|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hostility to Traditional Christians on the Ship
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
[In reply to Kaplan]
If we are going to pretend the bible is being taken at face value, may I remind you that lesbians exist - penetrative anal sex isn't the only form of sexual expression known to gay people and Jesus said fuck all about blow jobs.
Hurdling the dead horse, I would point out that some of the 'hostility' comes from a long term frustration with people holding this view arguing it is some how self- evident or almost culture free. That goes for almost any reading of any teaching in the bible, or subsequently, unless God himself whispered it in your ear - chances are you initially believed what you believed because that how you were raised - and you didn't question it till challenged by your own personal struggles or someone else's questions.
[ 30. July 2017, 06:46: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Would you expect all of the people of color on the Ship to allow such things to be said of them and be polite about it?
Firstly, there is always the option of scrolling past; "do not feed the troll".
Secondly, the decision to allow a view to be expressed is the H&A's not anybody else's. If the hosts are doing their job properly, the H&A's will not allow such views to be repeatedly posted.
And what I'm saying is that the anti-women and anti-gay views are on this level. Obviously this is not a widely shared view here, and I'm not taking a position in my role as an admin, but this is really what I think.
I think we might be talking past each other here.
What I was saying was that it was not up to [oppressed minority] to "allow" things to be said; such decisions are up to the H&As, or as they are known elsewhere, the moderators; they are the ones in the position of allowing/disallowing, and generally enforcing the rules. The H&As are there precisely to prevent people - oppressed minorities or otherwise - being both a judge and a party, and do their best to fulfil their role impartially.
(I personally am confident that the current arsenal of Ship rules is fit for purpose).
Furthermore, I think LilBuddha had an excellent point that this is not a civil rights protest but a discussion forum. There's room for both in the world.
I'm much more of a discussion person than a protest person, and all I can say is that my views on nearly every DH issue have changed in the 15 years or so I've been here and due in no small part to the Ship. Other posters have said things along similar lines.
I really don't like the idea of pre-emptively closing down debate merely because someone expresses an idea I may find reprehensible; "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
quote:
quote:
quote:
veneer of politeness
I think this is symptomatic of terrible bad faith.
How polite is it of you to accuse me of bad faith?
Politeness does not equal agreement or sycophancy, and I didn't accuse you.
Commandment 3 makes a distinction between attacking the issue and attacking the person. It may not be a hard and fast one, and you and I have disagreed before about where the line is to be drawn. In this present case, I think the context makes it clear that this was not a personal attack on you.
As it was, I explained precisely why I thought talking in terms of a "veneer of politeness" was symptomatic of bad faith - an explanation which you have not followed up on at all.
quote:
Sexism and homophobia are in themselves impolite, to say the least.
I think this statement also gets to the nub of the problem here. To my mind "politeness" in this context is not a value judgement on the core beliefs of a person but again, a set of social conventions for communication: here, their ability to discuss their beliefs in a respectful manner with others - even if some of those beliefs are not deemed to be respectful of others.
If one were to take the option of shutting down debate on the basis of a) a banned list of views held to be "impolite" and b) an assumption that anybody polite but inconvenient is merely hiding behind a "veneer of politeness" and thus actually on list a), I don't think there'd be much debating to be done.
[ 30. July 2017, 06:58: 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
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Sure. But that's satire. Are you saying you'd be incapable of knocking over the actual statements made one by one, politely but firmly? Or are you saying that anybody holding anywhere near any of those points of view, in seriousness not in satire, should be summarily banned on principle?
--------------------
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
ISTM that if we have fewer conservative posters than previously, and those conservative posters that remain say they feel more reticent about expressing their views, then prima facie there are negative vibes flowing towards conservative posters that aren't flowing towards liberals. And this, I submit, is a bad thing.
Conservativism generally or conservatism about LGB issues in particular?
When I first joined this thread, I assumed it was about DH issues, plus politics.
Enough self-identified conservatives have posted for me to think that it goes deeper than that and that I should probably listen a bit.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
..To argue that in fact the Bible does not disapprove of homosexual behaviour.
..To argue that it does, but that it can be or must be ignored, in this particular at least.
The Bible is ignored by all Christians in 100s of particulars, as has been pointed out 1000 times here on the Ship. I've never seen a reason why this particular is more important than any of the others.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I must admit I find this issue difficult in the real world.
Say that Group A is in obvious distress. There can be solutions to that distress from both left and right, and I can have a proper discussion about that.
But when the right suggest that Group A aren't in distress, or worse, can all go die in a hole, then there's not really very much left to say.
(And, tbf, the right will say I don't care about distressed Christian bakers or unborn children. Neither of which is true, but I concede that my solutions may look like not caring.)
(In answer to Ricardus)
[ 30. July 2017, 07:52: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But when the right
Or the left.
(I know, I know, BSAB, whataboutery, etc. etc., but still).
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
FWIW I'd be well up for a discussion on ths tensions inherent in progressive attitudes to gender, sexuality, ethnicity and minority religions;far from it being taboo I think it's vitally important; I think for example that failure to navigate it well has been thd root of many of the criticisms of Jeremy Corbyn
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Authoritarians expect those in authority to protect them and their views as the price for the identification between authoritarian and authority. Whatever else it means, being a place of unrest means that the Ship disrupts this, and therefore intrinsically and necessarily makes authoritarians uncomfortable. To my mind, this must continue: it seems to me to be the entirely reasonable concomitant of the requirement placed on me to paddle and maintain my own canoe as a result of my instinctive dissidence.
I am reminded of one of Mousethief's offerings, now enshrined in the Quotes Files, about effluents.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But when the right
Or the left.
(I know, I know, BSAB, whataboutery, etc. etc., but still).
I had already covered that in my last paragraph... I'm not blind to my own faults, just better at ignoring them.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Scripture suggests that all sexual desires, not just homosexual desires, will not survive into the next life. (I'm Protestant, so I'll bypass the fires of Purgatory for the sake of discussion.)
I put it in those terms only because the Catholic version is more explicit. Happy with your way of putting it; do you agree that it follows that all of us have an essential self that is neither straight nor gay ? That sexual orientation is not identity ?
quote:
At the same time, I think Scripture is clear that sexuality is most definitely part of who we are on this side of the grave, that it is a gift from God.
If by "sexuality" you mean that we are male or female, with all that implies, then yes. If you mean that Scripture says that homo- or hetero- orientation is a gift (or is part of identity) then I'd have to ask which sections you have in mind.
Like all such gifts, I can be used well or abused.
quote:
This approach says that the only appropriate options for dealing with sexual desires are celibacy or marriage—by definition in this understanding, a committed, lifelong relationship between a man and a woman.
That is my understanding of traditional Christianity.
quote:
But for gay and lesbian people, the second option — marriage between a man and a woman—isn't available, at least not if one is to live honestly, because attraction to people of the opposite sex simply isn't there. So to them, the message basically is "tough luck, but it's going to have to be celibacy for you."
Yes, and if you want to say that that doesn't seem fair, then I agree. Some of us do seem to be given heavier burdens than others. I don't know why God would give anyone a desire that it is never right to act on.
But - please forgive me if I'm wrong - I'm not aware that there's anything in your brand of Christianity or mine that guarantees that some people don't have a harder situation than others.
quote:
It's saying "you're prohibited from acting on your sexuality because your sexuality isn't right." And from there, it's just a few steps to "regardless of how you behave, there's something inherently deficient and deviant about you in ways not shared by all of humanity." That's why I don't think the behavior and the orientation can really be separated. The wrongness of the behavior is inextricably connected to the deficiency of the orientation.
There are two sets of "a few steps" here.
One is from an act being wrong or bad to the desire to commit that act being wrong or bad.
It seems uncontroversial to say that to want to do wrong is not a good thing to want. But we don't choose our wants. So in describing a desire or tendency to desire as bad, we have to be clear that the person experiencing the desire is blameless (except to the extent that they have chosen to encourage that desire in themselves or others).
The second few steps are from saying something about the desires that a person experiences to saying something about the person themselves.
That's the "gay souls" argument. Traditional Christianity does not see people as the sum of their desires; desires are something you have, not what you are.
In other words, these are a few steps that traditional Christianity does not take. Regardless of whether anyone else does.
It's really very simple. Traditional Christians believe homosexual acts to be wrong (because their authoritative tradition - with or without capital letter - tells them so). You apparently do not believe those acts to be wrong, and that's fine.
But the idea that considerations of "equal rights" can somehow resolve that disagreement in your favour is false.
The proof of that - and please feel free to skip this para if it offends you in any way - is in the attitude (that I assume we all share) to sexual desires involve an other who is not a consenting adult. You don't believe that those with such desires are being unfairly discriminated against. That the underlying reason is a nasty bigoted desire to treat them as second-class. Because the acts are wrong, end of story.
Not saying "equally wrong" - nonconsenting is obviously worse. I'm suggesting that faced with one's own belief in real wrongness, the sort of "no less than" social equality that you're putting forward just isn't relevant. There is no equality between right and wrong.
So please do our traditionally-minded brethren the courtesy of accepting that they disagree with you about the boundaries of right and wrong. And not join in this attempt to smear them as hatemongers.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Problem is, Russ, that this prohibition seems to have no consequences beyond makong gay people's lives more miserable. As such, it's hard not to concude that it's basically "I'm not homophobic, I don't hate gay people, but God is, and does, so I have to go along with it."
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
This thread is just Exhibit A. You get hostility to 'Traditional Christians' because basically it translates as 'People who want the very first thing you know about them to be that they're anti-gay but who then come over all indignant if you say they're homophobic'
This is so often the case that they own the term and the exceptions to the rule need a different label so as not to be confused with them.
[ 30. July 2017, 10:16: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Despite the length of the thread and the variety of content, I am minded now to move it to Dead Horses. This because the preponderance of more recent posts is definitely Horsey. But I will check out with other Hosts.
Barnabas62
Purgatory (and DH) Host
--------------------
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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Problem is, Russ, that this prohibition seems to have no consequences beyond makong gay people's lives more miserable.
That's because you don't see any wrongness in homosexual acts.
If you saw such a wrongness, or held as an act of faith in the absence of seeing that there is such a wrongness, then the absence of those acts would be the intended positive consequence. And the "misery" to gay people would be no more than the self-restraint that moral duty requires of all of us when we feel the urge to do wrong.
You know that this is not exactly my own position. But I believe that conservative Christians hold it in good faith.
You disagree with their premise; it doesn't follow that they secretly do too and are only putting it forward as an excuse to have someone to be nasty to.
That's moving beyond believing your view is true, to believing it is so self-evident that anyone who disagrees must surely be doing so in bad faith.
And you have enough appreciation of the history of Christian thought to know that that is not the case.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
That's because you don't see any wrongness in homosexual acts.
If you saw such a wrongness, or held as an act of faith in the absence of seeing that there is such a wrongness, then the absence of those acts would be the intended positive consequence. And the "misery" to gay people would be no more than the self-restraint that moral duty requires of all of us when we feel the urge to do wrong.
You know that this is not exactly my own position. But I believe that conservative Christians hold it in good faith.
I don't understand what good faith has to do with it or why that position should be given some kind of special respect because it is held in good faith.
I assume you are using the term to suggest that those who hold this position are honest and fair about it - in contrast to someone who is just pretending to believe in it for some kind of ulterior motive.
But if that's the case, there are Christians who apparently sincerely believe that black people are inferior. There were clearly Christians who were sincere in their belief in slavery, others who obviously were sincere in their belief in violent struggles.
They were genuine. These people presumably had thought about it and come to these conclusions.
We'd still say they were wrong and possibly think the ideas were stupid, no? Why would we take any account of their good faith?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
On balance, we reckon it is now better in Dead Horses. There is a non-Horsey dimension to the thread, obviously, but it is becoming increasingly artificial to skirt around DH issues while discussing the wider issues. So we feel the move may free up the discussion, give you less to navigate round.
Thread on its way.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I'm genuinely sorry that the thread ha ended up in the stables, though I can see why. It seems to me sad that any discussion on "conservative" vs. "liberal" always seems to end up focussing on the same DH issues - might I suggest that that wouldn't have been the case 20 (say) years ago.
Like some others who post I am fairly conservative theologically but liberal in politics and some ethical issues. Of course I don't expect conservatives who "sound off" forcefully without giving reason for their views and who fail to engage in discussion to do well on the Ship. And I know that we are supposed to be a vessel of unrest.
But I am equally unhappy with posters who fail to engage meaningfully with conservatives, or don't try to understand where they're coming from. I do think there is a real danger that the conservatives will be driven to the lifeboats and row away, which would totally negate the purpose of the Ship.
If we are to have honest discussion we must have disagreement - but we must disagree "nicely" and without impugning the motives and understandings of others.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Problem is, Russ, that this prohibition seems to have no consequences beyond making gay people's lives more miserable.
That's because you don't see any wrongness in homosexual acts.
No. You cart is in front of your horse here. I don't see any wrongness in homosexual acts because I see no harm arising from them, whilst I do see harm arising from insisting on their wrongness and on people being told they must refrain from them.
If you're going to defend God being agin' it, you're going to have to come up with something better than "it's wrong". It's circular. It's wrong because God says not to do it. God says not to do it because it's wrong.
So again, and I weary of asking this, but there's never an answer a four year old couldn't see straight through - why are homosexual acts wrong, that God forbids them?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I thought that the wrongness flows from going against the intended or designed purpose of sexual organs, which is for husband and wife to procreate and dwell in blissful unity, not necessarily in that order.
But I don't know the extent to which this idea is followed by non-Catholics; for Catholics, it presumably is hallowed by Aquinas and others, showing the ambiguity of the notion of tradition.
--------------------
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:
I thought that the wrongness flows from going against the intended or designed purpose of sexual organs, which is for husband and wife to procreate and dwell in blissful unity, not necessarily in that order.
But I don't know the extent to which this idea is followed by non-Catholics; for Catholics, it presumably is hallowed by Aquinas and others, showing the ambiguity of the notion of tradition.
That's a bit like getting angry with your child for going against the purpose of a box by playing with it instead of the toy. Surely God's better than that?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
If we are to have honest discussion we must have disagreement - but we must disagree "nicely" and without impugning the motives and understandings of others.
I think we do. That's why I like it here.
I had a big 60th birthday 'do' last weekend. 100 people there, all good friends and family. Eight of our guests were gay. About the same number were conservative Christians who 'accept gay people but not the gay lifestyle' i.e. They expect them not to have sex and equate gay sex as a similar sin to adultery.
Gay couples dancing would be a pretty new thing for my conservative Christian friends to witness, they rarely meet any gay folks in social settings. They coped fine. We have plenty of arguments about the subject but, have to agree to differ every time. We do disagree 'nicely' but I still can't, for the life of me, see their point of view.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
I think S/he is, but the homophobes who have created God/s in their own image clearly do not.
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
(A comment on Karl's post above).
It can be quite amusing, if one is detached enough, to watch conservative, traditional, people (whether self-identifying as Christian, or not) trying to relate socially to gays....
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I think S/he is, but the homophobes who have created God/s in their own image clearly do not.
IJ
The bullshit of it is that there are a number of things in the Bible they happily rationalise away, but not this.
The only honest view is that it suits a purpose. That the vehemence appears to come into play with the shift on their stance on abortion confirms this.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that the wrongness flows from going against the intended or designed purpose of sexual organs, which is for husband and wife to procreate and dwell in blissful unity, not necessarily in that order.
But I don't know the extent to which this idea is followed by non-Catholics; for Catholics, it presumably is hallowed by Aquinas and others, showing the ambiguity of the notion of tradition.
That's a bit like getting angry with your child for going against the purpose of a box by playing with it instead of the toy. Surely God's better than that?
I thought that God is well into intended purposes as against perverted ones. If you avoid that, does that mean that God has no intentions? That seems impossible in a Christian viewpoint. It's just about which intentions you include and/or don't in your beliefs. God didn't intend us to have sex with animals, for example.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Some of us do seem to be given heavier burdens than others. I don't know why God would give anyone a desire that it is never right to act on.
But - please forgive me if I'm wrong - I'm not aware that there's anything in your brand of Christianity or mine that guarantees that some people don't have a harder situation than others.
Nor am I. But I'm aware of plenty in our traditions that admonishes us not to add to others' burdens.
quote:
So please do our traditionally-minded brethren the courtesy of accepting that they disagree with you about the boundaries of right and wrong. And not join in this attempt to smear them as hatemongers.
Russ, you spent an awful lot of time arguing against things I didn't say and assuming positions that really didn't enter into what I've posted. Perhaps I've failed to communicate clearly and bear some of the blame.
I fully accept that others disagree and I try hard not to smear anyone operating in good faith as a hate-monger. My point was simply to point out why many, including many LBGT persons, find the orientation-behavior distinction to be a distinction without a difference at best.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
One thing that annoys is they cannot answer how homosexuality causes any harm.
The only thing they have is "God said don't".
And when you confront the hypocrisy inherent in that philosophy, they dance around more than a cocaine addled jitterbug at a Red Bull Rave.
--------------------
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
Playing devil's advocate, surely one counter-argument would be that God is not a consequentialist. The argument that gay does not cause harm is an argumentum ad consequentiam, isn't it?
Of course, then you have your work cut out to say why gay is wrong in itself, ignoring consequences, except the natural law argument, cited above. Willies are not designed to go in bottoms. (OK, this begs a few questions).
But I don't know if Protestants use this.
But many homophobes do use consequentialism, e.g. that gays can't make proper families and so on.
[ 30. July 2017, 16:20: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't understand what good faith has to do with it or why that position should be given some kind of special respect because it is held in good faith.
Because if a position is held in good faith, that would imply the possibility of being argued out of it.
If I argue for a position in bad faith, then there is no point arguing with me, because either I don't really hold it at all or the reason why I hold it isn't the reason I'm advancing as a matter of debate.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Because if a position is held in good faith, that would imply the possibility of being argued out of it.
Oh right, I didn't think of that.
So if you think that homosexual sex is against the will of God, you can be argued out of it?
How does that work then? Surely if you think it is a commandment from God then logic doesn't really come into it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Playing devil's advocate, surely one counter-argument would be that God is not a consequentialist. The argument that gay does not cause harm is an argumentum ad consequentiam, isn't it?
Of course, then you have your work cut out to say why gay is wrong in itself, ignoring consequences, except the natural law argument, cited above. Willies are not designed to go in bottoms. (OK, this begs a few questions).
But I don't know if Protestants use this.
But many homophobes do use consequentialism, e.g. that gays can't make proper families and so on.
Ok, I'm going to have to go through the consequentialism thing, but it still ignores the bits that they ignore to get to that.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that the wrongness flows from going against the intended or designed purpose of sexual organs, which is for husband and wife to procreate and dwell in blissful unity, not necessarily in that order.
But I don't know the extent to which this idea is followed by non-Catholics; for Catholics, it presumably is hallowed by Aquinas and others, showing the ambiguity of the notion of tradition.
As I understand it, the Scholastic position was that I should be in control of my appetites and not the other way round. This applied right across the board, hence gluttony as one of the Seven Deadly Sins, and the suggestion that luxuriating for hours in a hot bath was sinful.
If I am having sex for any reason other than procreation, then by definition I am letting my sexual appetite control me and not the other way round. (And any reason really does mean any reason. There is no pussyfooting round in the Scholastics with sophistical distinctions between artificial and natural contraception.)
I think this position actually is defensible as long as it is held consistently, i.e. in accordance with the first and second paragraph above. It isn't a Utilitarian position so arguments based on harm don't automatically cut it unless you want to start by arguing that ethics has to be based on Utilitarianism.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Because if a position is held in good faith, that would imply the possibility of being argued out of it.
Oh right, I didn't think of that.
So if you think that homosexual sex is against the will of God, you can be argued out of it?
Well, plenty of people have changed their minds on the issue, many if not most because they were ultimately convinced by arguments that homosexual sex is not against the will of God.
Personally, the other thing I think good faith has to do with it is that it suggests an absence of animus, or at least of conscious animus, and a desire to be charitable to others. That does not mitigate the effect for those on the receiving end, but it does provide an opening for those willing to examine the implications of their positions.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So if you think that homosexual sex is against the will of God, you can be argued out of it?
How does that work then? Surely if you think it is a commandment from God then logic doesn't really come into it.
Well, despite taking a liberal stance on this issue, I do think ethics ultimately comes down to the will of God, but that's a statement that needs some unpacking.
Firstly one needs to address how one comes to the conclusion that gay sex is against the will of God. If it's because of the Bible, then (as lilBuddha says) you have to explain why you rationalise away some of the other commandments, and if it's because of Holy Tradition then likewise for other aspects of Tradition (e.g. usury).
Secondly, just because something is the will of God doesn't mean it's immune to logic or reason. There are at least two reasons why it can't be immune:
1. We are committed as Christians to believing that God is rational and consistent.
2. You cannot have a separate rule for everything. Any system of ethics has to have some logic behind it so that you can evaluate cases that fall outside your list of rules.
Proof-text: Deuteronomy 30:11-14:
quote:
Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?’ No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
So yes, Christianity has always taught that unmarried heterosexuals, and those with homosexual inclinations, are to be celibate.
Most Christians have always believed this, and most Christians today globally still believe it.
Once upon a time most Christians were taught and believed that women couldn't in any authoritative way be considered as on a level with men; least of all when it came to religion. Some of us still have the dents in our cranium (figuratively speaking!) where we were pounded by the Bible verses that proved this 'fact' irrevocably to be God's truth, as revealed in scripture!
Now, I'm guessing that more than quite a few 'traditional' Christians no longer hold that erstwhile traditional view, despite the Biblical evidence, and the witness of nearly 2000 years of consistent teaching and belief.
I'm guessing, further, that there are equally good reasons why other traditional teachings are no longer upheld by traditional Christians. 'Traditionally' and globally Christians fasted on Fridays, tithed their income, went to confession, covered their heads during worship (or didn't according to their sex), did not remarry after divorce, observed the Sabbath, obeyed scriptural exhortations to avoid 'bad company', or 'yoking' with unbelievers etc.
I don't think it's untrue to say that the Bible believed in and utilized by traditional Christians is every bit as nuanced, complex and layered as the liberal's.
I hold a relatively conservative view of sexual relationships. I think that ideally people should be in long-term committed relationships before they get jiggy with it; and particularly where kids are in the offing, married. Whether the partners are same sex or opposite sex, to my mind, is irrelevant.
The sexual behaviour to be proscribed, in my view, is promiscuity, adultery and exploitative, abusive relationships. That Biblical cultures could not envisage - let alone permit - an idea of a perfectly ordinary committed, lifelong relationship between people of the same sex is hardly surprising. They couldn't imagine a woman teaching in the Synagogue, or living outside the supervision of a male relative either.
The Bible certainly does make comment on aspects of homosexual behaviour that would've been considered scandalous in their time. Some of those aspects would probably have been considered scandalous today, if we're willing to take on board the possible cultural context. However, if we ignore the likely context of this comment we are doomed to extrapolate superficially that the problems with homosexual behaviour experienced by ancient cultures is the only reading we can ever have of how people relate to each other - if they happen to be same sex attracted.
Or we can admit that there is something nuanced, complex and layered going on here, too, with our readings of human relationships; just as our knowledge of human nature has unquestionably increased, since those earlier times.
Perhaps, just as some - perhaps even much - of 'traditional Christian teaching and belief' has at last come round to the idea that women are no longer 'unnatural' in fulfilling various life outcomes, it will eventually come round to the idea that being same sex attracted isn't crucially the most important thing about human relationships?
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
One thing that annoys is they cannot answer how homosexuality causes any harm.
The only thing they have is "God said don't".
And when you confront the hypocrisy inherent in that philosophy, they dance around more than a cocaine addled jitterbug at a Red Bull Rave.
The trouble is, Christians are supposed to be at least a little interested in what God says to do or not to do....
I mean, you might say that not praying does no harm at all. But would you expect a practising Christian to take to this as a 'godly' proposition?
Sometimes I get the impression on the Ship that theology is for things that don't really matter. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ, his resurrection, the life everlasting, etc. - we should all be free to disagree on these things, because they have no significance in anyone's life. But all of us must be absolutely in favour of sexual liberation, both inside and outside our churches, because that's what really matters to people.
Strange as it is, maybe this is where some Christian denominations are heading. At least it would put clear blue water between them and the rest.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The trouble is, Christians are supposed to be at least a little interested in what God says to do or not to do....
I'm not saying this. I am saying Christians already ignore parts of the Bible so that isn't a valid argument.
quote:
Sometimes I get the impression on the Ship that theology is for things that don't really matter. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ, his resurrection, the life everlasting, etc. - we should all be free to disagree on these things, because they have no significance in anyone's life.
Disagreeing in that is simply disagreeing on it.
quote:
But all of us must be absolutely in favour of sexual liberation, both inside and outside our churches, because that's what really matters to people.
No, because it really affects people.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
So under this understanding what choices does the gay man have? Celibacy or ...?
On the face of it, the Bible teaches that homosexual activity is wrong, and that heterosexual activity outside of marriage is wrong.
It nowhere teaches that every human being is entitled to sexual fulfillment.
So yes, Christianity has always taught that unmarried heterosexuals, and those with homosexual inclinations, are to be celibate.
Most Christians have always believed this, and most Christians today globally still believe it.
The choices are therefore:-
1.To go along with it, even though it seems harsh (and FWIW, it seems harsh to me, too).
2.To argue that in fact the Bible does not disapprove of homosexual behaviour.
3.To argue that it does, but that it can be or must be ignored, in this particular at least.
On the face of it, the Bible teaches that women are to wear hats in church and are not allowed to teach.
I'm not going to make claims about what Christians have "always" believed as a result. I will observe, though, that modern Christians appear to have taken several different approaches to these topics, including:
1. Going along with it, even though it seems harsh.
2. Arguing that in fact the Bible does not contain absolute requirements about wearing hats and not teaching.
3. Arguing that such rules should be jettisoned.
What's most interesting here, though, is how few Christians have nailed their colours to the mast on the question of women wearing hats. You can in fact find examples on the internet of people who are strongly arguing for hat-wearing, but in the culture wars hats seem to have been forgotten.
Even women teaching seems to have reduced in temperature quite a bit.
So to me the interesting question isn't about the options. The options (literalism, contextualism, rejection) are pretty much the same for any interpretative topic. The question is why this particular interpretative topic is a first order issue.
I know why it's an important issue for ME, because it directly affects my own life. The part that's mystifying is why it's so important for some straight conservatives.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The Bible is stiff with rules that we ignore daily. You keep kosher? Me neither. Lobster, crab? Yum. You are wearing a garment, yes? Have a look at the fabric content, on the tag. Is it a polyester blend? Oooh, Leviticus...
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
As ever, Christians with ~~traditional views~~ on these issues forget that they affect actual real human beings, who are often very vulnerable and don't need people telling them how God hates who they are as well as the mortal humans who hate who they are. People like to suggest that LGBT people are all millionaire social media tycoons as opposed to poor selfless honest Christians (conveniently forgetting that many LGBT Christians exist, including some fairly prominent ones), but I don't know any LGBT person who hasn't encountered homophobic/transphobic harassment in the UK, even in 2017. A lesbian friend was headbutted in a gay club (a gay club!) for turning a man down. I know several provincial gay clubs who have been violently targeted. LGBT people, including LGBT Christians, still commit suicide in huge numbers, are still homeless in huge numbers. I know LGBT Christians who have been forbidden from doing anything public in their church, from serving coffee to even being baptised.
Read about Leelah Alcorn. Read about Lizzie Lowe. 'Traditional Christian Values' peddlers have their blood on their hands. When people die because of your views, you bet I'll be hostile to you - your hurt feelings don't compare to LGBT children dying because of your complicity in propping up homophobia and transphobia in the name of God.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
But all of us must be absolutely in favour of sexual liberation, both inside and outside our churches, because that's what really matters to people.
No, because it really affects people. [/QB]
My response to that is that churches are voluntary associations. If you don't want church people telling you who you can and can't go to bed with, don't hang out in churches. Or find a church that shares your own perspective on the matter. It's quite simple, really.
True, some Christians who find it terribly hard to walk away, and/or feel very upset if their religious families or pastors don't approve of how they want to live. But the Western churches have lost vast numbers of people over the past century, so this doesn't appear to be an insurmountable problem. Indeed, our society largely expects young people to reject their parents' attempts to control their sexual behaviour. It's the stuff of popular culture.
But my (Nonconformist) view is also that the Church is the people, not some untouchable, oppressive hierarchy. If practising lay Christians seriously want churches to become much more tolerant on these matters, that's what will happen. Many churches are actually becoming more tolerant over time; that's simply what happens. One day SSM will no longer be a significant issue, and the tolerant churches will have moved on to some other cause.
OTOH, since the most committed religious followers overall tend to be those who are willing to make sacrifices, I doubt that sexual liberation will ever be a defining feature of all churches.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
]My response to that is that churches are voluntary associations. If you don't want church people telling you who you can and can't go to bed with, don't hang out in churches. Or find a church that shares your own perspective on the matter. It's quite simple, really.
First, it isn't. Because this
quote:
True, some Christians who find it terribly hard to walk away, and/or feel very upset if their religious families or pastors don't approve of how they want to live.
quote:
But the Western churches have lost vast numbers of people over the past century, so this doesn't appear to be an insurmountable problem.
This might well not matter to any individual whose identity is part of that a particular church and/or denomination.
And people with the beliefs we are speaking of do not leave them at the door of the church. Though public policy is shifting, it isn't yet equal.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
But all of us must be absolutely in favour of sexual liberation, both inside and outside our churches, because that's what really matters to people.
No, because it really affects people.
My response to that is that churches are voluntary associations. If you don't want church people telling you who you can and can't go to bed with, don't hang out in churches. Or find a church that shares your own perspective on the matter. It's quite simple, really.
True, some Christians who find it terribly hard to walk away, and/or feel very upset if their religious families or pastors don't approve of how they want to live. But the Western churches have lost vast numbers of people over the past century, so this doesn't appear to be an insurmountable problem. Indeed, our society largely expects young people to reject their parents' attempts to control their sexual behaviour. It's the stuff of popular culture.
But my (Nonconformist) view is also that the Church is the people, not some untouchable, oppressive hierarchy. If practising lay Christians seriously want churches to become much more tolerant on these matters, that's what will happen. Many churches are actually becoming more tolerant over time; that's simply what happens. One day SSM will no longer be a significant issue, and the tolerant churches will have moved on to some other cause.
OTOH, since the most committed religious followers overall tend to be those who are willing to make sacrifices, I doubt that sexual liberation will ever be a defining feature of all churches. [/QB]
Yes I'm sure Lizzie Lowe's parents will be very comforted by that ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
It's not about people 'feeling upset', but about people dying. Children dying.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If you don't want church people telling you who you can and can't go to bed with, don't hang out in churches. Or find a church that shares your own perspective on the matter. It's quite simple, really.
Bullshit. Tell this to the people to whom Kim Davis wouldn't issue a marriage license, or all the people who suffer every time "religious liberty" wins out over gay people's right to be free from discrimination.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If you don't want church people telling you who you can and can't go to bed with, don't hang out in churches. Or find a church that shares your own perspective on the matter. It's quite simple, really.
Bullshit. Tell this to the people to whom Kim Davis wouldn't issue a marriage license, or all the people who suffer every time "religious liberty" wins out over gay people's right to be free from discrimination.
I don't agree with what Svitlana says, but your analogy is not really there. Churches are voluntary associations, but Kim Davis was there as a public servant, to fulfill the legal obligations of a county clerk. Her private opinions about who should or should not be married are irrelevant to her performance of that role.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If you don't want church people telling you who you can and can't go to bed with, don't hang out in churches. Or find a church that shares your own perspective on the matter. It's quite simple, really.
Bullshit. Tell this to the people to whom Kim Davis wouldn't issue a marriage license, or all the people who suffer every time "religious liberty" wins out over gay people's right to be free from discrimination.
I don't agree with what Svitlana says, but your analogy is not really there. Churches are voluntary associations, but Kim Davis was there as a public servant, to fulfill the legal obligations of a county clerk. Her private opinions about who should or should not be married are irrelevant to her performance of that role.
I think the basic point RuthW is making is that POV affects things outside the church door. In the case of the clerk, it was a clear violation of her job. However, it can affect decisions that are not as easy to detect. Redlining* is an example of this.
*American word for a worldwide practice.
--------------------
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Not everyone is able to church shop, whether for theological reasons (validity of sacraments et al) or geographical ones (try finding an affirming congregation in my neck of the woods). It's effectively telling people they've got to give up their faith or their sexuality. Which is despicable.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
It is also assuming that no child growing up in a Christian family is growing up gay. Gay or transexual children from Christian families result in one of the highest suicide rates.
Unless, of course, you propose that Christians should not have children so they don't inflict their voluntary membership on others? But being childless is against much traditional teaching too.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
