|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Biblical interpretation of apparently anti-gay passages
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Thank you, St Deird for pointing out the thoroughly nasty and unnecessary implication in Steve Langton's response.
To Steve: I only give a damn about what Genesis means because of Christianity. Only a Christian or Jew would bother caring about the text of Genesis in the first place.
There is yet another assumption built in when you report what Jesus is recorded to have said and then conclude that you understand what he meant by it. Given that he was talking about the grounds of divorce, "who may marry" was not actually the topic at hand. The topic was "when may married people divorce".
It is always risky to treat a statement on one topic as firm proof on another topic.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
For that reason it obviously doesn't refer at all to Adam.
I don't follow this, particularly your words "at all".
The words "for this reason" mean that what follows is explained by what immediately goes before. The issue is about the ways in which what follows is justified by what goes before, and the ways in which it is not (or need not be).
As I tried to say, the text has two events:
one of which (a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife) is not about Adam; one, the story of Adam naming the animals, not finding a suitable companion among them, finding Eve, and declaring her bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh, etc, is about Adam;
and asserts that there is a relationship between them.
The nature of the relationship asserted is what is in question. I certainly don't think the emphasis within the text is at all upon the difference in sex.
I suppose if I had to assert one moral from the text it would be based around Adam's recognition that Eve is his partner, as opposed to any instruction from God on that point. But I'm generally unhappy with trying to extract morals from texts that are more complex than a single moral.
quote:
quote:
[you say] suddenly when the text says that a man must leave his father and motehr, the overriding distinction is of no importance whatsoever and when the text says 'a man leaves and cleaves to his wife' it applies without distinction to a man and wife and to a woman and husband. I think the interpretation inconsistently applies layers of literalism.
I'm trying to understand your criticism here. Are you saying I've explained away one part of the text (the specific detail of the man leaving his parents, not the woman) on cultural grounds (doubtless to do with the status of women at the time) and tried to uphold the other (the fact that the text mentions a man and his wife) as normative?
Yes, largely.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
It seems to me that almost everything about the phrase "man will leave his father and be united with his wife" is thoroughly disproved by reality.
In many (perhaps most?) cultures, the Western idea of a nuclear family doesn't happen. The wife leaves her family and becomes united with her husband's family - or sometimes the reverse.
Or looking at the biblical record - how many biblical men spent much time with their wives? Most of the heroes, judges and kings were fighting battles. Most of the prophets were wandering in the desert, messing about making models out of their own shite, etc and so on.
How many were content with living a quiet life with their wives and children, forsaking all other women and refusing to build any other kind of relationship that could threaten the created order? How many times are we told more about the men and their buddies rather than their wives? We know Elijah and Elisha - do we even know their wives names?
Perhaps this phrase in Genesis is some kind of Platonic ideal that exists perfectly somewhere in the stratosphere. Maybe up there it is written in some kind of perfect record of the way things should be - along with the diets we're supposed to be eating, the clothing we should we wearing, the length of our hair and the colour of the pomegranates we should dangle on the edge of our cloaks when entering the temple.
But in the real world, life is messy. Even if I believed SSM was not the ideal, there is plenty of evidence that biblical characters themselves did not live this ideal - so there is plenty of reason to give us license not to either. I'm not held by a single line from a work of poetry from thousands of years ago.
Men and women in long stable relationships are a very beautiful thing. But they can also be an awful thing. There is no magic formula here that means people of different genders are kind to each other (and "blessed") whereas couples of the same gender are not.
In a lot of ways it'd be a lot easier to believe in a religion where there was an obvious cause-and-effect between wrong behaviours and consequences. It just doesn't work like that.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nenya
Shipmate
# 16427
|
Posted
I've been reading this thread with great interest, alongside this theology of gender report which has some - to me - new concepts about the creation narratives and their purpose. Not as a model of "marriage" but to show that, contrary to the thinking of surrounding cultures, both male and female are made in the image of God and both good. (Page 18 and following.)
I'd love to get some of you along to be a part of discussions on this in my church as you do it far better than I do. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
They told me I was delusional. I nearly fell off my unicorn.
Posts: 1289 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nenya
Shipmate
# 16427
|
Posted
I'm very sorry, I don't think that link is working and I thought I did everything right... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
They told me I was delusional. I nearly fell off my unicorn.
Posts: 1289 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
You didn't clear the initial http:// tag provided when you clicked the url button. this should work.
Second edit to add that I managed to screw it up as well. Good now, though.
[ 03. March 2016, 18:06: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Nenya
Shipmate
# 16427
|
Posted
Thank you for sorting that out for me.
--------------------
They told me I was delusional. I nearly fell off my unicorn.
Posts: 1289 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
I read this thread, all of it, what is wrong with me?
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Joesaphat: I read this thread, all of it, what is wrong with me?
Heh. I think that if you search through the Dead Horses board, you'll find some threads on this subject that are much looooooooonger than this one
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
If I ain't said it above, as a neo-liberal I remember with head shaking shame the conservative monster I have been for most of my life, but I must love him too. He had to go through decades of ignorance and weakness before he encountered, at the right time, the concept of the trajectory of the progressive revelation of God that has continued for two thousand years after it was underway for a thousand years or two in 'The Bible'.
There's nothing apparent about Biblical homophobia. It stares you in the face like everything else that's at the older end of the trajectory.
The only way to Biblically interpret the Bible is from the bleeding edge of its trajectory.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Joesaphat: I read this thread, all of it, what is wrong with me?
Heh. I think that if you search through the Dead Horses board, you'll find some threads on this subject that are much looooooooonger than this one
I had no idea, you're right. It's actually quite amazing to look at what people felt able to write in here less some 15 years ago. It kind of gives hope...
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Joesaphat: It kind of gives hope...
Yeah, for me too.
Have you read this thread? Can you give us a summary when you're done?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Joesaphat: It kind of gives hope...
Yeah, for me too.
Have you read this thread? Can you give us a summary when you're done?
It's the one I had in mind, I read the first twenty pages or so. I wonder if some of those who wrote have now either changed their minds or would, at the very least, use a different tone. Some of the posts drip with disgust.
[ 19. March 2016, 06:24: Message edited by: Joesaphat ]
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Have you read this thread? Can you give us a summary when you're done?
It's the one I had in mind, I read the first twenty pages or so. I wonder if some of those who wrote have now either changed their minds or would, at the very least, use a different tone. Some of the posts drip with disgust.
Here's an intersting compare-and-contrast between two posts by the same shipmate fourteen years apart. The first is on the thread you linked to and the second is on a Hell board.
The author's response when confronted with the change was waffly enough to indicate a reluctance to publicly reaffirm his former position, but also waffly enough to indicate the only thing that had really changed was his willingness to state his opinion openly and baldly.
[links are to a Hell board, where the language is occasionally Hellish]
[ 22. March 2016, 15:24: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Well, Crœsos, my views have shifted over that time too. Indeed, I credit the Ship with contributing to a shift in my views on many things, not least because it offers an opportunity for people with widely differing views who might not otherwise interact to do so.
I'm not sure, though, that throwing peoples' change of viewpoint (especially when it is, even if incrementally, a shift in your favour) back in their faces is a good way of making friends and influencing people. You can have seemingly incontrovertible arguments (you often do) and still fail to win hearts and minds, you know.
For my part, I'm grateful in particular to the people on the "other side" of this debate who've shown patience, grace and respect for me in our differences.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I don't know if I posted to that thread years ago, and to be honest I'm not keen to see what I said if I did. I often feel acute embarrassment when faced with my former self and opinions. Isn't that the way with everyone?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doone
Shipmate
# 18470
|
Posted
Certainly true for me ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
[ 24. March 2016, 12:09: Message edited by: Doone ]
Posts: 2208 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well, Crœsos, my views have shifted over that time too. Indeed, I credit the Ship with contributing to a shift in my views on many things, not least because it offers an opportunity for people with widely differing views who might not otherwise interact to do so.
I'm not sure, though, that throwing peoples' change of viewpoint (especially when it is, even if incrementally, a shift in your favour) back in their faces is a good way of making friends and influencing people. You can have seemingly incontrovertible arguments (you often do) and still fail to win hearts and minds, you know.
For my part, I'm grateful in particular to the people on the "other side" of this debate who've shown patience, grace and respect for me in our differences.
But both Croesus and I wrote that these changes gave us hope.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
# it ain't what you [plurally] wrote it's the way that you wrote it # [which differs wildly to my mind]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't know if I posted to that thread years ago, and to be honest I'm not keen to see what I said if I did. I often feel acute embarrassment when faced with my former self and opinions. Isn't that the way with everyone?
Heck yes, Cheesy, I was brought up in communism and Buddhism and reacted against it so much that I became an obnoxious Roman Catholic conservative... now I'm back to being a middle-aged liberal hippie, like my parents, and I meditate again. I stumbled across some sermons I preached twenty or so years ago and it made me want to cry.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't know if I posted to that thread years ago, and to be honest I'm not keen to see what I said if I did. I often feel acute embarrassment when faced with my former self and opinions. Isn't that the way with everyone?
Heck yes, Cheesy, I was brought up in communism and Buddhism and reacted against it so much that I became an obnoxious Roman Catholic conservative... now I'm back to being a middle-aged liberal hippie, like my parents, and I meditate again. I stumbled across some sermons I preached twenty or so years ago and it made me want to cry.
I, too, became an obnoxious Roman catholic conservative. Strange, is it not, who we often conspire in our own oppression? I wonder why that should be? Maybe a sort of self hatred is induced in us, and we think that rejecting our own homosexuality will somehow make it go away, and make us acceptable to God and the people whose acceptance we crave.
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't know if I posted to that thread years ago, and to be honest I'm not keen to see what I said if I did. I often feel acute embarrassment when faced with my former self and opinions. Isn't that the way with everyone?
Heck yes, Cheesy, I was brought up in communism and Buddhism and reacted against it so much that I became an obnoxious Roman Catholic conservative... now I'm back to being a middle-aged liberal hippie, like my parents, and I meditate again. I stumbled across some sermons I preached twenty or so years ago and it made me want to cry.
I, too, became an obnoxious Roman catholic conservative. Strange, is it not, who we often conspire in our own oppression? I wonder why that should be? Maybe a sort of self hatred is induced in us, and we think that rejecting our own homosexuality will somehow make it go away, and make us acceptable to God and the people whose acceptance we crave.
Dunno, I've given up trying to analyse once I realised that analysis was not going to make anything go away.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
# it ain't what you [plurally] wrote it's the way that you wrote it # [which differs wildly to my mind]
I think the difference come from whether we think we're dealing with someone who has sincerely changed their mind and regrets a former stance (most of the people here) or someone who has simply changed the penalties they're advocating be applied to gay people to reflect current political realities (e.g. my interlocutor on the above-linked Hell thread, Western evangelicals who lobbied for Uganda's "kill the gays" bill and then pretended to be appalled when they returned to the West, etc.).
The Dan Savage column I linked to as part of that Hellish exchange is informative.
quote:
But now that we're winning marriage — now that victory is assured — the pope is willing to maybe think about supporting some type of civil union scheme. I'll say to the pope what I said to my evangelical Christian pal: that fucking ship has fucking sailed. What the pope is saying to gay people in 2014 is this: "Okay, now that you're winning marriage, here's an idea: give marriage back and we will give you civil unions... which we once opposed with the same intensity and in the same apocalyptic terms that we oppose marriage today. Is it a deal?"
No deal, Francis.
Emphasis added. It's a question of whether you believe someone has changed their mind or whether they've just decided to change the battlefield because they're losing.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
Yes, or this gem from Malawi's bishops Lenten pastoral letter. Of course we condemn violence against gay people but it's a darn shame they don't end up in prison and cannot be prosecuted anymore:
'From this perspective we agree with those who have faulted the Government for putting a moratorium on laws governing homosexual acts. This means that those guilty of homosexual acts or unions cannot be prosecuted. The Government has bowed down to pressure from donor community, international bodies and local human rights campaigners. As Pastors, we find this path very unfortunate. It is an act of betrayal on the part of those in power to sell our country to foreign practices and tendencies contrary to the will of God because of money…
While we do not condone homosexual acts or unions because they are sinful, however, we wish to condemn in strongest terms those inciting violence against homosexuals' blah blah blah
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
And there was me thinking that the anti-homosexual laws and so on in Africa had been initiated and encouraged by westerners. But I suppose that that is OK if the pastors agree with it.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
And there was me thinking that the anti-homosexual laws and so on in Africa had been initiated and encouraged by westerners. But I suppose that that is OK if the pastors agree with it.
Nope, they're quite able to do it by themselves and can teach westerners a thing or two, in fact strenuously try to at the moment in the Anglican communion.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
# it ain't what you [plurally] wrote it's the way that you wrote it # [which differs wildly to my mind]
Surely there comes a point when it is blindingly obvious that a particular person's POV is not going to change. And, if that person doesn't appear to be engaging honestly, why treat them with any respect?
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Working at a military conference, I once heard a strategy advisor to the Pentagon explain, in all seriousness, that his counter-insurgency approach was to "sit down and try to negotiate, and if there was no room for negotiation, kill them all".
This doesn't commend itself to me any more as a debating strategy than it did as a military one.
I'm not saying I never err in this respect myself, but I think abandoning respect for an individual as a fellow-human, irrespective of their perceived motivations or indeed actions, is a perilous path to take.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Respect is earned by words and action, not by merely being. One should give the allowance for the possibility of change, yes. But this does not preclude blunt appraisal of those words and actions. Crœsos post was blunt, but completely fair.
I would argue that blunt is often more respectful than being conciliatory.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Crœsos post was blunt, but completely fair.
I would argue that blunt is often more respectful than being conciliatory.
Fair or not, in my case the "yield no quarter" approach (not uniquely by Crœsos) been a far bigger obstacle to me changing my views than anything else.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I understand this. And, indeed, most people's reaction to being told they are wrong is defencive.
But at what point is enough, enough? How many times must we be asked to take half a step back and understand those who would oppress?
These attitudes have real consequence. The recent law passed in North Carolina to stop local governments allowing for transgender rights, those in Atlanta being considered and the absolutely horrors in Africa.
Why must the oppressed always be the ones to "understand" and be "respectful"?
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why must the oppressed always be the ones to "understand" and be "respectful"?
I never said that. Lack of respect and understanding on either side is a cause for concern.
The backstory to my allusion to "hearts and minds" earlier on is a Pentagon strategy advisor explaining in all seriousness, at a conference I was working at as an interpreter, that his approach to counter-insurgents was to sit down and see if there was anyone who could be negotiated with, and if not, and I quote, "kill them all" (he was not a uniformed officer and I think he might even have been a civilian, so he wouldn't actually have been doing the killing).
At an intellectual level I can sort of see that this point might be reached, but I can't help thinking there must be a better way. All the more so, dare I add, for those of us enjoined to love our enemies and bless those who persecute us.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why must the oppressed always be the ones to "understand" and be "respectful"?
I never said that. Lack of respect and understanding on either side is a cause for concern.
I know you did not say this, and I believe you do not have this POV. However, for some issues this is the practical effect.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The backstory to my allusion to "hearts and minds" earlier on is a Pentagon strategy advisor explaining in all seriousness, at a conference I was working at as an interpreter, that his approach to counter-insurgents was to sit down and see if there was anyone who could be negotiated with, and if not, and I quote, "kill them all" (he was not a uniformed officer and I think he might even have been a civilian, so he wouldn't actually have been doing the killing).
At an intellectual level I can sort of see that this point might be reached, but I can't help thinking there must be a better way. All the more so, dare I add, for those of us enjoined to love our enemies and bless those who persecute us.
The best way to end a conflict is to avoid entering one. If a conflict does occur, there is not always a peaceful exit. This requires both parties to operate with the same intent.
But, yes, there is often a conflict between practical response and philosophical response.
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Fair or not, in my case the "yield no quarter" approach (not uniquely by Crœsos) been a far bigger obstacle to me changing my views than anything else.
What exactly would "yielding quarter" look like between those who wish to use the law and other apparatuses of the state to discriminate against homosexuals and those who think homosexuals should have equal rights? There doesn't really seem to be a middle ground of "all [citizens] are equal, but some [citizens] are more equal than others" that doesn't make a mockery of the concept of legal equality.
"Compromises" along these lines usually go something like "I'll respect your right to believe discrimination is wrong, and you respect my right to discriminate". In other words, just another excuse to maintain the status quo.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
In this exchange I've been thinking, not about the law, but about debating style. There's a kind of implacability that I find unnerving; but maybe that's just me.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In this exchange I've been thinking, not about the law, but about debating style. There's a kind of implacability that I find unnerving; but maybe that's just me.
Maybe so, but could it be because this debate has little consequence in your own life. As Croesos put it, if the consequence of losing the debate in society is to be thrown in jail or lose your job... well, you're not exactly as keen on compromise as your adversaries.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In this exchange I've been thinking, not about the law, but about debating style. There's a kind of implacability that I find unnerving; but maybe that's just me.
I'm implacable in my insistence that I'm a human being, and a child of God, and that being gay has no effect on my being a sinner or whatever other category someone may wish to use. Insistence that all non-heterosexuals are automatically saints would, to my mind, constitute fanaticism, which I think is what you are alluding to. Otherwise, this is just the sound of people being themselves, and claiming the space in which to do so before God and in the face of the congregation.
--------------------
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: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Maybe so, but could it be because this debate has little consequence in your own life.
You're right, I'm sure that's part of it, and since raising this point I've been considering the hot-button topics for me and whether I am equally implacable about those.
But to go meta for a moment, I don't recall ever having seen Croesos, say, make a concession like the one I've just made there.
I'm sure part of it is personalities, not just issues, and it doesn't invalidate the arguments themselves. I'm just being frank and saying that for me, it doesn't do anything to win me to them.
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
this is just the sound of people being themselves, and claiming the space in which to do so before God and in the face of the congregation.
I'm not sure this, specifically, is something that can or should be done implacably. The church is not about "claiming the space to be myself", it's about (in theory) "being one body with different members".
While equal rights and treatment is a great ideal, I think living with real-life diversity involves compromise; that's certainly my takeaway from the Jew/Gentile debate in Acts, for instance.
A personal milestone for me on this thread was Orfeo saying he could live with "accommodated".
Perhaps the implacability of some is required to gain the accommodation sufficient for others; all I know is I'm much happier engaging with the latter tendency than the former.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
I'm just glad that I retain the capacity to be occasionally unsettling. This is more about retaining a certain cutting edge to my thinking, intuiting, whatever, rather than than setting out to affect others.
I'm too well-upholstered to be uncomfortable....
ETA: I'm sorry, but I don't see how a body can be united, can be truly "one body" if some of its members refuse to be with, to acknowledge, work together with, embrace, other parts. It can't; it can only be an impaired version of its true capacity, which to me is a viable definition of sin, and therefore not of God.
[ 28. March 2016, 12:14: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
--------------------
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: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm sure part of it is personalities, not just issues, and it doesn't invalidate the arguments themselves. I'm just being frank and saying that for me, it doesn't do anything to win me to them.
I think this is rubbish. Though I have to concede two things. I behave the same way myself and it is, in part, a result of our species hardwired behaviour. Whilst it may be a natural behaviour, ISTM, you and I are part of traditions which have a higher standard. Especially when there are practical consequences.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
While equal rights and treatment is a great ideal, I think living with real-life diversity involves compromise; that's certainly my takeaway from the Jew/Gentile debate in Acts, for instance.
A personal milestone for me on this thread was Orfeo saying he could live with "accommodated".
Perhaps the implacability of some is required to gain the accommodation sufficient for others; all I know is I'm much happier engaging with the latter tendency than the former.
Look where accommodation has got black people in the UK and, especially, America. This is why some of us are implacable.
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In this exchange I've been thinking, not about the law, but about debating style. There's a kind of implacability that I find unnerving; but maybe that's just me.
I think this pretty well sums up the moral bankruptcy of this kind of position. Sure, the debate is about someone else's rights/humanity/existence, but what really matters is whether you feel comfortable with the terminology used. It's not all about you! It might be useful to repeat that simple mantra ("it's not all about me") every so often.
In some ways this goes to an important aspect of this controversy. In some ways it's about maintaining authority. Fred Clark explains:
quote:
This makes for a new and fundamentally different argument. For decades, the religious right has been arguing that their purchase on the moral high ground ought to result in their political triumph. The political opposition to that used to be a form of “yes, but …” — yes, these political preachers are correct about morality and immorality, but other factors need to be considered, or other complications have to be accounted for, etc.
Opposition to the religious right’s agenda on Tuesday [November 6, 2012] did not take the form of this “yes, but …” argument. It was simply, “No.”
It was not a disagreement about the political implications of the preachers’ righteous moral claims, but a denial of those claims, of their righteousness and of their morality. No, these political preachers are incorrect about morality and immorality. No, pretending that some “biblical definition of marriage” is a pretext for denying people their rights or delegitimizing their families is not good or decent or right. No, legal coercion compelling rape victims to bear the offspring of their attackers is not good or decent or right.
And that cuts to the core of the matter. That isn’t just a single defeat in a single election, but a fundamental rejection of the entire basis for why anyone, anywhere should ever listen to the religious right.
The religious right can no longer simply assert and assume that it has the moral high ground. If it wants to make that claim, it will have to argue for it, will have to explain why its absolute opposition to legal abortion and to civil rights for LGBT people is right or true or good.
The whole thing is quite worth the read.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
this is just the sound of people being themselves, and claiming the space in which to do so before God and in the face of the congregation.
I'm not sure this, specifically, is something that can or should be done implacably. The church is not about "claiming the space to be myself", it's about (in theory) "being one body with different members".
In a different way this goes back to asserting authority. Gay people can't "claim space" within the Church (that would be implacable and rude), they have to get permission from various authorities to be part of that "one body with different members". The controversy seems to come from the rejection of the idea that people like Jerry Falwell (Senior or Junior) or Scott Lively or any of the rest of that ilk are the true gatekeepers of the Kingdom of Heaven.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In this exchange I've been thinking, not about the law, but about debating style. There's a kind of implacability that I find unnerving; but maybe that's just me.
I think this pretty well sums up the moral bankruptcy of this kind of position. Sure, the debate is about someone else's rights/humanity/existence, but what really matters is whether you feel comfortable with the terminology used.
I give up. I never said my views were "what really matters", nor was I implying it was all about me, I was sharing a personal opinion and being careful to emphasise that it was nothing more than that. In return for my candour, my words get twisted to demonstrate my "moral bankruptcy". That is precisely the kind of tactic that undermines my desire to engage with the argument in good faith. quote:
In some ways it's about maintaining authority.Fred Clark explains
Well, being associated with the "religious right" is a new one for me, and I don't recognise myself in anything written there.
quote:
In a different way this goes back to asserting authority. Gay people can't "claim space" within the Church (that would be implacable and rude), they have to get permission from various authorities to be part of that "one body with different members".
Again, you are utterly misrepresenting what I wrote. I wasn't singling out gays. I don't think anybody should be "claiming space" (any more than I think anyone has some inherent "right to space" in the Church).
I certainly never insinuated that anybody should be having to ask permission from some dominant authority group (and yes, Thunderbunk, I wholly agree, failure of some members to acknowledge or welcome others is indeed a serious failure on their part).
Neither do I look on any particular body as gatekeepers of the Kingdom of Heaven (or, if I had to nominate a group to be so, it would probably consist of tax collectors and prostitutes. I have just this afternoon received an uplifting prayer I really needed from a convicted pimp, so I'm not just talking pious nothings here).
Again, this kind of guilt by association makes me doubt the essential validity of the more central arguments.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Again, you are utterly misrepresenting what I wrote. I wasn't singling out gays. I don't think anybody should be "claiming space" (any more than I think anyone has some inherent "right to space" in the Church).
I certainly never insinuated that anybody should be having to ask permission from some dominant authority group (and yes, Thunderbunk, I wholly agree, failure of some members to acknowledge or welcome others is indeed a serious failure on their part).
![[Confused]](confused.gif) How are you supposed to "welcome" people to somewhere they have no right to be? I'm pretty sure that the whole "you have no right to be here" message is inherently unwelcoming, no matter how nicely it's phrased.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
How are you supposed to "welcome" people to somewhere they have no right to be? I'm pretty sure that the whole "you have no right to be here" message is inherently unwelcoming, no matter how nicely it's phrased.
Perhaps we're talking cross purposes here. The particular church I help lead says over the door that it's for [i]everyone[i], and does its best to mean that.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
How are you supposed to "welcome" people to somewhere they have no right to be? I'm pretty sure that the whole "you have no right to be here" message is inherently unwelcoming, no matter how nicely it's phrased.
Perhaps we're talking cross purposes here. The particular church I help lead says over the door that it's for everyone, and does its best to mean that.
I guess it's a question of how you square the idea that church is for "everyone" and yet maintain the position that no one "has some inherent "right to space" in the Church". How do you welcome everyone and have space for no one?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Because I think admission to the "space" of the Church, if one wants to put it in those terms, is on the basis of grace, not rights. That applies to everyone, and should not be forgotten by anyone.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Because I think admission to the "space" of the Church, if one wants to put it in those terms, is on the basis of grace, not rights. That applies to everyone, and should not be forgotten by anyone.
Saying you have space for people, but if they try to claim that space they're behaving in an unacceptably implacable manner seems like an overly convoluted way of saying "not welcome". If there's a space for you but you're not allowed to claim it, how is that different than not having a space?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Saying you have space for people, but if they try to claim that space they're behaving in an unacceptably implacable manner seems like an overly convoluted way of saying "not welcome".
It certainly would be, but that was not what I said, nor what I meant.
I am (as I said in that post) unsure that implacability is an appropriate attitude through which to achieve mutual acknowledgement of belonging to one spiritual body.
I've also conceded that there may well be a place for implacably asserting one's rights for a cause, but at the risk of repeating myself, I personally find it jarring in this particular debate space, in which there is usually, eventually, some give and take between long-term posters even of opposing views. Without this, I feel more as if I'm in a zero-sum game than anything approaching mutuality.
At a pastoral level, I sincerely believe our church to be open, accepting, and welcoming, and never to my knowledge have we turned away anyone on the basis of sexual orientation (or anything else; I think we might draw the line at overt weapons-carrying*), certainly not explicitly and I hope not implicitly.
However, marching in to "claim your space" whether that space happens to be for gay rights, divorce, prophetic dance, banner-waving, five-point Calvinism, Arminianism, cessationism, or evangelism methods will not go down well.
The space of the grace of God in which we all stand is not ours to claim, and I see the leadership's responsibility in ensuring both that everyone benefits from it and that nobody hijacks it.
I appreciate that your church experience may have been lemon-suckingly different.
[*oh, I have been known to invite our pot-smokers to indulge somewhere other than on the front step of our main entrance, so as not to be stumbling-blocks to those trying to kick the habit]
[ 28. March 2016, 19:00: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I've also conceded that there may well be a place for implacably asserting one's rights for a cause, but at the risk of repeating myself, I personally find it jarring in this particular debate space, in which there is usually, eventually, some give and take between long-term posters even of opposing views. Without this, I feel more as if I'm in a zero-sum game than anything approaching mutuality.
You know what I find "jarring"? Treating the lives and rights of other people as some kind of abstract debating point and then acting shocked when people react strongly to suggestions that they are a lesser order of citizens and/or beings.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
However, marching in to "claim your space" . . . will not go down well.
What if you walk, prance, skip, mince, shuffle, or sprint to claim a space for yourself? Is that okay? Seriously, your whole argument seems like you're upset that those people (however defined) aren't deferential enough and act as if they're just as welcome at church as decent folk.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Neither do I look on any particular body as gatekeepers of the Kingdom of Heaven (or, if I had to nominate a group to be so, it would probably consist of tax collectors and prostitutes. . . . ).
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The space of the grace of God in which we all stand is not ours to claim, and I see the leadership's responsibility in ensuring both that everyone benefits from it and that nobody hijacks it.
And you said you didn't know any gatekeepers! It's interesting that certain people trying to claim space in the church is always interpreted as an effort to seize control through threats and violence ("highjacking").
There seems to be a schizophrenic see-sawing here between "everyone benefits" and "how dare you try to claim a place among us".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
