality...
He does?? That's AWESOME!!! And here all this time I've been holding off! Right, who's first in line? (rubs hands together gleefully)
...
Oh, wait. Not "fuck all" in that sense. Drat! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
(I'm sorry, it was just there, calling out to me, and I had to...) ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Perhaps for extinguishing the candles ?
That would hurt.
...
Sign me up? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Jokes aside, I am thinking here that the main point of Steve Langton's concern here is thus:
(1) Getting away from any attempt by Christians to encode their beliefs in the laws, and indeed with the assumption that the laws should treat gay and straight people equally... (which I actually think is critical here, and I desperately wish we had this attitude here in the US)
(2) If Christians believe that gay sex is a sin...
(3) But treat those specific sexual actions like any other believed sexual sin...
(4) And do not regard the people involved, whether gay straight bi etc. as different from other people...
(5) Then it is not fair to call Christians who believe this way, based on their reading of Scripture and/or Tradition, "homophobic."
Steve, is this a correct summary of what you're trying to say?
(Because I think this thread has drifted all over the place, especially into the whole "is gay sex right or wrong" category that has been pretty much run into the ground on several other DH threads, and I think his specific concerns here deserve to be clarified rather than muddied into the rest of the DH threads on the subject.)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
(5) Then it is not fair to call Christians who believe this way, based on their reading of Scripture and/or Tradition, "homophobic."
(5a) ... and not write them off the way one would write off a racist person, not engage them, look down on them as horrible people and haters, etc. Forgot to add that.
Steve, is this (with addendum above) a correct summary of what you're trying to say?
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Jokes aside, I am thinking here that the main point of Steve Langton's concern here is thus:
(1) Getting away from any attempt by Christians to encode their beliefs in the laws, and indeed with the assumption that the laws should treat gay and straight people equally... (which I actually think is critical here, and I desperately wish we had this attitude here in the US)
(2) If Christians believe that gay sex is a sin...
(3) But treat those specific sexual actions like any other believed sexual sin...
(4) And do not regard the people involved, whether gay straight bi etc. as different from other people...
(5) Then it is not fair to call Christians who believe this way, based on their reading of Scripture and/or Tradition, "homophobic."
Steve, is this a correct summary of what you're trying to say?
(Because I think this thread has drifted all over the place, especially into the whole "is gay sex right or wrong" category that has been pretty much run into the ground on several other DH threads, and I think his specific concerns here deserve to be clarified rather than muddied into the rest of the DH threads on the subject.)
You missed another thing in the original post in your summary.
(1) Getting away from any attempt by Christians to encode their beliefs in the laws, and indeed with the assumption that the laws should treat people of all races equally... (2) If Christians believe that interracial sex is a sin...
(3) But treat those specific sexual actions like any other believed sexual sin...
(4) And do not regard the people involved, of any race as different from other people...
(5) Then it is just fine to call such Christians who believe this way, based on their reading of Scripture and/or Tradition, "racist."
[ 01. August 2014, 22:13: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr
(5) Then it is not fair to call Christians who believe this way, based on their reading of Scripture and/or Tradition, "homophobic."
Can we please not have another thread arguing over the meaning of the word "homophobic"? It derails everything into endless arguments over what that particular word means in English, and distracts from the relevant discussion. Steve didn't use it in his original post, for which I am grateful.
Modified version:
(5) Then it is not fair for people to judge and condemn Christians who believe this way, based on their reading of Scripture and/or Tradition.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Looking just at the Orthodox Church
My go-to favourite screw-up by the Orthodox Church was the 4th ecumenical council that caused the schism with the Oriental Orthodox. Now all sides have realized that the council was a massive error and that the schism should never have happened. But no one quite knows how they can undo it, because they presumably need an ecumenical council to undo a previous ecumenical council, but their theology tells them that the Church can never be wrong in it's ecumenical councils. So they're stuck in the state of knowing that the Church got it horribly wrong and wanting to reunite but being unwilling to formally legislate this fact given it contradicts their ongoing and ridiculous assertions of infallibility.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Hosting
Chastmastr and Arethosemyfeet, it's up to hosts to call personal attacks or whether people are 'riding their personal hobby horses'. If you think something is a personal attack or crusading and that a host hasn't spotted it, then please let the hosts know by email or PM. Please do not start accusing other posters of making personal attacks/crusading in the thread or drag in annoyances with posters from their posting on other parts of the boards.
Robust critiques of arguments are allowed, Starlight, but they should not flow over into personal attacks ie. accusing people of acting like 'sole prophets' of a 'self-aggrandizing Church' - the place for negative personal characterisations of other posters is the Hell board.
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Palimpsest;
quote:
You brought in the Scotsman when you said if your theology encompassed racism you wouldn't be a Christian. As I pointed out huge numbers of Christians have been explicitly racist.
I'm planning, when I have some relief from this thread (and short-term from a quite severe summer cold, longer-term from a lot of my time being taken up by medical tests) to do a thread on the Scotsman fallacy. Leave him till then.
Meantime, as last time we (or more accurately you) got mazed by that one, yes in terms of ideal theology any attempt to justify racism is unChristian; in a non-ideal world in which Christians are still sinful human beings and may not get out of bad cultural habits as quickly as we'd like, there may still be Christians who misguidedly get such issues wrong and I can judge their theology, but not the individuals. This trapping in local culture is especially likely when church and state are more entangled than they should be.
by Palimpsest;
quote:
You've already said that people who try to pass laws against Gays don't count.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this in the context; my apologies if I've confused you. My actual point is simple it is not the Church's job to run society in alliance with the worldly power of the state. It is the Church's job to show an alternative based on faith in God and faith in the salvation brought through Jesus. Taking for a moment the assumption that Christianity does reject the legitimacy of gay sex, it is not the Church's job to be imposing that belief on people who are not Christian - persuade by argument, yes, coerce by state power,no. The acceptance of Christian moral standards is a matter of voluntary acceptance by those who choose to become Christians. Again this is confused, to say the least, where churches have adopted some form of 'Christian country' such as CofE 'establishment'.
by Palimpsest;
quote:
your aggressive Christians.
My kind of Christian, not so very aggressive.
by Chastmastr;
quote:
Jokes aside, I am thinking here that the main point of Steve Langton's concern here is thus:
(1) Getting away from any attempt by Christians to encode their beliefs in the laws, and indeed with the assumption that the laws should treat gay and straight people equally... (which I actually think is critical here, and I desperately wish we had this attitude here in the US)
(2) If Christians believe that gay sex is a sin...
(3) But treat those specific sexual actions like any other believed sexual sin...
(4) And do not regard the people involved, whether gay straight bi etc. as different from other people...
(5) Then it is not fair to call Christians who believe this way, based on their reading of Scripture and/or Tradition, "homophobic."
Steve, is this a correct summary of what you're trying to say?
Maybe not absolutely correct or complete, but pretty close as far as it goes.... Thanks.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Louise (hosting);
quote:
whether people are 'riding their personal hobby horses'.
I probably do lay myself open to this with my concern about the issues of state/church relations. At the same time, I believe that issue is often genuinely relevant. Please jump on me if you think I'm going too far.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Palimpsest;
quote:
You missed another thing in the original post in your summary.
(1) Getting away from any attempt by Christians to encode their beliefs in the laws, and indeed with the assumption that the laws should treat people of all races equally... (2)You missed another thing in the original post in your summary.
(1) Getting away from any attempt by Christians to encode their beliefs in the laws, and indeed with the assumption that the laws should treat people of all races equally... (2) If Christians believe that interracial sex is a sin...
(3) But treat those specific sexual actions like any other believed sexual sin...
(4) And do not regard the people involved, of any race as different from other people...
(5) Then it is just fine to call such Christians who believe this way, based on their reading of Scripture and/or Tradition, "racist."
(3) But treat those specific sexual actions like any other believed sexual sin...
(4) And do not regard the people involved, of any race as different from other people...
(5) Then it is just fine to call such Christians who believe this way, based on their reading of Scripture and/or Tradition, "racist."
The argument here is significantly about whether racial and gay issues are comparable, and I'm waiting for the arguments....
by Palimpsest;
quote:
If Christians believe that interracial sex is a sin...
Why is this relevant to the case I'm making in which I've already made clear I have no problem with interracial marriage (and any problem I had with it outside marriage would be about the 'outside marriage' aspect, not the racial issue) In some ways the point is exactly that I'm not suggesting such racial discrimination because I see the issues as logically different.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
It's a concern people can either word more carefully ie. by showing how something being argued is not relevant, or which they should take up in Hell, if they're just fed up with how a poster posts from encounters on the other boards.
cheers,
L
DH Host
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The argument here is significantly about whether racial and gay issues are comparable, and I'm waiting for the arguments....
It is very simple. Both are things to which one is born. One can no more separate gay sex from straight sex than one can black sex from white sex.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
Steve,
Your church wants gay people to stop having gay sex. I'm presuming that means you and your church endorse one or more of the following:
1) Gay people remaining single and celibate for life.
2) Gay people marrying a person of the opposite sex.
3) Ex-gay conversion therapy.
The thing that people object to is that those things are all harmful to gay people.
Humans need companionship, we're most of us wired for it - Adam needed a mate but couldn't find one among all the animals. In a similar way, getting a pet is not enough for most of us, we need a human mate. A small few people have the gift of celibacy, but to the vast majority of people, God has not given that gift. The rest of us have a deep psychological need for love and intimacy, and need someone to share our lives with and have sex with. To do otherwise leads to loneliness and depression. Forcing the 'gift' of celibacy onto people to whom it hasn't been given hurts them, and at that point it stops being a gift and becomes a life sentence.
Encouraging gay people to commit to heterosexual marriages was a popular strategy in decades past, but has proven pretty disastrous. Making a marriage work can be hard, and making it work when one person feels no physical attraction to the other person has repeatedly proven to be all but impossible. The result becomes loveless marriages where everyday is a struggle, and which seem to almost inevitably end in divorce within ten years. This is even worse than celibacy, because it puts the person's spouse through the pain of it all, and potentially the kids also.
Ex-gay therapy has been pretty thoroughly proven to not work at this point in time. And it has been extensively shown to be psychologically damaging for those who take part in it. For this reason major medical and psychological associations around the world recommend against it and are campaigning to see it banned entirely.
So essentially your church is demanding gay people choose from a list of harmful life choices, and if instead the gay person chooses to make the non-harmful choice of a loving and committed same-sex marriage, you will respond by kicking them out of their faith community, thus harming them in your own little way. The one harmless choice available to them - of them committing to a loving committed Christian same-sex marriage - is precisely the one choice you are trying to deny to them.
People are upset because you're hurting gay people. You're not doing it as badly as what gay people have suffered in the past at the hands of Christians, when in centuries past they were routinely executed, or in the last century where they were imprisoned or castrated, or when Christians campaigned against their rights, which I am pleased to hear you do not approve of. But as a Christian group that is harming gay people you nonetheless are situating yourself within the historical context of ongoing Christian harm to gay people, and thus though you yourself see a huge difference between you and the Christians that came before you, you are nonetheless continuing their sins of hurting gay people and in doing so you are pulling their guilt down upon your own head in the eyes of the rest of society.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Maybe not absolutely correct or complete, but pretty close as far as it goes.... Thanks.
Steve, I can accept that line of reasoning to be logically consistent. So I will say to you what I say to my Catholic friend. I support your right to hold your views (as presumably you do mine) but I strongly disagree with them and believe they do significant harm to people (As Starlight has so clearly outlined) but I will allow that they are not done out of hatred but ignorance in many cases.
Edit: Must not muck up code!!
[ 02. August 2014, 02:33: Message edited by: Macrina ]
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Meantime, as last time we (or more accurately you) got mazed by that one, yes in terms of ideal theology any attempt to justify racism is unChristian; in a non-ideal world in which Christians are still sinful human beings and may not get out of bad cultural habits as quickly as we'd like, there may still be Christians who misguidedly get such issues wrong and I can judge their theology, but not the individuals. This trapping in local culture is especially likely when church and state are more entangled than they should be.
It's this kind of special pleading that's particular irritating. Everyone else's theology is "bad cultural habits", but your own is the word of God Himself. I guess it's fortunate that, unlike the rest of us, you live in an ideal world and are thus immune to cultural influences.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
No, we don't exclude people simply because they are 'sinners'; as you say, we all are. That is why I used the phrasing "aggressively practicing gays" to mean someone who is not only a sinner (accepting that between us that may be in dispute in this particular case) but doesn't admit he is.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Palimpsest;
quote:
your aggressive Christians.
My kind of Christian, not so very aggressive.
So I'm guessing that your kind of Christian spends a lot of time going on about how Christianity is wrong and probably sinful? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The argument here is significantly about whether racial and gay issues are comparable, and I'm waiting for the arguments....
Mostly it's the way anti-gay folks seem to keep recycling segregationist arguments from half a century ago. You didn't even bother to comment on that pamphlet I linked to with those Bible quotes from the White Citizen's Council. You just applied special pleading (again!) as to why "[t]here is neither Jew nor Gentile" is something that can be interpreted in a straightforward, literal manner as being against racial divisions but "nor is there male and female" is some kind of super-secret metaphor you need the decoder ring to realize it means the exact opposite of the anti-racist text.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Chastmastr;
quote:
Steve, is this a correct summary of what you're trying to say?
Maybe not absolutely correct or complete, but pretty close as far as it goes.... Thanks.
Ah! Thank you. I have no problem with this, myself, then.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I have no problem with this, myself, then.
And I should also add--with the critical caveat of all of those things on that list being relevant--that I do not see it--in and of itself, if it is based on actual reasoned theology and understanding of Scripture and Tradition--as being the same thing as someone being against people of different ethnicities getting married. (I think there are people for whom that mindset is indeed true, alas--who are really just squicked by the images of gay people going at it like bunnies--and who happily turn a blind eye to every other sexual thing involving straight people--but that does not seem to me to be what Steve is talking about here.)
[ 02. August 2014, 03:52: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
And I should also add--with the critical caveat of all of those things on that list being relevant--that I do not see it--in and of itself, if it is based on actual reasoned theology and understanding of Scripture and Tradition--as being the same thing as someone being against people of different ethnicities getting married.
Even in the case of those who are opposed to inter-racial marriage "based on actual reasoned theology and understanding of Scripture and Tradition"? Bob Jones University comes to mind as the classic example of theologically-based racism.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Even in the case of those who are opposed to inter-racial marriage "based on actual reasoned theology and understanding of Scripture and Tradition"? Bob Jones University comes to mind as the classic example of theologically-based racism.
Yes. Bob Jones University was a modern Fundamentalist thing. Their approach to race was not exactly something going back very far.
We don't have (as far as I can tell) Church tradition going back as far as, say, the fourth century for instance, saying, "Yes, verily, those whose skin is of different hues and whose ancestors came from far-distant parts of our disintegrating Roman Empire must never marry and beget offspring, lest it anger our Lord," or anything like that at all. There is no sense that St. So-and-so from Ethiopia was worse or better or higher or lower or different in any significant way than so-and-so from St. Such-and-such from the isle of the Britons, or whatever. The closest we really get is Jew vs. Gentile (and there was some ghastly anti-Semitism as the years rolled by), but if both are followers of Jesus, it's a non-issue.
[ 02. August 2014, 04:04: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Even in the case of those who are opposed to inter-racial marriage "based on actual reasoned theology and understanding of Scripture and Tradition"? Bob Jones University comes to mind as the classic example of theologically-based racism.
Yes. Bob Jones University was a modern Fundamentalist thing. Their approach to race was not exactly something going back very far.
How far back does something have to go to qualify as capital-T tradition? The approach taken to race-mixing by BJU goes back several centuries in the U.S. (and its precursor political entities). And what about the other leg of your argument? Were their arguments "reasoned theology"?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The approach taken to race-mixing by BJU goes back several centuries in the U.S. (and its precursor political entities).
Precisely.
quote:
And what about the other leg of your argument? Were their arguments "reasoned theology"?
I imagine there were some people who might have been genuinely mistaken, though again, I'd be very tempted to say that they didn't read their Bibles very well. It even seems to be a primarily US-specific anomaly--my quick look at Wikipedia says that there was a little in France but it didn't last very long (1778-1792, with occasional on-again off-again flirtations with it till 1833).
I can't find anything from, say, the Roman Catholic church saying that people of different ancestries could not marry.
Indeed, some more poking around seems to list the three countries which mainly did this were Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa... and the United States. My God, what must the rest of the world have thought of the US? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
But I can't find anything saying that, say, in the UK, the Church of England ever forbade it or taught it as doctrine. That seems to be a weird recent anomaly and mainly US-specific.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Palimpsest;
Why is this relevant to the case I'm making in which I've already made clear I have no problem with interracial marriage (and any problem I had with it outside marriage would be about the 'outside marriage' aspect, not the racial issue) In some ways the point is exactly that I'm not suggesting such racial discrimination because I see the issues as logically different.
I'm not saying you are against inter-racial marriage. What's bogus is your logical difference argument that it's fine to be homophobic because you're being critical of what people do, rather than what they are where as you think the racisms are contemptible because they criticize what people are.
I have pointed out a historical racist policy of Bob Jones University in 1975 which tolerated Black individuals but forbade inter-racial dating and inter-racial marriage by all students while permitting segregated dating and marriage.
It's an example of a form of racism that is discriminating on being rather than doing.
If you find it contemptible racism as I do how is it logically different than the toleration of gay homophobia?
So how about those Bob Jones racists? I am not asking if you agree with that segregation policy. Is it ok because they're discriminating racially based on doing? If not, what makes the same excuse valid for tolerating homophobia?
As for why racism and homophobia seem alike, in the United States it's often the same racist Christian twaddle. The long history of segregation and anti-miscegenation law and theology is remarkably similar. Here is a short and funny example.
Missouri Minister gives surprising anti-gay speech The long and lamentable Christian defense of segregation gives many incidents that seem similar.
Finally, the "no one can criticize the Gays" isn't realistic. There's been ongoing criticism forever that's been thoroughly refuted over and over again in the last thirty years. It's the same garbage that is used to propose ways to damage the lives of Gay Christians and to justify governmental interference in the lives of all gays. If contempt for those who do this damage bothers them, that's fine with me.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
