|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hostility to Traditional Christians on the Ship
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
Is it me or has hostility to traditional Christian teaching on the Ship considerably intensified in the past years, including hostility to those who hold such teachings? I mean there are the usual boards where discussion continues but I do perceive a general wave of intolerance.
The Ship has been a place where I have learnt a lot over the years. I am grateful for the wide representation of views and opinions, and for the usual cut and thrust of debate. I do not have concrete evidence but just a feeling, though, that the new modern (or postmodern) consensus on ethical questions is somewhat seen as the norm here.
Trolling can also go either way,
Just wondering.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
What's a "traditional Christian"? Is that similar to a "New Testament Christian" or a "Bible-believing Christian"?
Just curious.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I have not noticed this, although I think that there might be a reaction against the right-wing Christian/Trump connection (and the Right-wing Christian/Tory in the UK), and the damage that this does to people.
In truth, I think it is more that certain brands of "traditional" Christian are today associated with some incredibly abusive, vile and unchristian ideas.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I haven't noticed any such increase. Right now a couple of self-proclaimed "traditional" Christians are getting a lot of stick, but I'm not sure it's for their traditionality. Lamb Chopped is about as traditional (theologically conservative) a Protestant as we have on the Ship, and she very, very seldom gets a Hell call or a lot of stick for her beliefs. And it's not like she's a wilting violet. She definitely wades in with both feet. By and large traditionalists who meet with hostility bring it upon themselves by their attitudes and delivery.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
"Traditional" is a dangerous word, for a couple of reasons:
1. How long something has been done or taught bears no necessary relationship to how right or true the thing is.
2. Traditions frequently have an unrecognised start date. "Traditional" is not a synonym for "original" and there are plenty of things in life now regarded as "traditional" that were once upon a time new and novel and a departure from some earlier "tradition" that's been forgotten about. Memories of history frequently go no further back than what our grandparents told us when we were little.
In Christianity, this can easily be demonstrated by the whole Reformation movement. The point of a lot of Protestantism was to argue that the church's traditions were in fact deviations from original scriptural teaching.
--------------------
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
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Christian unrest requires hostility to the tottering edifice of accreted tradition and those who identify with it. End of.
At the moment the ship is about as unrestful as a bathtub in a drought. Everyone is so respectful it could make the truly restive vomit. It does.
[ 25. July 2017, 17:25: 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
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Christian unrest requires hostility to the tottering edifice of accreted tradition and those who identify with it. End of.
Rubbish. Christian unrest might equally require hostility to the unthinking rejection of the wisdom of the past. As for hostility to "those who identify with it", I believe the 10C's phrase for that is "being a jerk".
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It's all relative.
People keep saying that evangelicals get short shrift here. Now it's 'traditional Christians' more generally.
I'm not entirely sure that's the case, although it's pretty obvious that certain Dead Horse issues can generate more heat than light.
It's the Magazine of Christian Unrest. Get over it.
I don't see anyone being called to Hell for expressing a belief in the Trinity or the Deity of Christ, for advocating the Real Presence in the Eucharist or even for maintaining that clergy should be male ...
I do see people called to Hell when they act like dicks.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Christian unrest requires hostility to the tottering edifice of accreted tradition and those who identify with it. End of.
Rubbish. Christian unrest might equally require hostility to the unthinking rejection of the wisdom of the past. As for hostility to "those who identify with it", I believe the 10C's phrase for that is "being a jerk".
OK, so I was being a little provocative. My point, if I were to put it in a more measured form, is that traditionalists in their purest form, as have shouted among us for some considerable time, exemplify unthinking adherence to tradition. And that is something which will always, rightly, be the target of unrest. It is not a pilgrim faith in a living God, which to me are defining characteristics of the Christian life of faith.
My approach follows from that conviction.
--------------------
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
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Christian unrest requires hostility to the tottering edifice of accreted tradition and those who identify with it. End of.
Rubbish. Christian unrest might equally require hostility to the unthinking rejection of the wisdom of the past. As for hostility to "those who identify with it", I believe the 10C's phrase for that is "being a jerk".
OK, so I was being a little provocative. My point, if I were to put it in a more measured form, is that traditionalists in their purest form, as have shouted among us for some considerable time, exemplify unthinking adherence to tradition. And that is something which will always, rightly, be the target of unrest. It is not a pilgrim faith in a living God, which to me are defining characteristics of the Christian life of faith.
My approach follows from that conviction.
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I think Gottschalk needs to define what s/he means by 'traditional Christian teaching'. Then folk can let him know if they feel the Ship is hostile to it.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think Gottschalk needs to define what s/he means by 'traditional Christian teaching'. Then folk can let him know if they feel the Ship is hostile to it.
Don't think this is necessary. I think mousethief's post is accurate; it is jerkish posting, not POV that gets less than polite attention.
--------------------
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 TurquoiseTastic:
Christian unrest might equally require hostility to the unthinking rejection of the wisdom of the past.
I'm on board with hostility to unthinking rejection. Most of the rejection I see around here, though, seems to be quite thoughtful.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Is it me or has hostility to traditional Christian teaching on the Ship considerably intensified in the past years, including hostility to those who hold such teachings? I mean there are the usual boards where discussion continues but I do perceive a general wave of intolerance.
The way this thread is going will probably confirm your hunches!
My sense is that Christianity has become more polarised in the Anglophone West as secularisation has increased, and populations are identifying less and less with organised religion.
Some Christians have responded by seeking to align their values more with the wider society, and others by re-stating the values that their churches have traditionally taught.
The former path is the one frequently taken on the Ship, with 'Christian unrest' expressed as frustration that many denominations, old and new, have mostly failed to take the lead in projecting a sufficiently tolerant, modern, questioning persona.
It comes through mostly on Dead Horse issues, which are about how people conduct their personal (or worshipping) lives. But I don't think there's much hostility towards the doctrines at the heart of Christianity, perhaps because they don't seem to have much bearing on our personal freedom or happiness. And I think modern Christians who completely lose interest in credal orthodoxy will mostly give up on this kind of conversation any way.
I notice that you're a member of the RCC. As a whole, the Ship probably rejects all of the the DH positions taken by that denomination, which is going through a tough time PR-wise. RCs would probably have to get 'unrestful' on a whole range of fronts if they really wanted to engage. I'm not surprised that fewer RCs have the energy to come here and do that these days.
[ 25. July 2017, 18:11: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I'm a traditional Christian. I assent to the historic creeds of the Church, have been baptised, confirmed by a successor to the apostles, take communion regularly, and am a member in good standing in the Church of England.
I'm also politically somewhere to the left of Jeremy Corbyn, and count as good friends gay and trans folk. I don't see that, nor the doctorate in meteorites, nor that I stayed at home with the kids while my wife went out to work, as incompatible with my Christian beliefs.
But maybe you were asking a different question?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Is hostility to traditional Christians (as per the title) the same thing as hostility to traditional Christian teaching (as per the OP)?
--------------------
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
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
Thank you all for your answers. SvitlanaV2 pretty nailed down my sentiments. I hope that it is clear to all that holding to traditional beliefs with respect to mariage, gender, same-sex attraction does not imply or, even less, necessitate hatred, contempt and hounding of people who do not hold to those beliefs.
There are many things I cannot accept about the current re-evaluation or outright rejection of traditional ethics, nor can I encourage others in said rejection, or congratulate them on an inclusion that, from my perspective, remains, and a way, has to, remain incomplete, imperfect.
I have no window to look into other people's hearts, souls, and consciences- I cannot presume of their internal state, else that would be judging. I look only look within myself and examine myself, seek out all of those ways in which I daily depart from God's grace, from his love, offered to me, often rejected.
The Christian ought to be someone transparent, with nothing to hide, ever ready to open himself or herself to God and to others, with candid frankness. And yet, I can't help but feel that in my interaction with others this readiness is often marred, or nullified, or preempted by the expectation of adhering to a norm who cannot accept.
Civility and the respect of another's opinion have become less important than manifesting one's opinions loudly and in uncivil ways.
Christianity remains for me, this promise and guarantee of renewal in Jesus Christ - which does require repentance, metanoia, aspiration towards love and grace, but also taking up our crosses and following Christ the obedient, the penitent, and the sufferer.
My unrest lies in my insensitivity, indifference, self-regard, self-indulgence, self-worship...all idols that are already vanquished by Christ the Redeemer, but to which I still cling. There is thus this inner unrest with which I have to deal, or do I?
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
I do not have concrete evidence but just a feeling, though, that the new modern (or postmodern) consensus on ethical questions is somewhat seen as the norm here.
What do you mean by the new modern or postmodern consensus on ethics?
I don't see either consensus or (much) hostility when people are discussing the relative merits of Aristotelean, Kantian, voluntarist or consequentialist ethics. But maybe the quote is code for a different question?
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
There are many things I cannot accept about the current re-evaluation or outright rejection of traditional ethics, nor can I encourage others in said rejection, or congratulate them on an inclusion that, from my perspective, remains, and a way, has to, remain incomplete, imperfect.
I don't see anyone saying that you can't hold those positions, merely that as discussion on these issues has tended to generate more heat than light, that they are mostly dead horsed.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Thank you all for your answers. SvitlanaV2 pretty nailed down my sentiments. I hope that it is clear to all that holding to traditional beliefs with respect to mariage, gender, same-sex attraction does not imply or, even less, necessitate hatred, contempt and hounding of people who do not hold to those beliefs.
Not at all clear. In fact it is quite hard to hold those beliefs whilst not exhibiting "hatred, contempt and hounding of people who do not hold to those beliefs".
Do you support civil marriage for gay people even though you believe your religion forbids it?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
Thinking that a person is wrong is not equal to hating them, having contempt for them or hounding them, and does not require all these things.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Do they mention sex in the NiceanCreed ?
--------------------
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
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
Only en passant...
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I am a Quaker, but my understanding was that the core tenets of traditional Christianity are contained in the Nicean creed - so most of the topics you mention seem extraneous.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
There are many things I cannot accept about the current re-evaluation or outright rejection of traditional ethics
Though, "traditional ethics" don't necessarily equate with "Christian ethics", nor with "traditional Christians".
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
We still have the Ten Commandments, the teachings of Christ, the Apostolic traditions, the traditions of the Fathers, Canons of the Synods and Councils, Precepts of the Church, the teaching of the ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium (the last two for Romans only)
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Thinking that a person is wrong is not equal to hating them, having contempt for them or hounding them, and does not require all these things.
But you "hate" them at least to the extent of not wanting to help them get married. Is that correct?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
My unrest lies in my insensitivity, indifference, self-regard, self-indulgence, self-worship...all idols that are already vanquished by Christ the Redeemer, but to which I still cling. There is thus this inner unrest with which I have to deal, or do I?
That's not unrest, that's just sinfulness. We all deal with that. Unrest as used here means something like dissatisfaction with the status quo.
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Only en passant...
Where? Where is it even hinted at?
If being opposed to homosexuality is a core tenet of Christianity, then the drafters of the Creed fucked up bigtime. But it is a conciliar document and we can add to it. Where should we put our hatred of homosexuals, do you suppose before "one baptism for the remission of sins"? Or after "the resurrection of the dead"? Decisions, decisions.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
I cannot how see how such a temerarious presumption (granting for a moment "not wanting to help them, etc", which is not evident, either) can be correct.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
I cannot how see how such a temerarious presumption (granting for a moment "not wanting to help them, etc", which is not evident, either) can be correct.
I know it is hard, but assume I'm thick and want a simple answer to the question.
Do you support civil gay marriage or not? If not, how is that not a form of hatred towards another group in society?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
@Mousethief
I replied "en passant" because I mistakenly thought that the question of sex in the Nicene Creed was in jest.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
@Mousethief
I replied "en passant" because I mistakenly thought that the question of sex in the Nicene Creed was in jest.
I am flat-out serious. The Creed defines the core of the Christian faith. Therefore teachings about sexuality cannot seriously be said to be core teachings. Further our Lord never mentioned it, except perhaps in the incident of the woman at the well, where he was talking about serial monogamy, not homosexuality. The 21st century Church, at least the loudest and most visible part, is majoring in the minors.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
I hope that it is clear to all that holding to traditional beliefs with respect to marriage, gender, same-sex attraction does not imply or, even less, necessitate hatred, contempt and hounding of people who do not hold to those beliefs.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If being opposed to homosexuality is a core tenet of Christianity, then the drafters of the Creed fucked up bigtime. But it is a conciliar document and we can add to it. Where should we put our hatred of homosexuals, do you suppose before "one baptism for the remission of sins"? Or after "the resurrection of the dead"? Decisions, decisions.
Or to take another "traditional belief" related to gender that's fallen out of favor in modern ethics, I'm not sure that it's possible to oppose women's suffrage without at least a certain degree of "contempt". I mean, the basic premise is that a whole class of persons is by right (and possibly by God's decree) second class citizens. I'm not sure there's a way to deny people their rights without at least implicit contempt.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
@Mousethief
I replied "en passant" because I mistakenly thought that the question of sex in the Nicene Creed was in jest.
I was wondering if it was some interpretation of part of its text I was unfamiliar with.
--------------------
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
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
...
Do you support civil gay marriage or not? If not, how is that not a form of hatred towards another group in society?
These are the kinds of attacks which have driven me from serious discussion of most issues here.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
So basically, it's just the sex thing.
And nothing regarding usury, war, slavery, universal franchise, capital punishment, or the wearing of hats? Because I'd have thought that the application of traditional Christian teaching would have extended further than what folk got up to in the bedroom.
Does you complaint go any further than "why can't we be beastly to the gays any more?". If it does, I'm not seeing it.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
These are the kinds of attacks which have driven me from serious discussion of most issues here.
I'm sorry if you think it is an attack, I'm trying to understand from the OP why he/she thinks that a denial of the right to civil marriage for someone he/she disagrees with isn't hatred.
If one disagreed with a religion and said that consequently you didn't support state recognition of their marriage, would that not then be a form of hatred?
If not, why not?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
When your statement goes along the lines of "If you believe this, then you hate..." That is an attack on a person and/or their beliefs, even if you try to soften it later with "unless you can prove why you don't hate..."
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
...
Do you support civil gay marriage or not? If not, how is that not a form of hatred towards another group in society?
These are the kinds of attacks which have driven me from serious discussion of most issues here.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
On the front page of Purgatory we have three Trump threads, two on Brexit, two on medical care (and another three/four if you count body image, personality tests, addiction and behaviour). There's also something on nuclear weapons, prayer, child abuse by a church leader, death, and a Bible verse.
Nothing you want to talk about there at all?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Thinking that a person is wrong is not equal to hating them, having contempt for them or hounding them, and does not require all these things.
Which is why we don't hate conservatives.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
When your statement goes along the lines of "If you believe this, then you hate..." That is an attack on a person and/or their beliefs, even if you try to soften it later with "unless you can prove why you don't hate..."
The OP claimed that he/she was able to hold particular views without expressing it as hatred.
If you want to complain about the use of the word "hatred", then take it up with them, because they introduced it. I'm just trying to establish if/why they think that bringing that ethic into the public space (or indeed, not bringing the ethic into the public space of extending rights even to people one profoundly disagrees with) isn't hatred.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
I think sometimes it's better to be viewed with direct hatred than to be viewed with derisive contempt.
But it's hard to say. Better to be shot as a personal combatant or to be counted as collateral damage in a battle that's supposedly between abstract "beliefs."
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So basically, it's just the sex thing.
And nothing regarding usury, war, slavery, universal franchise, capital punishment, or the wearing of hats? Because I'd have thought that the application of traditional Christian teaching would have extended further than what folk got up to in the bedroom.
I've heard this described as "genital Christianity", which seems more accurately descriptive than "traditional Christianity".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
In my world, growing up, traditional Christianity meant the 19th century things, like thee/thou, quick and the dead, wearing a necktie to church. By the 1970s it meant 'born again-ism'. Today it means no abortions, the properity gospel, and an alliance with politics and corporations.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Thank you all for your answers. SvitlanaV2 pretty nailed down my sentiments. I hope that it is clear to all that holding to traditional beliefs with respect to mariage, gender, same-sex attraction does not imply or, even less, necessitate hatred, contempt and hounding of people who do not hold to those beliefs.
No, it doesn't. You are free to refrain from sex until your marriage to a virgin of the opposite sex, free not to seek a divorce, free not to remarry in the event that your spouse divorces you, free not to question the gender on your birth certificate, and free not to lust after anyone of the same sex as you.
But what do you do about your gay neighbour, or your trans neighbour? Will you allow them to marry, and to live their lives in the way that they think they should, or will you seek to prevent them from doing that?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
I don't like to tell people that their concerns aren't valid, so I am hesitant to really respond to the OP, out of fear that it might come over as me doing just that. I'm sure Gottschalk feels legitimately upset about how "traditional" views are sometimes treated on the Ship.
At the same time, being subjected to a ship hell call is small potatoes compared to what has happened to non-"traditional" Christians in the past.
I'm not here to argue that past awful treatment justifies future awful retaliation. But I think you sidestep the hard work of reconciliation when you try to just have everyone agree to be nice to each other from here on out and ignore what happened in the past.
There was a thread a few months ago about a hypothetical "Church of No Sex," where the one rule would be that no one can talk about gender or sex policy, one way or the other. I argued that the effect would be to silence people who have only gained a voice in the last few decades, and essentially to enshrine the status quo. The least we can do is let people respond after years and years of accepting abuse.
I'm all for not being a jerk, but a large number of people were subjected to a lot of awful crap from the power group of "traditional" Christians for centuries. You can at least try to appreciate why delivery of the same values in a softened tone still seems like a continuation of the past.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
As a gay male Christian in a 33-year partnership with another gay male Christian, I may not be qualified to judge whether or not "hatred" plays a role in those who follow the traditional conservative definition of marriage.
However, I do remember -- and resent deeply -- that attitude towards homosexuality that I confronted as a young person growing up in the Roman Catholic Church. And I do remember the parish priest's obsessive focus on matters having to do with deviant sexuality. ("Deviant" here has to do with anything outside traditional male-female marriage. Which includes just about everything a young person is likely to think about or do.)
By the end of my teens I could no longer believe in a God who consigned such people to eternal torment. This was a vengeful God rather than a loving God. I decided, at 19,... "to Hell with it." Since then I've met countless other Christians who felt and still feel the same way.
[ 25. July 2017, 21:51: Message edited by: roybart ]
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Thinking that a person is wrong is not equal to hating them, having contempt for them or hounding them, and does not require all these things.
If I think you are wrong in your approach to resolving the physical properties of black holes, nothing more than disagreement need be present.
But when you say my very being is a sin, it doesn't much matter if you hold animosity in your heart. The effect is the same.
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
I hope that it is clear to all that holding to traditional beliefs with respect to mariage, gender, same-sex attraction
These are traditional beliefs, but tied to culture, not cornerstones of Christianity. Feel free to peruse Dead Horses or even join in and we can rehash why this is.
quote:
Civility and the respect of another's opinion have become less important than manifesting one's opinions loudly and in uncivil ways.
For the most part, civil behaviour begets civil response. Respecting one's rights to express and opinion is a principal here, this does not extend respecting the idea expressed. And I think this is where the problem lies.
If you were to claim the belief that the earth is flat, I am not going to pretend that it is a valid opinion. However, if you express it politely, you would have the right to a polite. if incredulous, response.
quote:
Christianity remains for me, this promise and guarantee of renewal in Jesus Christ - which does require repentance, metanoia, aspiration towards love and grace, but also taking up our crosses and following Christ the obedient, the penitent, and the sufferer.
None of which requires hating the gays.
quote:
My unrest lies in my insensitivity, indifference, self-regard, self-indulgence, self-worship...all idols that are already vanquished by Christ the Redeemer, but to which I still cling. There is thus this inner unrest with which I have to deal, or do I?
As mt said, this is not unrest. This is sinnin' my lad.
--------------------
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
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
I should have added the following to my last post
I have also met countless former Christians who had the same experience, some of whom dealt with this by committing suicide.
[ 25. July 2017, 22:03: Message edited by: roybart ]
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It is one of the great mysteries to me why some Christians have taken to making sexual ethics the defining characteristic of Christianity. To the point where non-Christians also generally see this as being what the church is about.
As has been said, the creeds don't show an interest in the subject. And yet now people are obsessed. Ironic, in the context of talking about tradition, that the primary concerns seem to have shifted so much.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
