homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Where did the demonisation of homosexuality come from? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Where did the demonisation of homosexuality come from?
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532

 - Posted      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Probably a truism - there are other radically right-wing groups, usually small, but who don't get the same regular publicity that Westboro do, but occasionally get an article.

It may be a truism, but the point is that these do represent the extreme edge of fundamentalism, and I suspect that there are other groups who agree with them, but don't want the problems. My point is that I don't think it is just one small group of nutters - it is a whole set of groups, who reflect the ideal of hard fundies.

Personally, I've found more of a difference in tone than substance.

When pushed, even open evangelicals who big up women's ministry start talking about promiscuity and the health risks of anal sex. (Honestly, what is it with their fixation on doing it up the ass?)

Some traditionalists undoubtedly feel obliged to condemn gay relationships, and wish they didn't have to. But far too many seem to draw their views from a darker place.

Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I believe that homosexuality is demonised because it is sexual activity that it is hard for religious/moral control freaks to keep track of. The same is true of contraception. While people are having unprotected heterosexual penetrative sex, by and large, promiscuity ends up with babies, and the results can be seen and condemned. Homosexual sexual acts and heterosexual ones with contraception deployed are not so visible, and therefore can only be deterred/controlled via blanket, extreme condemnation, i.e. demonisation. This looks and feels very similar in all such cases.

The fundamental problem is with the fixation of many religious structures on controlling the bodies of their members. The only way out of this cul de sac is routine, universal civil (or if necessary, uncivil) disobedience on their/our part. Finally, I believe this is starting to happen.

--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

Foolish, potentially deranged witterings

Posts: 2111 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:

The fundamental problem is with the fixation of many religious structures on controlling the bodies of their members. The only way out of this cul de sac is routine, universal civil (or if necessary, uncivil) disobedience on their/our part. Finally, I believe this is starting to happen.

Alternatively, people could leave the churches whose teachings about the body they disapprove of and start up churches that teach what they really believe about how they should live. I'm not sure why this doesn't happen more often.
Posts: 6340 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Alternatively, people could leave the churches whose teachings about the body they disapprove of and start up churches that teach what they really believe about how they should live. I'm not sure why this doesn't happen more often.

I think it's because it's a big deal to up and leave. Churches are more than places where you go to be with people who believe the same as you. They're families. Leaving a family is a big decision.

And starting something new is also a massive commitment - one that most people aren't willing to take on. Anyone with a bit of humility is probably aware too, that if they did manage to get that one bit right, they'd probably just get something else wrong instead, and maybe their old church got that bit really right. So there's the choice between known semi-wrongness and potential different semi-wrongness. People tend to stick with what they know.

There's also the danger of the "church of one". I think most people are aware that there's a lot of diversity in the church. If everyone left their church because they disagreed with one single belief, we'd end up with one church for every one person. Unity is bigger than agreement.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2068 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Once upon a time people were more willing to start their own churches, though. That's the Protestant way.

IMO civil disobedience, as Thunderbunk puts it, is unlikely to be less time and effort consuming than founding a church. If people don't want the inconvenience of pursuing the former, they probably won't have the energy for the latter.

It's possible that schism would result in either case. But there have been schisms over all sorts of things in the history of Christianity. If this were to happen over homosexuality, it wouldn't be a sign that homosexuality was being singled out for demonisation, but rather that Christians still have things they disagree deeply about.

Posts: 6340 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
SvitlanaV2:

I suppose that's one of the reasons many Anglicans will differentiate their denomination from Protestantism -- they will say that in the reformation, their denomination reformed (part of) an existing church, but did not found or start a new one.

If you think, as RCs and the Orthodox and many ANglicans and Lutherans do, that "the CHurch" is not a human creation but a divine one (however faulty it may be in practice), you can't "start your own church" -- you have to work out an accommodation with "the CHurch", whatever that means to you.

John

Posts: 5905 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hmmm. I'm more of the view that 'the Church' is a human creation. But what you've said explains to me why Christians in some denominations seem to argue endlessly over their differences rather than parting company in love and progressing without hindrance.

We have to do what we feel is best.

Posts: 6340 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532

 - Posted      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yeah, I just can't get into the Anglo-Catholic mindset on this. Guys like Rowan Williams put unity above all, even though the Catholic Church has been emphatic that the Anglican church has broken away, and Anglican orders are null & void. If Williams et all respect Rome so much, why don't they listen to what the Vatican has to say?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Hmmm. I'm more of the view that 'the Church' is a human creation.

Matthew 16:18 prevents me from thinking this.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62946 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Yeah, I just can't get into the Anglo-Catholic mindset on this. Guys like Rowan Williams put unity above all, even though the Catholic Church has been emphatic that the Anglican church has broken away, and Anglican orders are null & void. If Williams et all respect Rome so much, why don't they listen to what the Vatican has to say?

I think you've misunderstood Rowan Williams' own position. FiF are largely the more Roman than the Romans lot; Williams was trying to accommodate FiF, rather than Rome itself.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10309 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532

 - Posted      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think you've misunderstood Rowan Williams' own position. FiF are largely the more Roman than the Romans lot; Williams was trying to accommodate FiF, rather than Rome itself.

Yeah, he was, but only 'cause unity matter so much to him that he was willing to abandon his LGBT friends and allies. In keeping the traditionalists onboard no matter the cost, he put unity above all. I could understand that if he was a member of the Catholic Church: I don't remotely understand it when he's a member of a relatively small protestant denomination.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Nenya
Shipmate
# 16427

 - Posted      Profile for Nenya     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Alternatively, people could leave the churches whose teachings about the body they disapprove of and start up churches that teach what they really believe about how they should live. I'm not sure why this doesn't happen more often.

I think it's because it's a big deal to up and leave. Churches are more than places where you go to be with people who believe the same as you. They're families. Leaving a family is a big decision.

And starting something new is also a massive commitment - one that most people aren't willing to take on. Anyone with a bit of humility is probably aware too, that if they did manage to get that one bit right, they'd probably just get something else wrong instead, and maybe their old church got that bit really right. So there's the choice between known semi-wrongness and potential different semi-wrongness. People tend to stick with what they know.

There's also the danger of the "church of one". I think most people are aware that there's a lot of diversity in the church. If everyone left their church because they disagreed with one single belief, we'd end up with one church for every one person. Unity is bigger than agreement.

Such wise words. Thank you. [Overused]

Regarding the OP, my university experience (30+years ago) was rather different. It was taken as read, in the Christian circles I moved in, that homosexuality was a sin; so much so that it was simply never talked about. Ever. I didn't know anyone who was openly gay, either inside or outside my Christian circles. Though I do remember one friend who, with hindsight, may have been gay and I often wonder where and how she is now.

One reason why it's so much the hot issue still is that it's - arguably - so identifiable. You either experience same sex attraction or you don't. I did say arguably [Biased] .

--------------------
They told me I was delusional. I nearly fell off my unicorn.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
[QUOTE]Yeah, he was, but only 'cause unity matter so much to him that he was willing to abandon his LGBT friends and allies. In keeping the traditionalists onboard no matter the cost, he put unity above all. I could understand that if he was a member of the Catholic Church: I don't remotely understand it when he's a member of a relatively small protestant denomination.

For "member" and "small" I think you meant "leader" and "largest". It's also worth remembering that as far as Rowan Williams, I and most Anglo-Catholics are concerned we are members of the Catholic Church, just not in communion with the Bishop of Rome because of choices made down the centuries by said Bishops. There is one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which we are all members by our baptism. The unity of the church is a desire clearly expressed in scripture and it is right that it be pursued, schism is not something to be taken lightly. I do believe Rowan Williams erred as Archbishop in allowing the pursuit of unity to become a justification for continuing the oppression of gay people within the church - the requirement to let the oppressed go free trumps the unity of the church any day - but I can understand where he was coming from.
Posts: 2788 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Schroedinger's cat

Ship's cool cat
# 64

 - Posted      Profile for Schroedinger's cat   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Interesting - I wonder whether the "unity" issue is somewhere behind this. Once you reject aiming for unity, you can become more extreme, and define who you reject, who you are not wanting to be in unity with.

--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.

Posts: 18499 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
as far as Rowan Williams, I and most Anglo-Catholics are concerned we are members of the Catholic Church, just not in communion with the Bishop of Rome because of choices made down the centuries by said Bishops. There is one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which we are all members by our baptism. The unity of the church is a desire clearly expressed in scripture and it is right that it be pursued, schism is not something to be taken lightly. I do believe Rowan Williams erred as Archbishop in allowing the pursuit of unity to become a justification for continuing the oppression of gay people within the church - the requirement to let the oppressed go free trumps the unity of the church any day - but I can understand where he was coming from.

Amen to all of that.

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

Posts: 23022 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
posted by arethosemyfeet
quote:
The unity of the church is a desire clearly expressed in scripture
Really? Where?

There was no church 'in scripture' - just groups of people in various towns seeking to follow The Way.

In fact it could be argued that taking the Pauline era model there shouldn't be ANY centrally organised 'churches' at all.

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4603 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
Schroedinger's cat

Ship's cool cat
# 64

 - Posted      Profile for Schroedinger's cat   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by arethosemyfeet
quote:
The unity of the church is a desire clearly expressed in scripture
Really? Where?

There was no church 'in scripture' - just groups of people in various towns seeking to follow The Way.

In fact it could be argued that taking the Pauline era model there shouldn't be ANY centrally organised 'churches' at all.

And I do think the love, care and tolerance of others - especially Others - is even more clearly expressed.

Which is sort of where my problem is. The evangelical wing - of whom I am a part - has always considered scripture as paramount. While there has always been an "accepted" view of scripture, this has always been modifiable by further insights, by a clearer understanding of what the whole tenor of scripture is really saying.

Then we come to the issue of homosexuality, and suddenly the approach of searching, learning, exploring more is gone. The bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, and anyone who disagrees is undermining the core truth of Christianity. Anyone who want s to reinterpret it is mislead, starting from a non-Christian position.

It should be - and always was - "there is this, but there is also that." While This may be the traditional accepted view, there was That as a balance. There was always the balance, the care, the passion for people*. That seems to be no more.

*And I fully accept that this was not always shown. From the inside, I know that we really did love you as you. I also know that we hurt and rejected you, and I am sorry for that.

--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.

Posts: 18499 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
. The evangelical wing - of whom I am a part - has always considered scripture as paramount. While there has always been an "accepted" view of scripture, this has always been modifiable by further insights, by a clearer understanding of what the whole tenor of scripture is really saying.

Then we come to the issue of homosexuality, and suddenly the approach of searching, learning, exploring more is gone. The bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, and anyone who disagrees is undermining the core truth of Christianity. Anyone who want s to reinterpret it is mislead, starting from a non-Christian position.

The best place for 'searching, learning, exploring' and a view of scripture that has been 'modifiable by further insights' would surely be in more mainstream moderate Christianity rather than evangelicalism. I understood that evangelicalism was a little bit behind the more liberal mainstream expressions of Christianity in this respect, although I'm sure the distance between them is quite narrow in many environments.
Posts: 6340 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Really? Where?

There was no church 'in scripture' - just groups of people in various towns seeking to follow The Way.

In fact it could be argued that taking the Pauline era model there shouldn't be ANY centrally organised 'churches' at all.

I'm not sure organisation or otherwise is the issue here - the Anglican communion and the churches that make it ARE organised, for good or ill. I think what Paul writes about division is pretty clear, but if you're not seeing that then presumably it's not as clear as I thought.
Posts: 2788 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
From the inside, I know that we really did love you as you. I also know that we hurt and rejected you, and I am sorry for that.

From the outside, this looks less like "lov[ing] you as you" and more like "loving you as an abstraction" and then hurting and rejecting real people for not conforming with the abstraction of how they 'should' be.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10338 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And I do think the love, care and tolerance of others - especially Others - is even more clearly expressed.

...

Then we come to the issue of homosexuality, and suddenly the approach of searching, learning, exploring more is gone. The bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, and anyone who disagrees is undermining the core truth of Christianity. Anyone who want s to reinterpret it is mislead, starting from a non-Christian position.

...

the care, the passion for people. That seems to be no more.

That's what has utterly floored me about the whole evangelical reaction to the homosexuality issue. When I say "But what about love for others, compassion, kindness, helping the oppressed, grace, etc, all the things that are central to Christianity, shouldn't these things be guiding Christians on these issues and in all their dealings with gay people?" I tend to be met with really negative answers that insist that it is the absolute duty of Christians to fight against the culture of The World and to do so in ways that are as blunt, clear and thoroughgoing as possible.

I have been absolutely horrified by just how nasty and judgmental Christians around the world have been on this issue, and how little to no interest has been shown with regard to loving or caring about the gay people themselves. A common theme I've noted when Christians discuss the pros and cons of gay rights is that any harm/benefits to the gay people themselves gets entirely left out... it makes me think of discussing the pros and cons of slavery for society by talking about economics and unemployment and social cohesion without any consideration whatsoever of how the slaves themselves might feel about it or be harmed by it... somehow, due to whatever social phenomenon it is, there seems to be no compassion, empathy or concern for gay people within evangelical groups - no interest in even thinking about gay people's point of view or how they feel, no love or concern for them as people or their interests.

This horrifies me, confuses me, and stumps me, because as someone who spent 20 years in and around a lot of evangelical groups, I know they are supposed to be about love and compassion and empathy, and so the widespread total failure to apply any of those concepts to issues about homosexuality totally confuses me.

Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
See, I think the more relevant comparison is with the inquisitors who genuinely thought they were saving people's souls by torturing them. It's not that evangelicals think don't care that they're hurting gay people, it's that they think it's ok because they're trying to save them from something worse. I'm honestly not sure which is more terrifying.
Posts: 2788 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But the evangelical bent with its emphasis on The Word and living according to scripture can be clearly traced back through the centuries to puritanism - so why are people so surprised, shocked, amazed (whatever) at the judgmentalism on show at the moment about homosexuality.

Indeed, why is anyone surprised at hearing Ms Leaf on the radio speaking about how wrong it is for women to be bishops?

I've tried and tried to get to a position where I can see evangelicalism in a positive light but I always come back to the evos I've known who've been, to a man and woman, judgmental, prudish, mean-spirited and generally un-Christian in their behaviour and attitude towards anyone they've decided is somehow sinful.

I know this is likely to cause a storm of protest but I can only speak as I've found.

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4603 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But the evangelical bent with its emphasis on The Word and living according to scripture can be clearly traced back through the centuries to puritanism - so why are people so surprised, shocked, amazed (whatever) at the judgmentalism on show at the moment about homosexuality.

In my experience of evangelicalism I was constantly annoyed by the exclusive focus on "faith alone" as important and the comparative lack of focus on a 'social gospel' of helping the poor, hungry, sick etc and a comparative lack of focus on a 'moral gospel' of self-improvement in terms of developing a character of love, kindness, compassion etc. I regularly got annoyed at the way those latter two (which I considered to be the core of biblical christianity) were sidelined in favour of the first (which I considered to be poor theology and a misreading of the bible). So I am totally baffled by why a group that so fervently teaches salvation by faith alone, and that what we do doesn't particularly matter because we are all terrible sinners anyway who are saved by grace alone through faith alone, should care so much about homosexuality... it makes no sense to me.

I can't say that I noticed any judgementalism present at all in the evangelical groups I was a part of... which is why it was all the more shocking for me when judgementalism suddenly emerged in tidal-wave proportions on the issue of homosexuality.

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
See, I think the more relevant comparison is with the inquisitors who genuinely thought they were saving people's souls by torturing them. It's not that evangelicals think don't care that they're hurting gay people, it's that they think it's ok because they're trying to save them from something worse. I'm honestly not sure which is more terrifying.

Yes, somehow in the minds of some evangelicals, homosexuality seems to be a salvation issue. I can't fathom the theology of this. On the one hand they teach salvation by faith alone, and on the other they think homosexuality is so serious a sin that apparently the blood of Christ isn't powerful enough to work on it? I get the impression that in their minds homosexuality is a deliberate choice (!) and in particular a deliberate choice to reject God and God's clear will (!).

One of my best friends goes to an evangelical church where he says about 50% of the people there would say that it's impossible to be gay and a Christian. That just baffles me really, because these same people on the topic of murderers, thieves, divorcees, people having sex before marriage, pedophiles, drug addicts, alcoholics etc would say "well those are not 'Christian' behaviour and Christians should work to avoid those things and insofar as any person is exhibiting those behaviours then that part of their life isn't in accord with biblical teaching, but of course those people can still be Christians, and all Christians have some sin in their life." While I am tempted to just write all these people off as utter morons, there are sooo many people who seem to think this that it makes me dubious about just dismissing them as stupid and makes me want to look for some sort of social-cultural explanation instead. I do think misinformation is a key factor - on this issue Christian groups seem to have rumour-mongered a truly stunning amount of misinformation / lies / slander about gay people and this gets preached from pulpits as gospel truth on a regular basis - and since gay people have learned to their cost to stay away from churches the misinformation is generally never challenged with any level of facts or truth and so churches have become breeding grounds for fearmongering and lies about gay people.

There's also a generally widespread view amongst evangelicals that (1) Homosexuality is a choice, (2) It's a wrong choice, (3) Homosexuality is substantially spread through people hearing about it and 'advertising' done by gay people and the media (3) Social and peer pressure can be used to encourage people to make better choices, (4) Therefore we should apply as much social and personal pressure as possible to discourage people from being gay, and we should limit or ban public mention of homosexuality and media portrayals of it. I have yet to see any data or studies suggesting such methods are actually effective at achieving their goals! Evangelicals do not seem to have any interest in knowing whether their efforts to discourage homosexuality actually work, nor do they seem to have any interest in evaluating whether the harm done to homosexual people in general by their efforts are sufficiently balanced by the number of people they have saved from being gay (if any).

Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532

 - Posted      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
For "member" and "small" I think you meant "leader" and "largest". It's also worth remembering that as far as Rowan Williams, I and most Anglo-Catholics are concerned we are members of the Catholic Church, just not in communion with the Bishop of Rome because of choices made down the centuries by said Bishops. There is one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which we are all members by our baptism. The unity of the church is a desire clearly expressed in scripture and it is right that it be pursued, schism is not something to be taken lightly. I do believe Rowan Williams erred as Archbishop in allowing the pursuit of unity to become a justification for continuing the oppression of gay people within the church - the requirement to let the oppressed go free trumps the unity of the church any day - but I can understand where he was coming from.

Oh, I get the "the Catholic Church is all Christians" position, no worries. But that position would hold that, if the Anglican Communion split, the church would be preserved. Preserving the Communion at all costs would make sense only if it was held to be the One, True Church.

I doubt even the laciest gin tank would go that far!

Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Since gay people have learned to their cost to stay away from churches the misinformation is generally never challenged with any level of facts or truth and so churches have become breeding grounds for fearmongering and lies about gay people.
[...]
Evangelicals do not seem to have any interest in knowing whether their efforts to discourage homosexuality actually work, nor do they seem to have any interest in evaluating whether the harm done to homosexual people in general by their efforts are sufficiently balanced by the number of people they have saved from being gay (if any).

You've answered your own question here. If gay people tend to leave evangelical churches, then they're obviously not 'saved from being gay' by those churches. I don't suppose that all evangelical churches would feel deflated about this, though. Some would be more concerned about maintaining their teachings.

It's unlikely that the evangelical churches in the UK are having much influence on the wider society with regards to sexuality or sexual behaviour. The 'fearmongering and lies' are kept within their own culture, which is marginal.

I don't know what it's like elsewhere but googling suggests that NZ is a highly secularised country. It could be that the evangelical churches there are becoming stricter in some respects as a response to the heightened levels of irreligiosity in the general culture. The proportion of Christians who categorise themselves as 'Evangelical, Born Again, and Fundamental' has apparently gone up, while most other Christian groups have gone down.

http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-and-summary-reports/quickstats-culture-identity/religion.aspx

[ 19. November 2014, 00:39: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posts: 6340 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But the evangelical bent with its emphasis on The Word and living according to scripture can be clearly traced back through the centuries to puritanism - so why are people so surprised, shocked, amazed (whatever) at the judgmentalism on show at the moment about homosexuality.

Indeed, why is anyone surprised at hearing Ms Leaf on the radio speaking about how wrong it is for women to be bishops?

I've tried and tried to get to a position where I can see evangelicalism in a positive light but I always come back to the evos I've known who've been, to a man and woman, judgmental, prudish, mean-spirited and generally un-Christian in their behaviour and attitude towards anyone they've decided is somehow sinful.

I know this is likely to cause a storm of protest but I can only speak as I've found.

I attended the Youthwork Conference (definitely evangelical, run by Spring Harvest I believe) at the weekend (on an exhibitor stand) and attended a workshop on how to include LGBT youth. The response was amazing and very positive. I think the attitude of those in evangelical pews is quite different to that in much evo media and the views of their leaders. Also there are plenty of LGBT evangelicals, and their evo allies - Accepting Evangelicals, the Two:23 Network, Diverse Church, Sally Hitchener, Vicky Beeching. So while I understand your views, and you must be aware of my frequent negative encounters with evangelicalism, inside evangelicalism things are moving along and are not necessarily obvious to those outside.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5302 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Oh, I get the "the Catholic Church is all Christians" position, no worries. But that position would hold that, if the Anglican Communion split, the church would be preserved.

The church would still exist, certainly, but it would be further marred by division. Anglo-Catholics would like to see unity with Rome and Constantinople, we're just not, for the most part, willing to do it on their terms as is the only current option. The discrepancy here, which I think you're alluding to, is that some are willing to make far bigger compromises to keep Anglicanism together than they would be to re-join with either the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox.
Posts: 2788 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532

 - Posted      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The church would still exist, certainly, but it would be further marred by division. Anglo-Catholics would like to see unity with Rome and Constantinople, we're just not, for the most part, willing to do it on their terms as is the only current option. The discrepancy here, which I think you're alluding to, is that some are willing to make far bigger compromises to keep Anglicanism together than they would be to re-join with either the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox.

Absolutely.

If Williams were serious about corporate unity with Rome as a matter of principle, he'd have apologized to all the Church of England's female priests, had Synod strip them of their office, and get on the phone to the Vatican to arrange a mass ordination.

But no, gay people, and only gay people are expected to pay the price, and for what? The unity of one protestant church amongst many? On its own terms, this bizarre mix of realpolitik and dogma makes no sense.

[ 19. November 2014, 07:03: Message edited by: Byron ]

Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Some Anglo-Catholics might like union with Rome and Constantinople - even if these 2 ancient Patriarchs are not in proper union at the moment. Others of us would be very happy with communion.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6617 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I do think misinformation is a key factor - on this issue Christian groups seem to have rumour-mongered a truly stunning amount of misinformation / lies / slander about gay people and this gets preached from pulpits as gospel truth on a regular basis - and since gay people have learned to their cost to stay away from churches the misinformation is generally never challenged with any level of facts or truth and so churches have become breeding grounds for fearmongering and lies about gay people.

Here's an example from the Anerican Family Association, reacting to a recent ad campaign by the Human Rights Campaign.

quote:
“There is a war against the Bible in America and a war to marginalize the millions of Americans who believe the Bible,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon. “HRC is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in outside monies to undermine what Scripture teaches and to insult, denigrate and target those who hold to Scripture. For an organization that claims tolerance, HRC employs deceptive tactics and outright lies to attack those who respectfully disagree with them. This is hardly tolerance.”
So what is this horribly insulting and denigrating statement they're talking about.

this.

Shocking, isn't it? A mother sharing her loving thoughts about her gay son coming out to her, under the title "We Are All God's Children". Why must the HRC be so hateful? [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10338 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Crœsos,

To be fair to them, the content they seem to be objecting to is not present in that particular ad that you link to, and is probably somewhat vaguely present by implication in one or more of the other ads that are part of the ad campaign that HRC is running. The HRC youtube channel only has one other ad in that series so far (they may have aired ads in the state without posting them on youtube), and that ad does imply that Christians have sometimes fallen short of being completely loving toward gay people. (Although one might still rather justifiably ask how that statement of the obvious is an insult to bible-believing Christians!)

Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Crœsos,

To be fair to them, the content they seem to be objecting to is not present in that particular ad that you link to, and is probably somewhat vaguely present by implication in one or more of the other ads that are part of the ad campaign that HRC is running. The HRC youtube channel only has one other ad in that series so far (they may have aired ads in the state without posting them on youtube), and that ad does imply that Christians have sometimes fallen short of being completely loving toward gay people. (Although one might still rather justifiably ask how that statement of the obvious is an insult to bible-believing Christians!)

One might. One might also ask where in either ad is the claim that Christians routinely physically assault homosexuals, which the AFA also has on its list of objections.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10338 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
One might also ask where in either ad is the claim that Christians routinely physically assault homosexuals, which the AFA also has on its list of objections.

Well the AFA is labelled a hate group by the SPLC due to their "propagation of known falsehoods and demonizing propaganda". So I doubt they'd let little things like the truth or facts stand in their way of proclaiming how their powerful majority is being thoroughly persecuted. It always puzzles me when I come across persecution complexes in Christian contexts... a surprising number of evangelicals seem to really want to be believe that everyone is out to oppress them and they seem to take a strange pleasure from that thought. Anything short of evangelicals getting to legislate their beliefs onto everyone gets reinterpreted as "ThEy'Re OuT To gET Us!! It'S A PErSECutION oF ChRIStIANs!!"
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Unity of Rome with Constantinople? In dreams!

Constantinople haven't forgotten 1453, blaming inaction by most of Italy, and the Papal States in particular, for its fall.

But then Rome is still uncertain that Constantinople - or at least the ordained part - didn't choose Mehmedd II over help from the schismatic of the Vatican.

CofE unity with Rome? Don't assume that all ACs see this as something to be wished for - we don't.

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4603 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Unity of Rome with Constantinople? In dreams!

Or nightmares.

quote:
Constantinople haven't forgotten 1453, blaming inaction by most of Italy, and the Papal States in particular, for its fall.
Constantinople hasn't forgotten 1204.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62946 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Byron:

quote:
If Williams were serious about corporate unity with Rome as a matter of principle, he'd have apologized to all the Church of England's female priests, had Synod strip them of their office, and get on the phone to the Vatican to arrange a mass ordination.

But no, gay people, and only gay people are expected to pay the price, and for what? The unity of one protestant church amongst many? On its own terms, this bizarre mix of realpolitik and dogma makes no sense.

I don't really think that the tergiversations of the Anglican Communion have been about making it possible for corporate reunion with Rome. The last ABC to seriously kid himself on the subject was George Carey. It has been more to do with the corporate union of the Anglican Communion with itself. For good or ill, if the C of E announced tomorrow that permanent, faithful and stable relationships were A-OK as far as it was concerned a large chunk of the Global South would declare itself out of communion with the See of Canterbury. As would a large part of the Church of England. Whilst it is tempting to quote that great Doctor of the Church, Blessed Eric Cartman and announce: "screw you guys, I'm going home", I can see why there is a certain reluctance to take that particular line emanating from Lambeth Palace.

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

Posts: 9677 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
CofE unity with Rome? Don't assume that all ACs see this as something to be wished for - we don't.

Indeed - or at least not while it exercises the Petrine ministry as it does at present.

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

Posts: 23022 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
CofE unity with Rome? Don't assume that all ACs see this as something to be wished for - we don't.

Indeed - or at least not while it exercises the Petrine ministry as it does at present.
...or as it did until recently. I could happily exist in a RCC led by Pope Francis. But I fear his successor - who can't be many years off - might not continue that trajectory.

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12891 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532

 - Posted      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
[...] I could happily exist in a RCC led by Pope Francis. [...]

An organization that continues to exclude half the human race from ordination because of their gender.

An organization that considers gay people to be suffering from an "objective disorder" due to their being "ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil."

An organization that would force every female person (not woman, age is irrelevant) to carry a child to term, even in cases of rape.

None of these dogmas has been changed by Francis, nor will they be, since the Church claims its teaching on these matters to be infallible. He's just a PR man. The words you will never, ever hear from him: "The Church's teaching was wrong. I'm so, so sorry. I think of the lives we destroyed and I weep. How can we begin to atone?"

Callan, yeah, I agree about the realpolitik, which makes the position as bankrupt theologically as it is morally.

Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Byron

[Overused] x 10

(edited to add)
Well summarised. Francis is a splendid PR front man - would that the CofE could come up with his equivalent - but to credit him with any realistic chance of changing the RCC is insane - there's more likelihood of discovering the Flat Earth Society were right all along.

[ 20. November 2014, 18:35: Message edited by: L'organist ]

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4603 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
[...] I could happily exist in a RCC led by Pope Francis. [...]

An organization that continues to exclude half the human race from ordination because of their gender.

An organization that considers gay people to be suffering from an "objective disorder" due to their being "ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil."

An organization that would force every female person (not woman, age is irrelevant) to carry a child to term, even in cases of rape.

None of these dogmas has been changed by Francis, nor will they be, since the Church claims its teaching on these matters to be infallible. He's just a PR man. The words you will never, ever hear from him: "The Church's teaching was wrong. I'm so, so sorry. I think of the lives we destroyed and I weep. How can we begin to atone?"

Callan, yeah, I agree about the realpolitik, which makes the position as bankrupt theologically as it is morally.

I'd like to hear an authoritative RC view on the 'infallibility' of such pronouncements, especially the one on abortion. In practice, the acceptance and pastoral care of gay people in the RCC can be very positive; there are many voices calling for the ordination of women who haven't yet been silenced despite decrees of previous popes.

Never say never about God's church. Or any part of it.

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12891 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Byron, is not a child conceived after a rape as much a child as one conceived in a loving marriage? Why traumatise a rape victim even more by having her undergo an abortion?

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6617 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Byron, is not a child conceived after a rape as much a child as one conceived in a loving marriage? Why traumatise a rape victim even more by having her undergo an abortion?

Surely it is for the victim to decide whether the abortion or the birth would be more traumatic? (HINT: most think it's the latter)
Posts: 2788 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, but if - if- you think of the foetus as in some sense a human being in its own right, it's not only the victim/ mother who has to be considered, is it? In fact, you might argue that since the foetus is not able to speak for itself, it deserves especial consideration and protection. But that all depends on whether or not you accept the intial premise about the status of the foetus.
Posts: 6423 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
When you consider that two of the results of a "win" in certain types tribal (or other) warfare are the killing off of the males, and the raping of the women, to ensure that the losers stay lost.

Similarly, one of the powers that a rapist holds is not just to do the physical act, but to make the victim endure the evidence for a lifetime. Again, in tribal and Biblical culture, the woman is "spoiled goods" and should be shunned because apparently the rape is her fault.

You now insist that the woman should carry the product of the rape because somehow she deserves it?

Seems that the old idea of male superiority and female-as-goods is not that very old.

Once you can get the males to admit some sort of fault in rape, or, better, to try not raping, then I can see where there might be an argument. But to condemn a woman to lifetime punishment because a male "had his way" is a bit ridiculous, in my view.

It is quite common, for instance, for a rapist, in the course of his trial, to insist that he is the father and that she does not have the right to harm the child - which is part of the violence of the assault. I am sure you can come up with some justification for her carrying the child, but you are shaky moral ground, I suppose, unless you are consistent in your patriarchalism. How many cows represent the price of your daughter in the arranged marriage? And, are you contemplating selling her into slavery?

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

Posts: 5366 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, but if - if- you think of the foetus as in some sense a human being in its own right, it's not only the victim/ mother who has to be considered, is it? In fact, you might argue that since the foetus is not able to speak for itself, it deserves especial consideration and protection. But that all depends on whether or not you accept the intial premise about the status of the foetus.

Sure, but that's a different discussion. I was solely addressing the bizarre assertion that anyone was suggesting compelling rape victims to abort and that somehow the choice to have an abortion was necessarily more traumatic than giving birth to your rapist's baby.
Posts: 2788 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I'd like to hear an authoritative RC view on the 'infallibility' of such pronouncements, especially the one on abortion. In practice, the acceptance and pastoral care of gay people in the RCC can be very positive; there are many voices calling for the ordination of women who haven't yet been silenced despite decrees of previous popes.

Never say never about God's church. Or any part of it.

Sure. Some millennia soon they're bound to change.

[brick wall]

Posts: 2975 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Without espousing any of the views attributed to me by Horseman Bree, I adhere to my opinion that upon conception, and perhaps even before then, the foetus becomes a human and that to abort is to kill a human.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6617 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Without espousing any of the views attributed to me by Horseman Bree, I adhere to my opinion that upon conception, and perhaps even before then, the foetus becomes a human and that to abort is to kill a human.

Before conception??? That's a new one.
And also you're basically implying that a single-celled organism is human?

To me, what makes humans special as compared to animals is our sophisticated brain function and thought processes. There's abundant scientific evidence that significant parts of human brain development occur post-birth (this seems to be evolutionary a result of humans walking upright meaning the birth passage is narrower than for 4 legged animals, meaning the baby's head needs to be able to be significantly squeezed during birth, meaning that human brain has evolved to develop post-birth not pre-birth and humans as result do not have remotely the same level of brain development as a lot of animals at the time of birth - many animals are close to fully competent when born whereas a human baby takes years to develop to the same level). Thus a human fetus scientifically appears to be far far less a self-aware thinking being than many animals. While I am personally quite pro animal-rights, and strongly believe that the more intelligent animals should be treated humanely, I find that most anti-abortionists are not particularly worried about animal rights, and I find that quite contradictory about their position.

It seems to me that the assumption that hides behind most Christian anti-abortionist's positions is some sort of pseudo-theological notion of a dualistic "soul" that God apparently inserts into every human upon conception. I question this theological assumption of dualism, since the bible seems to repeatedly imply that the afterlife will involve a bodily resurrection, and the notion of a dualism immaterial soul seems to smack of Greek philosophy rather than biblical exegesis. Also it strikes me as strange theology for people to think that God doesn't know which foetuses are going to be aborted... eg can't God only put souls into baby's that aren't going to be aborted, or wait until birth before putting the soul into the body of the baby? The theological notion that God creates all these souls into foetus that then die shortly thereafter, and thus he has to put them in Limbo or some similar holding pen, has always struck me as amusingly silly.

Likewise the Biblical laws are quite clear that foetuses are not fully on par with real humans:
Exodus 21:22-23: Punching a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage is a fine-able offence, but if the woman herself dies it's murder and an executable offence.
Num 3:15 & Lev 27:6: Only one-month olds and older are considered relevant parts of the general population.
Num 5: When a man thinks his wife has been unfaithful and suspects the baby she's carrying isn't his, then he can take her to the priest who will give her an abortion-potion, and if it works then she was guilty, and if it doesn't work then she was innocent and the man can rest assured the baby is his.

Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools