|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Where did the demonisation of homosexuality come from?
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
What about protecting these pre-conception humans? All those people who are carrying sperm and ova around and just not breeding based on their own selfish pre-occupations. Surely *WE* need to make decisions to force them to breed to protect those pre-conception humans. Let's start with you.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Starlight, you appear unaware that conception is entirely different to fertilisation. A sperm penetrates an ovum - fertilisation may then occur. Conception may then happen some days after that, when the fertilised ovum becomes attached to the uterine wall via the placenta. Hence the word "conception" - a taking up. Not every fertilised ovum is conceived. For a full discussion of the process. I suggest that for a discussion of the physical process and the theological implications, you read Peter Carnley's book Reflections in Glass. Dr Carnley is a former Primate of Australia and was a co-chair of ARCIC.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Starlight, you appear unaware that conception is entirely different to fertilisation.
You're wrong. Most sources define "conception" as meaning "fertilisation". Granted, some sources say conception can refer to "either fertilisation or implantantion or both", and the word therefore does appear to have some level of ambiguity and flexibility. Your statement that "conception is entirely different to fertilisation" appears false however.
Obviously what you mean is that implantation is different to fertilization, which is obviously true. And you, like most anti-abortionists believe life begins at fertilization. And that's yet another reason I struggle to take the anti-abortion position seriously... since many fertilized eggs are naturally lost due to implantation failures, any human efforts to cause abortions appear to ultimately be a relatively small percentage of total abortions most of which occur naturally. If God gets his knickers in a twist over abortions, then it's bizarre he'd let so many ones occur naturally!
quote:
I suggest that for a discussion of the physical process and the theological implications, you read Peter Carnley's book Reflections in Glass.
A religious source for scientific data? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Unfortunately anti-abortionists have developed a world-wide reputation for lying about matters of scientific fact. So frankly, I would place zero trust in any scientific statements I read in such a book... but his theological comments may well be interesting.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Starlight, I find your comment Unfortunately anti-abortionists have developed a world-wide reputation for lying about matters of scientific fact along with much else of your post personally offensive. Your post does not show any sign of having grasped the etymology of "conception" and its distinction to "fertilisation" - rather you refer to others who also fail to grasp the meaning of words which they use.
And a realisation of the distinction also recognises that many fertilised eggs fail to attach themselves. But I would not see that as abortion.
[ 22. November 2014, 02:17: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
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.
And that's one of the things that gets to me. It doesn't matter if you're working hard to jail (or execute) gays, it doesn't matter if you claim gay people are demon possessed, or functional (or even literal) Nazis, that's not enough to get you thrown out of the evangelical movement. There seems to be literally nothing you can do in an anti-gay direction that will get you regarded as a fringe actor unworthy of inclusion in the movement. The one interesting exception seems to be Westboro Baptist Church, but I think that's in part because they've got that weird family cult vibe going and in part because it gives the other evangelicals someone to point to and say "at least we're not as bad as Westboro Baptist!" and feel good about themselves.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Starlight, I find your comment Unfortunately anti-abortionists have developed a world-wide reputation for lying about matters of scientific fact along with much else of your post personally offensive.
It was a statement (of the obvious) about the poor worldwide reputation of the anti-abortion movement, and a corresponding caution against naively believing scientific claims in Christian books. It baffles me how you can find it personally offensive - obviously you can't equate yourself with a worldwide movement nor the reputation thereof. I certainly wasn't accusing you personally of lying - you haven't made any claims about scientific fact in this thread that I've noticed.
quote:
Your post does not show any sign of having grasped the etymology of "conception" and its distinction to "fertilisation" - rather you refer to others who also fail to grasp the meaning of words which they use.
Try checking a dictionary. Seriously. Try checking several dictionaries.
It's a complete error on your part to think that the origin of a word necessarily bears any relationship to it's current meaning. How people in society use words changes over time and dictionaries get updated accordingly on a regular basis. You don't get to simply announce that a word means something different to the dictionary and then get to go around telling other people they're using it wrong.
quote:
And a realisation of the distinction also recognises that many fertilised eggs fail to attach themselves. But I would not see that as abortion.
Perhaps you can explain further what distinction you see here and why it is at all important?
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Perhaps if you moved to argument rather than insult and invective, I could debate with you. In the meantime, no.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Starlight, I find your comment Unfortunately anti-abortionists have developed a world-wide reputation for lying about matters of scientific fact along with much else of your post personally offensive.
It was a statement (of the obvious) about the poor worldwide reputation of the anti-abortion movement, and a corresponding caution against naively believing scientific claims in Christian books.
Aren't all scientific claims to be treated on their merit, rather than the perceived reputation or perceived bias of their claimants?
I was brought up to understand that scientific claims by their nature are verifiable or falsifiable by checks on the working which underpins them.
Of course if you are arguing that claims which purport to be scientific may not pass these basic tests, I would agree. But that's what verification demonstrates, surely.
Personally I'm very careful about throwing out group smears about lying re scientific claims, or any other claims come to think of it.
Statement of personal position follows. I'm basically pro-choice, but I'm not at all comfortable about acts of abortion which have no concerns for either potential viability of the foetus (a moving target) or the developing sentience and sensitivy to pain of the foetus. I'm not sure these are issues we can afford to be careless or utilitarian about. Accurate information can inform personal choice. That's obviously different to using inaccurate information to manipulate choice. Let the chooser choose; let them know what it is they are choosing. What's wrong with that?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
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?
Are you arguing that an 11-year-old, raped and impregnated by her father, ought to be forced to conceive by force of law?
If not, then it's of course your prerogative to believe what you like.
If so, then enforcing the girl's choice isn't even a question. An embryo has no higher brain functions whatsoever. This is all based on potential life. The suffering of the girl far outweighs the embryo. A clearer case of necessity you'll never see.
Angloid, the ordinary and universal magisterium is held to be infallible. Those positions would, I believe, qualify, but I'm open to correction.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[...] Statement of personal position follows. I'm basically pro-choice, but I'm not at all comfortable about acts of abortion which have no concerns for either potential viability of the foetus (a moving target) or the developing sentience and sensitivy to pain of the foetus. I'm not sure these are issues we can afford to be careless or utilitarian about. Accurate information can inform personal choice. That's obviously different to using inaccurate information to manipulate choice. Let the chooser choose; let them know what it is they are choosing. What's wrong with that?
For me, it all depends on the trimester. Before the fetus develops higher brain functions, I see no ethical issues with abortion. Afterwards, it's not a potential person, but a person, and serious ethical issues are raised.
Interestingly, many traditional authorities recognized this intuitively, by fixing the quickening as the time that life began.
As for being pro-choice, my personal opinions aside, it's a question of a woman's control over her own body. If the fetus is viable, it should be delivered, not aborted, but beyond that the decision is rightfully the woman's.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Accurate information can inform personal choice. That's obviously different to using inaccurate information to manipulate choice. Let the chooser choose; let them know what it is they are choosing. What's wrong with that?
The problems occur when the information is false and inaccurate. I'm a scientist so I have a little pang of pain every time I see a person totally misinterpret the result of a study. But it gets personal for me when I see it happen in the homosexuality debate... Christian churches and circles seem to have become rumour-mills and breeding grounds for some of the silliest and malicious lies imaginable and they regularly mis-cite some sort of scientific backing for their ridiculous claims. And those lies harm people. The most sensible and rational person can end up doing awful things when they have ideas that are flat wrong. eg if they're convinced that gay men abuse children. Or if they really think that gay relationships don't last and gay people have no interest in commitment. Or these talks where basically every single factual claim made in them is false. And it makes me more angry when they fund deliberately fake science designed to 'prove' gay people make worse parents and then parrot it repeatedly (they screwed up on that one though majorly by trying to use it in court, as it got taken to pieces by the major professional scientific organisations, and the judge ended up telling them off for making up false science).
There's been a deliberate smear campaign over many decades done by many Christians around the world to demonize gay people. They misinterpret science and use facts that are false, and continue to do so even after they've been repeatedly alerted to the fact that it is false. As I mentioned to Croesus, the SPLC has designated quite a number of anti-gay Christian groups in the US as 'hate groups' due to their "propagation of known falsehoods and demonizing propaganda".
Yes, I believe in the importance of rational choice. And that is precisely what is sabotaged when people are fed lies. People can't make rational decisions when they've been lied to.
Unfortunately the homosexuality issue doesn't seem to be an isolated case. The creation-evolution debate has long been an issue where Christians get quite creative with their handling and interpretation of scientific data. That issue is easily ignored, of course, by Christians who accept evolution and who simply ignore the all the information the Creation Science people continue to put out.
And then we get to abortion, another case where Christians get creative with the truth. There is currently an ongoing case, where an anti-abortion group lied in a political campaign, was prosecuted for it and found guilty by a judge (because making false statements of fact about candidates was illegal). So they've sued to have the law ruled unconstitutional, demanding that they have the right to lie during political campaigns as part of 'free speech'. The fact that a 'Christian' anti-abortion group is suing to overturn a law prohibiting lying, kindof gives the game away...
And I find all these lies on all these topics all the more offensive because Christianity is supposed to be about truth.
[ 22. November 2014, 09:21: Message edited by: Starlight ]
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
[...] And I find all these lies on all these topics all the more offensive because Christianity is supposed to be about truth.
Yeah, that's a kicker for me, too. I guess the cognitive dissonance of saying, "God wants us to condemn people for having loving, supportive relationships that bring joy to them and those around them," is just too much. As their thinking goes, "The Bible/magisterium says that homosexuality is wrong. Ipso facto, it must be harmful."
Condemning something self-evidently good would trigger all kinds of questions about biblical authority and revelation, and for many, that's a leap too far.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Starlight
I get offended by lying and misrepresentation too. Basically because it's wrong. Also because it is damaging. I don't do guilt by association, though. Presumption of guilt simply because folks belong to an organisations whose aims and values I disagree with strikes me as a form of prejudice.
Which doesn't mean that I lack caution or common sense. Often enough you find folks who are pretty dimly aware of the values and ethics of organisations they belong to. Sometimes they can be rescued by being helped to discover what's going on. Hard to do that if you assume they are guilty, rather than deluded.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Starlight
I get offended by lying and misrepresentation too. Basically because it's wrong. Also because it is damaging. I don't do guilt by association, though. Presumption of guilt simply because folks belong to an organisations whose aims and values I disagree with strikes me as a form of prejudice.
In certain cases justified, though. At a certain point the "Boy Who Cried 'Wolf'" assessment has to be seriously considered. Groups like the aforementioned American Family Association have shown such a blatant disregard for the falsity of their claims their good faith can no longer be assumed. In part there's a certain practicality involved, since it takes a good deal of time and effort to subject their claims to scientific disproof whereas the claims themselves take only as much time to make as it does to invent them. In fact, bad faith actors like the AFA usually count on the fact that it's a lot easier to lie than it is to categorically disprove a lie. That disparity seems to be a vital part of their modus operandi and I see no reason why anyone should feel obligated to pretend the AFA is arguing in good faith.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Religious truth is subjective. Plenty of people walk away from religious groups or movements because they're no longer convinced of the truth being presented.
Most growing religious movements develop a pragmatic streak, because getting vast numbers of people across very many different societies and cultures to agree on matter of sexual (and other) morality is difficult. What's tolerated on the ground in one religious culture won't be tolerated in another, which makes it hard for sweeping official changes to be made that will satisfy all church members everywhere.
If the RCC were committed to truth above unity then it would have to agree to become a much smaller entity. Other religious movements have followed this route. They end up with much less power, and become almost invisible (unless they're good at courting the media). This obviously isn't the RC way.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Humans naturally seek power and prestige. All this stuff about truth and unity, creeds and schisms, is just working out which approach will give the leaders the most power over their followers in a particular set of circumstances. This kind of "pragmatism" is hardly a streak, it's an integral part of humanity's social nature.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If the RCC were committed to truth above unity then it would have to agree to become a much smaller entity.
What does it mean to be "committed to truth" if, as you say,
quote:
Religious truth is subjective.
?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Starlight
I get offended by lying and misrepresentation too. Basically because it's wrong. Also because it is damaging. I don't do guilt by association, though. Presumption of guilt simply because folks belong to an organisations whose aims and values I disagree with strikes me as a form of prejudice.
In certain cases justified, though. At a certain point the "Boy Who Cried 'Wolf'" assessment has to be seriously considered. Groups like the aforementioned American Family Association have shown such a blatant disregard for the falsity of their claims their good faith can no longer be assumed. In part there's a certain practicality involved, since it takes a good deal of time and effort to subject their claims to scientific disproof whereas the claims themselves take only as much time to make as it does to invent them. In fact, bad faith actors like the AFA usually count on the fact that it's a lot easier to lie than it is to categorically disprove a lie. That disparity seems to be a vital part of their modus operandi and I see no reason why anyone should feel obligated to pretend the AFA is arguing in good faith.
That's fair enough. What the AFA argue (and for another illustration what the British National Party argue) is argued for them by official spokespersons. I have no problems in agreeing with arguments which say that their policies, aims and values are toxic.
So far as individual members are concerned, common sense would suggest that they do indeed share the views of spokespersons. I guess my approach with anyone I know who happened to be a member of an organisation which had (what I thought of) as toxic views would be to ask some questions. How did you come to join? What was the attraction? In short, I'd want to check it out. You may be right to observe that such a process is not necessary; association is enough. I guess I'm in favour of giving people a chance to explain themselves, as some kind of opener to explaining why my understanding is different, what bothers me about what they are saying.
I'm not suggesting my preferred way is better. It's my preferred approach and it mirrors the way I prefer to be treated if any of my associations give folks pause for thought.
On the other hand if anyone asked me what my views were about the AFA, or BNP, or similar, I'd have no hesitation in describing their policies and outlook as toxic, with reasons why.
I guess it is the difference between a general judgment (where I suspect you and I would be in major agreement about toxic organisations/policies) and a specific judgment about any individual, where I'd rather find out than assume.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If the RCC were committed to truth above unity then it would have to agree to become a much smaller entity.
What does it mean to be "committed to truth" if, as you say,
quote:
Religious truth is subjective.
?
Each religious group decides what its own truth is, based on its own experiences, be they spiritual, sociological, psychological, and so on. A group can be very committed to the truth that arises in this way. But it does so subjectively. The group doesn't attempt to analyse all the options available, and objective scientific methods aren't applied.
Well, this is how ISTM in my pew. Trained theological specialists may see things differently, but they don't attempt to convince the rest of us by the same means.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
As their thinking goes, "The Bible/magisterium says that homosexuality is wrong. Ipso facto, it must be harmful."
While I have issues with that logic, the real problem I have is when they go a couple of steps further than that. It's one thing for them to say to themselves "well I think it must be harmful because my religion teaches against it, but I don't know why it's harmful." It's quite another thing to actively allow and encourage every speaker and every crackpot with ideas about why it could be harmful to speak in Church and to propagate their ideas throughout Christian circles with no obstacles or checks. What I've seen happening is a situation of "Homosexuality must be harmful, therefore any claim anyone makes about how it is harmful must have some sort of validity and we should give a voice to and propagate such claims." Far from putting brakes on the extremists, Christians have given them a voice and funded them. As Croesus rightly pointed out:
quote:
There seems to be literally nothing you can do in an anti-gay direction that will get you regarded as a fringe actor unworthy of inclusion in the movement.
It's been a case of Christians playing Chinese-whispers about how awful gay people are. I'm sick of their lies, not least because Christians are supposed to be better than that.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Which doesn't mean that I lack caution or common sense. Often enough you find folks who are pretty dimly aware of the values and ethics of organisations they belong to. Sometimes they can be rescued by being helped to discover what's going on.
Precisely. That was why I posted a general warning about the sadly high frequency with which misrepresentation of scientific fact occur in anti-abortion literature, and a caution against naively believe what one reads in such literature.
Unfortunately I think a lot of Christians approach these subjects with a somewhat naive assumption that Christian literature is trustworthy on the whole as regards to scientific facts, since Christians are supposed to deal in truth. Unfortunately this isn't the case, and I think this problem can be traced back to evangelical culture where 'doubt' is generally discouraged and 'faith' encouraged, which doesn't lead to an environment in which critical thinking is particularly valued, meaning that on the whole Christians do not tend to be strongly encouraged to think critically, to question what they are told, or to check their sources, nor are they taught the skills for doing so.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Ah well, Starlight, the twin issues of naivety and loyalty (and their toxic consequences) are found in many walks of life, not just in religious communities.
Unfortunately, doing the hard work of thinking things through, working things out, is not so common these days. Pre-packaged solutions are a bit like fast food; less effort involved in obtaining them and using them!
Do you know this de Bono Q&A
"Question. Why do people think?
Answer. In order to stop thinking".
I heard de Bono explain this as a provocation! He was arguing that pre-packed conclusions were more popular because they simply involved memory and regurgitation, not the harder work of critical analysis.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Each religious group decides what its own truth is, based on its own experiences, be they spiritual, sociological, psychological, and so on. A group can be very committed to the truth that arises in this way. But it does so subjectively. The group doesn't attempt to analyse all the options available, and objective scientific methods aren't applied.
Well, this is how ISTM in my pew. Trained theological specialists may see things differently, but they don't attempt to convince the rest of us by the same means.
See, to me it makes no sense on these terms to say that the Catholic Church is more committed to unity than to truth. The Catholic Church stands fast on many unpopular beliefs, and loses members because of it. If anything I would say they are committed to truth at the expense of unity, rather than the other way around.
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I think this problem can be traced back to evangelical culture where 'doubt' is generally discouraged and 'faith' encouraged, which doesn't lead to an environment in which critical thinking is particularly valued, meaning that on the whole Christians do not tend to be strongly encouraged to think critically, to question what they are told, or to check their sources, nor are they taught the skills for doing so.
Or, as Frank Schaeffer said back when he was Franky Schaeffer and still an Evangelical, "Like soup in a bad restaurant, Christian brains are best left unstirred."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
To me it makes no sense on these terms to say that the Catholic Church is more committed to unity than to truth. The Catholic Church stands fast on many unpopular beliefs, and loses members because of it. If anything I would say they are committed to truth at the expense of unity, rather than the other way around.
I see what you're saying. But the RC is mostly losing members in the West; in Africa the number is growing. This is what I meant when I said that the challenges are different in different places: the issues that alienate European Catholics may not be mirrored in all RC communities around the world.
Perhaps it sounds cynical, but it feels as if the Pope has to play a careful game. He has to court Western Catholics, who become more valuable as they decrease in number, while keeping on board Catholics from elsewhere. As I say, it seems that keeping the official line as it is but allowing for quiet tolerance on the ground is where things are.
It's an imperfect compromise, but maybe the Pope is going as far as he can at the moment.
[ 22. November 2014, 22:18: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I see what you're saying. But the RC is mostly losing members in the West; in Africa the number is growing.
But that can't be because they are changing their stand on truth, or de-emphasizing it, because they aren't. Whatever is causing that, it isn't their valuation of unity over truth.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
That Schaeffer quote is rather telling, mousethief.
I have a bookend to it which I heard from a good nonconformist friend. Can't vouch for its originality but this is what she said,
"What on earth or in heaven makes any of us think that we are required to leave our brains in our chapel hats when we hang them on the chapel hatstand?"
She wasn't much in favour of parroting or automatic thinking any more than I am. It's a kind of denial of personal responsibility to do either of those things. And I think that applies regardless of religious (or any other) community membership.
[ 23. November 2014, 06:08: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
An amusing postscript. After nodding agreement, I pulled her leg a little. "Shouldn't you be wearing your chapel hat in the chapel hall?" She laughed. "I refer all such criticisms to 1 Corinthians 11:15. That seems to cover the issue pretty well. If you think about it."
She became a church elder, of course.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I see what you're saying. But the RC is mostly losing members in the West; in Africa the number is growing.
But that can't be because they are changing their stand on truth, or de-emphasizing it, because they aren't. Whatever is causing that, it isn't their valuation of unity over truth.
But I imagine that priests in Africa are similar to priests in Europe; they'd both rather not cause irreparable offence to their congregations.
For example, regardless of what a bishop might say to the media I find it hard to believe that many RC priests in the average modern British town or city would risk standing up in church and preaching against SSM.
By contrast, in some countries it might be quite possible to express severe misgivings about this from the pulpit without damaging church unity and driving away a portion of your congregation. I'm sure there are other issues that the priests there would be more hesitant to expound upon.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm sure there are other issues that the priests there would be more hesitant to expound upon.
If nothing else a fair few would be at risk preaching respectful treatment of gay people.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Why THIS issue, and not some other?
Because it's always easier to denounce sins you're not inclined to commit yourself.
Freud thought otherwise.
I would attribute the vehemence of die-hards, especially in their declining numbers these days, to the fact that they are inclined to commit it but refuse to accept this in themselves. This hypothesis has been vindicated by the outing of various prominent homophobes.
More generally, I like the idea (which I first heard in a sermon by Bishop Spong) that powers-that-be, whether political or economic, enlist religious leaders for the role of impressing upon a populace that not even their most intimate and private thoughts and acts are exempt from exposure and control. Whatever behavior eludes their own means of surveillance is amply noted by the divine Spy in the Sky. By this means, they can effectively wield total power. By not essentially contributing to population growth, gay sex comes in for a double dose of such censure. The church does have an unfortunate reputation for dwelling on sex out of all proportion to the concerns of Christ and the biblical prophets.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Why THIS issue, and not some other?
Because it's always easier to denounce sins you're not inclined to commit yourself.
Freud thought otherwise.
As if Freud is always right.
I think the answer is similar to this but not quite the same -- it's easier to denounce sins your congregation are not inclined to commit. I mean from the pulpit, of course.
We all know we need to be mad about sins (God says so), and it's hard to be mad at oneself (as even Paul admits). But we can be mad at those horrible gay people's sins. Which puts is in good with God, who wants us to abhor sin, but also keeps us from having to look at our own sins, which is uncomfortable as all hell. No pun intended.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Why THIS issue, and not some other?
Because it's always easier to denounce sins you're not inclined to commit yourself.
Freud thought otherwise.
I would attribute the vehemence of die-hards, especially in their declining numbers these days, to the fact that they are inclined to commit it but refuse to accept this in themselves. This hypothesis has been vindicated by the outing of various prominent homophobes.
Rubbish. By this logic the KKK are actually Black, Jewish homosexuals and the BMP are immigrants bent on destroying the UK.
I severely dislike this characterisation as it inhibits solving the real problems.
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think that's a very literalistic view of projection - it doesn't mean that the KKK are black; but it might mean that some of them feel inferior, and project their inferiority.
On homophobia, it would be unwise to over-generalize, but there have been some experiments, showing that some homophobic men show a penile response to gay porn.
But you can't generalize that to all homophobes.
But you might think of a kind of sideways move also - that some Christians are obsessed with sex, and project some of that onto gays, who are fantasized as orgiastic phallus-worshippers. Yum yum.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I was meeting like for like, as far as I understand the general "homophobes are secretly gay" rhetoric.
Statistically some will be.
As far as projection, some will happen, but I think any single attribution misses the variation in reasons people vilify the "other".
Some of it will be a way of gaining power and control, of redirecting fear or blame. Much of it will be because that is what they were taught. Conditioning is a powerful force. And, IMO, one of the largest causes of the perseverance of homophobia, racism and the other hates.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Quoth Quetz: But you might think of a kind of sideways move also - that some Christians are obsessed with sex, and project some of that onto gays, who are fantasized as orgiastic phallus-worshippers. Yum yum.
There is an element of regarding gays as not just lustful (as if straights weren't!) but also free to practise in greater measure than straights can. This leads to moralistic views ("Look how sinful they are"0 and also envy ("Why are they able to get so much?")
Which in turn leads to lots of preaching material, whether the preacher is Gay, straight or conflicted.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I was meeting like for like, as far as I understand the general "homophobes are secretly gay" rhetoric.
Statistically some will be.
As far as projection, some will happen, but I think any single attribution misses the variation in reasons people vilify the "other".
Some of it will be a way of gaining power and control, of redirecting fear or blame. Much of it will be because that is what they were taught. Conditioning is a powerful force. And, IMO, one of the largest causes of the perseverance of homophobia, racism and the other hates.
I agree with all that. Projection cannot be assumed automatically, although I think it's a factor in some people. It's an empirical question; you can tell quite quickly if a homophobic person is actually fascinated by gay sex - they keep talking about it, often in detail! Probably there is some envy here.
I would also relate homophobia to patriarchal ideology, which valorized the heterosexual couple, who were meant to produce lots of children. Men were also expected to be tough, to protect the family, to get food, and so on.
It's an interesting question as to why religions seem to have preserved such values in a kind of deep frozen form, while secular society has begun to thaw them out.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I was meeting like for like, as far as I understand the general "homophobes are secretly gay" rhetoric.
Statistically some will be.
As far as projection, some will happen, but I think any single attribution misses the variation in reasons people vilify the "other".
Some of it will be a way of gaining power and control, of redirecting fear or blame. Much of it will be because that is what they were taught. Conditioning is a powerful force. And, IMO, one of the largest causes of the perseverance of homophobia, racism and the other hates.
I agree with all that. Projection cannot be assumed automatically, although I think it's a factor in some people. It's an empirical question; you can tell quite quickly if a homophobic person is actually fascinated by gay sex - they keep talking about it, often in detail! Probably there is some envy here.
I would also relate homophobia to patriarchal ideology, which valorized the heterosexual couple, who were meant to produce lots of children. Men were also expected to be tough, to protect the family, to get food, and so on.
It's an interesting question as to why religions seem to have preserved such values in a kind of deep frozen form, while secular society has begun to thaw them out.
Because they turn societal values, which may shift, into decrees of God, which can't. "We don't do that" becomes "God will squish you if you do that."
[ 28. November 2014, 11:32: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Karl
Although you might still ask why humans wanted to turn societal values, which can be shifted, into eternal decrees?
I think humans always do this actually. For example, you see this with some secular ideas, such as Marxism, which itself became a kind of true-for-all-time and inviolable decree. Except it wasn't.
Also true for a short while of the 'end of history' nonsense, after the collapse of communism. Now, Western values (e.g. global capitalism) would reign forever. Well, maybe not.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would also relate homophobia to patriarchal ideology, which valorized the heterosexual couple, who were meant to produce lots of children. Men were also expected to be tough, to protect the family, to get food, and so on.
It's an interesting question as to why religions seem to have preserved such values in a kind of deep frozen form, while secular society has begun to thaw them out.
Religions are conservative forces in some respects, especially as they start to age. It's noticeable that the most theologically liberal mainstream churches are often the most committed to traditional liturgies, music and hierarchical structures.
Regarding the heterosexual couple, ISTM that churches gain a demographic advantage by promoting that ideal rather than celebrating a plurality of family types. More stable heterosexual couples means more children, i.e. more potential members for the group. Considering that we're all so uneasy about evangelism these days the prioritisation of the straight Christian marriage with (the promise of) children is perhaps even more likely than would have been the case in the past.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Svitlana
Very interesting points. The idea of the couple producing lots of potential converts is a nice follow-on from the view of some anthropologists that lots of kids provided cheap (well, free) labour.
There is also the issue of primogeniture, which so much exercised Henry VIII; also, the issue of the male psyche, which was meant to be aggressive, tough and stoical, in fact, macho.
David Gilmore in his classic 'Manhood in the Making' argues that economic austerity accentuated these traits, and he did field research round the Med, where manhood was seen like this (and still is).
I was thinking also of Driscoll who seems to have regrafted such ideas onto Christian thinking. Jesus was not a pussy!
I suppose though that Islam demonstrates such traits today even more markedly.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
It's the Canadian sociologist Eric Kaufmann who proposes that the future will be more rather than less religious, largely for demographic reasons. Secularisation produces people who are tolerant (e.g. of gay couples and parents), but who basically produce fewer children than the most religious people do. Although European children have a high likelihood of abandoning the committed Christianity of their parents, having a larger family increases the chance that some of your children will enter the faith.
There are other studies which suggest that the religiosity of the father is highly influential upon the religiosity of the children, which is another reason for encouraging male spirituality in the heterosexual family sphere. In one sense patriarchy has been undermined in many churches by the creeping but unspoken assumption that christianising the family is the role of wives, mothers and grandmothers. Driscoll obviously sought to challenge that idea, but a few others have also done so in a slightly less controversial or newsworthy way.
Muslims will remain a minority religious group in the UK, but they have bigger families than the majority, often live together in areas where they can give each other cultural support, and have high rates of religious retention. As a result, one prediction sees practising Muslims outnumbering practising Christians by the 2030s. I think it's unlikely that British (or European) Muslims as a whole will feel the need to incorporate SSM until they're assailed by secular influences as Christians have been. These influences seems to be at a relatively low and rather individualised level in British Islam at present.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
And the whole Duggarville thing is specifically tied to enforced masculine leader-role, and women as brood-mares for the purpose of making lots of babies for the Church. "We don't care if no-one listens to our evangelisation; we're too busy making babies for Christ"
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
NZ colonial history offers an interesting look at what you mention, Svitlana. Until late in the 19th century men far outnumbered women in the colonial population (the proportion 6 to 1 suggests itself from my memory). Religion was not able to get a real foothold until this changed. Christianisation was definitely an artefact of having more women in the population, which led to more families and the structures that form around families.
I don't think the balance of women and men evened out properly until WWI, when so many men were killed. (I'm trying to remember lectures on the history of evangelism in NZ from over 10 years ago, so apologies if I am a bit vague.)
I suspect there was a great deal of covert homosexual activity in that period of NZ history, out in the bush where no one was looking.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I suspect there was a great deal of covert homosexual activity in that period of NZ history, out in the bush where no one was looking.
Or the old saying about NZ as the place where the men are men and the sheep are anxious. That adds a new dimension to a shepherd sleeping with his sheep.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
NZ colonial history offers an interesting look at what you mention, Svitlana. Until late in the 19th century men far outnumbered women in the colonial population (the proportion 6 to 1 suggests itself from my memory). Religion was not able to get a real foothold until this changed. Christianisation was definitely an artefact of having more women in the population, which led to more families and the structures that form around families.
That's interesting.
As I say, although we talk a lot about patriarchy in the church, we do tend to forget that churches tend to be dominated numerically and to some extent culturally by women. Uncomfortable questions could be asked about the role of women in making churches conservative places with relation to homosexuality or other issues. In NZ it was probably easier to be a gay man before the women arrived and 'morals' began to be policed more strictly?!
I have read that female churchgoers generally tend to be more accepting of (male) homosexuality than male ones, but not always. Apparently one factor concerns the supply of suitable male partners for the women.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Or the old saying about NZ as the place where the men are men and the sheep are anxious. That adds a new dimension to a shepherd sleeping with his sheep.
Not many sheep in those days - many men were employed to clear the land so that pasture could be developed.
Svitlana, I don't know if the women of those days would have even realised there was homosexual activity. Given the gender proportions, women had plenty of choice, and could push for marriage to a relatively well-off man. Compared to whichever "old country" they came from, most men were comparatively wealthy!
I had a great-aunt, a fearsome Wee Free Scotswoman, who came here on her own in her late teens, became the housekeeper of a large sheep station, and married the young man who owned his own carting and general store business (my great uncle Jack). She got behind him and they built up a large grocery and growing empire in the ensuing years. She was a formidable force in the local Presbyterian church, and I was dead scared of her (as were her grandchildren).
Going back to where I should be, there are a surprising number of formal photos of two men together in quite intimate positions - the kind of positions you'd normally see in photos today rather than back in the mid-Victorian era. I'm not talking about sexy photos, just portraits. NZ was definitely a much freer place than Europe, and I think it was probably that men were able to be away from the structures that kept them in their class and station.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magersfontein Lugg
Shipmate
# 18240
|
Posted
In relation to the thread title...
This Christian Pastor in a cheerful Christmas message, suggests the demonisation of homosexuality comes from Leviticus, .... and the teachings of Leviticus are to be followed..
quote:
if you executed the homos like God recommends, you wouldn’t have all this AIDS running rampant.
Posts: 104 | From: Bottle Street | Registered: Oct 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
And there are 'Christians' in this country who would agree with him, which is the really scary bit.
Can we expect a statement denouncing this monstrousness from the Baptist Union anytime soon?
I won't hold my breath.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magersfontein Lugg
Shipmate
# 18240
|
Posted
This is surely a case where free speech must not take priority over hate crime.
It seems to me that this incitement to hate and an encouragement to violence.
I thought the Baptists in the UK on the whole were liberal...
Posts: 104 | From: Bottle Street | Registered: Oct 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
