Ship of Fools: Where did the demonisation of homosexuality come from?

Thread: Where did the demonisation of homosexuality come from? Board: Dead Horses / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000623

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

This is a historical discussion, rather than a theological one. The thing is, I remember from my university days (30 years ago, not really long in terms of theological development) that one friend of mine came out while there, while staying within the Christian fold. My 3rd year project supervisor was openly gay, without anyone seeming to have any issue with it. It was part of the rich tapestry of life found there.

I should point out that there was a demonisation of sex as a whole, which was pretty much in line with the conservative aspects of society as a whole.

And yet, in years since then, is is homosexuality that has become the touchstone of conevo faith, the cause of all our woes, the biggest issue in the fundamentalist world. And I am left wondering exactly how we moved so far so quickly. Is it just that every other battle has been lost? Is it just that most of the conevo leaders are secretly gay? Why THIS issue, and not some other?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

It's still a Dead Horse, SC, so that's where the thread is going. The roots of the demonisation of homosexuality is an aspect of the topic of homosexuality, and therefore conforms to the DH guidelines.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

This is pretty much my recollection of how things used to be. There were a couple of ladies in my (then) church (charismatic evo) who were assumed by most people to be a couple, and no-one so much as batted an eyelid. In fact, one of the ladies was in a leadership role, and when a new vicar arrived and started to express an interest in their private lives, the churchwardens took him on one side and made it clear to him that "this was not how we deal with things here".

Even more surprisingly, there was a similar couple of ladies who were well respected members of a nearby (very conservative, as in Reform-type) parish.

I do think that the path for gay men was probably less smooth, for all sorts of reasons unrelated to theology.

I guess, though, that, overall, the attitude was of "don't ask, don't tell", which, whilst not ideal, was at least preferable to the current "culture wars" environment.

I think that a great deal of this is about leaders seeking to bolster their position amongst their peers by a display of machismo posturing. Mostly, the congo just shrug their shoulders and roll their eyes in a "he's* off on one again" sort of way, which is maybe not creditable, but at least fulfils commandment one of Anglicanism: "Thou shalt not rock the boat".

* It mostly seems to be a "he"!

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Why THIS issue, and not some other?

Because it's always easier to denounce sins you're not inclined to commit yourself.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

ISTM, a difference is the issue is more one in the public debate. The exclusionary policies are being challenged and challenge often bring an intensity to resistance.
Religious authorities are less important in the secular world as well, also a challenge.
Same reason for the double-down on the evolution front.

[ 10. November 2014, 15:28: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think Croesos has a point - you can't lambast divorce, as a good chunk of your congregation will be divorced, and some of your pastors. So being gay is a very convenient sin.

But I think some homophobes have changed, as friends and relations have come out. If your daughter comes out as a lesbian, it may well affect you.

[ 10. November 2014, 15:37: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Yup, gay people were scapegoated by the church 'cause they were perceived as an safe target. What the hatemongers never foresaw was the gay rights revolution. They're now trapped by a homophobic monster of their own making.

My heart doth bleed and all that.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But I think some homophobes have changed, as friends and relations have come out. If your daughter comes out as a lesbian, it may well affect you.

That was noted in this thread from a year and a half ago.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

It became harder to ignore. Not just the gay rights revolution, but Aids acted as a tracer dye to all the "don't ask, don't tell" compromises.

I remember an article about how many Black Churches had a traditional role for gay men in the Choir and that death rate in the Choir became too large to ignore.

The other pressure was the generational revolution of the sixties. Suddenly the Church as part of the authorities lost respect from the younger generation.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I remember an article about how many Black Churches had a traditional role for gay men in the Choir and that death rate in the Choir became too large to ignore.

I don't think this is the article you mean - but it seems to be relevant. (I cannot vouch for it in any way).

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Why THIS issue, and not some other?
Because it's always easier to denounce sins you're not inclined to commit yourself.

Or to point the figure towards someone else so that nobody will suspect that you 'struggle' with the same 'temptations.'

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

I think that the "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) issue is important here.

For a long time, DADT meant that gays and lesbians could exist in even pretty conservative churches. And, simply by existing, they inevitably wore down the prejudices of fellow church members.

As gay right activists became more outspoken and more widely accepted, DADT became less acceptable. It was seen as dishonest (on both sides) and gays and lesbians who worked on DADT were regarded as somehow "betraying the cause".

On one hand, the demise of DADT is a good thing. There is more honesty and openness. But I can't help feeling that one consequence of its demise is that people have been forced more strongly into opposing camps. DADT allowed a high degree of ambiguity, which included allowing people to NOT have to express a view or adopt a position. In other words, DADT permitted a lot of middle ground. That middle ground has - largely - gone.

(I want to be absolutely clear here. I am NOT arguing for a return to DADT - simply pointing out one, possibly unintended, consequence of its demise.)

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

There seems to me to have been a lot of public fear-mongering about AIDS, that was done in the name of public safety to try and reduce infection rates. This led to a lot of people having a life-long deep-seated fear of it, even though today it poses relatively little threat to people in the Western world. It also led to certain nutters announcing that AIDS was "God's punishment for homosexuality". Most importantly the event of AIDS propelled male gay sex into the sphere of public policy debate as a social and health issue.

Here in New Zealand, it was the AIDS crisis that directly led to the introduction of a bill to decriminalize male gay sex, as the medical authorities wanted the potential victims of the disease to feel safe coming forward for testing and treatment. It was apparently anticipated by the proposers of the bill that it would pass uncontroversially, as it was requested by the medical authorities and there was obvious medical need. (From what I can tell, I seriously doubt the bill would have passed otherwise, as a significant proportion of the country at the time seems to have been quite anti-gay. The mainstream Christian denominations made it clear that they only supported the bill due to medical need and that on moral grounds they didn't think homosexuality should be legal.) However, a certain segment of Christians (mainly the Salvation Army) made an extremely zealous and concerted attempt to prevent the bill passing via a nationwide campaign and petition. The scale and intensity of the opposition and the speed with which that opposition appeared apparently took the unprepared advocates of the bill completely by surprise. There was also a politician or two who jumped on the McCarthy-like bandwagon, seeking popularity by being an outspoken advocate of traditional values. The petition subsequently failed to reach the required number of signatures, and the bill passed.

The idea of politicians getting popular from opposition to gays, was, of course pioneered in the 20th century by McCarthy himself. Whenever there's a potential "moral issue" going, there always seems to be at least one politician willing to try to propel himself into popularity by making the moral issue a public platform for himself. In the US, McCarthy and more recently George Bush Jr stand out (in a bad way) as having propelled their political careers forward by attacking gay people. It's not simply politicians though that do this: There always seem to be at least a few public-spirited nutty advocates of traditional morality who rise up from the masses and embark on a nationwide campaign of attention-seeking and egotistical self-aggrandizement in the name of the cause of stopping the public menace of the gay people. They become an instant celebrity as they receive fame and attention speaking at events throughout the country and get quoted in newspapers and on the news, and it can be (initially) quite financially lucrative for them as they seek donations to support the cause. These are usually people with no qualifications whatsoever, whom nobody would listen to or quote if they told us the sky was blue, but when they start spouting absurdities and embark on a national moral crusade about something they know nothing about they get immediately taken seriously by both believers and the media.

I would also point to the gradual loss of liberals/nominal Christians from the Church over time. 50 years or so ago, everyone in most of the Western world would have considered themselves 'Christian' even if they didn't really believe in God. The presence of people holding liberal / secular values in relatively large numbers within Christian organizations and churches and hierarchies served to keep a useful leash of sanity on the more overzealous members, by bringing alternate biblical interpretations to the table and advocating more thoughtful approaches, and an interpretation of Christianity more focused on loving one's neighbor, and simply providing padding to dampen down the over-zealous enthusiasm by preventing it getting too concentrated. I think over time this demographic has significantly diminished, with increasing numbers of people simply regarding themselves as atheist instead and no longer participating in Christian circles. Unfortunately this has increasingly led to the zealous fundamentalists achieving critical mass. As a result, a lot of churches have become less liberal and more evangelical and fundamentalist over time.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I'm old enough to recall when homosexual acts were illegal. Birth control and abortion were also illegal in Canada at the time. ~1969 was the change. It seemed at the time that same sex identification was considered a mental disorder. Terminology suggested the biological aspect of sex, ie reproduction, was key in the then understanding. The term "gay" had not come into use.

So my understanding is that it is far less demonized than in the past. Once the laws dropped legislation of personal morality (we're not yet done, eg recreational drug use), we have had to wait until a good number of people raised in those prior times either change their attitudes or die out. I am one of the former, though was more ignorant than had a clear opinion.

[ 10. November 2014, 21:44: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Medicalization of Homosexuality was initially a progressive strategy of the early 20th century to change the attitude toward Homosexuals from sinner or criminal to mentally ill. It actually led to marginally improved treatment; asylums instead of prisons, but it became a limit to progress. Eliminating the "medically ill" label was started by Evelyn Hooker in the mid 1950's.
So the religious sorts who had deferred to medical definition of homosexuality were left to figure out a new (or old) stance toward the Homosexuals. There's a parallel struggle in the Psychiatrists to decide how to accept this change of this status.

[ 11. November 2014, 00:46: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

I think the demonization is both much, much older and much. much deeper.

Christianity, after all, springs originally from Jewish roots, and we have the OT proclaiming (male) homosexuality an abomination. Why?

Well, first of all, we're dealing with a religious mindset that holds women generally (though with specific exceptions) as inferior beings who "count" religiously only when they give birth, particularly to male children.

Second, this religious mindset belongs to a relatively small, struggling (at least initially) group settled in a land "promised" to them by their God, and pretty much surrounded by other, hostile groups.

One way to hold on to "promised land' is to fight tooth and claw for it, for which valiant young soldiers are needed; another way is to out-populate your hostile neighbors, and preferably both. Those who fail to contribute to this enterprise are going to be seen as letting down their side. "We can't have people running about not begetting children! We need more manpower!"

So sexual behavior that fails to produce babies will be frowned upon, and (depending on current threat levels) demonized.

As for conevos (at least in the US, which is all I know about), don't these folks often see themselves much as the ancient Hebrews did -- that is, a folk determinedly clinging to spiritual and cultural survival surrounded by a world hostile to their beliefs, their intentions, the way of life they'd like us all to follow? Aren't they, like the ancients, outnumbered and under threat (or at least they see themselves in this predicament? Don't they also hope to outnumber the surrounding heathen, at least in part by having large families with lots of babies (and also proselytizing like crazy)?

And aren't homosexual men (in particular) seen as letting down their side in this baby-producing enterprise?

The reason all this hostility toward gays was much quieter pre-AIDS is that everybody was quieter about all our social ills back then -- racism, poverty sexism, etc.

And gay men get it in the neck more than lesbians for the simple biological reason that it takes minutes for men to be potentially "fruitful," while it takes the better part of a year for a woman to achieve the same result. In theory, anyway, a sperm-producer could impregnate several women per week. How dare he waste this precious resource which our community so desperately needs?

Really, I think we're too quick to ignore or dismiss the more primitive aspects of our simian underpinnings.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
1. I think the demonization is both much, much older and much. much deeper.

2. The reason all this hostility toward gays was much quieter pre-AIDS is that everybody was quieter about all our social ills back then -- racism, poverty sexism, etc.

1. This thread is moving towards equating "demonization towards" and "opposition against:" the two are not synonymous provided we recognise the freedom to hold divergent opinions and the flexibility to express them.

Opposition can go hand in hand with "demonization" - although few people would consider gay people to be possessed in the strictest definition of "demonization."

Opposition to (and often repugnance at) acts of gay sex has been common throughout history, in all cultures. Where gay relationships have been condoned in a culture (or even had a blind eye turned towards them), it's for considerably fewer years as when such things have been proscribed.

2. The opposition is much quieter now: it isn't the done thing in many circles (including churches) to admit to ambivalence (let alone opposition) to such things as SSB's. In the 1950's and through to the 90's the Police engaged "agent provocateurs" in public toilets to entrap gay men. It wasn't until 1967 that sex acts between consenting adults of the same sex, in private, was decriminalised. Until then getting caught, even in private, meant probation and for some a prison sentence. Attitude to gays and their activities varied with the Home Secretary of the day but at times could be febrile and near hysterical at the potential demise of society. .

Now the age of consent is the same as that for same sex relationships - which probably means 14 irl. There's been huge change in the last 10 years to the extent that many (who have genuine and well thought objections) are themselves marginalised and unable to express their concerns.

The % of people who self identify as gay is a moving number - 2% to 5% is the range. many more actively support or at least don't wish to discriminate. I'd say that there's a real victory here.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Opposition to (and often repugnance at) acts of gay sex has been common throughout history, in all cultures. Where gay relationships have been condoned in a culture (or even had a blind eye turned towards them), it's for considerably fewer years as when such things have been proscribed.

Not at all. The exact opposite is true.

Gay relationships have been celebrated or tolerated or ignored in most cultures in history. The significant exceptions are those cultures that have been directly influenced by Judaism/Christianity/Islam whose opposition to homosexuality can be traced back to the Levitical prohibition. That prohibition is unique in the sense that it is by far the most negative attitude to homosexuality found in any culture in history.

Unfortunately most cultures today have been significantly negatively influenced against homosexuality by either Christianity or Islam over the years, and so it can seem to the casual observer of the world in the 20th century as if no culture in the world was pro-gay. However, the accounts of early missionaries and anthropologists tells another story: In nearly every culture we find that the native peoples upon the arrival of the missionaries were observed (much to the disgust of the missionaries) to be practicing sodomy and seeing nothing wrong with it. That pattern seems to have been pretty much the same the world over, regardless of whether one looks at Africa, at South America, or New Zealand and the pacific islands.

Ironically, for example, the British pretext for their original invasion of Uganda was the presence and practice of sodomy there. Now that the noble British have rescued the heathen there from their traditional practices and values, the Ugandans seem to have learned the lesson of not tolerating gays rather well.

quote:
There's been huge change in the last 10 years to the extent that many (who have genuine and well thought objections) are themselves marginalised and unable to express their concerns.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think it might be very helpful to this discussion to clarify what demonisation means; also what Schroedinger's cat meant by the term in the OP.

I think it is a very slippery term. The online dictionary suggests two definitions;

1. to represent as diabolically evil
2. an expression of strong disapproval, pronouncing as wrong or morally culpable.

To give a different example; the uncompromising condemnation of racism might be described as demonising racism as diabolically evil. Personally, I have no difficulty in accepting the use of the term demonisation in that context. YMMV.

But I get pretty confused about the general definition hereabouts. The biblical conceptions treat the devil and demons as real creatures whose purpose is to deceive and destroy human beings. And sinning, giving in to temptations, by thought, word or deed, opens the way for the devil or demons to influence, or possess, the other person.

I think that was part of a common understanding about sin and evil; homosexual acts were seen as sinful, but then some words of Peter in Matthew 16 provoked "Get thee behind me Satan" and Satan is described as entering Judas prior to the betrayal. No sexual sins under consideration in either case.

In that sense, the biblical picture of the influence of the devil or demons as seen to be ubiquitous in the whole area of sin and temptation. From that point of view, homosexual acts were included in the whole. So far as sexual sin is concerned, fornication in general was seen as abominable, something to "flee".

IngoB has made similar points from the viewpoint of Catholicism, which declares the Tradition to be that sexual acts are allowed only within a monogamous heterosexual relationship. All else is sin. I don't agree with that, but I don't see it as specific demonisation of homosexuals or homosexual acts. Neither does he.

So I think the real issue is how, or whether, homosexuality and homosexual acts in the modern era seem to have been singled out for special condemnation. It certainly seems to me to be the case that some parts of the church have done precisely that, and some people in the church have.

So I think we may have to distinguish between the more general changes in understanding of human sexuality since biblical times and what I think may be a more modern "singling out for special attention". Maybe the word demonisation gets in the way of that?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

It is not that I do not see your point, B62, but that I think perspective changes depending upon where you stand.
The word may feel more appropriate to an LGBT from what they've experienced than to a straight person from what they observe.
Finding a term which is neither too harsh or too soft is difficult.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I get that, lilBuddha.

I've been on the receiving end of prejudiced offensiveness for being what I am (i.e. a working class Geordie), but I called it denigration. Reckoned it was their problem, not mine.

But then no bishop ever suggested I was "objectively disordered". Nor was scriptural or Traditional authority invoked. I can see that makes a difference.

But I'm still not sure that the term demonisation clarifies the nature of the offence-giving remarks, unless somebody flat out says "you are demonised" and says you need exorcism. I think it's loaded language.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I think the churches have gradually been able to absorb secular influences in terms of straight sexual behaviours because the Bible itself seems tolerant of many of these behaviours.

It's been much harder for them to do so with homosexuality, because the biblical precedent isn't there. Yet the process of secularisation continues apace, and is now focused on complete equality for gay people. I think it's this pressure that has created an angry backlash from some churches, and a quiet confusion in others.

The demographic shift also presents a problem. Most young Christians in the Anglophone West are attending evangelical churches, which means the strictest churches have a disproportionate burden in dealing with the issue from a practical (rather than an official) point of view. So the attention is on them.

(The CofE is a special case in being both a broad church and a state church, so the media can hardly ignore its noisy internal disagreements.)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I get that, lilBuddha.

I've been on the receiving end of prejudiced offensiveness for being what I am (i.e. a working class Geordie), but I called it denigration. Reckoned it was their problem, not mine.

Yes, but how many working class Geordies are beat up or murdered for being working class Geordies? Is their suicide rate frighteningly higher than working class Home County dwellers? I'm not sure your experience is comparable.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I recognised the differences of degree pretty clearly in my last post.

It is a fact that in UK history, people have died in class wars. Lots of them. But I don't minimise denigration, whichever group is on the receiving end. The differences of degree don't disguise the bitterness of the taste.

Like Solzhenitsyn said about another vile oppression, to taste the sea needs one gulp. Plenty of oppressive seas to drink from in human history.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I used "demonisation" because that seems to reflect the way it is dealt with. The point is that groups like Westboro make EVERYTHING about homosexuality. They are not the only ones with this approach, for whom homosexuality is the touchstone for orthodoxy.

I find in the UK, the conservative end of the evangelical spectrum also seems to take this as the core issue on which orthodoxy is determined - I hear less of the radical "All our ills are caused by the gays" approach, but I do hear ones attitude to them being used to ascertain whether you are "acceptable" or not.

And I do think this is new. It used to be the case that evangelicals - IME - were accepting of a broad range of views, with the primacy of the Bible as the touchstone of evangelicalism. These days, it seems that is it more a particular interpretation of the Bible, and of certain passages, that is core. I have problems with this, but I am just confused as to why this has happened.

I do think the AIDS issue was a major cause of raising the profile of gays. I know some people talked about it as the Gay Curse, but this was not - again, IME - widespread. Until more recently. It seems that the old DADT approach, which seemed to do people fine for some time, suddenly went.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But I'm still not sure that the term demonisation clarifies the nature of the offence-giving remarks, unless somebody flat out says "you are demonised" and says you need exorcism. I think it's loaded language.

Not necessarily an exorcism (though people do still perform them to cast out the "demon of homosexuality"). There's also the idea that gay people are, either deliberately or unwittingly, advancing Satan's agenda in this world by demanding equal rights and the law's protection. Accusing someone of doing Satan's work for him is also pretty demonizing.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Demonisation seems a reasonable description of the actions of the extreme right. A different term might apply to people who abuse gays because it's their tradition but don't apply a religious framing.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It is a fact that in UK history, people have died in class wars. Lots of them...

Is it? Which wars? I suppose you might call things like the Peasants' Revolt a class war, if you think it's big enough to be called a war at all, and perhaps even the Civil War (although if that was a class war it was surely a war between elite classes into which other people got dragged).

[ 11. November 2014, 20:30: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I used "demonisation" because that seems to reflect the way it is dealt with. The point is that groups like Westboro make EVERYTHING about homosexuality. They are not the only ones with this approach, for whom homosexuality is the touchstone for orthodoxy.

How many groups like Westboro are there, other than Westboro? Unless by "like Westboro" you just mean "they make everything about homosexuality" in which case you have merely stated a truism.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It is a fact that in UK history, people have died in class wars. Lots of them...
Is it? Which wars? I suppose you might call things like the Peasants' Revolt a class war, if you think it's big enough to be called a war at all, and perhaps even the Civil War (although if that was a class war it was surely a war between elite classes into which other people got dragged).

I would have said the civil war was a classic bourgeois revolution, to use Marxist terminology. It was about taking power from the nobility (exemplified in the divine right of kings espoused by Charles I) and putting it in the hands of the property owning middle class, like Cromwell.

In many ways the Jacobite rebellions could be said to be re-runs of this fight - with the old absolute Monarchy trying to overthrow the new bourgeois constitutional order. Likewise the American revolution was about cementing the power of the wealthy, educated middle class - hence why the electoral college and the senate of the new nation were to be appointed rather than directly elected.

[ 11. November 2014, 20:45: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Seems to me that one could make a case for the Industrial Revolution being a form of class war. The activities certainly killed a lot of the "lower class" while making the middle class better off and fabulously increasing the status and richness of the Upper. Sort of like today.

But there was definitely a callousness about safety conditions, etc., when it came to the mere people who worked (or became maimed and couldn't work. Hello, Tim Cratchit!)

But this was a war of attrition, not a pitched battle. That had to wait for WW1 which had the unfortunate effect of taking a lot of the toffs as well.

We haven't had a "real" war for a long time, hence the resurgence of low-key action against the scum - you know, the ones that terrified the Duke of Wellington.

"I don't know if they would terrify Napoleon, but, by Gad, sir, they terrify me"

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And yet, in years since then, is is homosexuality that has become the touchstone of conevo faith, the cause of all our woes, the biggest issue in the fundamentalist world. And I am left wondering exactly how we moved so far so quickly. Is it just that every other battle has been lost?

I was thinking about this a bit more... I think that because homosexuality has been the topic of 3-4 successive attempts at legislation (legalizing sex, civil unions, anti-discrimination provisions, marriage), the conevos have got the chance to get repeatedly worked up about variants of the same thing. Other moral issues get debated for a few years, the legislation gets passed, and then everyone learns to live with it and move on and over time the mutterings about it die out. Whereas successive legislation has kept homosexuality firmly on the political radar for a much lengthier period. In most Western countries, the time span between serious political debate about legalizing homosexual sex through to legalizing homosexual marriage has encompassed a lot of people's entire lives: It's always been there as an active political issue, with various waves of activity.

Also I think the perceived threat of anti-discrimination laws has served to ramp the hysteria and crazy up a notch. This has allowed a good deal of fearmongering in Christian circles, and the idea that the gays are out to 'get' Christians. It's been a bizarre case of the persecutors screaming that they're being persecuted and the bullies crying that they're being bullied. The existence of laws limiting how nasty people are allowed to be toward gays, have been creatively interpreted by some Christians as a deliberate persecution of Christians, which has allowed for fearmongering on a level that has not been possible on other moral issues.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Classism is real and extremely damaging. As a working-class LGBT person and an intersectional feminist who recognises the existence of the kyriarchy (intersecting spheres of oppression), Barnabas is right and (maybe unintentionally) in key with a lot of current intersectional feminist thought. Classism is oppression just like homophobia, and exists within LGBT circles too - just as homophobia exists in working-class circles. So a working-class LGBT person experiences an intersecting of oppression that people who only belong to one of those groups don't experience.

The term intersectional feminism was coined by black feminists who saw how mainstream feminism excluded black women, and that experiencing life as a black woman gave a different perspective on both racism and sexism.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

It wasn't unintentional, Pomona. Of course there isn't a perfect read across from any form of demeaning to any other. There are similarities and differences.

But thanks. You made my point for me. Demeaning tastes the same, no matter what form of prejudice gives rise to it.

Happy with the comments others have made about 'class wars'.

In the context of this thread, I did not intend the tangent! Sorry folks. I was simply trying to explore whether the term demonisation was particularly accurate or helpful. No intention to minimise or deny the suffering caused by demeaning and denigration, nor to draw inappropriate parallels.

[ 11. November 2014, 22:31: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would have said the civil war was a classic bourgeois revolution, to use Marxist terminology. It was about taking power from the nobility (exemplified in the divine right of kings espoused by Charles I) and putting it in the hands of the property owning middle class, like Cromwell.

In many ways the Jacobite rebellions could be said to be re-runs of this fight - with the old absolute Monarchy trying to overthrow the new bourgeois constitutional order. Likewise the American revolution was about cementing the power of the wealthy, educated middle class - hence why the electoral college and the senate of the new nation were to be appointed rather than directly elected.

Sorry, but I can't accept that. The higher nobility was supporting Cromwell both financially and politically. They were taking the opportunity to increase their power at the expense of the King. Those of the gentry who had benefitted from the distribution of church property also supported the Parliament, fearing Laud's attempts to boost the role of the Church and gather back much of the lost property. Then there was an odd mix of the urban middle classes and upper working class who were quite strongly Puritan. The Royalists were the lower nobility and those of the gentry who had not had that luck. Classic Marxist analysis sits ill with the facts.

As to the US - I would not call Washington, Jefferson or their ilk middle class.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

On the class thing, class is a lot more fuzzier and changeable than sexuality. A kid from the projects who attends law school and ends up in Congress has shot up the social ladder. Sure, their background is deprived, and that experience shapes them, but they've changed class.

A gay kid who makes the same journey is sill gay. Sexuality, like ethnicity & gender, transcends circumstance. Circumstance changes how it's experienced, no doubt, but the underlying sexuality is unchanged.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Folks who embrace classism, sexism, racism believe that the inferiority of birth continues, Byron. If people believe that homosexual orientation is a matter of birth, they may still believe that it makes the person inferior. If they believe homosexual acts are a matter of perverse choice, a turning against nature, somewhat different demeaning criteria are in play.

But if you are on the receiving end of the demeaning, the putting down, the distaste, it feels pretty much the same. You have been judged without any kind of trial. Any getting to know what you are really like. That hurts.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Of course, but there's no end of options to aid social mobility.

We can learn (customs and liberal arts), adapt our accent, move to a new city or country. Birth is where you're from, not where you're going. If someone attends a great school and has a career they love, honestly, how many others give a shit about their origins, or even know? Some WASP old money? Why'd anyone give a tinker's cuss for their opinion anyhow? Unless you're jonesing to join their country club, they're irrelevant.

Fixed aspects of us like sexuality or ethnicity are a whole other thing. A gay person can't change their orientation as a person can change their class, they can just pass as straight, with a ton of suppression and heartache. Yeah, putdowns feel the same, but the options ain't.

I adopt a general "screw you" attitude to assholes I don't know, so I realize this stuff bothers me a lot less than some others.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

As a bookend to that thought, it causes me to ask this question. What are the roots in human nature of this instinctive judging, this 'sizing up' of others?

Are they to be found in instinctive pack order behaviour? I think there is some drive to both find our place and improve our place in any perceived pecking order we sense in 'our pack'

There may be instinctive demeaning tendencies in all of us. So the issue of the historical roots of 'demonising' may take us back a very long way! But if so, it points towards a different kind of solution. We can in fact choose to recognise the intrinsic unfairness of behaviours rooted in social instincts. We can learn to do better.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

I ain't one to go into evo-psych over-much, but I guess it's just in-group/out-group behavior, an atavistic survival instinct. The out-group are strangers and can hurt me. I don't trust 'em til they show they're not a threat.

So we generalize and prejudge.

I totally agree we can learn to do better when we get wise to our instincts. Exactly my philosophy. It'd go easier if we stopped beating ourselves up over it. Took me a long time to accept that, yes, I'm prejudiced. We all are. Not our fault, we evolved that way. It's only bad if we know better and don't work to overcome it.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

That's a pretty healthy approach. I'm not sure it invalidates historical enquiry or consideration of evo-genetic roots, but, like you, I reckon we (including me) over-speculate about such things.

I think I now also see why Schroedinger's cat wanted this thread to stay in Purgatory. There are some general issues here which are a lot wider than the Dead Horse. Ostracism of homosexuals was perhaps just an example of a more general issue; the roots of that ostracising (demonising, denigrating, demeaning, whatever label you prefer).

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Of course, but there's no end of options to aid social mobility.

We can learn (customs and liberal arts), adapt our accent, move to a new city or country. Birth is where you're from, not where you're going. If someone attends a great school and has a career they love, honestly, how many others give a shit about their origins, or even know? Some WASP old money? Why'd anyone give a tinker's cuss for their opinion anyhow? Unless you're jonesing to join their country club, they're irrelevant.

Fixed aspects of us like sexuality or ethnicity are a whole other thing. A gay person can't change their orientation as a person can change their class, they can just pass as straight, with a ton of suppression and heartache. Yeah, putdowns feel the same, but the options ain't.

I adopt a general "screw you" attitude to assholes I don't know, so I realize this stuff bothers me a lot less than some others.

Actually, parental poverty (ie being born into poverty) affects a child more than where they go to school. It makes a huge difference.

Also class is not nearly so fluid everywhere.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Actually, parental poverty (ie being born into poverty) affects a child more than where they go to school. It makes a huge difference.

Also class is not nearly so fluid everywhere.

By "great school" I meant college, sorry if I wasn't clear. [Smile]

All kinds of factors affect our childhood development, including whether our parents divorce, whether we're picked on at school, our health, and so on. Sure poverty can be a major one, but if we've a loving, supportive family, it may not be the biggest issue.

And yeah, social mobility varies, but it's there, and if we can make it work, class is changeable. It's just a social construct in any case, a bunch of customs and perspectives we can alter. It isn't in any way fixed. Sexuality and ethnicity are.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I ain't one to go into evo-psych over-much, but I guess it's just in-group/out-group behavior, an atavistic survival instinct. The out-group are strangers and can hurt me. I don't trust 'em til they show they're not a threat.

I think it's even more stark than that. The out-group are the people against whom you can legitimately vent all your anger, violence and hatred. All of those violent reactions you feel because of your insecurity that maybe the in-group might not be the right group, you direct outwards at the out-group.

Bear in mind that in our culture at least, there was no such thing as "a homosexual" until the 1860s. There were sodomites, and there were women who did things we wouldn't even think, let alone discuss in polite company, but there were no homosexuals. "Homosexual" was a medical term (coined, interesingly, several years before the word "heterosexual"), and that was the moment at which homosexuals became a target for violence. Even English society had been remarkably tolerant of non-hetero sexual behaviour, but the mid 19th century was the turning point.

Neil Bartlett's book Who was that man? is a fascinating account of sexual behaviour in London around the time of Oscar Wilde's trials. Up to a few years earlier, he recounts stories of surprisingly liberal attitudes. But then the medical profession invented a whole class of person we could first be suspicious of, then identify (by "feminine features", or by homosexuals' notorious inability to whistle), and finally throw stones at with impunity.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Its also worth noting that people tend to lash out at something if they fear they themselves may be one of the 'others'.

In research just after WWII Alfred Kinsey found that 37% of men reported some sexual activity with another man; after the initial horror that was written off as 'well, lots of people were recently in the forces, serving overseas, far from home, etc' - you get the drift. Then in 1973 another anonymous survey still found 25% of men reported some sexual activity with another male.

In both cases 'french kissing' was included as sexual activity but if you strip out those who only did that then still a sizeable percentage of men reported some sexual activity with another male.

Perhaps more to the point: a few years back I asked the then teenage sons why the word 'gay' was used so perjoratively - trying to do my understanding but concerned parent bit. Once they'd stopped acting up they admitted that it was a herd thing and maybe because, deep down, all the boys were afraid of discovering they were gay. I think that sounds fairly reasonable, don't you?

We demonise what we fear, be it sharks, spiders, gays or aliens.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Yes, I think there's a lot in that. Can never understand why anyone's afraid of it, though.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
... All kinds of factors affect our childhood development, including whether our parents divorce, whether we're picked on at school, our health, and so on. Sure poverty can be a major one, but if we've a loving, supportive family, it may not be the biggest issue. ...

A loving supportive family can help, but there are limits. A loving supportive family cannot magically create money for college, just for starters. Love and support won't magically cancel out the effects of sub-standard housing or underfunded schools or poor nutrition or a lack of community amenities. Yes, some people will always say, "Oh, we managed without X because we had love" but the reality is they still didn't have X, and other people did. Love alone cannot fix the real harm done to real people by poverty.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
A loving supportive family can help, but there are limits. A loving supportive family cannot magically create money for college, just for starters. Love and support won't magically cancel out the effects of sub-standard housing or underfunded schools or poor nutrition or a lack of community amenities. Yes, some people will always say, "Oh, we managed without X because we had love" but the reality is they still didn't have X, and other people did. Love alone cannot fix the real harm done to real people by poverty.

Of course love doesn't conquer all, people need material support. Having that loving base, however, can be the first step to getting it, whether it's practical help in finding and accessing programs, scholarships etc, or just keeping spirits up.

Someone comfortably off financially, but in a miserable home situation, may well envy that. I'm not downplaying poverty at all, but other aspects of life are just as crucial.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

My sense is that the demonisation is driven by two main factors:

1) It used to be that we just didn't talk about such things. That allowed us to pretend they didn't exist (or at least weren't "normal") while conveniently ignoring that many married people (of both sexes) were having lovers on the side. Few people want to look much below the public facade of relationships.

When when we did starting talking about LGBT issues / relationships that made it seem like there was a sudden surge in activity: while making it legal may have allowed more people to feel comfortable having such relationships, the actual increase was probably rather small - they were just more public.

2) Focusing people on an external "evil" or threat has long been a way of consolidating power while diverting attention from local problems. It's much more attractive to demonise someone else rather than to look closely at our own faults. Righteous indignation is like tuna hotdish - a primary comfort food for many religions.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I used "demonisation" because that seems to reflect the way it is dealt with. The point is that groups like Westboro make EVERYTHING about homosexuality. They are not the only ones with this approach, for whom homosexuality is the touchstone for orthodoxy.
How many groups like Westboro are there, other than Westboro? Unless by "like Westboro" you just mean "they make everything about homosexuality" in which case you have merely stated a truism.

Probably a truism - there are other radically right-wing groups, usually small, but who don't get the same regular publicity that Westboro do, but occasionally get an article.

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

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Probably a truism - there are other radically right-wing groups, usually small, but who don't get the same regular publicity that Westboro do, but occasionally get an article.

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

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

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

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

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

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

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

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:

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

Alternatively, people could leave the churches whose teachings about the body they disapprove of and start up churches that teach what they really believe about how they should live. I'm not sure why this doesn't happen more often.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Alternatively, people could leave the churches whose teachings about the body they disapprove of and start up churches that teach what they really believe about how they should live. I'm not sure why this doesn't happen more often.

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

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

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

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Once upon a time people were more willing to start their own churches, though. That's the Protestant way.

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

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

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

SvitlanaV2:

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

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

John

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Hmmm. I'm more of the view that 'the Church' is a human creation. But what you've said explains to me why Christians in some denominations seem to argue endlessly over their differences rather than parting company in love and progressing without hindrance.

We have to do what we feel is best.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Yeah, I just can't get into the Anglo-Catholic mindset on this. Guys like Rowan Williams put unity above all, even though the Catholic Church has been emphatic that the Anglican church has broken away, and Anglican orders are null & void. If Williams et all respect Rome so much, why don't they listen to what the Vatican has to say?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Hmmm. I'm more of the view that 'the Church' is a human creation.

Matthew 16:18 prevents me from thinking this.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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

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

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

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

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

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Alternatively, people could leave the churches whose teachings about the body they disapprove of and start up churches that teach what they really believe about how they should live. I'm not sure why this doesn't happen more often.
I think it's because it's a big deal to up and leave. Churches are more than places where you go to be with people who believe the same as you. They're families. Leaving a family is a big decision.

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

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

Such wise words. Thank you. [Overused]

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

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

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
[QUOTE]Yeah, he was, but only 'cause unity matter so much to him that he was willing to abandon his LGBT friends and allies. In keeping the traditionalists onboard no matter the cost, he put unity above all. I could understand that if he was a member of the Catholic Church: I don't remotely understand it when he's a member of a relatively small protestant denomination.

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

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Interesting - I wonder whether the "unity" issue is somewhere behind this. Once you reject aiming for unity, you can become more extreme, and define who you reject, who you are not wanting to be in unity with.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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

Amen to all of that.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by arethosemyfeet

quote:
The unity of the church is a desire clearly expressed in scripture

Really? Where?

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

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

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by arethosemyfeet
quote:
The unity of the church is a desire clearly expressed in scripture
Really? Where?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
. The evangelical wing - of whom I am a part - has always considered scripture as paramount. While there has always been an "accepted" view of scripture, this has always been modifiable by further insights, by a clearer understanding of what the whole tenor of scripture is really saying.

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

The best place for 'searching, learning, exploring' and a view of scripture that has been 'modifiable by further insights' would surely be in more mainstream moderate Christianity rather than evangelicalism. I understood that evangelicalism was a little bit behind the more liberal mainstream expressions of Christianity in this respect, although I'm sure the distance between them is quite narrow in many environments.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Really? Where?

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

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

I'm not sure organisation or otherwise is the issue here - the Anglican communion and the churches that make it ARE organised, for good or ill. I think what Paul writes about division is pretty clear, but if you're not seeing that then presumably it's not as clear as I thought.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
From the inside, I know that we really did love you as you. I also know that we hurt and rejected you, and I am sorry for that.

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

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And I do think the love, care and tolerance of others - especially Others - is even more clearly expressed.

...

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

...

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

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

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

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

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

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

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

But the evangelical bent with its emphasis on The Word and living according to scripture can be clearly traced back through the centuries to puritanism - so why are people so surprised, shocked, amazed (whatever) at the judgmentalism on show at the moment about homosexuality.

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

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

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

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But the evangelical bent with its emphasis on The Word and living according to scripture can be clearly traced back through the centuries to puritanism - so why are people so surprised, shocked, amazed (whatever) at the judgmentalism on show at the moment about homosexuality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

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

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

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

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But the evangelical bent with its emphasis on The Word and living according to scripture can be clearly traced back through the centuries to puritanism - so why are people so surprised, shocked, amazed (whatever) at the judgmentalism on show at the moment about homosexuality.

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

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

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

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

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Oh, I get the "the Catholic Church is all Christians" position, no worries. But that position would hold that, if the Anglican Communion split, the church would be preserved.

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

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

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

Absolutely.

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

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

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

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Some Anglo-Catholics might like union with Rome and Constantinople - even if these 2 ancient Patriarchs are not in proper union at the moment. Others of us would be very happy with communion.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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

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

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

So what is this horribly insulting and denigrating statement they're talking about.

this.

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

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

Crœsos,

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

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Crœsos,

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

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

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

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

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

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Unity of Rome with Constantinople? In dreams!

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

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

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

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Unity of Rome with Constantinople? In dreams!

Or nightmares.

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

Constantinople hasn't forgotten 1204.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Byron:

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

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

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

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
CofE unity with Rome? Don't assume that all ACs see this as something to be wished for - we don't.

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

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
CofE unity with Rome? Don't assume that all ACs see this as something to be wished for - we don't.
Indeed - or at least not while it exercises the Petrine ministry as it does at present.

...or as it did until recently. I could happily exist in a RCC led by Pope Francis. But I fear his successor - who can't be many years off - might not continue that trajectory.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
[...] I could happily exist in a RCC led by Pope Francis. [...]

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Byron

[Overused]

x 10

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

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

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
[...] I could happily exist in a RCC led by Pope Francis. [...]
An organization that continues to exclude half the human race from ordination because of their gender.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Byron, is not a child conceived after a rape as much a child as one conceived in a loving marriage? Why traumatise a rape victim even more by having her undergo an abortion?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Byron, is not a child conceived after a rape as much a child as one conceived in a loving marriage? Why traumatise a rape victim even more by having her undergo an abortion?

Surely it is for the victim to decide whether the abortion or the birth would be more traumatic? (HINT: most think it's the latter)

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Yes, but if - if- you think of the foetus as in some sense a human being in its own right, it's not only the victim/ mother who has to be considered, is it? In fact, you might argue that since the foetus is not able to speak for itself, it deserves especial consideration and protection. But that all depends on whether or not you accept the intial premise about the status of the foetus.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

When you consider that two of the results of a "win" in certain types tribal (or other) warfare are the killing off of the males, and the raping of the women, to ensure that the losers stay lost.

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

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

Sure, but that's a different discussion. I was solely addressing the bizarre assertion that anyone was suggesting compelling rape victims to abort and that somehow the choice to have an abortion was necessarily more traumatic than giving birth to your rapist's baby.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

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

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

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

[brick wall]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Without espousing any of the views attributed to me by Horseman Bree, I adhere to my opinion that upon conception, and perhaps even before then, the foetus becomes a human and that to abort is to kill a human.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Without espousing any of the views attributed to me by Horseman Bree, I adhere to my opinion that upon conception, and perhaps even before then, the foetus becomes a human and that to abort is to kill a human.

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

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

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

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

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

What about protecting these pre-conception humans? All those people who are carrying sperm and ova around and just not breeding based on their own selfish pre-occupations. Surely *WE* need to make decisions to force them to breed to protect those pre-conception humans. Let's start with you.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Starlight, you appear unaware that conception is entirely different to fertilisation. A sperm penetrates an ovum - fertilisation may then occur. Conception may then happen some days after that, when the fertilised ovum becomes attached to the uterine wall via the placenta. Hence the word "conception" - a taking up. Not every fertilised ovum is conceived. For a full discussion of the process. I suggest that for a discussion of the physical process and the theological implications, you read Peter Carnley's book Reflections in Glass. Dr Carnley is a former Primate of Australia and was a co-chair of ARCIC.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Starlight, you appear unaware that conception is entirely different to fertilisation.

You're wrong. Most sources define "conception" as meaning "fertilisation". Granted, some sources say conception can refer to "either fertilisation or implantantion or both", and the word therefore does appear to have some level of ambiguity and flexibility. Your statement that "conception is entirely different to fertilisation" appears false however.

Obviously what you mean is that implantation is different to fertilization, which is obviously true. And you, like most anti-abortionists believe life begins at fertilization. And that's yet another reason I struggle to take the anti-abortion position seriously... since many fertilized eggs are naturally lost due to implantation failures, any human efforts to cause abortions appear to ultimately be a relatively small percentage of total abortions most of which occur naturally. If God gets his knickers in a twist over abortions, then it's bizarre he'd let so many ones occur naturally!

quote:
I suggest that for a discussion of the physical process and the theological implications, you read Peter Carnley's book Reflections in Glass.

A religious source for scientific data? [Roll Eyes]

Unfortunately anti-abortionists have developed a world-wide reputation for lying about matters of scientific fact. So frankly, I would place zero trust in any scientific statements I read in such a book... but his theological comments may well be interesting.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Starlight, I find your comment Unfortunately anti-abortionists have developed a world-wide reputation for lying about matters of scientific fact along with much else of your post personally offensive. Your post does not show any sign of having grasped the etymology of "conception" and its distinction to "fertilisation" - rather you refer to others who also fail to grasp the meaning of words which they use.

And a realisation of the distinction also recognises that many fertilised eggs fail to attach themselves. But I would not see that as abortion.

[ 22. November 2014, 02:17: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Well the AFA is labelled a hate group by the SPLC due to their "propagation of known falsehoods and demonizing propaganda". So I doubt they'd let little things like the truth or facts stand in their way of proclaiming how their powerful majority is being thoroughly persecuted.

And that's one of the things that gets to me. It doesn't matter if you're working hard to jail (or execute) gays, it doesn't matter if you claim gay people are demon possessed, or functional (or even literal) Nazis, that's not enough to get you thrown out of the evangelical movement. There seems to be literally nothing you can do in an anti-gay direction that will get you regarded as a fringe actor unworthy of inclusion in the movement. The one interesting exception seems to be Westboro Baptist Church, but I think that's in part because they've got that weird family cult vibe going and in part because it gives the other evangelicals someone to point to and say "at least we're not as bad as Westboro Baptist!" and feel good about themselves.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Starlight, I find your comment Unfortunately anti-abortionists have developed a world-wide reputation for lying about matters of scientific fact along with much else of your post personally offensive.

It was a statement (of the obvious) about the poor worldwide reputation of the anti-abortion movement, and a corresponding caution against naively believing scientific claims in Christian books. It baffles me how you can find it personally offensive - obviously you can't equate yourself with a worldwide movement nor the reputation thereof. I certainly wasn't accusing you personally of lying - you haven't made any claims about scientific fact in this thread that I've noticed.

quote:
Your post does not show any sign of having grasped the etymology of "conception" and its distinction to "fertilisation" - rather you refer to others who also fail to grasp the meaning of words which they use.

Try checking a dictionary. Seriously. Try checking several dictionaries.

It's a complete error on your part to think that the origin of a word necessarily bears any relationship to it's current meaning. How people in society use words changes over time and dictionaries get updated accordingly on a regular basis. You don't get to simply announce that a word means something different to the dictionary and then get to go around telling other people they're using it wrong.

quote:
And a realisation of the distinction also recognises that many fertilised eggs fail to attach themselves. But I would not see that as abortion.

Perhaps you can explain further what distinction you see here and why it is at all important?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Perhaps if you moved to argument rather than insult and invective, I could debate with you. In the meantime, no.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Starlight, I find your comment Unfortunately anti-abortionists have developed a world-wide reputation for lying about matters of scientific fact along with much else of your post personally offensive.
It was a statement (of the obvious) about the poor worldwide reputation of the anti-abortion movement, and a corresponding caution against naively believing scientific claims in Christian books.

Aren't all scientific claims to be treated on their merit, rather than the perceived reputation or perceived bias of their claimants?

I was brought up to understand that scientific claims by their nature are verifiable or falsifiable by checks on the working which underpins them.

Of course if you are arguing that claims which purport to be scientific may not pass these basic tests, I would agree. But that's what verification demonstrates, surely.

Personally I'm very careful about throwing out group smears about lying re scientific claims, or any other claims come to think of it.

Statement of personal position follows. I'm basically pro-choice, but I'm not at all comfortable about acts of abortion which have no concerns for either potential viability of the foetus (a moving target) or the developing sentience and sensitivy to pain of the foetus. I'm not sure these are issues we can afford to be careless or utilitarian about. Accurate information can inform personal choice. That's obviously different to using inaccurate information to manipulate choice. Let the chooser choose; let them know what it is they are choosing. What's wrong with that?

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Byron, is not a child conceived after a rape as much a child as one conceived in a loving marriage? Why traumatise a rape victim even more by having her undergo an abortion?

Are you arguing that an 11-year-old, raped and impregnated by her father, ought to be forced to conceive by force of law?

If not, then it's of course your prerogative to believe what you like.

If so, then enforcing the girl's choice isn't even a question. An embryo has no higher brain functions whatsoever. This is all based on potential life. The suffering of the girl far outweighs the embryo. A clearer case of necessity you'll never see.

Angloid, the ordinary and universal magisterium is held to be infallible. Those positions would, I believe, qualify, but I'm open to correction.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[...] Statement of personal position follows. I'm basically pro-choice, but I'm not at all comfortable about acts of abortion which have no concerns for either potential viability of the foetus (a moving target) or the developing sentience and sensitivy to pain of the foetus. I'm not sure these are issues we can afford to be careless or utilitarian about. Accurate information can inform personal choice. That's obviously different to using inaccurate information to manipulate choice. Let the chooser choose; let them know what it is they are choosing. What's wrong with that?

For me, it all depends on the trimester. Before the fetus develops higher brain functions, I see no ethical issues with abortion. Afterwards, it's not a potential person, but a person, and serious ethical issues are raised.

Interestingly, many traditional authorities recognized this intuitively, by fixing the quickening as the time that life began.

As for being pro-choice, my personal opinions aside, it's a question of a woman's control over her own body. If the fetus is viable, it should be delivered, not aborted, but beyond that the decision is rightfully the woman's.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Accurate information can inform personal choice. That's obviously different to using inaccurate information to manipulate choice. Let the chooser choose; let them know what it is they are choosing. What's wrong with that?

The problems occur when the information is false and inaccurate. I'm a scientist so I have a little pang of pain every time I see a person totally misinterpret the result of a study. But it gets personal for me when I see it happen in the homosexuality debate... Christian churches and circles seem to have become rumour-mills and breeding grounds for some of the silliest and malicious lies imaginable and they regularly mis-cite some sort of scientific backing for their ridiculous claims. And those lies harm people. The most sensible and rational person can end up doing awful things when they have ideas that are flat wrong. eg if they're convinced that gay men abuse children. Or if they really think that gay relationships don't last and gay people have no interest in commitment. Or these talks where basically every single factual claim made in them is false. And it makes me more angry when they fund deliberately fake science designed to 'prove' gay people make worse parents and then parrot it repeatedly (they screwed up on that one though majorly by trying to use it in court, as it got taken to pieces by the major professional scientific organisations, and the judge ended up telling them off for making up false science).

There's been a deliberate smear campaign over many decades done by many Christians around the world to demonize gay people. They misinterpret science and use facts that are false, and continue to do so even after they've been repeatedly alerted to the fact that it is false. As I mentioned to Croesus, the SPLC has designated quite a number of anti-gay Christian groups in the US as 'hate groups' due to their "propagation of known falsehoods and demonizing propaganda".

Yes, I believe in the importance of rational choice. And that is precisely what is sabotaged when people are fed lies. People can't make rational decisions when they've been lied to.

Unfortunately the homosexuality issue doesn't seem to be an isolated case. The creation-evolution debate has long been an issue where Christians get quite creative with their handling and interpretation of scientific data. That issue is easily ignored, of course, by Christians who accept evolution and who simply ignore the all the information the Creation Science people continue to put out.

And then we get to abortion, another case where Christians get creative with the truth. There is currently an ongoing case, where an anti-abortion group lied in a political campaign, was prosecuted for it and found guilty by a judge (because making false statements of fact about candidates was illegal). So they've sued to have the law ruled unconstitutional, demanding that they have the right to lie during political campaigns as part of 'free speech'. The fact that a 'Christian' anti-abortion group is suing to overturn a law prohibiting lying, kindof gives the game away...

And I find all these lies on all these topics all the more offensive because Christianity is supposed to be about truth.

[ 22. November 2014, 09:21: Message edited by: Starlight ]

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
[...] And I find all these lies on all these topics all the more offensive because Christianity is supposed to be about truth.

Yeah, that's a kicker for me, too. I guess the cognitive dissonance of saying, "God wants us to condemn people for having loving, supportive relationships that bring joy to them and those around them," is just too much. As their thinking goes, "The Bible/magisterium says that homosexuality is wrong. Ipso facto, it must be harmful."

Condemning something self-evidently good would trigger all kinds of questions about biblical authority and revelation, and for many, that's a leap too far.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Starlight

I get offended by lying and misrepresentation too. Basically because it's wrong. Also because it is damaging. I don't do guilt by association, though. Presumption of guilt simply because folks belong to an organisations whose aims and values I disagree with strikes me as a form of prejudice.

Which doesn't mean that I lack caution or common sense. Often enough you find folks who are pretty dimly aware of the values and ethics of organisations they belong to. Sometimes they can be rescued by being helped to discover what's going on. Hard to do that if you assume they are guilty, rather than deluded.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Starlight

I get offended by lying and misrepresentation too. Basically because it's wrong. Also because it is damaging. I don't do guilt by association, though. Presumption of guilt simply because folks belong to an organisations whose aims and values I disagree with strikes me as a form of prejudice.

In certain cases justified, though. At a certain point the "Boy Who Cried 'Wolf'" assessment has to be seriously considered. Groups like the aforementioned American Family Association have shown such a blatant disregard for the falsity of their claims their good faith can no longer be assumed. In part there's a certain practicality involved, since it takes a good deal of time and effort to subject their claims to scientific disproof whereas the claims themselves take only as much time to make as it does to invent them. In fact, bad faith actors like the AFA usually count on the fact that it's a lot easier to lie than it is to categorically disprove a lie. That disparity seems to be a vital part of their modus operandi and I see no reason why anyone should feel obligated to pretend the AFA is arguing in good faith.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Religious truth is subjective. Plenty of people walk away from religious groups or movements because they're no longer convinced of the truth being presented.

Most growing religious movements develop a pragmatic streak, because getting vast numbers of people across very many different societies and cultures to agree on matter of sexual (and other) morality is difficult. What's tolerated on the ground in one religious culture won't be tolerated in another, which makes it hard for sweeping official changes to be made that will satisfy all church members everywhere.

If the RCC were committed to truth above unity then it would have to agree to become a much smaller entity. Other religious movements have followed this route. They end up with much less power, and become almost invisible (unless they're good at courting the media). This obviously isn't the RC way.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

Humans naturally seek power and prestige. All this stuff about truth and unity, creeds and schisms, is just working out which approach will give the leaders the most power over their followers in a particular set of circumstances. This kind of "pragmatism" is hardly a streak, it's an integral part of humanity's social nature.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If the RCC were committed to truth above unity then it would have to agree to become a much smaller entity.

What does it mean to be "committed to truth" if, as you say,

quote:
Religious truth is subjective.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Starlight

I get offended by lying and misrepresentation too. Basically because it's wrong. Also because it is damaging. I don't do guilt by association, though. Presumption of guilt simply because folks belong to an organisations whose aims and values I disagree with strikes me as a form of prejudice.
In certain cases justified, though. At a certain point the "Boy Who Cried 'Wolf'" assessment has to be seriously considered. Groups like the aforementioned American Family Association have shown such a blatant disregard for the falsity of their claims their good faith can no longer be assumed. In part there's a certain practicality involved, since it takes a good deal of time and effort to subject their claims to scientific disproof whereas the claims themselves take only as much time to make as it does to invent them. In fact, bad faith actors like the AFA usually count on the fact that it's a lot easier to lie than it is to categorically disprove a lie. That disparity seems to be a vital part of their modus operandi and I see no reason why anyone should feel obligated to pretend the AFA is arguing in good faith.

That's fair enough. What the AFA argue (and for another illustration what the British National Party argue) is argued for them by official spokespersons. I have no problems in agreeing with arguments which say that their policies, aims and values are toxic.

So far as individual members are concerned, common sense would suggest that they do indeed share the views of spokespersons. I guess my approach with anyone I know who happened to be a member of an organisation which had (what I thought of) as toxic views would be to ask some questions. How did you come to join? What was the attraction? In short, I'd want to check it out. You may be right to observe that such a process is not necessary; association is enough. I guess I'm in favour of giving people a chance to explain themselves, as some kind of opener to explaining why my understanding is different, what bothers me about what they are saying.

I'm not suggesting my preferred way is better. It's my preferred approach and it mirrors the way I prefer to be treated if any of my associations give folks pause for thought.

On the other hand if anyone asked me what my views were about the AFA, or BNP, or similar, I'd have no hesitation in describing their policies and outlook as toxic, with reasons why.

I guess it is the difference between a general judgment (where I suspect you and I would be in major agreement about toxic organisations/policies) and a specific judgment about any individual, where I'd rather find out than assume.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If the RCC were committed to truth above unity then it would have to agree to become a much smaller entity.
What does it mean to be "committed to truth" if, as you say,

quote:
Religious truth is subjective.
?

Each religious group decides what its own truth is, based on its own experiences, be they spiritual, sociological, psychological, and so on. A group can be very committed to the truth that arises in this way. But it does so subjectively. The group doesn't attempt to analyse all the options available, and objective scientific methods aren't applied.

Well, this is how ISTM in my pew. Trained theological specialists may see things differently, but they don't attempt to convince the rest of us by the same means.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
As their thinking goes, "The Bible/magisterium says that homosexuality is wrong. Ipso facto, it must be harmful."

While I have issues with that logic, the real problem I have is when they go a couple of steps further than that. It's one thing for them to say to themselves "well I think it must be harmful because my religion teaches against it, but I don't know why it's harmful." It's quite another thing to actively allow and encourage every speaker and every crackpot with ideas about why it could be harmful to speak in Church and to propagate their ideas throughout Christian circles with no obstacles or checks. What I've seen happening is a situation of "Homosexuality must be harmful, therefore any claim anyone makes about how it is harmful must have some sort of validity and we should give a voice to and propagate such claims." Far from putting brakes on the extremists, Christians have given them a voice and funded them. As Croesus rightly pointed out:

quote:
There seems to be literally nothing you can do in an anti-gay direction that will get you regarded as a fringe actor unworthy of inclusion in the movement.

It's been a case of Christians playing Chinese-whispers about how awful gay people are. I'm sick of their lies, not least because Christians are supposed to be better than that.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Which doesn't mean that I lack caution or common sense. Often enough you find folks who are pretty dimly aware of the values and ethics of organisations they belong to. Sometimes they can be rescued by being helped to discover what's going on.

Precisely. That was why I posted a general warning about the sadly high frequency with which misrepresentation of scientific fact occur in anti-abortion literature, and a caution against naively believe what one reads in such literature.

Unfortunately I think a lot of Christians approach these subjects with a somewhat naive assumption that Christian literature is trustworthy on the whole as regards to scientific facts, since Christians are supposed to deal in truth. Unfortunately this isn't the case, and I think this problem can be traced back to evangelical culture where 'doubt' is generally discouraged and 'faith' encouraged, which doesn't lead to an environment in which critical thinking is particularly valued, meaning that on the whole Christians do not tend to be strongly encouraged to think critically, to question what they are told, or to check their sources, nor are they taught the skills for doing so.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Ah well, Starlight, the twin issues of naivety and loyalty (and their toxic consequences) are found in many walks of life, not just in religious communities.

Unfortunately, doing the hard work of thinking things through, working things out, is not so common these days. Pre-packaged solutions are a bit like fast food; less effort involved in obtaining them and using them!

Do you know this de Bono Q&A

"Question. Why do people think?
Answer. In order to stop thinking".

I heard de Bono explain this as a provocation! He was arguing that pre-packed conclusions were more popular because they simply involved memory and regurgitation, not the harder work of critical analysis.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Each religious group decides what its own truth is, based on its own experiences, be they spiritual, sociological, psychological, and so on. A group can be very committed to the truth that arises in this way. But it does so subjectively. The group doesn't attempt to analyse all the options available, and objective scientific methods aren't applied.

Well, this is how ISTM in my pew. Trained theological specialists may see things differently, but they don't attempt to convince the rest of us by the same means.

See, to me it makes no sense on these terms to say that the Catholic Church is more committed to unity than to truth. The Catholic Church stands fast on many unpopular beliefs, and loses members because of it. If anything I would say they are committed to truth at the expense of unity, rather than the other way around.

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I think this problem can be traced back to evangelical culture where 'doubt' is generally discouraged and 'faith' encouraged, which doesn't lead to an environment in which critical thinking is particularly valued, meaning that on the whole Christians do not tend to be strongly encouraged to think critically, to question what they are told, or to check their sources, nor are they taught the skills for doing so.

Or, as Frank Schaeffer said back when he was Franky Schaeffer and still an Evangelical, "Like soup in a bad restaurant, Christian brains are best left unstirred."

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
To me it makes no sense on these terms to say that the Catholic Church is more committed to unity than to truth. The Catholic Church stands fast on many unpopular beliefs, and loses members because of it. If anything I would say they are committed to truth at the expense of unity, rather than the other way around.

I see what you're saying. But the RC is mostly losing members in the West; in Africa the number is growing. This is what I meant when I said that the challenges are different in different places: the issues that alienate European Catholics may not be mirrored in all RC communities around the world.

Perhaps it sounds cynical, but it feels as if the Pope has to play a careful game. He has to court Western Catholics, who become more valuable as they decrease in number, while keeping on board Catholics from elsewhere. As I say, it seems that keeping the official line as it is but allowing for quiet tolerance on the ground is where things are.

It's an imperfect compromise, but maybe the Pope is going as far as he can at the moment.

[ 22. November 2014, 22:18: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I see what you're saying. But the RC is mostly losing members in the West; in Africa the number is growing.

But that can't be because they are changing their stand on truth, or de-emphasizing it, because they aren't. Whatever is causing that, it isn't their valuation of unity over truth.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

That Schaeffer quote is rather telling, mousethief.

I have a bookend to it which I heard from a good nonconformist friend. Can't vouch for its originality but this is what she said,

"What on earth or in heaven makes any of us think that we are required to leave our brains in our chapel hats when we hang them on the chapel hatstand?"

She wasn't much in favour of parroting or automatic thinking any more than I am. It's a kind of denial of personal responsibility to do either of those things. And I think that applies regardless of religious (or any other) community membership.

[ 23. November 2014, 06:08: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

An amusing postscript. After nodding agreement, I pulled her leg a little. "Shouldn't you be wearing your chapel hat in the chapel hall?" She laughed. "I refer all such criticisms to 1 Corinthians 11:15. That seems to cover the issue pretty well. If you think about it."

She became a church elder, of course.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I see what you're saying. But the RC is mostly losing members in the West; in Africa the number is growing.
But that can't be because they are changing their stand on truth, or de-emphasizing it, because they aren't. Whatever is causing that, it isn't their valuation of unity over truth.

But I imagine that priests in Africa are similar to priests in Europe; they'd both rather not cause irreparable offence to their congregations.

For example, regardless of what a bishop might say to the media I find it hard to believe that many RC priests in the average modern British town or city would risk standing up in church and preaching against SSM.

By contrast, in some countries it might be quite possible to express severe misgivings about this from the pulpit without damaging church unity and driving away a portion of your congregation. I'm sure there are other issues that the priests there would be more hesitant to expound upon.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm sure there are other issues that the priests there would be more hesitant to expound upon.

If nothing else a fair few would be at risk preaching respectful treatment of gay people.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Probably, yes.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Why THIS issue, and not some other?
Because it's always easier to denounce sins you're not inclined to commit yourself.

Freud thought otherwise.

I would attribute the vehemence of die-hards, especially in their declining numbers these days, to the fact that they are inclined to commit it but refuse to accept this in themselves. This hypothesis has been vindicated by the outing of various prominent homophobes.

More generally, I like the idea (which I first heard in a sermon by Bishop Spong) that powers-that-be, whether political or economic, enlist religious leaders for the role of impressing upon a populace that not even their most intimate and private thoughts and acts are exempt from exposure and control. Whatever behavior eludes their own means of surveillance is amply noted by the divine Spy in the Sky. By this means, they can effectively wield total power. By not essentially contributing to population growth, gay sex comes in for a double dose of such censure. The church does have an unfortunate reputation for dwelling on sex out of all proportion to the concerns of Christ and the biblical prophets.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Why THIS issue, and not some other?
Because it's always easier to denounce sins you're not inclined to commit yourself.
Freud thought otherwise.

As if Freud is always right. [Roll Eyes]

I think the answer is similar to this but not quite the same -- it's easier to denounce sins your congregation are not inclined to commit. I mean from the pulpit, of course.

We all know we need to be mad about sins (God says so), and it's hard to be mad at oneself (as even Paul admits). But we can be mad at those horrible gay people's sins. Which puts is in good with God, who wants us to abhor sin, but also keeps us from having to look at our own sins, which is uncomfortable as all hell. No pun intended.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Why THIS issue, and not some other?
Because it's always easier to denounce sins you're not inclined to commit yourself.
Freud thought otherwise.

I would attribute the vehemence of die-hards, especially in their declining numbers these days, to the fact that they are inclined to commit it but refuse to accept this in themselves. This hypothesis has been vindicated by the outing of various prominent homophobes.

Rubbish. By this logic the KKK are actually Black, Jewish homosexuals and the BMP are immigrants bent on destroying the UK.
I severely dislike this characterisation as it inhibits solving the real problems.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think that's a very literalistic view of projection - it doesn't mean that the KKK are black; but it might mean that some of them feel inferior, and project their inferiority.

On homophobia, it would be unwise to over-generalize, but there have been some experiments, showing that some homophobic men show a penile response to gay porn.

But you can't generalize that to all homophobes.

But you might think of a kind of sideways move also - that some Christians are obsessed with sex, and project some of that onto gays, who are fantasized as orgiastic phallus-worshippers. Yum yum.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I was meeting like for like, as far as I understand the general "homophobes are secretly gay" rhetoric.
Statistically some will be.
As far as projection, some will happen, but I think any single attribution misses the variation in reasons people vilify the "other".
Some of it will be a way of gaining power and control, of redirecting fear or blame. Much of it will be because that is what they were taught. Conditioning is a powerful force. And, IMO, one of the largest causes of the perseverance of homophobia, racism and the other hates.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

quote:

You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six, or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate;
You've got to be carefully taught!

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Quoth Quetz: But you might think of a kind of sideways move also - that some Christians are obsessed with sex, and project some of that onto gays, who are fantasized as orgiastic phallus-worshippers. Yum yum.

There is an element of regarding gays as not just lustful (as if straights weren't!) but also free to practise in greater measure than straights can. This leads to moralistic views ("Look how sinful they are"0 and also envy ("Why are they able to get so much?")

Which in turn leads to lots of preaching material, whether the preacher is Gay, straight or conflicted.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I was meeting like for like, as far as I understand the general "homophobes are secretly gay" rhetoric.
Statistically some will be.
As far as projection, some will happen, but I think any single attribution misses the variation in reasons people vilify the "other".
Some of it will be a way of gaining power and control, of redirecting fear or blame. Much of it will be because that is what they were taught. Conditioning is a powerful force. And, IMO, one of the largest causes of the perseverance of homophobia, racism and the other hates.

I agree with all that. Projection cannot be assumed automatically, although I think it's a factor in some people. It's an empirical question; you can tell quite quickly if a homophobic person is actually fascinated by gay sex - they keep talking about it, often in detail! Probably there is some envy here.

I would also relate homophobia to patriarchal ideology, which valorized the heterosexual couple, who were meant to produce lots of children. Men were also expected to be tough, to protect the family, to get food, and so on.

It's an interesting question as to why religions seem to have preserved such values in a kind of deep frozen form, while secular society has begun to thaw them out.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I was meeting like for like, as far as I understand the general "homophobes are secretly gay" rhetoric.
Statistically some will be.
As far as projection, some will happen, but I think any single attribution misses the variation in reasons people vilify the "other".
Some of it will be a way of gaining power and control, of redirecting fear or blame. Much of it will be because that is what they were taught. Conditioning is a powerful force. And, IMO, one of the largest causes of the perseverance of homophobia, racism and the other hates.
I agree with all that. Projection cannot be assumed automatically, although I think it's a factor in some people. It's an empirical question; you can tell quite quickly if a homophobic person is actually fascinated by gay sex - they keep talking about it, often in detail! Probably there is some envy here.

I would also relate homophobia to patriarchal ideology, which valorized the heterosexual couple, who were meant to produce lots of children. Men were also expected to be tough, to protect the family, to get food, and so on.

It's an interesting question as to why religions seem to have preserved such values in a kind of deep frozen form, while secular society has begun to thaw them out.

Because they turn societal values, which may shift, into decrees of God, which can't. "We don't do that" becomes "God will squish you if you do that."

[ 28. November 2014, 11:32: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Karl

Although you might still ask why humans wanted to turn societal values, which can be shifted, into eternal decrees?

I think humans always do this actually. For example, you see this with some secular ideas, such as Marxism, which itself became a kind of true-for-all-time and inviolable decree. Except it wasn't.

Also true for a short while of the 'end of history' nonsense, after the collapse of communism. Now, Western values (e.g. global capitalism) would reign forever. Well, maybe not.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I would also relate homophobia to patriarchal ideology, which valorized the heterosexual couple, who were meant to produce lots of children. Men were also expected to be tough, to protect the family, to get food, and so on.

It's an interesting question as to why religions seem to have preserved such values in a kind of deep frozen form, while secular society has begun to thaw them out.

Religions are conservative forces in some respects, especially as they start to age. It's noticeable that the most theologically liberal mainstream churches are often the most committed to traditional liturgies, music and hierarchical structures.

Regarding the heterosexual couple, ISTM that churches gain a demographic advantage by promoting that ideal rather than celebrating a plurality of family types. More stable heterosexual couples means more children, i.e. more potential members for the group. Considering that we're all so uneasy about evangelism these days the prioritisation of the straight Christian marriage with (the promise of) children is perhaps even more likely than would have been the case in the past.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Svitlana

Very interesting points. The idea of the couple producing lots of potential converts is a nice follow-on from the view of some anthropologists that lots of kids provided cheap (well, free) labour.

There is also the issue of primogeniture, which so much exercised Henry VIII; also, the issue of the male psyche, which was meant to be aggressive, tough and stoical, in fact, macho.

David Gilmore in his classic 'Manhood in the Making' argues that economic austerity accentuated these traits, and he did field research round the Med, where manhood was seen like this (and still is).

I was thinking also of Driscoll who seems to have regrafted such ideas onto Christian thinking. Jesus was not a pussy!

I suppose though that Islam demonstrates such traits today even more markedly.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

It's the Canadian sociologist Eric Kaufmann who proposes that the future will be more rather than less religious, largely for demographic reasons. Secularisation produces people who are tolerant (e.g. of gay couples and parents), but who basically produce fewer children than the most religious people do. Although European children have a high likelihood of abandoning the committed Christianity of their parents, having a larger family increases the chance that some of your children will enter the faith.

There are other studies which suggest that the religiosity of the father is highly influential upon the religiosity of the children, which is another reason for encouraging male spirituality in the heterosexual family sphere. In one sense patriarchy has been undermined in many churches by the creeping but unspoken assumption that christianising the family is the role of wives, mothers and grandmothers. Driscoll obviously sought to challenge that idea, but a few others have also done so in a slightly less controversial or newsworthy way.

Muslims will remain a minority religious group in the UK, but they have bigger families than the majority, often live together in areas where they can give each other cultural support, and have high rates of religious retention. As a result, one prediction sees practising Muslims outnumbering practising Christians by the 2030s. I think it's unlikely that British (or European) Muslims as a whole will feel the need to incorporate SSM until they're assailed by secular influences as Christians have been. These influences seems to be at a relatively low and rather individualised level in British Islam at present.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

And the whole Duggarville thing is specifically tied to enforced masculine leader-role, and women as brood-mares for the purpose of making lots of babies for the Church. "We don't care if no-one listens to our evangelisation; we're too busy making babies for Christ"

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

NZ colonial history offers an interesting look at what you mention, Svitlana. Until late in the 19th century men far outnumbered women in the colonial population (the proportion 6 to 1 suggests itself from my memory). Religion was not able to get a real foothold until this changed. Christianisation was definitely an artefact of having more women in the population, which led to more families and the structures that form around families.

I don't think the balance of women and men evened out properly until WWI, when so many men were killed. (I'm trying to remember lectures on the history of evangelism in NZ from over 10 years ago, so apologies if I am a bit vague.)

I suspect there was a great deal of covert homosexual activity in that period of NZ history, out in the bush where no one was looking.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I suspect there was a great deal of covert homosexual activity in that period of NZ history, out in the bush where no one was looking.

Or the old saying about NZ as the place where the men are men and the sheep are anxious. That adds a new dimension to a shepherd sleeping with his sheep.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
NZ colonial history offers an interesting look at what you mention, Svitlana. Until late in the 19th century men far outnumbered women in the colonial population (the proportion 6 to 1 suggests itself from my memory). Religion was not able to get a real foothold until this changed. Christianisation was definitely an artefact of having more women in the population, which led to more families and the structures that form around families.

That's interesting.

As I say, although we talk a lot about patriarchy in the church, we do tend to forget that churches tend to be dominated numerically and to some extent culturally by women. Uncomfortable questions could be asked about the role of women in making churches conservative places with relation to homosexuality or other issues. In NZ it was probably easier to be a gay man before the women arrived and 'morals' began to be policed more strictly?!

I have read that female churchgoers generally tend to be more accepting of (male) homosexuality than male ones, but not always. Apparently one factor concerns the supply of suitable male partners for the women.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Or the old saying about NZ as the place where the men are men and the sheep are anxious. That adds a new dimension to a shepherd sleeping with his sheep.

Not many sheep in those days - many men were employed to clear the land so that pasture could be developed.

Svitlana, I don't know if the women of those days would have even realised there was homosexual activity. Given the gender proportions, women had plenty of choice, and could push for marriage to a relatively well-off man. Compared to whichever "old country" they came from, most men were comparatively wealthy!

I had a great-aunt, a fearsome Wee Free Scotswoman, who came here on her own in her late teens, became the housekeeper of a large sheep station, and married the young man who owned his own carting and general store business (my great uncle Jack). She got behind him and they built up a large grocery and growing empire in the ensuing years. She was a formidable force in the local Presbyterian church, and I was dead scared of her (as were her grandchildren).

Going back to where I should be, there are a surprising number of formal photos of two men together in quite intimate positions - the kind of positions you'd normally see in photos today rather than back in the mid-Victorian era. I'm not talking about sexy photos, just portraits. NZ was definitely a much freer place than Europe, and I think it was probably that men were able to be away from the structures that kept them in their class and station.

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

In relation to the thread title...

This Christian Pastor in a cheerful Christmas message, suggests the demonisation of homosexuality comes from Leviticus, .... and the teachings of Leviticus are to be followed..

quote:
if you executed the homos like God recommends, you wouldn’t have all this AIDS running rampant.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

And there are 'Christians' in this country who would agree with him, which is the really scary bit.

Can we expect a statement denouncing this monstrousness from the Baptist Union anytime soon?

I won't hold my breath.

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

This is surely a case where free speech must not take priority over hate crime.

It seems to me that this incitement to hate and an encouragement to violence.

I thought the Baptists in the UK on the whole were liberal...

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

L'Organist, I'm just wondering why you are hoping for a denouncement from a different denomination in a different country, or are you hoping for a denouncement from all denominations in all other countries (which makes more sense, I suppose, although I agree I wouldn't hold my breath for that)?

M.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Ahh, the Pissing Preacher.

L'Organist, Anderson isn't a legit Baptist, but a 'Baptist' with a strip-mall church. I'm also puzzled as to why the BUGB should make any kind of statement - US Baptists and UK Baptists have been very different for a long time.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

Interesting role of Baptists in the formation of the US states and institutions. And in the civil war. Quite a rollercoaster over a 50 year period. I don't see how they could not have become different from the UK.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Sorry to confuse US 'Baptists' with UK Baptists - but then the UK 'Baptists' I've known belong to a church that labels itself as such but is not a member of the BUGB but has close links to US 'Baptist' churches.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
I thought the Baptists in the UK on the whole were liberal...

Unless you count 20% or so as "on the whole," then you're mistaken.

The Baptist Union of Great Britain has a conservative statement of faith backed up by a conservative praxis.

The man you mention is American and has no ties at all with BUGB.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Sorry to confuse US 'Baptists' with UK Baptists - but then the UK 'Baptists' I've known belong to a church that labels itself as such but is not a member of the BUGB but has close links to US 'Baptist' churches.

It's not an easy nor a happy confusion for us UK Baptists! However, as you've discovered, there are more Baptists in the UK than belong to BUGB. "Baptist" simply refers to form of Government and the practice of adult baptism - it doesn't recognise any specific generic affiliation. BUGB would be astonished that their views would be out into anything close to the OP.

WIW I've not come across similar views to the OP in many years - and I find myself in a range of evangelical circles both denominational and outside. Some of the Baptists you mention (Southern Baptists) would see me as a dangerous liberal (we have women in leadership!) while many in my own denomination see me as an uncompromising evangelical.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Why THIS issue, and not some other?
Because it's always easier to denounce sins you're not inclined to commit yourself.

Or those with which one struggles in private?

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

"Struggles in private": is it not likely that the people with the most insecurity about an issue shout the loudest to demonstrate their allegiance to that idea?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
"Struggles in private": is it not likely that the people with the most insecurity about an issue shout the loudest to demonstrate their allegiance to that idea?

Perhaps those who struggle with a perceived sin are either the ones who most vocally condemn it,m or else they are never drawn on the subject for fear of attracting attention.

When Jesus 'released' the woman taken in adultery some say that the reason he said 'let him who has no sin cast the first stone' was because each man was a sinner in that very same context and they were aggressive against their own guilt.

One theory about the present almost hysteria against sexual and child abuse could be that society as a whole feels its own guilt and complicity in it all - the sexualisation of children, etc though media, music and art - and thus it condemns it thoroughly with every individual, as if to make that individual a scapegoat. Jimmy Savile has suffered the condemnation for the sins of British society and not just his own.

We dare not admit our own guilt and so we heap all the punishment on someone else.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

Until fairly recently gay people were firmly in the closet, so most heterosexual Christians didn't know gay people as friends, family, co-workers or neighbours. LGBT people were "out there" far away from them, which made them easy to demonize from a safe distance. There were also no visible examples of healthy, openly LGBT people in monogamous relationships until fairly recently as well, so most people didn't have any counterexamples that showed that it wasn't necessarily a mental illness or a destructive "lifestyle". While many Christians may be uncomfortable and may rationalize away the Biblical judgments and prohibitions regarding divorce and remarriage due to having friends and family members who are in second marriages, it was much easier to think that homosexuality was fundamentally different.

Secondly, for most of history, homosexuality and heterosexuality weren't regarded as fixed sexual orientations. Many, including respected psychologists/psychiatrists of the 19th-20th century, believed that everyone was generally heterosexual and only embraced homosexuality in moments of lust, decadence, or mental illness or trauma, which are by definition either sinful or disordered. These beliefs were held among secular people who rejected religion, including leading scientists. Gay people were castrated, put into mental institutions, subjected to electro-shock therapy and brain surgery, and/or shot up with hormones and other drugs to "cure" them on the advice of medical, psychological and psychiatric professionals in the U.S., Canada and parts of Europe during the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. Homosexuality was only removed from the list of psychological disorders by the American Psychological Association in 1973, which isn't all that long ago. Total decriminalization occurred throughout the U.S. only 10 years ago.

I think even more importantly, homosexuality is uniquely threatening because it was something that had always been regarded as sinful, but is now being questioned. This growing doubt and uncertainty exists even within conservative Christian circles. If something that on the surface seems clearly condemned in Scripture (whether Scripture truly condemns it or not is debatable), turns out not to be sinful, what else could Christians have gotten wrong? Fundamentalisms rest on an all-or-nothing approach to a literal, surface reading of Scripture (or Church pronouncements) unless it clearly indicates otherwise, so any chink in armor may bring the whole thing down. To fundamentalists/evangelicals, either the Bible is "God-breathed", perfect in all its details and clearly understandable to everyone, or it has no value at all. Therefore, they must vigorously defend their beliefs in the face of growing questioning, doubt and uncertainty, especially from other believers. In their minds, all of their beliefs are being put on the line by this.

Finally, given the excessive focus on reducing gay men to nothing more than sex acts while ignoring lesbians altogether, I think there's a healthy amount of affront to patriarchy involved. Gay men aren't behaving like "real" men by allowing themselves to be the (passive) partner in sexual intercourse which is where women should be.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
"Struggles in private": is it not likely that the people with the most insecurity about an issue shout the loudest to demonstrate their allegiance to that idea?

No, fucking hell, NO! Despite notable examples, hate doesn't need self-guilt. And pretending it does, doesn't help in reducing it.
Focusing on a perceived issue allows for the generation of power. Those people are a problem is a rallying point, a distraction from real problems and a convenient measure which diminishes one's own sins.
ToujoursDan,
Terrific post, but a minor quibble. I do not think that the mentalfundie problem with gay men v. lesbians is purely the passivity issue. It is also that women matter less, are not as threatening and "lesbians" play into much male fantasy.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

ToujoursDan,

Excellent post. Two things I would add.

First, that fundamentalists always respond in such threatened ways on all issues. Because as you say, they convince themselves that if the bible is wrong about even one tiny thing then it is totally untrustworthy. However homosexuality isn't the first of these kind of issues, and it seems likely to not be the last. And the fundamentalist response once the dust is settled on these sort of issues is typically threefold: (1) Ignore any biblical passages mentioning the issue - avoid reading them and mentally skip over them if they come up. (2) If forced to focus on the passages, then reinterpret them, so they say anything else, in an attempt to reduce the cognitive dissonance. (3) Be completely ignorant of history and historical fundamentalist beliefs, so they will have no clue that Christian fundamentalists were ever on the wrong side of the issue, and will assume all Christians always believed exactly whatever they currently believe today.

I think the underlying reason for their excessive focus on the sex acts of gay men and their ignoring lesbians is because a certain number of them believe that what Christianity/the bible/God is really against is anal sex. For some reason a lot of Christians of ages 50+ seem to be utterly convinced that the bible bans anal sex. They are thus horrified when I point out that I know straight evangelical Christian couples that have anal sex. I was amused to see a Christian comments thread recently, where an anti-gay Christian suggested that it would be okay for two gay people who loved one another to live together like a marriage in order to give mutual support and not be lonely, as long as they refrained from anal sex. 100% of the anti-gay Christian respondents said basically "Great idea! I Never thought of that before." So it seems like anal sex really is their one and only problem. I guess it deserves a thread of it's own: Where did the demonisation of anal sex come from? And it would be interesting to ask those anti-anal people where they think it comes from (which I never have). My own speculation as to where it comes from is that the levitical ban on having sex with a man as with a woman is interpreted as penetrative sex only (indeed, in my observation a lot of the older generation don't even seem to know what non-penetrative sex is). Likewise the NT prohibitions in 1 Cor 6 were translated as "sodomy" in many biblical translations of a certain period. So I think that at a popular level, Christians believed that the bible was against "sodomy" and that society's anti-sodomy laws were biblically based. Interestingly, the word "sodomy" seems to have initially referred to both anal and oral sex. So I think a survey of Christians who are 70+ years old would likely find a widespread view that it is 'unbiblical' to have either anal or oral sex due to it being 'sodomy'. But the meaning of 'sodomy' seems to have changed in public consciousness over time, possibly I think to the rising popularity of oral sex among heterosexual couples. As a result I think a lot of people in the 40-70 age bracket would say that oral sex is fine and that 'sodomy' that the bible bans refers to anal sex only. What has subsequently happened is that anal sex has become a popular sexual practice for heterosexuals in the <40 age group in the same way that oral sex became popular for the generation before. So when the older generations say "gay people are awful because they have anal sex!" that doesn't come across as a meaningful statement to heterosexuals <40 who are having anal sex themselves or know friends that do.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

ToujoursDan

Really good to see you posting again after a short break; adding my appreciation of your post as well.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Actually the whole thing about focusing on penetrative (anal) sex between gay men and ignoring lesbians altogether is down to the drafting clerks in the House of Lords, who thought that legislating against lesbian acts would only publicise their possibility.

In fact it could be argued there is no age of consent for lesbians because it has never been illegal.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Actually the whole thing about focusing on penetrative (anal) sex between gay men and ignoring lesbians altogether is down to the drafting clerks in the House of Lords, who thought that legislating against lesbian acts would only publicise their possibility.

In fact it could be argued there is no age of consent for lesbians because it has never been illegal.

Your first paragraph induced a fit of giggling right off, then more imagining a book of law as a sex guide.

The second sobered me, though. There is one less risk, but the other cautions are just the same.
I think also that the lack of prohibition also stems from the lack of perceived damage of future property.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Just want to add my voice to the chorus thanking ToujoursDan, incisive & concise summary of why we are where we are.

[Overused]

Homophobia and patriarchy are conjoined, locked in a grotesque symbiosis, hate fueling hate. That foundation can't be cast aside, however much theologians dress it up.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

It's not actually true that there is no legal age of consent for lesbians in the UK. Lesbian sexual consent is legislated by the Sexual Offences Act (2003) and the age of consent is 16 as it is for all sexual acts.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

True Curiosity, but before the 2003 Act ???

As for people of a certain age having some visceral reaction to the idea of anal sex, I think you'll find its not only a generational thing but also depends on the gender and the class thing...

Put another way, there's always been plenty of interest and a fair bit of practice among chaps who've been at public school; and post school some have carried on doing it with chaps, others have sought to persuade wives of the delights...

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
True Curiosity, but before the 2003 Act ???

As for people of a certain age having some visceral reaction to the idea of anal sex,

Well if it becomes too common a practice then the passive partner ends up wearing a nappy to compensate for the loss of muscle tone. Oh, and in the worst cases, the chap will have to use some kind of tampax on a permanent basis. Not the sort of stuff they teach in year 6 sex ed. Best avoided methinks - after all, the muscles THERE are meant for pushing out, not drawing in, not to say the dangers of infection from certain waste products.

[ 31. December 2014, 18:04: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
True Curiosity, but before the 2003 Act ???

As for people of a certain age having some visceral reaction to the idea of anal sex,
Well if it becomes too common a practice then the passive partner ends up wearing a nappy to compensate for the loss of muscle tone. Oh, and in the worst cases, the chap will have to use some kind of tampax on a permanent basis. Not the sort of stuff they teach in year 6 sex ed. Best avoided methinks - after all, the muscles THERE are meant for pushing out, not drawing in, not to say the dangers of infection from certain waste products.

Can you find some research that backs the assertion that anal sex leads to the loss of muscle tone? The only paper I could find was of a case of a woman whose male partner had been drunk and forced various sexual acts on her against her will.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
True Curiosity, but before the 2003 Act ???

As for people of a certain age having some visceral reaction to the idea of anal sex,
Well if it becomes too common a practice then the passive partner ends up wearing a nappy to compensate for the loss of muscle tone. Oh, and in the worst cases, the chap will have to use some kind of tampax on a permanent basis. Not the sort of stuff they teach in year 6 sex ed. Best avoided methinks - after all, the muscles THERE are meant for pushing out, not drawing in, not to say the dangers of infection from certain waste products.

Yet it seems that conservative evangelicals are experts in these problems and bring them up at every opportunity. If they really were as likely as you claim do you not think there would be some sort of public health advice about these alleged risks? The NHS website is full of advice about safe sex, STIs etc. but seems strangely silent about these apparently common dangers. Are you sure it's not just your homophobia showing?

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

The President of Rwanda is apparently an expert on anal and oral sex:

quote:
"The sexual organs of human beings are highly specialized," Museveni said according to BuzzFeed. "Because that part is not for that purpose, it creates very unhealthy repercussions … the intestines come out — this is terrible!"

Then Museveni went on to warn about the "other terrible things" involved in the so-called homosexual lifestyle, including this gem: "Oral sex is an idiocy," he said. "The mouth is for eating."

http://www.advocate.com/world/2014/04/01/watch-ugandan-president-leads-5-hour-parade-celebrating-jail-gays-law

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Well if it becomes too common a practice then the passive partner ends up wearing a nappy to compensate for the loss of muscle tone. Oh, and in the worst cases, the chap will have to use some kind of tampax on a permanent basis. ...

This may be news to some, but the purpose of butt plugs is NOT for sealing one's butt so nothing leaks out.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
True Curiosity, but before the 2003 Act ???

As for people of a certain age having some visceral reaction to the idea of anal sex,
Well if it becomes too common a practice then the passive partner ends up wearing a nappy to compensate for the loss of muscle tone. Oh, and in the worst cases, the chap will have to use some kind of tampax on a permanent basis. Not the sort of stuff they teach in year 6 sex ed. Best avoided methinks - after all, the muscles THERE are meant for pushing out, not drawing in, not to say the dangers of infection from certain waste products.

Hahahahahahaha!
Did you know that people with anti-gay beliefs have their brains slowly liquify and ooze out there ears? I'm guessing you didn't because its a false statement with zero basis in empirical fact - just like your one. Unfortunately conservatives seem to like to parrot anti-gay lies without fact checking them. Another common one is the claim that the lining of the anus is one cell thick (spoiler alert: it's not).

In actual fact, bodily muscles are strengthened by regular use. That is why exercising makes people stronger and fitter and not weaker and decrepit. As a result, regular anal sex will naturally strengthen the muscles involved, and can subsequently help prevent some degenerative conditions later in life, such as anal prolapse where loss of muscle tone becomes a significant problem.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
What has subsequently happened is that anal sex has become a popular sexual practice for heterosexuals in the <40 age group in the same way that oral sex became popular for the generation before. So when the older generations say "gay people are awful because they have anal sex!" that doesn't come across as a meaningful statement to heterosexuals <40 who are having anal sex themselves or know friends that do.

Any evidence for that and especially the bit about knowing friends who do? We must live in a very different society, because I would never have thought of discussing our sexual practices with even the closest friends.

60 years and so ago, there used be stories that young fellows on the northern beaches here practised sodomy with their girlfriends. In those far-off days, oral contraception was not commonly available and purchasing condoms not as easy as now. Far lower risk of pregnancy. But how much truth there was in the stories was never known then and impossible to find now.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The statistic I found when I was checking out Exclamation Mark's comment was that 1 in 4 heterosexual men and women have experienced anal sex 10% regularly take part in anal sex.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Any evidence for that and especially the bit about knowing friends who do? We must live in a very different society, because I would never have thought of discussing our sexual practices with even the closest friends.

Depends which friends, for me. Some of our friends have no concept of too much information and will talk about almost anything. But then one of those friends did their final year art work entirely on representations of vaginas and was recently shouting from the rooftops about how excited she was about getting her nipples pierced. She may be exceptional in this regard but I think she's the extreme end of a continuum rather than an aberration.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Someone like that would be a real aberration in our part of the world.

Cuiosity Killed: to me a statement that In fact, research suggests that only about 10% of women and men have had anal sex in the past year does not mean 10% regularly take part in it. Perhaps quite a few of the quarter who have tried it and not continued the practice are in that 10%. And for how many of the others has it been a regular or common practice. Very hard to say from such limited detail.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Any evidence for that and especially the bit about knowing friends who do? We must live in a very different society, because I would never have thought of discussing our sexual practices with even the closest friends.

A few links to articles discussing various recent survey findings showing the increasing popularity of anal sex among relatively young demographics: Here, and here, and here. One of those three is from the CDC, so it's an official US government statistic that anal sex is increasing in popularity!

My friends don't discuss sex much, I only know they do anal from a couple of throwaway comments made in passing, and on another occasion the awkwardly painful looks that were exchanged when one of their younger brothers loudly exclaimed in their presence how disgusting he imagined the thought of anal sex to be. However various radio stations and university student newspapers aren't above discussing favourite sex positions etc on a semi-regular basis.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
True Curiosity, but before the 2003 Act ???

As for people of a certain age having some visceral reaction to the idea of anal sex,
Well if it becomes too common a practice then the passive partner ends up wearing a nappy to compensate for the loss of muscle tone. Oh, and in the worst cases, the chap will have to use some kind of tampax on a permanent basis. Not the sort of stuff they teach in year 6 sex ed. Best avoided methinks - after all, the muscles THERE are meant for pushing out, not drawing in, not to say the dangers of infection from certain waste products.
Hahahahahahaha!
Did you know that people with anti-gay beliefs have their brains slowly liquify and ooze out there ears? I'm guessing you didn't because its a false statement with zero basis in empirical fact - just like your one. Unfortunately conservatives seem to like to parrot anti-gay lies without fact checking them. Another common one is the claim that the lining of the anus is one cell thick (spoiler alert: it's not).

In actual fact, bodily muscles are strengthened by regular use. That is why exercising makes people stronger and fitter and not weaker and decrepit. As a result, regular anal sex will naturally strengthen the muscles involved, and can subsequently help prevent some degenerative conditions later in life, such as anal prolapse where loss of muscle tone becomes a significant problem.

Well your ideas are clearly news to a few people in this neck of the woods: anecdotal it may be but it's true just the same. I'd be interested to see the empirical evidence for the claims in your last paragraph.

I do agree with you on one thing: the lining of the anus is more than one cell thick.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
anecdotal it may be but it's true just the same.

Let's be clear: The idea that large numbers of gay people need to wear nappies due to too much anal, is absolute and utter BS. It was an idiotic claim made up by someone who had absolutely no idea what they were talking about, and gets repeated from time to time.

There are plenty of gay people who have had anal sex on a daily basis for decades, and definitely still don't need nappies. I've met and chatted to numerous older gay men, and have listened to amusingly awkward conversations where they discussed erectile dysfunction drugs. But there were still no nappies. The only times I've ever heard gay people mention nappies is when a retired gay guy was making jokes mocking the false rumours that gay people need nappies.

I think what propagates the rumour is that there are some medical conditions that people can have which do require nappies. So ignorant and naive people make the false assumption that anal sex might be a contributing cause of those medical conditions, when actually nothing could be further from the truth.

quote:
I'd be interested to see the empirical evidence for the claims in your last paragraph.

I'm a little confused as to which parts you want empirical proof of, because it's all pretty obvious stuff:

"In actual fact, bodily muscles are strengthened by regular use."
Duh? Do I need to give proof that exercising makes people stronger???

"That is why exercising makes people stronger and fitter and not weaker and decrepit."
Duh?

"As a result, regular anal sex will naturally strengthen the muscles involved,"
This is a logical consequence of the observation that exercise strengthens muscles. There is certainly plenty of people on the internet who report observing that their partner's anal muscles became visibly more tight and toned over time as a result of anal sex. Though I giggle at the thought of a scientific study trying to quantitatively measure increases in anal muscle tone resulting from anal sex. But since we presumably agree that sex uses muscles, and since we presumably agree that using muscles strengthens them... so I'm somewhat confused as to why we apparently can't simply agree that having sex strengthens muscles?

"and can subsequently help prevent some degenerative conditions later in life, such as anal prolapse where loss of muscle tone becomes a significant problem."
See here for a general discussion of how incontinence can result from a loss of muscle tone and general recommendations to do exercises to strengthen the muscle tone. And see here for a medical explanation about exercising the anal sphincter and how that helps people suffering from fecal incontinence.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thank you for those links. As you say, the CDA is the only reliable one of them, but it is still far from saying that anal sex has anal sex has become a popular sexual practice for heterosexuals in the <40 age group. The most you can say is that the proportion of those reporting at least one experience of it has increased, but there is no indication that many include it in their normal repertoire.

Apologies to hosts for continuing this tangent. Now back to nappy-wearing.

[ 01. January 2015, 09:37: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

This will probably gross some of you out, but...

Look, the idea that penis-in-anus sex makes you end up wearing nappies is utterly, utterly absurd. If anything is going to do it, it's fisting - inserting a whole hand and forearm.

But even with that - which based on pictures I've seen can cause a change in visual appearance of the anus - I've not heard of people ending up in nappies. It is in any case a far rarer activity which relatively few people, gay or straight, engage.

In fact, a bit of googling showed me that when a republican adviser made the nappies (or diapers) claim a couple of months ago, and was challenged to provide any evidence, the only fragment of material he could find related to fisting, and even that seems to have been an assertion rather than a scientific study.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The President of Rwanda is apparently an expert on anal and oral sex:

quote:
"The sexual organs of human beings are highly specialized," Museveni said according to BuzzFeed. "Because that part is not for that purpose, it creates very unhealthy repercussions … the intestines come out — this is terrible!"

Then Museveni went on to warn about the "other terrible things" involved in the so-called homosexual lifestyle, including this gem: "Oral sex is an idiocy," he said. "The mouth is for eating."

http://www.advocate.com/world/2014/04/01/watch-ugandan-president-leads-5-hour-parade-celebrating-jail-gays-law

[pedant alert]

As suggested in the URL, Museveni is NOT the President of Rwanda. Paul Kagame may have his faults but, as far as I am aware, making asinine homophobic comments is not one of them.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In fact, a bit of googling showed me that when a republican adviser made the nappies (or diapers) claim a couple of months ago, and was challenged to provide any evidence, the only fragment of material he could find related to fisting, and even that seems to have been an assertion rather than a scientific study.

There's been two different cases of it in the US fairly recently.

This guy claimed on his facebook page that gay sex causes a need for diapers, and people generally responded with "?!?!??!?!??!??! Evidence please?!" and then subsequently mocked him when zero evidence was forthcoming. As you say, he eventually mustered up a link to the Family Research Council (an anti-gay hate-group, whom shouldn't be believed on any subject) which made the unevidenced assertion that fisting causes damage. (For the unenlightened: Fisting is an extremely rare practice in which a person's entire hand is inserted into another person's anus. It's always struck me as sounding unpleasant and dangerous, although I've heard of surprisingly few negative medical consequences resulting from it. People on the internet seem to attest that it results in strengthening the muscles involved, and the dangers appear to be more along the lines of sharp fingernails rather than having to do with large objects.)

Similar also is Gordon Klingenschmit, who's just been elected in Colorado, who thinks: gay people are demonically possessed, thinks teaching children about gay marriage is like mentally raping them, and is convinced gay men will make poor soldiers because they'll have to "pause on the battlefield to change their diapers". He also apparently thinks Obama is possessed by demonic spirits of paganism and death, and that Obama is, of course, homosexual.

On the whole gay people tend to respond by laughing at this sort of stuff and simply mocking it. But I've found a surprising number of conservatives seem to believe the claims about anal sex being physically damaging - despite them not generally believing other claims being spouted by the same people. So I now make it a point to point out that it's false whenever I see it, rather than merely laughing at it.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I am glad to hear that there is no need to wear nappies after anal sex - think of the landfill problems which would otherwise caused by all these extra gays that we keep being told about by the Phelpses and their ilk - including this new representative.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'd be interested to see the empirical evidence for the claims in your last paragraph.

I think both claims are unevidenced and wishful thinking. Actually the latter claim is probably more accurately called wishful, the former claim had legs because people liked the idea of gay sex being harmful, which is probably more accurately called spiteful thinking rather than wishful thinking.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Accepting (I emphasize arguendo) that doing it up the ass lands you in diapers, so what? It has no ethical bearing whatsoever on homosexuality; it's merely practical advice to avoid anal sex.

Presumably ExclamationMark would recommend that taking the back door be replaced by fellatio and handjobs? If not, why not?

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Presumably ExclamationMark would recommend that taking the back door be replaced by fellatio and handjobs? If not, why not?

Because he's anti-gay and the made-up 'dangers' of anal sex are an excuse not a reason? (I thought I'd answer your rheterical question. [Biased]

)

I think there's also a widespread misconception, especially among conservatives about how universal anal sex is among gay couples. A statistic I've seen floating around is that one third of gay couples never do anal. Not sure how scientifically backed that statistic is though, but it sounds plausible to me.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Yes, the anal sex obsession's bizarre. Even "open" evangelicals have started ranting about the dangers of "sodomy."

They seem curiously uninterested in the dangers of cunnilingus and 69ing. Either lesbians don't concern them, or they're not about to condemn their own DVD rack ...

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
A statistic I've seen floating around is that one third of gay couples never do anal. Not sure how scientifically backed that statistic is though, but it sounds plausible to me.

At some point I saw a survey in an Australian gay magazine that backed this up (or maybe it was even the original source?). It was roughly 1 in 3 do it a lot, 1 in 3 do it sometimes, and 1 in 3 do it rarely or never.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Of course it was a news item a couple of years back that evangelical girls were having anal sex so they could remain virgins for their wedding night. The following link, a novelty song by Garfunkel & Oates, is NOT SAFE FOR WORK.

The Loophole

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I am now hooked on Garfunkel & Oates, clicking on all their videos.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I am now hooked on Garfunkel & Oates, clicking on all their videos.

Word.

Posted by St. Stephen the Stoned (# 9841) on :

Thinking outside the box. I never knew it meant that.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

I assumed that fisting was more common than Starlight states, but maybe that's just vaginal fisting. Vaginal fisting is relatively common amongst gay/bi women, but given that the average woman's fist is much smaller than the average newborn's head, it doesn't do damage if done properly - and vaginal muscles work differently anyway.

Certainly, anal sex is not just a gay thing and it's not like female porn stars who regularly have anal sex as part of their work end up in nappies.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The homophobes define homosexuality by anal sex.

Does that mean that gays who never have anal sex are not, by definition, 'homosexual'?

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Does that mean that straights who use the back door are gay, despite being of different genders?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I'm hesitating to tread on this path to be honest because I know the heat is more evident than the light.

My intent is to be objective, questioning, conciliatory and thoughtful.

My basic premise is that if we take for granted that the Levitical laws were actually given by God then there is a reason behind them (whether we agree with that reasoning today, or not).

Why prohibit the consumption of shell fish?
Why prohibit the murder of your enemy?
Why prohibit sheeping with a woman during her cycle?
Why (famously) prohibit the mixture of fibres?
Why the prohibition of cooking a goat in its milk? (or something like that anyway)
Why no tattoos 'for the dead'?
Why the prohibition against drinking blood?
Why circumcise on the 8th day? (as opposed to the 7th or 9th)

Whether we agree that these rules have relevance today or not, we can possibly agree that there was some rationale behind them at the time.

Maybe it's food hygiene - oysters in a desert might not be a good thing as far as food poisoning is concerned.
Maybe it's physiological - I'm sure I read somewhere that after the 8th day the clotting agent in a baby's blood is at the optimum for the healing of circumcision.
Maybe it's common civil order - murdering your mother in law isn't going to keep the peace between families is it!?
Maybe it's religious - God (priests) wanted the Israelites to copy nothing from other religions that would hint at syncretism - that might include tattoos for funeral practices, cooking goats a la pagan sacrificial culinary norms, and might even cover mixed fibres because that was the fashion for pagan priests (I have no idea).

My point therefore is that all the Laws and prohibitions were 'for their own good' but some were simply to say 'You are different - don't copy the cultural practices of the various 'ites' in Canaan.

Which might lead us to suggest that some of them, in and of themselves, are not particulalrly evil, wicked or disgusting, it's just that God is saying, 'Let them Jebusites get on with their lifestyle, I have called you to be holy (i.e. 'different')

My only illustration is the drinking of alcohol. There is nothing in the Bible against wine, etc, (even though drunkenness is frowned upon) but we in The Salvation Army feel we are called to be teetotal; not because alcohol is evil or other Christians are sinful, but simply because we are asked by God to be different, 'other', alternative.

Now, when God (or the priests) says things about same sex activity, from what I can see (and recognising entirely that the Bible seems not to recognise orientation or stuff like that) he is only talking about sodomy. It is an abomination to lie with a man as with a woman. Nothing about any other activity - manual or oral; it's all intercourse.

What might be the bronze age reason for that?
Health?
Civil order?
Just to be 'different' from the surrounding tribes who did it a lot when they worshipped their fertility gods?

I have no idea.
I would be very interested to see what the 'why' of the sodomy prohibition would be in the context of the other prohibitions.

Finally, I would be very interested to find out what the original Hebraic words are that the KJV translates as 'detestable' or abomination'.

If I were to say that strawberry jam is detestable or that Manchester United are an abomination, that seems a bit OTT to describe them as such. Maybe the KJV and other versions subsequently, have used these loaded words to translate words that were not so utterly 'disgusted' with the behaviour.

For example, might we use the word 'taboo' instead of 'abomination' which carries with it a suggestion that there is less of a value judgment on the activity, but merely an instruction to Jews not to take part because 'whatever the rights or wrongs of sodomy, it ain't for you lot because you're different'?

Just a few ramblings really, trying to work out whether there is a reason for the same sex prohibition that goes beyond the 'ick' (for some) factor) and which may or may not still apply today. And if it does not apply today, trying to work out how to express the original prohibition in a way, and in language, that doesn't damage the text's overall integrity but allows for thoughtful application of principle rather than specifics.

What do you reckon?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I must apologise, Mudfrog. I'll admit I saw your name as the last poster, though "here we go" and was waiting all through your post for you to stick the knife in. Thanks for a thoughtful and considered post.

My understanding is that the word translated as "abomination" has connotations of ritual uncleanness, but IANAHS (Hebrew Scholar).

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I must apologise, Mudfrog. I'll admit I saw your name as the last poster, though "here we go" and was waiting all through your post for you to stick the knife in. Thanks for a thoughtful and considered post.

My understanding is that the word translated as "abomination" has connotations of ritual uncleanness, but IANAHS (Hebrew Scholar).

Too kind. Maybe I have set myself up for such reactions. My opinions are often far more nuanced than might sometimes appear.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Yes, it was a reasoned and thoughtful post. It highlights some things to me. One is that the bible is highly contextual and not simply read and declare which, IME, is what many anti-LGBT do.
Another is that more of it is temporal than oft accepted.
One passage that I've used to highlight the inconsistency between what the bible says and what contemporary Christians do, is the one about killing your disobedient children. In looking it up, I ran into this piece. which claims the injunction is more a plea for leniency than a cry for blood.
Not that I do not still take issue, but it does highlight the need to look at context and maybe, just maybe, consider how soft the stone in which it was written truly is.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

To my musings I would add, what would happen if we discovered that the reason for the sodomy prohibition was reasonable in the bronze age - as we might surely suspect it might be, along with the others - and found that the underlying principle was still sound and valid?

At the very most in that situation we would be wanting to say 'No' on that basis alone to anal intercourse but would still have nothing whatever to say about relationships or other genital expressions of same sex love and affection.

The other thing of course, just to balance the argument, is that we need to ask about the other prohibitions: are they only valid in that soft stone context too? Is there a case for lowering the restrictions on other forms of relationship and activity?

What about same sex filial relationships?

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

I tend to use the categories of "religious/ceremonial", "medical" and "harm/help to others ('moral')" to analyse OT laws.

There was definite religious motivation for the levitical ban, because about the time Leviticus was being written the Babylonians had a religious ceremonial practice involving homosexual/transgender sex. This is generally thought by anthropologists to be the primary motivation for the levitical ban.

Medically we can observe that their society's lack of condoms, and lower access to showers, soap, toilet paper, and personal hygene products, would have presumably meant anal sex resulted in a significantly greater STD risk than the present day, and was significantly less clean and sanitary.

In terms of any other social harms, Jews of many periods were concerned about maximizing their population and reproduction rate. Apart from that, the last 30 years of conservatives getting paranoid about homosexuality, scientific groups researching it, and 100 or so court cases about it, have fairly conclusively shown there is not a single valid argument to be made against it.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Maybe the prohibition about sodomy was just the squick factor of (to be blunt) shit. The OT laws had a great deal about cleanliness and (seen in retrospect) preventing the spread of infections. The Israelites were given pretty explicit instructions on how to shit outside of camp. Shit (and menstrual blood to take another example), were icky unto the Lord.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Maybe the prohibition about sodomy was just the squick factor of (to be blunt) shit. The OT laws had a great deal about cleanliness and (seen in retrospect) preventing the spread of infections. The Israelites were given pretty explicit instructions on how to shit outside of camp. Shit (and menstrual blood to take another example), were icky unto the Lord.

That reminds me of another common mistake conservatives often make about anal sex: They assume shit is somehow involved. I have heard conservative politicians talking about how in their imaginations anal sex involves sticking the penis into shit and then rubbing it around in it. Which strikes me as being about as true as describing vaginal sex as sticking a penis into blood and rubbing it around in it.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What about same sex filial relationships?

I know of a sort-of one. A's father married B's mother - both had been widowed when the children were little more than 18 months - 2 years old. They married when the boys were about 5, B being slightly the older; the boys then grew up with each other. When A turned 16, B seduced him. Over 30 years later, they are still together.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
That reminds me of another common mistake conservatives often make about anal sex: They assume shit is somehow involved. I have heard conservative politicians talking about how in their imaginations anal sex involves sticking the penis into shit and then rubbing it around in it. Which strikes me as being about as true as describing vaginal sex as sticking a penis into blood and rubbing it around in it.

Of course it's easy to give the conservatives a little slack on this because, having no experience of it, and knowing that's the end poop comes out of, they might well think there's always a little poop hanging around in the last 4" (or further if you're better hung than the average Greek) of the colon.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
That reminds me of another common mistake conservatives often make about anal sex: They assume shit is somehow involved. I have heard conservative politicians talking about how in their imaginations anal sex involves sticking the penis into shit and then rubbing it around in it. Which strikes me as being about as true as describing vaginal sex as sticking a penis into blood and rubbing it around in it.
Of course it's easy to give the conservatives a little slack on this because, having no experience of it, and knowing that's the end poop comes out of, they might well think there's always a little poop hanging around in the last 4" (or further if you're better hung than the average Greek) of the colon.

The level of slack I am willing to give them for their ignorance tends to lessen rapidly when conservative law makers use it (YouTube) as an excuse to deny equality to gay people.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I'll give you that. What we imagine people get up to in the privacy of their own homes is no excuse to deny them rights granted to others.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Mudfrog - thank you for a thoughtful and reasoned post. My own stance (and given that I don't rely on Scripture as my sole authority and realise that my stance will differ from yours a lot) is that there is a focus on emasculation in the OT. Things between men that are abominable are called that because it makes a man into a woman. Now, it doesn't take a lot to see how misogynistic and transphobic this is. However, Isaiah 56 and Jesus' blessing of eunuchs would indicate to me that God's take on gender roles is more nuanced than what Leviticus/Deuteronomy would suggest. So while I respect your stance of 'God says it therefore we do it', surely some cross-referencing is appropriate? What if there are verses that are (or appear to be) deeply racist, for instance? Most evangelicals I know would go 'well God isn't racist, so let's cross-reference that'. I think that is perfectly reasonable - why is 'well God isn't a homophobe, so let's cross-reference that' not reasonable? And yes, the Levitical verses are homophobic taken with no context whatsoever.

I would also say that parts of the Bible can trump other parts. For example, in your example of alcohol, I would say that the commandment to have Communion would trump the commandment to be set-apart (especially since alcohol was explicitly used by the Jews religiously and as a symbol of God's blessing - I'm surprised you can go along with teetotal denominations given this). The same would go for same-gender sexual activity - one verse may disparage it, but that doesn't mean that verse can't get trumped by another.

Another question to ask is why same-gender sexual activity between women is barely mentioned in the Bible, if same-gender sexual activity is so forbidden? Why the focus on men? Why are gay/bi women so invisible? I would suggest that this speaks loudly to my first comment about emasculation being the issue, not sexuality.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

One of the reasons sodomy was not approved of by the Jews was that it was part of the degenerate Greek lifestyle of the invaders.

It's possible to come up with all sorts of reasons. Are the kosher meat laws driven by the theory about only eating the part of the animal that symbolizes the animal? Were pigs an ecological disaster in a deforested country or was it the fact that the neighbors loved pork?
If eating milk and meat together is so awful why was that the snack Abraham offered God when he dropped by for a visit? Did circumcision help prevent irritation in a desert or was it useful as a way to make sure that soldiers wouldn't desert the army?

It's easy to come up with some evidence, but it's also easy to invent just so stories.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
One of the reasons sodomy was not approved of by the Jews was that it was part of the degenerate Greek lifestyle of the invaders.

Greeks? In the Levant in the 8th century BCE? I'm having a hard time with this.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
One of the reasons sodomy was not approved of by the Jews was that it was part of the degenerate Greek lifestyle of the invaders.
Greeks? In the Levant in the 8th century BCE? I'm having a hard time with this.

While I agree that chronologically it doesn't really work to blame the Greeks for the levitical prohibition itself, probably a lot of the Jewish anti-gay prejudices around NT times owed as much, if not more, to anti-Greek sentiment than to honest obedience to levitical law. eg. Wisdom of Solomon 13-15, paraphrased by Rom 1:18-32, claims sodomy as one of endless evils of the degenerate gentiles that result from their idol worship, whereas Jews who worship the right God would never engage in any sins like those awful degenerate Greeks.

Posted by Dennis the Menace (# 11833) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What about same sex filial relationships?
I know of a sort-of one. A's father married B's mother - both had been widowed when the children were little more than 18 months - 2 years old. They married when the boys were about 5, B being slightly the older; the boys then grew up with each other. When A turned 16, B seduced him. Over 30 years later, they are still together.

They could at least admit they are 'brothers' if necessary.

We are a same sex couple and have been together for 34 years and, not sure why, but we often get taken as brothers. Depending on the circumstances our replies vary. From 'yes differents parents', which mostly goes over their head, to a rarley used 'when you have slept together for as long as we have you would grow to mirror each other too'. Mostly we just look at each other, laugh and say 'no'. Had a woman insist we were vrothers one day and we couldn't convince her otherwise, she even suggesting we were twins!!

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

At least that's better than being taken for my partner's mother! And she's 8 years older than I am. We don't look remotely alike, but are very frequently taken for sisters (she looks middle Eastern Jewish, I am very blonde and fair-skinned).

My observation is that many straight people just don't recognise closeness between two people of the same sex. They explain it away as "sisters," or "brothers."

The encouraging thing is that when corrected, they smile, on the whole, and apologise for their mistake.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dennis the Menace:

Mostly we just look at each other, laugh and say 'no'. Had a woman insist we were vrothers one day and we couldn't convince her otherwise, she even suggesting we were twins!!

People often grow to look like their dogs also, so I suppose you're a variation on that theme. No way that either Madame or I look like Dog though - he's a beagle, Madame is 5"10' and I'm 6'1'.

But congratulations to you both on your long relationship. That, and the one I referred to, are 2 of the huge number that put the lie to the old canards about the inevitably promiscuous "gay life=style".

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Rather baffled at the idea that the Greeks somehow invented sodomy and that it applied retroactively to the OT period. More than one ancient civilization had some kind of approval/acceptance of same-gender relationships.

The championing of the Greeks as some kind of utopian gay-friendly culture is a problem. It was not. It was no friend whatsoever to young boys or to gay/bi women, but only to socially powerful older men. Certainly by the time of the Romans, same-gender sexual encounters were purely sexual, romantic attraction between men were seen as effeminate and undesirable, especially for socially powerful men.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
That reminds me of another common mistake conservatives often make about anal sex: They assume shit is somehow involved. I have heard conservative politicians talking about how in their imaginations anal sex involves sticking the penis into shit and then rubbing it around in it. Which strikes me as being about as true as describing vaginal sex as sticking a penis into blood and rubbing it around in it.
Of course it's easy to give the conservatives a little slack on this because, having no experience of it, and knowing that's the end poop comes out of, they might well think there's always a little poop hanging around in the last 4" (or further if you're better hung than the average Greek) of the colon.

Don't conservative men ever wash their bottoms?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I think it's fair to say that shit is a hazard in the rectum however much one washes (unless you go in for douches). I think most practitioners of anal sex tend to stop to clean up if they find more than a fleck or two.

Having said that genitalia are not exactly sterile, but there's a quantitative if not qualitative difference.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

The Greeks didn't invent sodomy.but the Bible, especially Leviticus gets periodically reshaped around what's important at the time. The Talmud fits nicely in the period when dealing with the temptations of the Greek lifestyle ( Sodomy! Theater! Government Debate!) needed to be dealt with.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The Greeks didn't invent sodomy.but the Bible, especially Leviticus gets periodically reshaped around what's important at the time. The Talmud fits nicely in the period when dealing with the temptations of the Greek lifestyle ( Sodomy! Theater! Government Debate!) needed to be dealt with.

Sorry, can you please clarify this further? Leviticus was edited or otherwise changed at the time of the Greeks, or written in the first place at the time of the Greeks?

Posted by Dennis the Menace (# 11833) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
At least that's better than being taken for my partner's mother! And she's 8 years older than I am. We don't look remotely alike, but are very frequently taken for sisters (she looks middle Eastern Jewish, I am very blonde and fair-skinned).

A couple of years ago when my partner was in hospital for a day procedure I received a call from the attending nurse saying my 'father' was ready to be collected. Was tempted to say that they had performed a miracle as he had been dead for 25 years. When I arrived at the hospital same nurse told OH that his son was here and constantly refered to us as father and son. He obviously need to go to Spec Savers as we are the same age and look nothing like each other except we both have moustache and glasses. I am 3/8 Chinese and OH 5 generation Oz.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The Greeks didn't invent sodomy.but the Bible, especially Leviticus gets periodically reshaped around what's important at the time. The Talmud fits nicely in the period when dealing with the temptations of the Greek lifestyle ( Sodomy! Theater! Government Debate!) needed to be dealt with.
Sorry, can you please clarify this further? Leviticus was edited or otherwise changed at the time of the Greeks, or written in the first place at the time of the Greeks?

Oh things are never changed they're reinterpreted more correctly or ignored. This is an ongoing process, but if you're looking for changes around the time of Jesus
THe Life and Teachings of Hillel is instructive.

quote:

The Talmud is composed of two parts The first part is the Mishnah (Hebrew: משנה, c. 200 CE), the written compendium of Rabbinic Judaism's Oral Torah (Torah meaning "Instruction", "Teaching" in Hebrew). The second part is the Gemara (c. 500 CE), an elucidation of the Mishnah and related Tannaitic writings that often ventures onto other subjects and expounds broadly on the Hebrew Bible

This article talks about Grreks and Hebrfews. The codification of the Torah and the creation of the Greek translation happened during the period of Greek control and influence.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Does the demonisation of homosexuality actually make the demoniser (more) stupid?

Imagine : you are the pastor of a not-affirming independent church. You accept to do the funeral of a youngish lady, mother of two. Once the service has started, you notice that the crowd is a bit unlike your usual group, and, when some evidence surfaces that the lady was actually married to another lady, you stop the service and kick everyone out. The service is finished at a mortuary across the street.

Despite public protest, you do not return the cost paid for the funeral.

Does this do anything to improve the image of your church or of Christians as a group?

And the inmates of the Christian cell wonder why people aren't joining up any longer.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

In the case Horseman Bree, mentioned, the church knew that the deceased lady (may she rest in peace) was a lesbian and had a policy (growing among certain evangelical churches) of welcoming gays to participation in church while not changing church doctrine concerning homosexuality (and therefore avoiding any imagery in a church service that would imply church endorsement of gay marriage, or at least of gay sexual relationships). It's a Twilight-Zone like situation of doublethink likely to upset both conservatives and liberals equally - and if the liberals in the RCC get what they hope from Pope Francis (ie, gays in relationships and perhaps even gay civil marriages being welcome to be fully out while participating fully in church life, receiving communion if they do so with pastoral guidance and in the "right frame of mind," etc.), it will probably lead to the same thing...but the current situation in conservative churches that either bar gays from communion/funerals/jobs/etc when they are outed as getting married or break their own rules to make exceptions is just as bad and is being attacked just as severely by the LGBT activist community.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Two things :

The church claims to have returned the fee for the funeral. I have no way of knowing whether that's true, of course.

The issue seems to be regarding an image of the deceased kissing her wife. It's not surprising that the church might object to showing that during the funeral, and that they might feel they had the right to do so.

The church made at least a couple of mistakes. Their first mistake was in allowing their building to be used as a rented hall. It's very difficult to retain any kind of veto power once you've made that arrangement. Their second was not to have viewed the slide show immediately. It's extremely shabby to stop a service as it's supposed to be beginning in order to inform the family that they need to make changes. At that point, you're committed, and the best thing to have done would have been to swallow it and allow the service to go forward--learning, hopefully, from the mistake and being more careful in the future.

Finally, it seems to me that rather than being concerned about how such-and-such a thing makes us look to secular people, we should be concerned about what is true. Those Christians who believe God is not concerned about homosexuality and those who believe he forbids it have, I hope, made their decisions alike on theological grounds and not socio-political ones. I can't see how it would inspire confidence to learn that your church has taken positions with an eye on opinion polls.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

The church may or may not care about "how they look" to the general public. In fact they may want to emphasize the divide between the elect and the fallen.

I do think there is a payback going on. As the younger generation has moved on to endorsement of same sex marriage, the churches just look embarrassing to younger people in the same way that theological statements opposing inter-racial marriage did a generation ago.

Of course, behaving like Cardinal Raymond Burke who views feminization as the cause of the Catholic Church problems is unlikely to impress.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
The issue seems to be regarding an image of the deceased kissing her wife. It's not surprising that the church might object to showing that during the funeral, and that they might feel they had the right to do so.

It seems incredibly foolish, though, if they knew they were performing the funeral service of a lesbian, that it didn't occur to the church before the funeral service that there might be signals of the affection between the deceased woman and her partner in the funeral service.

If wasn't going to be a visual signal, it would have been a verbal one in a eulogy. Funeral services are about a particular person, not generic exercises, and the bereaved family and friends are going to personalise them.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If wasn't going to be a visual signal, it would have been a verbal one in a eulogy. Funeral services are about a particular person, not generic exercises, and the bereaved family and friends are going to personalise them.

Thank God for liturgy then, innit. Or at least for those who still do it in the traditional manner. The priest says the prayers and that's it. Eulogies and that sort can be done elsewhere.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If wasn't going to be a visual signal, it would have been a verbal one in a eulogy. Funeral services are about a particular person, not generic exercises, and the bereaved family and friends are going to personalise them.
Thank God for liturgy then, innit. Or at least for those who still do it in the traditional manner. The priest says the prayers and that's it. Eulogies and that sort can be done elsewhere.

Well clearly this church wasn't performing the service in that manner, or there wouldn't have been a slideshow.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Two things :

The church claims to have returned the fee for the funeral. I have no way of knowing whether that's true, of course.

The issue seems to be regarding an image of the deceased kissing her wife. It's not surprising that the church might object to showing that during the funeral, and that they might feel they had the right to do so.

The church made at least a couple of mistakes. Their first mistake was in allowing their building to be used as a rented hall. It's very difficult to retain any kind of veto power once you've made that arrangement. Their second was not to have viewed the slide show immediately. It's extremely shabby to stop a service as it's supposed to be beginning in order to inform the family that they need to make changes. At that point, you're committed, and the best thing to have done would have been to swallow it and allow the service to go forward--learning, hopefully, from the mistake and being more careful in the future.

Finally, it seems to me that rather than being concerned about how such-and-such a thing makes us look to secular people, we should be concerned about what is true. Those Christians who believe God is not concerned about homosexuality and those who believe he forbids it have, I hope, made their decisions alike on theological grounds and not socio-political ones.

Actually, I made my decision on the basis that there's obviously nothing wrong with being gay so I can't for the life of me imagine why God would have a problem with it. Those who have claimed to speak for him over the centuries, yes.

Not sure which that is.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Re: the kerfuffle over the slideshow at a lady's funeral in Colorado (a rather rapidly changing state demographically and politically, with a bit of a pendulum-like thing going on in elections, by the way)...

The photo was not only of the lady and her wife-to-be kissing, it was of her proposal to her, unless the early reporting was wrong.

The RCC has long and especially recently been in the "business" of giving Catholic funerals to people that for all kinds of reasons Catholic doctrine has said should not receive one unless you work on the assumption that they privately repented of and confessed whatever their publicly-known mortal sin was before death. Even in those cases, there has been the idea that the funerals of such people, especially if they are politicians or celebrities, should be private and low-key, so as not to appear to give the Church's endorsement to their actions. Take Ted Kennedy's funeral as an example and the debates over how "public" it should be.

This was not a Catholic funeral (the more Protestant view is that funerals are for the benefit of the living, not the dead, and certainly not to pray for the dead), so the issue of whom or whom not should be "given" a funeral after death is less important. It is all about whether the church's teaching and its understanding among the faithful appears to be compromised by the service.

However, the words "pastoral" and "caritable" are often used in Catholic circles to describe why rules are bended to allow funerals, weddings, situations where there is some doubt as to people's sincerity in following Church teaching. I suspect that this Protestant church, even if it was being rented out, was trying to be like this, and found itself walking a thin line and also was rather awful in not going over the slideshow long beforehand. If you don't bother to go over the slide show before hand, don't discover the slide in questions until people are already seated for the funeral, you go ahead and do the funeral and don't move it to a different location. For me, that's a pretty clear What Would Jesus Do example.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
]Actually, I made my decision on the basis that there's obviously nothing wrong with being gay so I can't for the life of me imagine why God would have a problem with it. Those who have claimed to speak for him over the centuries, yes.

Not sure which that is.

I can't for the life of me imagine why God has a problem with lots of things, but that's beside the point. God requires obedience, so I do my best.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Ah, but: Obedience to God or Obedience to The Church?

In our rather jaded age, there is seen to be a difference between the two.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Well of course there's a difference between the two.

AFAIK the only rules that God has given to man (if you are Jewish or Christian, at least) are the Ten Commandments: any other 'rules' are of our own invention.

Granted various people - prophets, popes, apostles - have claimed that rules they've pronounced were given to them by God but we only have their word for it - as indeed we only have the word of Moses for the origins of the Ten Commandments ...

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

This seems to be appropriate to the OP

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
]Actually, I made my decision on the basis that there's obviously nothing wrong with being gay so I can't for the life of me imagine why God would have a problem with it. Those who have claimed to speak for him over the centuries, yes.

Not sure which that is.
I can't for the life of me imagine why God has a problem with lots of things, but that's beside the point. God requires obedience, so I do my best.

Really? What other than this particular deceased equine can you think of where God allegedly has a blanket ban but there's no conceivable reason why?

For me, it's most certainly not "beside the point". I have very little time for demanding blind obedience, even from God. If he's got a reason, since I'm a rational being, I think I should be granted the dignity of knowing what it is.

[ 19. January 2015, 11:29: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Well of course there's a difference between the two.

AFAIK the only rules that God has given to man (if you are Jewish or Christian, at least) are the Ten Commandments: any other 'rules' are of our own invention.

Granted various people - prophets, popes, apostles - have claimed that rules they've pronounced were given to them by God but we only have their word for it - as indeed we only have the word of Moses for the origins of the Ten Commandments ...

I am mildly surprised that the words of God, or at least His Son, here in flesh in the World, aren't to be taken seriously.

quote:
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Seems kind of direct to me.

And relatively easy to follow. No nitpicking about the details of rules or the whims of the leadership.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
To my musings I would add, what would happen if we discovered that the reason for the sodomy prohibition was reasonable in the bronze age - as we might surely suspect it might be, along with the others - and found that the underlying principle was still sound and valid?

At the very most in that situation we would be wanting to say 'No' on that basis alone to anal intercourse but would still have nothing whatever to say about relationships or other genital expressions of same sex love and affection.

The other thing of course, just to balance the argument, is that we need to ask about the other prohibitions: are they only valid in that soft stone context too? Is there a case for lowering the restrictions on other forms of relationship and activity?

What about same sex filial relationships?

Well, what about that important Bronze age principal that you should kill or enslave all other Bronze age people who don't share your religious belief? What if that's still found to be sound and valid? Let the wars commence.

What ever that underlying hidden still valid reason that homosexuality is bad, you'd have to explain how it didn't ruin all those other cultures that didn't have the prohibition. Many of them did a grand job of subjugating Jews. You might decide that the underlying truth is that Judaic Law and Homosexuality are incompatible and one of them has to go in any culture.

Most Bronze age "scientific" reasons haven't aged well.
You don't have to eat with your right hand and wipe your ass with your left hand since the invention of toilet paper (or leaves), indoor plumbing and forks. Women can go out in any part of their menstrual cycle.
Then their are the hidden no doubt still valid reasons are discovered why cheeseburgers, bacon sandwiches and shrimp cocktails are bad.

This is a self indulgent fantasy (my belief in my scripture is found to have sound underlying reason, Now those people who found it antiquated nonsense will be sorry.) It should be possible to state those reasons if they actually existed. Note that failure to be able to do so in the Same Sex Marriage trials recently once you eliminate "because the priests say so" as a valid reason.

Early cultures practices weren't necessarily about health concerns for the protection of every individual in the culture. As Jared Diamond pointed out in his recent book about ecological collapse, a number of cultures had institutions to check population growth. War, human sacrifice, massive polygamy and prolonged celibacy all can help prevent overpopulation in a crowded place with limited resources. So the "it's all for health" argument may not be all that the laws are for. Maintaining social stability ( the rich stay powerful) and full employment for the priestly caste (Someone has to make sure the animal is good enough for sacrifice) may be more important to those writing the laws.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I can't for the life of me imagine why God has a problem with lots of things, but that's beside the point. God requires obedience, so I do my best.

If God required blind obedience, he could have saved a lot of trouble by not creating anything more complex than a puppy.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
To my musings I would add, what would happen if we discovered that the reason for the sodomy prohibition was reasonable in the bronze age - as we might surely suspect it might be, along with the others - and found that the underlying principle was still sound and valid?
What ever that underlying hidden still valid reason that homosexuality is bad, you'd have to explain how it didn't ruin all those other cultures that didn't have the prohibition.

At face value it may sound reasonable and thoughtful to say "what if there's something bad about homosexuality that nobody's thought of?"

That's always a worthwhile line of thinking when considering an activity that has yet to be tried. However, we can observe the results of homosexuality in our culture, and in other cultures that have accepted homosexuality, and see a lack of negative results. We can be sure there's no giant negative effect of homosexuality that we haven't thought of, because we can see that there isn't one by observing reality. Reality is a great testing ground for ideas.

[ 20. January 2015, 01:47: Message edited by: Starlight ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I don't think massive polygamy is a control on population growth, except as an effect of reducing diversity and therefore resistance to disease. You need to control the numbers of mothers, not fathers. See the numbers of men with a Y chromosome possibly derived from Genghis Khan.

Discussion of this inheritance.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Starlight:

quote:
Reality is a great testing ground for ideas.

Try that line on the hierarchy of your church, and record the response for our amusement.

Reality is something to be explained away by dogma.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Not that this has much to do with the OP, But I found it amusing coming so soon after my last post:

"Catholics need not breed like rabbits" from The Guardian:

quote:
One of Pope Francis’s strongest messages during his Philippines trip seemed to be that today’s families are under threat from efforts to redefine what “family” is, but I wonder whether the truth isn’t that the Catholic church is under threat from an avalanche of common sense that is now unstoppable.

Posted by fluff (# 12871) on :

Do rabbits breed in the wrong position for the Catholic Church then?

Or is it the wearing of floppy ears in bed that they object to?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Starlight:
quote:
Reality is a great testing ground for ideas.

Try that line on the hierarchy of your church, and record the response for our amusement.

Reality is something to be explained away by dogma.

Reality is not attainable to human beings. It can only be filtered through our worldviews. It's all in Kant, all in Kant, what do they teach them in these schools?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Starlight:
quote:
Reality is a great testing ground for ideas.

Try that line on the hierarchy of your church, and record the response for our amusement.

Reality is something to be explained away by dogma.
Reality is not attainable to human beings. It can only be filtered through our worldviews. It's all in Kant, all in Kant, what do they teach them in these schools?

Plato, presumably, if I'm getting the reference correct.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

But Plato didn't say that. Kant did. It's a paraphrase, I tell you, it's a paraphrase.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But Plato didn't say that. Kant did. It's a paraphrase, I tell you, it's a paraphrase.

I meant that they were teaching Plato, rather than Kant, and hence the lack of knowledge.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

For me, it's most certainly not "beside the point". I have very little time for demanding blind obedience, even from God. If he's got a reason, since I'm a rational being, I think I should be granted the dignity of knowing what it is.

I believe the line forms behind Mr. Job. I hope you're prepared to wait a while.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I don't think massive polygamy is a control on population growth, except as an effect of reducing diversity and therefore resistance to disease. You need to control the numbers of mothers, not fathers. See the numbers of men with a Y chromosome possibly derived from Genghis Khan.

Discussion of this inheritance.

It depends on the style of massive polygamy. If the polygamy is intended to generate maximum offspring, then it's as effective in progeny generation. If it's merely for the pleasure of the male, then the schedule may not be organized to keep all wives pregnant. If the same women were in couples with minor adultery then the continuous pregnancy happens by default. You might need divorce or some minor adultery to deal with infertile couples.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

bump

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

I'm pretty sure, could be wrong here... the demonization comes from the Christian Old Testament.

I mean look, progressives want to dismiss the OT bits about stoning gays but it's there. Call me crazy but God said stone the fornicators and gays ... but for some reason homophobia is some new idea?

Has anyone figured that something serious is going on with this whole "made in the image of God" thing?

Noah gets seen naked by his son and then he gets cursed.... anyone else find that a little spooky?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Call me crazy

All right, You are crazy.

OK,OK, in keeping with the rules, your idea is crazy.

quote:

but God said stone the fornicators and gays ... but for some reason homophobia is some new idea?

No one says it is new, just wrong.

quote:

Has anyone figured that something serious is going on with this whole "made in the image of God" thing?

So, WTF? Not sure what you are on about with this and how/if it relates to the thread.

quote:

Noah gets seen naked by his son and then he gets cursed.... anyone else find that a little spooky?

First couple of analyses on
this page explain that it is retroactive justification for invasion. More rational than arks, by a long shot.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
God said stone the fornicators and gays

Did he? I'd be terribly surprised to find the word "gays" even in your English translation of the Bible, and the Bible wasn't written in English.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

Point is, the OP is asking the question of where all the phobia comes from in a rhetorical way, framing the discussion as if the phobia is recent. Sure, there are groups with true phobia, some of those groups are cult like and newish over recent decades.

Point is, by our standards the ancient Hebrews were homophobes. God didn't really explain WHY he chose the laws he did, and not other laws. It wasn't for the main reason to create a nation wierdos that he could use for fun wars and plagues.

of course "gays" isn't a strictly accurate translation, when I get to the accurate translation threads I'll whip out my interlinear, didn't seem needed for this thread, I think we all know the terms yes? Is "gays" not a word anymore?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

There's a lot of stuff in the OT that we don't do these days. Child marriage, slavery, cutting off the foreskins of people you slay in battle. I submit that demonizing homosexuals comes under that heading.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Noah gets seen naked by his son and then he gets cursed.... anyone else find that a little spooky?

Pronoun difficulty. Actually Noah gets seen naked by his son Ham so a curse is laid on Noah's grandson Canaan. Collective punishment and guilt by family association are two more of those things "in the OT that we don't do these days". Or at least say we don't do.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There's a lot of stuff in the OT that we don't do these days. Child marriage, slavery, cutting off the foreskins of people you slay in battle. I submit that demonizing homosexuals comes under that heading.

Of course we don't do them today. The penalty applied in a certain context, God terminated that with the Hebrews, that isn't to say he thought homosexuality to be harmless, as so many like to suppose.

A god that punishes homosexuals for "loving" each other or having bit of fun by murdering them isn't much of a loving God. So, there must be a reason why he strictly banned it.

Virgin rapists were allowed to live if they pulled it off secretly and paid 50 in silver. There has to be a good reason for that too.

Seems a lot of pundits think the law of Moses was God's experiment in doing things terribly wrong. What kind of God is that! It's incumbent on us to figure out what was good about it, not just kabosh the whole thing.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Ok, if one takes the Bible as literal, besides being an idot, one is accepting a psychopathic, inept, schizophrenic as one's deity.
If one takes the rational view, the one that flows from Jesus' message, one understands that the Bible was written by humans and filtered through their predjudices, as well as other weaknesses.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

How would accepting Jesus message, rejecting literal interpretation magically remove the label of OT Yaweh being a Psycho?

Yaweh is either all good, even good at making laws, or, he's nutzo.

What I tend to see here is a lot of people who are probably gay justifying themselves and their actions in a band of merry celebration, succesfully throwing off evil Yaweh's wierd stupid ideas in favor of this new guy Jesus.

Do you all not think Jesus is Yaweh here? Is trinitarian trickery thing in play where Yahweh has passed the torch on to Jesus to take-it-from-here-I-can't-figure-this-out.

FWIW I'm not out to change laws or ban gay sex, and I'm pretty comfortable with guy guys being around. I don't mind gay's being in unions or what have you, but I do think the church should not be blessing gay unions. Just trying to get a feel for the swing of things here. Not trying to make this like the Hell boards (though I'm not going to be shocked if everyone turns to name calling)

[ 26. May 2017, 16:17: Message edited by: Aijalon ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
How would accepting Jesus message, rejecting literal interpretation magically remove the label of OT Yaweh being a Psycho?

Jesus is the point. Anything that doesn't jibe with his message is suspect.

quote:

FWIW I'm not out to change laws or ban gay sex, and I'm pretty comfortable with guy guys being around.

Just guys?

quote:

I don't mind gay's being in unions or what have you, but I do think the church should not be blessing gay unions.

The problem is that you use injunctions from passages in a book filled injunctions you ignore. To suggest this bit changes and that bit didn't smacks of convenience more than any real discernment.

quote:

Just trying to get a feel for the swing of things here. Not trying to make this like the Hell boards (though I'm not going to be shocked if everyone turns to name calling)

People aren't called to Hell for the viewpoint they espouse, but the manner in which they present it. It would help to form arguments rather than just simple, spasmodic assertions.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Point is, the OP is asking the question of where all the phobia comes from in a rhetorical way, framing the discussion as if the phobia is recent. Sure, there are groups with true phobia, some of those groups are cult like and newish over recent decades.

Point is, by our standards the ancient Hebrews were homophobes. God didn't really explain WHY he chose the laws he did, and not other laws. It wasn't for the main reason to create a nation wierdos that he could use for fun wars and plagues.

of course "gays" isn't a strictly accurate translation, when I get to the accurate translation threads I'll whip out my interlinear, didn't seem needed for this thread, I think we all know the terms yes? Is "gays" not a word anymore?

The massive assumption here is that the ancient Hebrews read these texts the same way that you read these texts. And that several thousand years of linguistic and cultural change have done nothing to your ability to understand what is actually being said.

And that accurate translations can be saved for esoteric little study groups, rather than being crucial to how the text is actually applied by people in the here and now.

I very much doubt that the ancient Hebrews were "homophobes" in the modern sense because I very much doubt they had a conception of "homosexuality" equivalent to a modern conception. They certainly didn't have a modern idea about how procreation works, and so even at a basic level any reasons they had for finding man-on-man sex wrong are not going to be in line with conservative Christian arguments nowadays about why it's wrong.

But it's also at least questionable whether their objections were based in fundamental moral rules about the innate nature of men and women in the first place. There is some evidence suggesting it was about the association of certain sexual practices with other religions.

Saying "God didn't really explain WHY" is frankly a bit of a copout, because you can't properly apply a law if you don't understand the rationale and framework behind it. Modern people working with the modern law need to interpret it in context all the time. I don't see why we would think that ancient Hebrews checked their brains at the door and just shrugged their shoulders and said "God said it, I don't need to think", especially not given the large amount of interpretative text from rabbis and teachers that we have in things like the Talmud and Mishnah. These people thought.

The biggest problem we have in looking at a text that is several thousand years old is that there are things the original readers would have readily understood, and didn't need explained to them, that we don't get in the same way. Things that we can only now understand by reference to other equally ancient texts that help explain the culture and mindset of the original audience.

[ 26. May 2017, 23:25: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
[qb] How would accepting Jesus message, rejecting literal interpretation magically remove the label of OT Yaweh being a Psycho?

Jesus is the point. Anything that doesn't jibe with his message is suspect.

You avoided my question. Or are you saying that Yaweh and Jesus inherently conflict...? What are you saying?

quote:

quote:

FWIW I'm not out to change laws or ban gay sex, and I'm pretty comfortable with guy guys being around.
Just guys?

I meant "gay" guys. Not that I readily hang with them, that's just not my social group TBH.

quote:

quote:

I don't mind gay's being in unions or what have you, but I do think the church should not be blessing gay unions.
The problem is that you use injunctions from passages in a book filled injunctions you ignore. To suggest this bit changes and that bit didn't smacks of convenience more than any real discernment.
[qb]

I'm not saying that being gay deserves death, or that it's even that big a sin. I am saying it's still a sin, but even then many of my sins I'm sure are worse. The issue really is about whether one believes it's wrong in any way. i might even say it's a trivial sin. Never the less, that's the problem you have.

Just striking out all the sins in the Code of Moses as no longer sins doesn't make sense.

Penalties and enforcement are another matter. The administration of the law was for the purpose of establishing/preserving national Israel. It was a contract. That all passed away. There is NO ADMINISTRATION. Being that as it may it doesn't mean God switched to approving of the sins that he formerly executed people for. If it was wrong for Israel, it's just wrong. The severity of the penalty, we simply don't have a way of applying that. We simply know God is strict about sin. We have Jesus now, but Jesus didn't ever bless sin. That's foolishness. He forgives it, not shrugs it off.

Homosexuality is a sin forgiven just as any other sin is.

The issue is the nature in which one might celebrate or identify with said sin, or even make it an "identity". That's a whole ball of wax in itself.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Point is, the OP is asking the question of where all the phobia comes from in a rhetorical way, framing the discussion as if the phobia is recent. Sure, there are groups with true phobia, some of those groups are cult like and newish over recent decades.

Point is, by our standards the ancient Hebrews were homophobes. God didn't really explain WHY he chose the laws he did, and not other laws. It wasn't for the main reason to create a nation wierdos that he could use for fun wars and plagues.

of course "gays" isn't a strictly accurate translation, when I get to the accurate translation threads I'll whip out my interlinear, didn't seem needed for this thread, I think we all know the terms yes? Is "gays" not a word anymore?
The massive assumption here is that the ancient Hebrews read these texts the same way that you read these texts. And that several thousand years of linguistic and cultural change have done nothing to your ability to understand what is actually being said.

And that accurate translations can be saved for esoteric little study groups, rather than being crucial to how the text is actually applied by people in the here and now.

I very much doubt that the ancient Hebrews were "homophobes" in the modern sense because I very much doubt they had a conception of "homosexuality" equivalent to a modern conception. They certainly didn't have a modern idea about how procreation works, and so even at a basic level any reasons they had for finding man-on-man sex wrong are not going to be in line with conservative Christian arguments nowadays about why it's wrong.

But it's also at least questionable whether their objections were based in fundamental moral rules about the innate nature of men and women in the first place. There is some evidence suggesting it was about the association of certain sexual practices with other religions.

Saying "God didn't really explain WHY" is frankly a bit of a copout, because you can't properly apply a law if you don't understand the rationale and framework behind it. Modern people working with the modern law need to interpret it in context all the time. I don't see why we would think that ancient Hebrews checked their brains at the door and just shrugged their shoulders and said "God said it, I don't need to think", especially not given the large amount of interpretative text from rabbis and teachers that we have in things like the Talmud and Mishnah. These people thought.

The biggest problem we have in looking at a text that is several thousand years old is that there are things the original readers would have readily understood, and didn't need explained to them, that we don't get in the same way. Things that we can only now understand by reference to other equally ancient texts that help explain the culture and mindset of the original audience.

All fine and well, a lot of truth there, but none of that allows us to fundamentally REVERSE something bad to something good. God regulated sexuality, it may be true we don't get the full picture from the Bible alone, and we don't think like they do, but stark reality is there.

Also the way that people I've read on here are throwing out the text is by claiming things like "it's about idolatry" and not gay sex...as if sex wasn't the thing being regulated. Hogwash.

Why do you suppose that the pagans/Caananites used homosexual sex as a form of idolatry? HELLO! It was a form of submission, a sacrifice to their god. There is a cost. It is intellectually dishonest to just pick and choose from the aspects of the prohibited acts that fit your paradigm. Any and all aspects of the banned activity are on the table.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Any and all aspects of the banned activity are on the table.

And here I thought gays did it on the bed like us breeders.

<i'll get my hat>

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

What are "gay" gays please?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
You avoided my question. Or are you saying that Yaweh and Jesus inherently conflict...? What are you saying?

I am saying that the bible is not the literal word of God. That depictions of OT God's instructions that do not match Jesus teachings are in conflict with Christianity.

quote:

I meant "gay" guys. Not that I readily hang with them, that's just not my social group TBH.

There are gay women as well, that was my reference.
BTW, I bet gay men are part of your social group. On that note, being gay does not confer any social attributes. You would not be aware of most gay men being gay in any neutral context.

quote:

Just striking out all the sins in the Code of Moses as no longer sins doesn't make sense.

Why is the enforcement in a separate category from the sin if you believe they were both God's instruction?

quote:

We simply know God is strict about sin.

Wrong. You do not know anything. You have a book that someone says someone else said God told another person. You believe it to be true.

quote:

Homosexuality is a sin forgiven just as any other sin is.

No, homosexuality is not a sin. It is something one is, not something one does.

Now, do you have a solid rationale for the bits of the OT that are now not to worry about and the bits which are still in force? If not, I will no longer bother to engage because either your argument has no rational basis or is disingenuous.

Posted by wabale (# 18715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I'm pretty sure, could be wrong here... the demonization comes from the Christian Old Testament.

I’m guessing myself, quite seriously, that the demonization arose from what is sometimes called ‘the yuk factor’, that is to say that heterosexual people can feel a revulsion to the very idea of homosexual sex (and vice-versa I understand). Everything else is attempted rationalisation.

Some years ago, shortly after the law regarding ‘homosexual activity’ was changed in England, I was sharing a flat in London with four other men. One of our number received some unsolicited mail, advertising exotic male under ware. He hit the roof, and when I suggested he just throw the catalogue in the bin, he started talking about ‘drawing lines’ and where was I going to draw mine? Meanwhile, my other friends, all from a very respectable and quiet C of E parish in SouthWest London, instantly turned into Nazi Stormtroopers, with sneering comments such as ‘batting for the other side’ etc. As far as I know, none of them had any particular reason to be homophobic. One reason why I didn’t join in was that some time before this I had worked as an usher in a West End cinema, where my colleagues would have loved to have been described as ‘camp as a row of tents’, the word ‘gay’ not I think in common currency then. The point is I don’t think my flatmates’ aversion to what we now call gay culture came from anything other than popular prejudice.

My feeling is that throughout the history of the Christian faith ‘the yuk factor’ has always been the consistent factor, whatever the particular reasons actually put forward to justify the characterisation of homosexual ‘behaviour’ as a sin. I also think that whenever Church and State has decided to make homosexual behaviour a capital offence it has always been politically, not theologically, driven.

Its characterisation as a ‘sin’, however, has been inconsistently applied over time, and for remarkably different reasons. The Bible, particularly passages in Leviticus, Romans and l Corinthians, were not even consistently cited by Christians as arguments until comparatively modern times. Meanwhile Genesis 19 has been spectacularly misused in giving us the dreadful term ‘Sodomites’: a glance at Ezekiel 16 shows there is more to the story of Sodom and Gommorah than meets the eye, and that it can be argued that the ‘sin of Sodom’ has no relationship to homosexuality whatsoever.

Many people were criminalised and killed over the centuries for ‘Sodomy’, something the Church aided and abetted and in some ways led. The Church owes them one of those ‘historical apologies’ just for starters.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

God is very strict about sins like eating shrimp and divorce. Oh wait.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I'm not saying that being gay deserves death, or that it's even that big a sin.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
It is intellectually dishonest to just pick and choose from the aspects of the prohibited acts that fit your paradigm.

Well that's a contradiction. Why do you get to "pick and choose" the sin of not stoning male homosexuals to death and claim it doesn't really count as a sin any more, but homosexuality still is a sin? Seems pretty selective to me.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I meant "gay" guys. Not that I readily hang with them, that's just not my social group TBH.
There are gay women as well, that was my reference.

But gay women are totally acceptable from an Old Testament perspective. Only male homosexuality is considered a sin under the law of Moses.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

hosting
Hello,
Can I ask people not to derail this thread with arguments about whether same-sex sexual relations/relationships are sinful or condemned by the Bible? That belongs on our 94 page thread Homosexuality and Christianity while arguments about biblical inerrancy belong on the Biblical Inerrancy thread.

We also have a thread on Biblical interpretation of apparently anti-gay passages if anyone wants to argue about particular passages in the Bible.

Can I ask new people who are bringing up old general arguments which have been raised many times before to familiarise themselves, at least a bit, with these threads and the arguments raised in them, and to post on the relevant thread? This thread was originally asking about the recent prominence of this issue over past decades, but has looked at older history too, but that's not an excuse to re-litigate basic, general arguments which belong on the other threads.

If you want to reply to a post and the reply doesn't belong on this thread please copy the post to the relevant thread and reply there

Thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host

hosting off

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
It is intellectually dishonest to just pick and choose from the aspects of the prohibited acts that fit your paradigm.

Excuse me, but there is nothing at all intellectually dishonest about trying to think through what is said and what is meant. Especially not when it is done against the observed reality of people's lives.

Arriving at different conclusions to your own is not "intellectual dishonesty". And quite frankly you are just the latest in a long line of people who've thrown that accusation around in total ignorance of the many years, now decades, that I have spent thinking about these issues with as much intellectual honesty as I can possibly muster.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

hosting

A reminder to everyone about how the Ship's rules on personal/group attacks work.

People are allowed to attack/insult/offend denominations or groups as part of their argument (within reason see C1*) but personal attacks/insults outside the Hell board are strictly banned under C3 and personal conflicts MUST be stopped or taken to the Hell board (C4) - see full list of the board 10Cs here.

So if someone is posting insulting things about a group you are part of or minority you belong to, you can't take personal issue with them here - but must call them to the Hell board to make negative personal remarks about them.

If you're not contributing directly to the discussion of where prejudice/demonisation comes from, then please think about which board or which thread your post actually belongs on - because the chances are it's not this thread.

Thanks
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off

*C 1. Don't be a jerk: Lively, intelligent discussion is what we're about. Jerkish behavior includes (but is not limited to): racism, sexism and all the other negative -isms, trolling and flame-baiting.)

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

in original post by Schroedinger's Cat

quote:
(... homosexuality that has become the touchstone of conevo faith, the cause of all our woes, the biggest issue in the fundamentalist world. And I am left wondering exactly how we moved so far so quickly. Is it just that every other battle has been lost? Is it just that most of the conevo leaders are secretly gay? Why THIS issue, and not some other?

ISTM that many of the hobby horses of the con-evo stable in the UK have been imported from the US: the only notable exception would seem to be the attitude towards divorce, withour US cousins seeming far more accepting of divorce and remarriage than the UK religious conservative.

Second, while there seems to be pretty well universal condemnation of gayness - and that is what it comes down to, however much people use the revoltingly arch expression same-sex attraction - it is only expressed towards gay men and it seems to be part of a preoccupation with penetrative sex; indeed, when I raised the issue at the Shared Conversation I was on, I was assured by several con-evo attendees that the issue of gay women was far less important because "after all, they can't really get up to much in the bedroom department" (my lesbian friends were in stitches when I reported this back to them).

I would ask what is meant by "secretly gay"? Do we take this to mean (1) in the closet, or (2) men who have sex with other men but don't acknowledge it to be "gay" sex?

Over the past 50 years there has been much research into how true it is to label people as being exclusively either heterosexual or homosexual - it was research along these lines that first brought in the description of bi-sexual. What many of the studies have shown, on both sides of the atlantic, is that a substantial number of self-describing heterosexual men have sex with other men from time to time, and that many of these men do not consider such sexual acts to be adulterous (if they are married) or a sign of homosexual orientation (whether married or single). The studies further show that the incidence of such same-gender sexual activity seems to be far more prevalent between men than women.

The other thing that has been known about same-sex activity between younger men is that it is often part of ritual associated with membership of a group, and that those who report it frequently do so in terms that it is to do with bullying and control, not sexual pleasure or preference. For example, it is well known that the incidence of homosexual rape in male prisons is very high, and that the most violent and feared prisoners are often to be 'bought-off' by having their sexual activities with weaker, younger prisoners ignored or condoned. All of this sits very uneasily with the use of slang terms for homosexual men - gay, faggot, etc - in humour.

So, to answer the question is the con-evo preoccupation with homosexuality a sign that its leaders are "secretly gay" I'd say the conclusion should be a qualified perhaps. But statistically it is almost guaranteed that a fair number of the con-evo male leadership is regularly having sex with other men.

All of which begs the question Why do they continue to go on about the evils of homosexuality? Well, perhaps its their own version of whistling in the dark - I'm not one of those vile people with those vile proclivities performing those disgusting acts and to bolster their 'courage' they're not above telling outright lies, hence the continual statement that "Jesus condemned homosexuality" even when it is pointed out that Our Lord didn't express a single word on the subject.

And before anyone quotes St Paul, all of the above likely applied to him too.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
hosting
Hello,
Can I ask people not to derail this thread with arguments about whether same-sex sexual relations/relationships are sinful or condemned by the Bible? That belongs on our 94 page thread Homosexuality and Christianity while arguments about biblical inerrancy belong on the Biblical Inerrancy thread.

We also have a thread on Biblical interpretation of apparently anti-gay passages if anyone wants to argue about particular passages in the Bible.

Can I ask new people who are bringing up old general arguments which have been raised many times before to familiarize themselves, at least a bit, with these threads and the arguments raised in them, and to post on the relevant thread? This thread was originally asking about the recent prominence of this issue over past decades, but has looked at older history too, but that's not an excuse to re-litigate basic, general arguments which belong on the other threads.

If you want to reply to a post and the reply doesn't belong on this thread please copy the post to the relevant thread and reply there

Thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host

hosting off

Thanks for the helpful links, I shall explore those

I don't wish to be obtuse, but if I come across that way to you, no worries, I shall exit.

I had said that the OP is just being rhetorical about the nature of homophobia, as if it is unreasonable. Of course we see it as unreasonable TODAY in our post modern context.

I think it is actually quite obtuse to act rhetorical/shocked or bewildered that anyone ever thought homosexuality needed to be demonized at all. Knowing that the literal viewpoint on scriptures has been held so long, it is a very natural and reasonable reaction to prohibit homosexuality and instill guilt and fear into the next generation - in a setting where that view prevails.

Yes, truly I think the literal viewpoint is eroding away, and many nuanced views are competing for position in the aftermath.

Furthermore I think what is going on is people are starting to reverse-demonize anyone who continues to disapprove of homosexuality in any way.

It's just a revenge reaction to the attitudes of the past.

I am simply trying to point out that demonization of the practice is fairly reasonable and easy to predict in a scenario where for centuries a simple minded view of the Scripture as literal and inerrant prevailed.

It is no more right to demonise those who continue to believe homosexuality is a sin than for those who believe eating shrimp is sin. I have learned that calling someone an idiot for his belief in not eating pork is a foolish thing to do.

I often wish to mock those who abstain from alcohol, as if it makes them more holy. Well there are actually good reasons to abstain from alcohol, though being automatically holier isn't one of them.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

however much people use the revoltingly arch expression same-sex attraction - it is only expressed towards gay men and it seems to be part of a preoccupation with penetrative sex

What is "revoltingly arch" about that expression?

And why don't you see gender biology as of any value in the discussion? Do you see any difference in male and female sex drive? It is often fashionable to belittle what is "unproven". Well, there may not be a single measure of sex drive so isolation of the "key" factor for study may not be possible. But if we take common knowledge, and the frequency that men THINK about sex.... I don't think it's a hard sell. Men are preoccupied with visual stimulation and penetration.

Is it really that hard to see why the anti-gayness efforts are focused on men? Really, is it?

Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on :

As far as I'm aware homosexuality is not a sin, the sin is sexual intimacy outside marriage and avoidance of sexual continence (the Samaritan woman at the well, et al). The problem is normalising anything we like to do on the basis we like to do it, which leads to self justification.

As someone who has mostly worked in the arts, homosexuals are numerically over represented among my colleagues and many gay people are friends. I don't think my friendship should extend to condoning their lifestyle choices, nor should I condemn them solely on the basis of it or shun them in any way. We are all sinners, and mostly habitual ones. That doesn't mean we stop trying or fail to recognise sin for what it is. Life's bloody hard, gay, straight or not sure. Whether it's impossibly hard is the question, and whether the degree of difficulty brings its own graces.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

Sex amongst consenting adults is never a sin.

Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Sex amongst consenting adults is never a sin.

Do you have scriptural precedent for that claim?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

Is it really that hard to see why the anti-gayness efforts are focused on men? Really, is it?

Nope. It is about dominance. Men being Men, by God! Being penetrated means you are the woman. gasp, shock, horror! And that is unacceptable.
In most homophobic groups, IME women are also supposed to be subservient.
IME this is true in L'organist's Conevo groups.
So, IMO, this is part of where the demonisation comes from.
Another, as mentioned by Schroedinger's Cat, many other battles have been lost. So what issue does one use to define "us" vs "them"? One that, until very recently, the general public largely agreed with.
As to conevo, or other leaders being secretly gay; I have always hated this argument. The Nazis did not secretly want to be Jewish, the KKK do not secretly want to be black. Vilification does not need a closet to speak from.
Can this be a factor in some individuals' anti-gay vehemence? Certainly. But it isn't a requirement.
Statistics would assume that a percentage of any group will have gay people in it. I would think this would be lower, at least slightly, in the more anti-gay congregations for LGBT+ people leaving for that reason.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

The issue raised was "preocupation" with penetrative sex.

I think you rightly postulated that penetrative sex is the heart of the issue, and men being men is certainly tied to that.

Even without a fully literal view of the Scriptures, it isn't that hard to fathom how trying to apply Levitical codes is going to turn out.

Again in keeping with the OP, which you seem to want to drag us away from, it is a very reasonable conclusion that the rules of Moses put forth were for the regulation of society and for the best function of the male and female body and health.

One person uses the storyline from the Bible as a basis for health and life and morality, and another person uses a storyline from CNN or BBC as a basis for morality. How did we get here, and who cares where we're going? Bible is a pretty good resourse, if you want to look for resources that is.

Demonizing (or really I thin it is demagogue-ing) those that have a different storyline, that is the purpose of the thread. I'll say it again, this thread was put here to demonize those that don't APPROVE of homosexuality. I'm throwing it back at you. Just admit, it's payback time, you're paying the world back for it's vile treatment of you, or your friend, or family or whatever.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Gosh, those homophobes suffer so much persecution, don't they? Martyrdom has never looked so dignified.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Bible is a pretty good resourse, if you want to look for resources that is.

It is actually a piss-poor resource. No, really, not denigrating any of the major religions which use it as a basis, but it is not fit to purpose. That is, if one chooses to apply it without context, and that is what anti-homosexuals do. And this is a source of the demonisation.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Gosh, those homophobes suffer so much persecution, don't they? Martyrdom has never looked so dignified.

They are not free to persecute, poor dears.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
One person uses the storyline from the Bible as a basis for health and life and morality, and another person uses a storyline from CNN or BBC as a basis for morality.

I have never heard of anybody using a storyline from CNN or BBC as a basis for morality. Do you have any cites for that?

Most non-Christians I know judge storylines from CNN or BBC according to their already-formed morality. I think you've overspoke your thought.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
... One person uses the storyline from the Bible as a basis for health and life and morality, and another person uses a storyline from CNN or BBC as a basis for morality. ...

Please. CNN and BBC report news - actual observations of actual events in real time. The Bible is a work of fiction. I also notice that you dropped "health and life" from the second part of your sentence. Nice try. Feel free to look to any source you want for your own morality. For factual information on human health, the BBC and CNN win hands down. The Bible says pi is a rational number, FFS.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Aijalon

quote:
(previously posted by me)
...however much people use the revoltingly arch expression same-sex attraction - it is only expressed towards gay men and it seems to be part of a preoccupation with penetrative sex
quote:

What is "revoltingly arch" about that expression?

And why don't you see gender biology as of any value in the discussion? Do you see any difference in male and female sex drive? It is often fashionable to belittle what is "unproven". Well, there may not be a single measure of sex drive so isolation of the "key" factor for study may not be possible. But if we take common knowledge, and the frequency that men THINK about sex.... I don't think it's a hard sell. Men are preoccupied with visual stimulation and penetration.

What is odd, peculiar and revoltingly arch about the expression "same-sex attraction" is that the term "sex attraction" is only ever applied to people attracted to those of the same gender as themselves, never to people attracted to those of opposite gender. Worse, it is frequently tacked onto a sentence containing the word "suffer" or "experience", which is odd when you consider that most people don't consider being attracted to someone of the same gender as "experience" or something that necessarily causes suffering. Or are you going to tell me that you refer to people as "opposite sex attracted" in the normal course of things?

There is no such thing as "male" and "female sex drive: people have differing libidos, just as people have differing ability to judge pitch, taste saltiness, etc. No one knows why sex drive differs from person to person except in those cases where a medical condition causes changes in hormone level.

The idea that men and women have differing libido - with the implication that all men want sex more than all women - doesn't hold water. Societies have chosen to believe that a sign of a virtuous woman is that she doesn't want or enjoy sex but that is a completely different thing from natural sex drive, and it goes together with the widespread practice of telling little girls that touching themselves "down there" was dirty, disgusting and shameful.

posted by romanesque

quote:
As someone who has mostly worked in the arts, homosexuals are numerically over represented among my colleagues and many gay people are friends. I don't think my friendship should extend to condoning their lifestyle choices, nor should I condemn them solely on the basis of it or shun them in any way.

I too have spent most of my working life among musicians and others involved in the arts: who is to say that gays are numerically over-represented? Certainly in the past it may have seemed that way but, as some of my non-arty gay friends have said, it has been easier to people to be more openly gay in the arts than, say, the armed forces, judiciary or other professions or fields.

As for "condoning" your friends' lifestyle choices, gosh! Are you speaking solely about a choice made to be sexually active when gay, or referring to something more threatening such as, for example, an interest in hand-guns or far-right politics? Why should we be so judgemental about our friends? Surely if we disapprove of something about them so much then we're not really friends?

[ 06. June 2017, 02:42: Message edited by: L'organist ]

Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I too have spent most of my working life among musicians and others involved in the arts: who is to say that gays are numerically over-represented? Certainly in the past it may have seemed that way but, as some of my non-arty gay friends have said, it has been easier to people to be more openly gay in the arts than, say, the armed forces, judiciary or other professions or fields.

As for "condoning" your friends' lifestyle choices, gosh! Are you speaking solely about a choice made to be sexually active when gay, or referring to something more threatening such as, for example, an interest in hand-guns or far-right politics? Why should we be so judgemental about our friends? Surely if we disapprove of something about them so much then we're not really friends? [/QB]

I disagree - on a number of points. First that I should approve of things that remove people from the perfection we are intended to emulate. This is decidedly not an exclusive preserve of homosexuality, I'd feel the same way if a colleague invited me to meet his wife then go out for dinner with his mistress. He may have numerous redeeming features, or I wouldn't be hanging out with him, but that aspect of his life would be thoroughly screwed up and the possible assent of his wife wouldn't unscrew it. Do I send him to purdah for pursuing his lifestyle? Of course not, he still carries the spark of divinity we all contain and I certainly can't presume on God's grace.

As someone who has been around flamboyant and straight acting gays for decades, my gaydar is pretty well tuned to which way people swing. If they're not going to my mates because they need my approval, sod 'em (sic), I'm not going to indulge them in lengthy biblical exegesis when they have a functioning conscience. Ditto for piss heads, greedy gits, the bone idle, swingers and anyone else who wants to treat they personal indulgences as a condition in need of unquestioning approval. Life isn't a bed of roses and very little about the bible suggests it might be.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
I disagree - on a number of points. First that I should approve of things that remove people from the perfection we are intended to emulate. This is decidedly not an exclusive preserve of homosexuality, I'd feel the same way if a colleague invited me to meet his wife then go out for dinner with his mistress. He may have numerous redeeming features, or I wouldn't be hanging out with him, but that aspect of his life would be thoroughly screwed up and the possible assent of his wife wouldn't unscrew it. Do I send him to purdah for pursuing his lifestyle? Of course not, he still carries the spark of divinity we all contain and I certainly can't presume on God's grace.

The tiresome part of this is that you've just compared someone who is in a loving and committed exclusive relationship with his husband with a philandering bastard who is cheating his wife.

quote:
As someone who has been around flamboyant and straight acting gays for decades, my gaydar is pretty well tuned to which way people swing. If they're not going to my mates because they need my approval, sod 'em (sic), I'm not going to indulge them in lengthy biblical exegesis when they have a functioning conscience. Ditto for piss heads, greedy gits, the bone idle, swingers and anyone else who wants to treat they personal indulgences as a condition in need of unquestioning approval. Life isn't a bed of roses and very little about the bible suggests it might be.

Not even slightly the same thing. And it says something about you that you're prepared to compare someone who is gay with the "bone idle, swingers and anyone else who wants to treat they personal indulgences".

Imagine if you'd said that about a Jewish person or someone who is black or disabled.

Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

Imagine if you'd said that about a Jewish person or someone who is black or disabled.

Not the same at all. I might be predisposed to want to nail every hot and curvy redhead who comes my way. Should I build a wall of justification around my predilection for well endowed Titian haired females? You're making the assumption that predisposition is the same as acting out the desire, and that some preferences are beyond any human ability to restrain from.

Biblical interdictions clearly point to the fact that some activities are soul-destroying, and the Samaritan woman didn't come back at Jesus with the fact she was in a mutually consenting relationship with responsible adults and he should mind his own damned business. Her conscience was clearly, ahem, pricked. I'm being asked to support the insupportable because it's uniquely tough, and that is beyond my pay grade. That shouldn't be conflated with lack of understanding or empathy for anyone in the grip of something, anything, they believe is beyond their control.

For the record, I don't think homosexuality is a choice or that people can be cured of it. Nor do I think it should be celebrated as a manifestation of the wonders of nature. I think it's something people have to live, and in that sense it's far from unique. I don't think someone missing a leg is "special", I think they're missing a leg and will never run the 100 metre hurdles.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
Not the same at all. I might be predisposed to want to nail every hot and curvy redhead who comes my way. Should I build a wall of justification around my predilection for well endowed Titian haired females? You're making the assumption that predisposition is the same as acting out the desire, and that some preferences are beyond any human ability to restrain from.

And you continue making stupid comparisons. As if your philandering is equivalent to a loving relationship. Why not go the whole hog and compare homosexuality with bestiality or child abuse?

quote:
For the record, I don't think homosexuality is a choice or that people can be cured of it. Nor do I think it should be celebrated as a manifestation of the wonders of nature.

That's nice. Remind why we should care what you think? This isn't a discussion, this is just you muscling in and stating things as truths. I don't agree.

quote:
I think it's something people have to live, and in that sense it's far from unique. I don't think someone missing a leg is "special", I think they're missing a leg and will never run the 100 metre hurdles.

Newsflash: homosexuality is not a disability or an illness. The only possible reason why homosexuals experience disadvantage is because some idiots want to treat them poorly.

[ 06. June 2017, 10:57: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QB]And you continue making stupid comparisons.

If you think the bible is the metaphysical ponderings of bronze age goatherds, and the enlightenment has plucked us from superstition into the sunlit upland of material science, you can argue that point. I think there's scriptural evidence against sex outside marriage, and the bible is a guide against the infinite fallibility of the human heart. If this is modernity vs. faith we can have that discussion, but I assumed you held the Christian message as of some value. If you do, I'd like to know where gay sex gets a free pass when lots of other sex doesn't, and why you think it should. This isn't about My Prejudice and I refuse to defend my position on that basis.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I'll thank you not to make assumptions about me. If you want to try personal attacks use hell.

For the record, you are utterly wrong.

Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'll thank you not to make assumptions about me. If you want to try personal attacks use hell.

For the record, you are utterly wrong.

I haven't made any personal attacks, you accused me of stupidity for a mainstream interpretation of Christian doctrine. I'd welcome a reasoned discussion of the topic from any perspective that emphasised mutual goodwill and respect. Everything you've said suggests you find my views morally abhorrent.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
I haven't made any personal attacks, you accused me of stupidity for a mainstream interpretation of Christian doctrine.

Nope I said your comparisons are stupid. Read for comprehension.

quote:

I'd welcome a reasoned discussion of the topic from any perspective that emphasised mutual goodwill and respect. Everything you've said suggests you find my views morally abhorrent.

You appear to be under a misapprehension that your views haven't been aired here a zillion times before and that you just have to state things in the most disgusting way possible to win an argument.

I don't want to discuss things within the parameters you've set because they're shallow and disgusting.

Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
I haven't made any personal attacks, you accused me of stupidity for a mainstream interpretation of Christian doctrine.
Nope I said your comparisons are stupid. Read for comprehension.

quote:

I'd welcome a reasoned discussion of the topic from any perspective that emphasised mutual goodwill and respect. Everything you've said suggests you find my views morally abhorrent.
You appear to be under a misapprehension that your views haven't been aired here a zillion times before and that you just have to state things in the most disgusting way possible to win an argument.

I don't want to discuss things within the parameters you've set because they're shallow and disgusting.

I haven't read the entire thread, so I take your valuation of its development at face value. Terms like "disgusting" and "shallow" are non sequiturs that kill debate rather than promote it. Perhaps you believe the topic is completely irrelevant to religious faith, it's impossible to know from your responses.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Once again, the Happy Hour News Dump does not disappoint. (A lot of Trump-related bombshell stories seem to get broken between 5:00 pm and 6:00 pm Eastern time, guaranteeing that they'll be discussed during the various U.S. news programs.) The Intercept apparently got hold of an NSA report stating that Russian military intelligence (GRU) conducted cyber-attacks against a voting software provider and several local election officials. That's a whole different level of interference than any of the hacking we've heard about so far.

quote:
Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election, according to a highly classified intelligence report obtained by The Intercept.

<snip>

The report indicates that Russian hacking may have penetrated further into U.S. voting systems than was previously understood. It states unequivocally in its summary statement that it was Russian military intelligence, specifically the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate, or GRU, that conducted the cyber attacks described in the document:

quote:
Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate actors … executed cyber espionage operations against a named U.S. company in August 2016, evidently to obtain information on elections-related software and hardware solutions. … The actors likely used data obtained from that operation to … launch a voter registration-themed spear-phishing campaign targeting U.S. local government organizations.
<snip>

The NSA analysis does not draw conclusions about whether the interference had any effect on the election’s outcome and concedes that much remains unknown about the extent of the hackers’ accomplishments. However, the report raises the possibility that Russian hacking may have breached at least some elements of the voting system, with disconcertingly uncertain results.

The NSA has confirmed the authenticity of the report, both directly to The Intercept and by having the leaker arrested.

One question that immediately leaps to mind is whether Donald Trump was briefed on this report, which is dated May 5, before he fired FBI director James Comey on May 9.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Oops, wrong board! Meant to post that last item here.

If some helpful host could delete it I'd be grateful. Already past the edit window.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by romanesque (responding topost from Mr Cheesy)

quote:
I think there's scriptural evidence against sex outside marriage, and the bible is a guide against the infinite fallibility of the human heart. If this is modernity vs. faith we can have that discussion, but I assumed you held the Christian message as of some value. If you do, I'd like to know where gay sex gets a free pass when lots of other sex doesn't, and why you think it should. This isn't about My Prejudice and I refuse to defend my position on that basis.

I'm now very confused.

I've read the above three times and still come to the same conclusion: that is that it is only sex outside marriage that you find abhorrent because disallowed by the scriptures. Therefore if a gay couple eschew a physical relationship before marriage it is OK afterwards - you cannot argue that sex is only OK after Christian marriage since the passages that originally prohibit sex outside marriage all come from the pre-Christian era.

When you say "gay sex" (whatever that is) gets a free pass I must ask what you mean? Are you implying that, for example, anal sex is OK within the context of marriage? And what are you referring to as "lots of other sex"???

As for the "Christian message" and whether or not it is perceived as having value, neither mr cheesy nor I have at any time made any statement that would cause you to question whether or not we see the message of Christ as being valuable. Yet again it seems that someone who seeks to prevent a sizeable proportion of the population from being able to have loving, committed, lifelong relationships given affirmation and acceptance is now trying to say that the "Christian message" categorically rejects these people and their sexual orientation - and that is simply not true. At NO point did Jesus Christ condemn homosexuality or homosexual sex: in fact he condemned remarkably little, preferring the line of "let him that is without sin cast the first stone. It is decidedly UN-Christian for a section of believers who purport to be followers of Christ to spend so much of their time condemning and damning fellow human beings and, in some cases, fellow Christians - although, of course, I am aware that there are some so-called Christians who would argue that to be gay is automatically to be outside the prospect of every being a Christian.

[ 06. June 2017, 14:48: Message edited by: L'organist ]

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Gosh, those homophobes suffer so much persecution, don't they? Martyrdom has never looked so dignified.

This kind of sarcasm reinforces my point. Anything less than full approval of homosexuality is viewed as homophobia and demonisation. Thats just the reaction of a very angry and irrational crowd.

I'm not saying everyone is angry and irrational, just that that problem is making it hard to create a dialogue on the topic. It is just cold hard closed mindedness. I mirror image of the churche's closed mindedness. I guess that is a predictable response, just as demonisation is a predictable outcome given human history.

Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

I've read the above three times and still come to the same conclusion: that is that it is only sex outside marriage that you find abhorrent because disallowed by the scriptures. Therefore if a gay couple eschew a physical relationship before marriage it is OK afterwards - you cannot argue that sex is only OK after Christian marriage since the passages that originally prohibit sex outside marriage all come from the pre-Christian era.

When you say "gay sex" (whatever that is) gets a free pass I must ask what you mean? Are you implying that, for example, anal sex is OK within the context of marriage? And what are you referring to as "lots of other sex"???

As for the "Christian message" and whether or not it is perceived as having value, neither mr cheesy nor I have at any time made any statement that would cause you to question whether or not we see the message of Christ as being valuable. Yet again it seems that someone who seeks to prevent a sizeable proportion of the population from being able to have loving, committed, lifelong relationships given affirmation and acceptance is now trying to say that the "Christian message" categorically rejects these people and their sexual orientation - and that is simply not true. At NO point did Jesus Christ condemn homosexuality or homosexual sex: in fact he condemned remarkably little, preferring the line of "let him that is without sin cast the first stone. It is decidedly UN-Christian for a section of believers who purport to be followers of Christ to spend so much of their time condemning and damning fellow human beings and, in some cases, fellow Christians - although, of course, I am aware that there are some so-called Christians who would argue that to be gay is automatically to be outside the prospect of every being a Christian. [/QB]

Firstly at no point have I said I find sex, gay or straight, abhorrent. I believe sex outside marriage to be problematic scripturally and certainly outside the traditions of most mainstream Christian churches. My interest for the purposes of the thread is in how homosexual people square that incompatibility with their Christian practice. I'm genuinely interested and wonder whether I can find any agreement. As a Catholic I don't accept same sex marriage as a "thing" except legally, and as a law abiding citizen I wouldn't attempt to change the law, and would hope the law wouldn't challenge my right to different religious views. My wife is an Anglican and I married in an Anglican church. I don't believe in forcing my religious or political views or sporting allegiances on my children, though I do tell guide them in what I believe is a good life.

I'm not sure what anal sex has to do with anything, the marriage vows as I recall them contained words about mutual comfort and the rearing of children - the first is debatable in that context and the second makes it most unlikely. As I understand it Christians, including married ones, are called to a life of sexual continence, which I interpret as sex as more than a recreational activity.

The debate is whether an intimate homosexual lifestyle is compatible with Christian tradition. I believe homosexual CofE clergy are asked to forswear such intimacy, and if that's true, what the basis of that prohibition is. I'm genuinely interested in having my traditions challenged with science or doctrine, I'm not interested in being branded a caveman because I'm not on message with the C21st. If I've missed anything out I'll get back, the reply box isn't conducive to repeated scanning back.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
One person uses the storyline from the Bible as a basis for health and life and morality, and another person uses a storyline from CNN or BBC as a basis for morality.
I have never heard of anybody using a storyline from CNN or BBC as a basis for morality. Do you have any cites for that?

Most non-Christians I know judge storylines from CNN or BBC according to their already-formed morality. I think you've overspoke your thought.

Ok, let me clarify.

The idea of the thread was not to be theological, never the less, the OP started with telling a story. The stories of the Bible are a basis for theology....

Ok, with that said, CNN is about telling stories, not simply facts. CNN is a work of art in story telling, witch "factualness" as a basic rule. Wile factual, CNN can sway the listener toward a particular feeling, invoking an emotional or even a logical process for the reader/listener. Commentary and editorial pieces moreso than news pieces.

You rightly point out CNN isn't a basis for morality per-se. But in it's own way CNN's commonality and popularity truly do reflect of modern morality. On a historical basis, CNN is a basis for morality. I'm not saying CNN is like the Bible as far as being a system of codes and laws, but as a collection of democratic thought, CNN is like a historian of sorts, collecting the sentiments of many many people, and making history out of it.

Isaiah, though much more targeted in his scope (and his scribe I suppose) doesn't work much differently. The Bible is a collection of historical stories and some believe that the Bible is an application of a moral law from God.

So then, if Bible is a reflection and application of God's moral law, so too CNN is a reflection and application of modern American morality.

@Soror Magna
Morality by the way is simply a methodology for best health and living life... hence, CNN has a health section, and CNN wants you to be happy.... its' really an easy connection, nothing implied by using morality toward CNN and health toward Moses.... eating shellfish is a health issue, abortion is a health issue.... CNN might have a story on either of those.

I suppose though that many people may have a different view of what Morality is. Probably "morality" just refers to obsolete rules that control our natural inclinations for no good reasons. If that is the case, miscommunication is unavoidable.

It may be worth a thread that just backs up the whole train and talk about what morality means.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Gosh, those homophobes suffer so much persecution, don't they? Martyrdom has never looked so dignified.
This kind of sarcasm reinforces my point. Anything less than full approval of homosexuality is viewed as homophobia and demonisation. Thats just the reaction of a very angry and irrational crowd.

Have you considered that other people disagreeing with you doesn't really qualify as "demonization"? Certainly not in the way "homosexuals are all dangerous perverts and unclean in the sight of God" qualifies as such.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by romanesque (responding topost from Mr Cheesy)
quote:
I think there's scriptural evidence against sex outside marriage, and the bible is a guide against the infinite fallibility of the human heart. If this is modernity vs. faith we can have that discussion, but I assumed you held the Christian message as of some value. If you do, I'd like to know where gay sex gets a free pass when lots of other sex doesn't, and why you think it should. This isn't about My Prejudice and I refuse to defend my position on that basis.
I'm now very confused.

I've read the above three times and still come to the same conclusion: that is that it is only sex outside marriage that you find abhorrent because disallowed by the scriptures. Therefore if a gay couple eschew a physical relationship before marriage it is OK afterwards - you cannot argue that sex is only OK after Christian marriage since the passages that originally prohibit sex outside marriage all come from the pre-Christian era.

When you say "gay sex" (whatever that is) gets a free pass I must ask what you mean? Are you implying that, for example, anal sex is OK within the context of marriage? And what are you referring to as "lots of other sex"???

As for the "Christian message" and whether or not it is perceived as having value, neither mr cheesy nor I have at any time made any statement that would cause you to question whether or not we see the message of Christ as being valuable. Yet again it seems that someone who seeks to prevent a sizeable proportion of the population from being able to have loving, committed, lifelong relationships given affirmation and acceptance is now trying to say that the "Christian message" categorically rejects these people and their sexual orientation - and that is simply not true. At NO point did Jesus Christ condemn homosexuality or homosexual sex: in fact he condemned remarkably little, preferring the line of "let him that is without sin cast the first stone. It is decidedly UN-Christian for a section of believers who purport to be followers of Christ to spend so much of their time condemning and damning fellow human beings and, in some cases, fellow Christians - although, of course, I am aware that there are some so-called Christians who would argue that to be gay is automatically to be outside the prospect of every being a Christian.

Why the pro-gay-church group always playing coy and suggesting that anyone in disagrement isn't clear about what sex is.

Hello! "gay sex" is a totally sufficient word for the situation. Oddly, its the pro-gay group here that is constantly pretending as if the anti-gay group are morons that don't know what gay people are doing in bedrooms.

Talk about preocupied with sex. The discussion can never move on from sex acts to large questions because this is the problem.

pro-gay arguments boil down all things to merely sexually gratifying acts, for which the details of said acts are not explicitly spoken about in the Bible.

So, for it's lack of explicit detail (as if the Bible needed to be a schoolbook on sex acts) no Christian can use the Bible as a moral code on sex.

It's getting so old... all the flippant "whatever tha is" and "what do you mean by 'gay sex'" and what are you implying by "'same sex attraction'".

Of course sexual attraction applies to heterosexuals! All that is going on is the effort to scrub out distinctions about homosexual relationships so that the issue cannot be talked about.

It would become a non-thing and a non-discussion if homosexuals just stopped commenting. But I guess they feel the need to confuse and crowd out the talk.

You can't just demand that someone who believes in sexual acts as sinful and moral issues to simply declassify homosexual sex to "sex" if you want to have a discussion.

If you don't want to discuss it and believe morality is no longer a Bible question... like others have said, say that.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Many homosexuals don't have sex. Fact.

Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Many homosexuals don't have sex. Fact.

I'm sure you're right, ditto heterosexuals. Anyone thinking the church is devoid of instinctive homosexuals should check out the Brompton Oratory of a Sunday morning. We're not talking about inclination or orientation to anything as sinful I hope.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Gosh, those homophobes suffer so much persecution, don't they? Martyrdom has never looked so dignified.
This kind of sarcasm reinforces my point. Anything less than full approval of homosexuality is viewed as homophobia and demonisation. Thats just the reaction of a very angry and irrational crowd.
Have you considered that other people disagreeing with you doesn't really qualify as "demonization"? Certainly not in the way "homosexuals are all dangerous perverts and unclean in the sight of God" qualifies as such.

Oh I'm totally open to disagreement not being demonisation. Point is I just detect a lot of disgust and anger.

I think a lot of true Christians are really working hard on their hearts to move away from the dogmas of the past, but ... sadly not suprising that those old dogmas will be held over their heads.

I am willing to forgive a person who is frustrated and angry, no question. But, for an academic discussion my patience is often limited. I may have had too high of hopes for the group on a dead horses boards... which is my fault, but have to explore. Seems that the boards put me in a minority and maybe I just need to accept that and press ahead, not sure.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
I'm genuinely interested in having my traditions challenged with science or doctrine,

This does not appear to be an accurate statement. Google, Bing, Hell even Yahoo will return all the science behind homosexuality is not only natural, but part of many species evolutionary success. Even our species.
Doctrine? Somebody wrote that somebody said that somebody else said some stuff. And then that is interpreted by another group of people. That is doctrine. And that varies by the centuries.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

If you don't want to discuss it and believe morality is no longer a Bible question... like others have said, say that.

Cute. But ridiculous. Morality is a subjective thing. {i]Especially[/i] in the Bible.

Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Doctrine? Somebody wrote that somebody said that somebody else said some stuff.

That's all religion ever in a nutshell. Do you believe it's the limit of its seriousness?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
As a Catholic I don't accept same sex marriage as a "thing" except legally, and as a law abiding citizen I wouldn't attempt to change the law, and would hope the law wouldn't challenge my right to different religious views.

This seems interesting to me. To the best of my knowledge the Catholic Church is opposed to same-sex marriage even as a legal concept. I'm curious as to why it's this particular point you're willing to break with your religious tradition, which you otherwise seem to consider dispositive on such matters.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
You can't just demand that someone who believes in sexual acts as sinful and moral issues to simply declassify homosexual sex to "sex" if you want to have a discussion.

Why not? There's no sex act that homosexuals do that isn't also done by heterosexuals.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
If you don't want to discuss it and believe morality is no longer a Bible question... like others have said, say that.

You've already declared "morality is no longer a Bible question" back when you denied the morality of executing homosexuals. This is just haggling over the details.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Doctrine? Somebody wrote that somebody said that somebody else said some stuff.
That's all religion ever in a nutshell. Do you believe it's the limit of its seriousness?

What I am saying is that you cannot say "it s doctrine" and expect this to settle anything. The bible can support nearly any prejudice. You need a better case than just "doctrine". Or proof texting.

Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This seems interesting to me. To the best of my knowledge the Catholic Church is opposed to same-sex marriage even as a legal concept. I'm curious as to why it's this particular point you're willing to break with your religious tradition, which you otherwise seem to consider dispositive on such matters.

I live in a country with an established catholic-and-reformed/protestant church (depending who you ask), and abide by its laws as they offer the freedom for me to observe my religious convictions. I don't believe in theocracies, at least outside heaven. This isn't exceptional for Catholics, you won't find us carrying guns outside abortion clinics, though we're big on the right to life. Even the Catholic commentator Bishop Robert Barron conceded there are bigger fish to fry than griping about same sex marriage in a secular society. It's Catholic pragmatism, or the Whore of Babylon writ large, YMMV.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This seems interesting to me. To the best of my knowledge the Catholic Church is opposed to same-sex marriage even as a legal concept. I'm curious as to why it's this particular point you're willing to break with your religious tradition, which you otherwise seem to consider dispositive on such matters.
I live in a country with an established catholic-and-reformed/protestant church (depending who you ask), and abide by its laws as they offer the freedom for me to observe my religious convictions. I don't believe in theocracies, at least outside heaven. This isn't exceptional for Catholics, you won't find us carrying guns outside abortion clinics, though we're big on the right to life. Even the Catholic commentator Bishop Robert Barron conceded there are bigger fish to fry than griping about same sex marriage in a secular society. It's Catholic pragmatism, or the Whore of Babylon writ large, YMMV.

Precious. You gonna make a case or should we take this downstairs?

Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Doctrine? Somebody wrote that somebody said that somebody else said some stuff.
That's all religion ever in a nutshell. Do you believe it's the limit of its seriousness?
What I am saying is that you cannot say "it s doctrine" and expect this to settle anything. The bible can support nearly any prejudice. You need a better case than just "doctrine". Or proof texting.

In my tradition there's scripture, dogma and tradition, and while Anglicanism doesn't adhere to the same boundaries, neither does it apply biblical inerrancy. Some values are doctrinal, a set of beliefs based on but not exclusive to a close reading of scripture. To parody this as "somebody said somebody said" is disingenuous, at least in the context of mainstream Anglicanism. There's clearly a debate within the established church about what denotes doctrine with regard to sexual conduct, and why, and as a (relative) outsider I'm interested in what the cornerstones to that debate, textual or otherwise, are.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
This isn't exceptional for Catholics, you won't find us carrying guns outside abortion clinics, though we're big on the right to life.

If you say so.

Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
This isn't exceptional for Catholics, you won't find us carrying guns outside abortion clinics, though we're big on the right to life.
If you say so.

Says he was raised Lutheran. Whatever, there's always one
[Yipee]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
To parody this as "somebody said somebody said" is disingenuous, at least in the context of mainstream Anglicanism.

Dismissive, perhaps, but accurate. Certainly not disingenuous.
If you truly want a discussion or debate, it would help if you did not use terms like "Whore of Babylon".

Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
To parody this as "somebody said somebody said" is disingenuous, at least in the context of mainstream Anglicanism.
Dismissive, perhaps, but accurate. Certainly not disingenuous.
If you truly want a discussion or debate, it would help if you did not use terms like "Whore of Babylon".

Why, are we beyond the irony curtain?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
This isn't exceptional for Catholics, you won't find us carrying guns outside abortion clinics, though we're big on the right to life.
If you say so.
Says he was raised Lutheran. Whatever, there's always one

So, murder is funny is it? The POV you espouse leads to acts like that.

Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, murder is funny is it? The POV you espouse leads to acts like that. [/QB]

How?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Back on topic please and cut out the sniping. This thread is about the roots of the demonization of homosexuality. It is not about logic-chopping, point-scoring, one-liners.

I also remind you of Louise's Hostly clarification here.

Particularly this.

quote:
If you're not contributing directly to the discussion of where prejudice/demonisation comes from, then please think about which board or which thread your post actually belongs on - because the chances are it's not this thread.

Barnabas62
Dead Horses Host

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
You can't just demand that someone who believes in sexual acts as sinful and moral issues to simply declassify homosexual sex to "sex" if you want to have a discussion.
Why not? There's no sex act that homosexuals do that isn't also done by heterosexuals.

If the human form being excluded, and if we make no distinction between male and female organs.... that seems to be the issue, are we merely just a coincidental set of similar organs or is there some special meaning about being a man or woman. The Bible points us in the direction of a higher purpose than serving the needs and wants of our sexual organs.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
If you don't want to discuss it and believe morality is no longer a Bible question... like others have said, say that.
You've already declared "morality is no longer a Bible question" back when you denied the morality of executing homosexuals. This is just haggling over the details.

It seems that haggling over details is all you will let it be. It is all trivial to you now. This discussion really wasn't for you then. You are truly a troll at this point.

I had initially thought that ship was mainly an area of Christian thought based on the Bible in even a loose sense. I suppose that may not be a rule or even a norm here.

I am interested in a Biblical discussion. I added that the demonisation issue is colored by a certain Biblical understanding which makes demonisation a very predictable outcome.

By agreeing that killing homosexuals is not right in our time, I did not say I think this makes the Bible void as a moral source.

This is very important.
The penalties for sin in Leviticus were serious for their political nature. It was nation building at all sociocultural levels. Those policies and politics don't apply to us, but the principles of sin still apply. God created a set of rules for which he would strictly enforce in order to govern and administer a Land Grant passed down through Abraham. The enforcement was for the control of rebellion. Small infractions were harshly punished. Homophobia as we call it (a psychological disorder)is perfectly natural for a parent who thought their gay child might be stoned for revealing their identity. Saving a life is powerful motivator eh?

Saying that in our time killing people for small moral infractions is not a concession that the Bible ceases to be a moral guide. God can kill for small moral infractions, doesn't bother me because he doesn't do that anymore. He demonstrated how harsh things can get as history shows.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
You are truly a troll at this point.

Host Hat On

And that gets you a formal warning for a Commandment 3 violation. And a reference to Admin.

For the record, here is the wording of Commandment 3

quote:
3. Attack the issue, not the person

Name-calling and personal insults are only allowed in Hell. Attacks outside of Hell are grounds for suspension or banning.

Barnabas62
Dead Horses Host

Host Hat Off

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
You can't just demand that someone who believes in sexual acts as sinful and moral issues to simply declassify homosexual sex to "sex" if you want to have a discussion.
Why not? There's no sex act that homosexuals do that isn't also done by heterosexuals.

If one makes no distinction between male and female organs.... (all assholes are equal) that seems to be at issue. Are we merely just a set of similar organs or is there some special meaning about being a man or woman?

Secondly, and perhaps more along your line of thinking of sex only as a set of sex acts. I think statistics show that anal penetration is by far not the norm for heterosexual sex. Just as 3 way sex happens doesn't normalize married peoples feelings against that, so too anal sex between a man and woman doesn't normalize it between two men no matter how right it might feel to them at the time.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
If you don't want to discuss it and believe morality is no longer a Bible question... like others have said, say that.
You've already declared "morality is no longer a Bible question" back when you denied the morality of executing homosexuals. This is just haggling over the details.

It seems that haggling over details is all you will let it be. It is all trivial to you now. This discussion really wasn't for you then. Looks like you're just trolling now.

But I suppose that I also may have mistepped in that I see that Louise wants to prohibit discussion of sex as sin in this thread. Using a historical approach is making that difficult.

I had initially thought that on the The Ship I could engage in an area of Christian thought based on the Bible in a decent level of commonality. I suppose that may not be a rule or even a norm here. You'll have to tell me what you think. I'm totally open to discussion outside the basis of the Bible, perhaps the other threads are required, it is too problematic to continue on the track I started...

I am interested in a Biblically-related discussion. I added that the demonisation issue is colored by a certain historical Biblical understanding which makes demonisation a very predictable, and logical outcome.

By agreeing that killing homosexuals is not right -in this age-, I did not say I think this makes the Bible void as a moral source.

This is very important.
The penalties for sin in Leviticus were serious for their political nature. It was nation building at all socio-cultural levels. Those policies and politics don't apply to us, but the principles of sin still apply academically and philosophically. God created a set of rules which he would strictly enforce in order to govern and administer a Land Grant passed down through Abraham. The enforcement was for the control of rebellion, attitudes, diseases, consciences, agriculture, finance.... Small infractions were harshly punished. Homophobia (disorder) as we call it is perfectly natural for a parent who thought their gay child might be stoned for revealing their identity one day. Saving a life is powerful motivator eh?

Society now has very lax penalties for everything. Nowthen, saying it's wrong killing people for small moral infractions these days is not a concession that the Bible ceases to be a moral guide completely. God ordered execution for minor moral infractions that seem harmless to us now, doesn't bother me because he doesn't do that anymore. He demonstrated how harsh things can get as history shows. Israel is an object lesson, a historical lesson for man.

I think understanding, perhaps even forgiving the homophobia nowadays takes some thoughtfulness on the pro-gay side as the enforcements of the past are unfair and unjustifiable in the here and now. Going back in time and parsing what is sin why it is a sin, and what is punishable - that's another thread I guess.

People need to remember that the church is as flawed as any institution could be, and it invites and attracts all kinds of problem children. It is fraught with instability and inconsistency. The OP asked why this issue why now, and not some other one. I think the inconsistency in the institution has risen to a level where without a State sponsorship, people are trusting the state, and distrusting the church. Socially, the scales tipped finally over and the church is outweighed. I would add that it is foretold in prophecy the church would decline.

I will leave you the last word.

[ 06. June 2017, 18:27: Message edited by: Aijalon ]

Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

I had initially thought that ship was mainly an area of Christian thought based on the Bible in even a loose sense. I suppose that may not be a rule or even a norm here.

I have to agree it's an issue. One would have different expectations of a discussion with Stephen Fry and the Archbishop of Canterbury. I'm unfamiliar with the range of Anglican thought, but some of the responses seem as close to New Atheism as makes no difference, and as people aren't declaring any affiliation I recognise as Christian or otherwise, and are on the immediate defensive, it makes mutual understanding impossible. It isn't a liberal vs conservative thing, it's an engagement vs stonewalling attitude. I don't know enough about your thoughts to concur or not, but I reject any victimisation of homosexuals as un-Christian and expect them to offer me the same generosity. Neither do I expect them to speak for all gay people, I'm more interested in their individual responses to the Christian message. So far the shutters are firmly closed.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

I had initially thought that ship was mainly an area of Christian thought based on the Bible in even a loose sense. I suppose that may not be a rule or even a norm here.

I have to agree it's an issue. One would have different expectations of a discussion with Stephen Fry and the Archbishop of Canterbury. I'm unfamiliar with the range of Anglican thought, but some of the responses seem as close to New Atheism as makes no difference, and as people aren't declaring any affiliation I recognise as Christian or otherwise, and are on the immediate defensive, it makes mutual understanding impossible. It isn't a liberal vs conservative thing, it's an engagement vs stonewalling attitude. I don't know enough about your thoughts to concur or not, but I reject any victimisation of homosexuals as un-Christian and expect them to offer me the same generosity. Neither do I expect them to speak for all gay people, I'm more interested in their individual responses to the Christian message. So far the shutters are firmly closed.

I certainly don't want to be the demonising type. I am also not trying to justify the demonisation though perhaps doing a poor job of it. As a person coming from some serious fundamentalism that no longer can have meaningful discussion with my fundy parents... I am truly open to engagement with others. I suppose I understand the mockery of Christian traditions, and yes, I even must "pick and choose" certain things out of the mix to make sense.

Again, historically, allegorically, and anecdotally, I look at the world from the past forward. I want to see ourselves here and now from the perspective of ancient people's hoping for better, rather than what I see others doing...

looking into our past through a lens about as old as their sexual prime years.

[ 06. June 2017, 18:37: Message edited by: Aijalon ]

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

The books of the Bible need to be treated with the same lens any historian would apply to historical documents. They are products of the times they were written in and reflect the biases of their times and authors.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Looks like you're just trolling now.

Host Hat On

Formal warning number 2. Two categories

1. A repeat Commandment 3 Offence.

2. Wording referred to Admin for consideration under Commandment 6.

Barnabas62
Dead Horses Host

Host Hat Off

Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
The books of the Bible need to be treated with the same lens any historian would apply to historical documents. They are products of the times they were written in and reflect the biases of their times and authors.

I agree, but that doesn't answer whether they are explicitly or implicitly the word of God. In other words a hotline to the numinous and truth.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I am interested in a Biblical discussion. I added that the demonisation issue is colored by a certain Biblical understanding which makes demonisation a very predictable outcome.

By agreeing that killing homosexuals is not right in our time, I did not say I think this makes the Bible void as a moral source.

This seems to be problematic, since you advocate adhering to "the Code of Moses", yet you also want to truncate and edit it on non-Biblical grounds. As far as I'm aware there's no place in the Torah that distinguishes between "moral" and "political" teachings or that conveniently labels each as such. I'd argue that "moral" and "political" were not seen as distinct categories by whoever wrote the Five Books. And it seems like a real stretch to argue that the first sentence of Leviticus 20:13 is a moral teaching, but the second sentence is a political one.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
God created a set of rules for which he would strictly enforce in order to govern and administer a Land Grant passed down through Abraham.

That's not quite true. God didn't strictly enforce the ban on homosexuality, He ordered His followers to do it.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Saying that in our time killing people for small moral infractions is not a concession that the Bible ceases to be a moral guide.

Actually it is, at least when coupled with the assertion that killing people for homosexuality used to be moral. If you're going to claim that God changed His mind on the morality of dishing out the death penalty to homosexuals, doesn't that imply at least the possibility that He's changed His mind on other stuff as well? In short, do you have any kind of consistent hermeneutic for deciding which things God changed his mind about other than your own personal preferences?

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

Stopping point to say: I posted twice in a row and didn't realize I did that. I may have hit a reply button when I had thought I hit a preview button.... Or tried editing.... Different board than what I'm used to. Anyways totally botched on my part. I didn't even realize I was mod hatted in the first one.

more to come

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
you advocate adhering to "the Code of Moses", yet you also want to truncate and edit it on non-Biblical grounds.

Its not that simple. I'm saying that the Code of Moses has specific and literal application then, and it has continued application today for the principles it shows itself to be based on. Those principles are demonstrated in Genesis. In other words, as a matter of design and biological wiring - humanity has a purpose and focus.

When Moses comes along, the Law comes into play to give not just human purpose in the very loose "God gloryifying" sense, but national purpose. The national purpose part is the part that is truncated/ended/terminated.

What the Law leaves behind in it's wake, is evidence of human purpose and magnificence. The administration and enforcement of the Law no longer exist because it was intended for Israel.

That said, it seems that you regard the Old testament as illegitimate at about every level. So I'm not sure I need to go on from there.

quote:
As far as I'm aware there's no place in the Torah that distinguishes between "moral" and "political" teachings or that conveniently labels each as such. I'd argue that "moral" and "political" were not seen as distinct categories by whoever wrote the Five Books. And it seems like a real stretch to argue that the first sentence of Leviticus 20:13 is a moral teaching, but the second sentence is a political one.

I get where you're going. The law is punctuated by context, topic, and some title and heading differences, etc... but you may not care about that. Try this on.....the verse you cited is pretty easy, one statement is a description of how Israel was to feel-about or otherwise regard the concept of male-male sex, the other is how they were to deal with it. Dealing the execution required various layers of priesthood, elders, and other parts of Hebrew society all working - the administrators.

When the administrators all died off and national sovereignty revoked by God, what remains for us to consider is the underlying reasons behind that law. n those verses was God telling man that he was personally repulsed? I don't think that was the intent. Are we to think he desires humans to avoid this activity. Yes, I think that was the intent.

Some think of the Old Covenant and all that God ever said within it as revoked or cancelled, like a full building demolition. I think it was more of an eviction from the building, not a demolition. The building still stands, but it looks much nicer, the church lives there (still a poorly run building at this point too though). The Law contained a litany of curses for failure, those curses are NOW in force. Only in that regard is the law actually still in force. Seems to me most Christians don't realize it is in force as a set of curses on Israel.

quote:
That's not quite true. God didn't strictly enforce the ban on homosexuality, He ordered His followers to do it.

For his part God didn't act as a bystander, he did state that he would "cut off" the sinners from their people and so forth. He quite certainly stated he was taking action.

quote:
In short, do you have any kind of consistent hermeneutic for deciding which things God changed his mind about other than your own personal preferences?

Israel was freed from Egypt and given the option to continue as God's people IF they followed the law.

1) The blessings and cursings under the law were conditional
2) There were some geopolitical objectives in play that Israel had to accomplish
a. Wipe out impure bloodlines
b. set the stage for the birth of Christ

without going into a longer post.... those higher objectives being accomplished, the administration system of the law was no longer needed. The sin issue was resolved in Christ, and as I said before, in the wake of the law we see imperatives from God about how to operate as human beings. It is very much up to us to administer all that for ourselves. God isn't upstairs counting sins or measuring blood sacrifices. That doesn't mean that we haven't had revealed good principles to live by.

Killing sinners wasn't a principle to live by. It was an ordinance for them, not us.
Even "detesting" homosexuality is not a rule to live by. But avoiding homosexuality is a pretty safe assumption.

With that said, the Bible didn't leave behind in any explicit explanations other than an abstract appeal to order and design, that we should avoid homosexual sex, unmarried sex, animal sex, etc......Christians do this for faith and conscience sake.

If you wish you may disregard the Bible I guess. But you go further and seem to insist there are no good reasons to continue basing any moral beliefs on the Old Testament.

And still, you haven't addressed the issue of how the legacy of the Old Testament History creates a very powerful and 'predictable' landscape for demonizing homosexuality, especially in light of so many Christians misunderstanding the narrow application of the Law of Moses as for National Israel.

I think the Old Testament and Christian political history from there forward create a pretty easy backdrop for understanding the demonization, don't you?

[ 07. June 2017, 21:41: Message edited by: Aijalon ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Its not that simple. I'm saying that the Code of Moses has specific and literal application then, and it has continued application today for the principles it shows itself to be based on. Those principles are demonstrated in Genesis. In other words, as a matter of design and biological wiring - humanity has a purpose and focus.

I'm not sure I buy that. If detesting male homosexuals is wired in to humanity we wouldn't need an instruction book telling us to detest them.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
When Moses comes along, the Law comes into play to give not just human purpose in the very loose "God gloryifying" sense, but national purpose. The national purpose part is the part that is truncated/ended/terminated.

What the Law leaves behind in it's wake, is evidence of human purpose and magnificence. The administration and enforcement of the Law no longer exist because it was intended for Israel.

That's a non-Biblical standard, but at least it's a standard. As near as I can tell you're claiming that anything associated with what we'd call the Weberian state doesn't count anymore. Feel free to correct me if I'm interpreting you wrong. What I'm curious about is how you arrived at that conclusion. As far as I'm aware there's nowhere in the Bible where that standard is laid out.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As far as I'm aware there's no place in the Torah that distinguishes between "moral" and "political" teachings or that conveniently labels each as such. I'd argue that "moral" and "political" were not seen as distinct categories by whoever wrote the Five Books. And it seems like a real stretch to argue that the first sentence of Leviticus 20:13 is a moral teaching, but the second sentence is a political one.
I get where you're going. The law is punctuated by context, topic, and some title and heading differences, etc... but you may not care about that. Try this on.....the verse you cited is pretty easy, one statement is a description of how Israel was to feel-about or otherwise regard the concept of male-male sex, the other is how they were to deal with it.

I'm not sure I buy that interpretation. Both sections deal with human actions, not feelings. The first sentence was your typical Biblical 'thou shalt not . . . ', something that deals with behavior, and the second was a 'thou shalt . . . ', also behavior.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
In those verses was God telling man that he was personally repulsed? I don't think that was the intent. Are we to think he desires humans to avoid this activity. Yes, I think that was the intent.

Well, avoid the activity and kill anyone found engaging in it.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Some think of the Old Covenant and all that God ever said within it as revoked or cancelled, like a full building demolition. I think it was more of an eviction from the building, not a demolition.

Yeah, I get that. Your standard seems to be that only the bits that deal with the state got revoked. So executing homosexuals or non-believers is no longer moral, but you still have to detest both groups and avoid things like mixed-fiber garments. Your grounds seem a little arbitrary for making this distinction and leaves open some marginal cases. For example most modern states still regulate weights and measures. Given your argument about capital punishment for male homosexuality it would be expected (at least in terms of consistency) for you to argue that using fair weights and measures is no longer a moral imperative and shouldn't be enforced by the government, but I seriously doubt you'd actually advance that argument.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Killing sinners wasn't a principle to live by. It was an ordinance for them, not us.
Even "detesting" homosexuality is not a rule to live by. But avoiding homosexuality is a pretty safe assumption.

I'm always suspicious when someone tells me that God just coincidentally happens to detest all the same people they do. Especially if it's justified by some highly selective parsing of a religious text that (again, completely by coincidence) just happens to accept the parts they like and excludes the parts they don't.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

in one of the two threads we have going I will try to respond soon. A.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Aijalon

quote:
I think understanding, perhaps even forgiving the homophobia nowadays takes some thoughtfulness on the pro-gay side as the enforcements of the past are unfair and unjustifiable in the here and now.

So you think that what you term the "pro-gay side" needs to be magnanimous and just suck-up the abuse, name calling, discrimination and unprovoked violence which is meted out - frequently by people who give themselves the label "Christian"? And you think this should happen because, if I read you correctly, the "enforcements of the past" - I take it you mean imprisonment and other punishments up to and including death - are no longer acceptable in a modern western society? REALLY???

quote:
The OP asked why this issue why now, and not some other one. I think the inconsistency in the institution has risen to a level where without a State sponsorship, people are trusting the state, and distrusting the church. Socially, the scales tipped finally over and the church is outweighed. I would add that it is foretold in prophecy the church would decline.

First, in speaking of the church you fail to acknowledge there are many churches; further that there are profound differences in attitude towards many issues, not least homosexuality and same-sex relationships, between the major strands of christian allegiance.

Second, if "the church" is "outweighed" could it be due to something as simple as independent thought and rational argument? There are many, many Christians who see the attitudes of some churches towards homosexuality - a gender preference which is innate, not a life-style choice - as incompatible with the command of Christ that we should love one another. If "the church" is in decline it needs to ask itself whether it is the author of its own misfortune.

Third, there are far too many instances of "the church" behaving in ways wholly incompatible with its own teachings for any rational person to question why growing numbers of people prefer to trust to "the state" rather than institutions that have manifestly failed in so many areas - I'm thinking financial scandals, abuse of power over the vulnerable, the protection of paedophiles from justice by deliberate acts of aiding fugitives and stymieing criminal investigations, the demonisation of young women pregnant outside marriage, the callous treatment of "fallen" girls, the stealing of babies and enforced adoptions, the scandalously high infant mortality rates in church orphanages and childrens' homes.

You wonder that modern society doesn't jump to "the church"'s defence over issues like SSM???

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
So you think that what you term the "pro-gay side" needs to be magnanimous and just suck-up the abuse, name calling, discrimination and unprovoked violence which is meted out - frequently by people who give themselves the label "Christian"?

Hating isn't in the kingdom of God. The disapproval of homosexuality need not be tied to hating it (or, not any longer).

IOW - feeling disaproved of will always inspire hate with someone who is holding hate inside.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Hating isn't in the kingdom of God.

But it was? Or is killing someone for something that doesn't harm anyone an act of love?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Hating isn't in the kingdom of God. The disapproval of homosexuality need not be tied to hating it (or, not any longer).

IOW - feeling disaproved of will always inspire hate with someone who is holding hate inside.

The problem is that many Christians I am aware of seem singularly unable to process living in a secular society where people have different ideas and are blind to how they, personally, are helped by this.

If Christians could both say that they thought theologically that gay marriage was a sin but also supported it as something that was good for society there would be less of an issue.

In reality many actually use their naff theology to justify limiting the freedom of other people.

So whilst it might or might not be true that gay people are actually hated (I've not come to a firm conclusion about whether people who oppose gay marriage actually hate gay people), the net effect of opposing freedom for gay people and of continually downplaying their full humanity is hatred.

[ 14. June 2017, 07:37: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Aijalon

quote:
Hating isn't in the kingdom of God.

And you know this because?

If you read the Bible you'll find there's plenty of hate there, often of whited sepulchres who set themselves up as a arbiter of righteousness and probity in others.

quote:
The disapproval of homosexuality need not be tied to hating it (or, not any longer).

Goody! I'm so relieved to get your ruling on that, which you're qualified to give because ???

Read your own posts: they bristle with hostility and hatred towards the non-heterosexual.

quote:
IOW - feeling disaproved of will always inspire hate with someone who is holding hate inside.

Any more of these folksy nostrums? God, you make Patience Strong seem like Heidegger. (BTW get a dictionary and check the spelling of disapproved for yourself.)

In the meantime, are you going to address yourself to the rest of my post, or do you feel unable to answer ? Just curious.

[ 14. June 2017, 17:21: Message edited by: L'organist ]

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Hating isn't in the kingdom of God. The disapproval of homosexuality need not be tied to hating it (or, not any longer).

IOW - feeling disaproved of will always inspire hate with someone who is holding hate inside.
The problem is that many Christians I am aware of seem singularly unable to process living in a secular society where people have different ideas and are blind to how they, personally, are helped by this.

I think the way I was raised would fall into the category you're describing, but I am not 100% clear what you mean by "helped"?

quote:
If Christians could both say that they thought theologically that gay marriage was a sin but also supported it as something that was good for society there would be less of an issue.

Not sure that it would be possible to resolve the disconnect there. A sin cannot be "good" in any sense.

In reality many actually use their naff theology to justify limiting the freedom of other people.[/quote]
I think the thing that gets hairy is not really the issue about what 2 people do privately, but about the public and cultural effect. Sexuality of the species comes with a set of public protocols (or did). For example, we wear clothes and have laws about exposing sex organs in public, laws about a lot of other things. Biblical morality is predicated on a lot of those things being interconnected, and seeks to preserve and conserve a lot of the moral codes for the net effect on society. I see the big ball of interconnected sexual man as much more than a mere set of private sex acts. But the cat is way out of the bag now, tring to repair one string at a time isn't working, and restricting any one sex act really has no use now. There are justifications to be made, but in part I agree. In the face of the narratives of so many gay lovers out there... I agree, take the rules away. Calling anything and everything good and blessed, that's another question.

quote:
So whilst it might or might not be true that gay people are actually hated (I've not come to a firm conclusion about whether people who oppose gay marriage actually hate gay people), the net effect of opposing freedom for gay people and of continually downplaying their full humanity is hatred.

I here you on that one.

Pastor recently preached on outreach at church (note this isn't a church I attend for theological reasons, it's just close by) and urged people not to view homosexuals and islamists as "the enemy" but rather the mission field.

This is due to the arch enemy mentality in the conservative church, and even accidentally by trying to be loving, I get now how there is hate in the "net effect". I would have recommended not comparing murdering islamists to homosexuals had I been able to edit the sermon.... [Smile]

Never the less, that is the state of things in many Bible belt churches. Hate the sin and love the sinner - that's one oft used catch phrase. I'm not sure that's even a useful phrase anymore.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Aijalon
quote:
Hating isn't in the kingdom of God.
And you know this because?

If you read the Bible you'll find there's plenty of hate there, often of whited sepulchres who set themselves up as a arbiter of righteousness and probity in others.

quote:
The disapproval of homosexuality need not be tied to hating it (or, not any longer).

Goody! I'm so relieved to get your ruling on that, which you're qualified to give because ???

Read your own posts: they bristle with hostility and hatred towards the non-heterosexual.

quote:
IOW - feeling disaproved of will always inspire hate with someone who is holding hate inside.

Any more of these folksy nostrums? God, you make Patience Strong seem like Heidegger. (BTW get a dictionary and check the spelling of disapproved for yourself.)

In the meantime, are you going to address yourself to the rest of my post, or do you feel unable to answer ? Just curious.

If you wish waste time critiquing my misspelling and mistyping I think the opportunity for conversation is lost, or should we just focus on every negative thing about a Christian or a church you can think of.....?

Perhaps you would like to bactrack and talk about prophecy or scripture?

We could, rather, just talk about you.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
If you wish waste time critiquing my misspelling and mistyping I think the opportunity for conversation is lost, or should we just focus on every negative thing about a Christian or a church you can think of.....?

Perhaps you would like to bactrack and talk about prophecy or scripture?

We could, rather, just talk about you.

You could address L'organist's points, rather than dismissing them wholesale because she took one swipe at your spelling. She gave no indication whatever that she wanted to talk about herself, but addressed the points you yourself raised. This is a dodge.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

While I'm not so fond of Mousethief's intervening, he does have a point when it comes to how you, Aijalon, have reacted to L'oganiste.

You are cruising very close to the line at which the Hosts start muttering backstage about people who attack the person rather than enter into discussion. I'm sure you don't want to cross that line and upset the Hosts.

John Holding
Host in Dead Horses

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

@ last two posts.

In my own defense I really don't believe that critique of my post, brief as it was, is right or fair for the simple reason that it's just jumping the gun. I was not prepared, regrettably, to offer a longer response right then. I merely need more time to respond and I intend to do so. I do see that perhaps a short response is taken on these boards to be a trite dismissive response as a rule. Which I have seen a lot of those.

My remark about "talk about you" was merely a reflection of the offense that is apparently taken by L'Organist at my earlier posts. To read between the lines there, I actually honestly did want to talk about the nature of the offense that is clearly taken by L'organist, at me, and sincerely would welcome them to talk about them - with the discussion being apparently personal.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
So you think that what you term the "pro-gay side" needs to be magnanimous and just suck-up the abuse, name calling, discrimination and unprovoked violence which is meted out - frequently by people who give themselves the label "Christian"?

I don't think you have heard me correctly. I am not saying to accept unprovoked violence. I am talking about bland old Christiani homophobia, the kind that says gay people are creepy, not the kind that says "I have to murder you know".

I'm really only saying that vitriol is against Christians for holding their views and speaking up for their beliefs is wrong. It's hate speech against Christians who really have never done anything wrong to a gay person, ever. Saying homosexuality is immoral is not hateful. Do you say it is? I believe it is, but I'm not a homophone as I was raised to be. I didn't flush the Bible down the toilet when I realized the interpretations I was spoon fed were wrong.

quote:
And you think this should happen because, if I read you correctly, the "enforcements of the past" - I take it you mean imprisonment and other punishments up to and including death - are no longer acceptable in a modern western society? REALLY???

I don't know a lot of detail about how the various church or state laws have been enforced, so enforcement might have been the wrong word. Laws prohibiting sexual activity are not he same thing as calling for executions - that's a penal code question (or maybe sociopathic serial killing??). I'm really not talking about medieval forms of torture here, I'm concentrating on a definition of demonization as it has been expressed religiously in the West, in the Modern/Post-Modern era within living memory[/qb]. Why people might have the audacity to oppose it ideologically, philosophically, morally, spiritually, medically, or any reason at all.

About rest of your anti-church post. You think I "fail to acknowledge" .... no no, I'm well aware the church is fractured. Shall we go on a church bashing expedition now, I could lend you a hand!

If you don't mind (and this is to anyone) is perhaps my abrasive signature part of the reason for the negative reactions to certain things I've said? Is mentioning repentance, or hell bothering a bunch of people?

[ 20. June 2017, 22:12: Message edited by: Aijalon ]

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
@ last two posts.

In my own defense I really don't believe that critique of my post, brief as it was, is right or fair for the simple reason that it's just jumping the gun. I was not prepared, regrettably, to offer a longer response right then. I merely need more time to respond and I intend to do so. I do see that perhaps a short response is taken on these boards to be a trite dismissive response as a rule. Which I have seen a lot of those.

My remark about "talk about you" was merely a reflection of the offense that is apparently taken by L'Organist at my earlier posts. To read between the lines there, I actually honestly did want to talk about the nature of the offense that is clearly taken by L'organist, at me, and sincerely would welcome them to talk about them - with the discussion being apparently personal.

If you wish to explain, or challenge comments by a Host,the place to do so is the Styx.

John Holding
Host in Dead Horses.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Tangent
{H/As--Hope this is permissible. Sorry, if not.}

Aijalon--

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
If you don't mind (and this is to anyone) is perhaps my abrasive signature part of the reason for the negative reactions to certain things I've said? Is mentioning repentance, or hell bothering a bunch of people?

On that topic, would you please
address my post over on the "Biblical Interpretation" DH thread? Unless I missed something, you never answered it.

Thanks.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

I will try to do so today. Have not had the time to continue the too many discussions, been very busy. Thanks GK. Peace.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

Also noted my misspellings above, lol at me and these gnarly old fingers. Maybe I'll sig myself on that one! haha.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
So you think that what you term the "pro-gay side" needs to be magnanimous and just suck-up the abuse, name calling, discrimination and unprovoked violence which is meted out - frequently by people who give themselves the label "Christian"?
I don't think you have heard me correctly. I am not saying to accept unprovoked violence. I am talking about bland old Christiani homophobia, the kind that says gay people are creepy, not the kind that says "I have to murder you know".

First off, most gay-bashers don't consider gay bashing "unprovoked". Homosexuality is itself considered a provocation, and they've got the Biblical verses to back them up.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I'm really only saying that vitriol is against Christians for holding their views and speaking up for their beliefs is wrong. It's hate speech against Christians who really have never done anything wrong to a gay person, ever. Saying homosexuality is immoral is not hateful.

How about saying homosexuality is "detestable"? That's a pretty close synonym to hate.

I also don't think I can accept your premise that trying to reduce someone to second-class citizenship or have them imprisoned doesn't count as "do[ing] anything wrong" to gay people. Those are both causes embraced by Christians, citing their Christian duty mess with homosexuals, within living memory in the West.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Do you say it is? I believe it is, but I'm not a homophone as I was raised to be. I didn't flush the Bible down the toilet when I realized the interpretations I was spoon fed were wrong.

No, you just took a razor to it so you could selectively cut out the bits you don't feel comfortable with anymore.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:
And you think this should happen because, if I read you correctly, the "enforcements of the past" - I take it you mean imprisonment and other punishments up to and including death - are no longer acceptable in a modern western society? REALLY???
I don't know a lot of detail about how the various church or state laws have been enforced, so enforcement might have been the wrong word. Laws prohibiting sexual activity are not he same thing as calling for executions - that's a penal code question (or maybe sociopathic serial killing??).

Executions are "a penal code question" as are laws punishing sexual activity with imprisonment. In fact, legal sanction is the main distinction between execution and murder. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here, other than trying to signal that you're okay with imprisoning people for homosexuality but not with executing them for it.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I'm really not talking about medieval forms of torture here, I'm concentrating on a definition of demonization as it has been expressed religiously in the West, in the Modern/Post-Modern era within living memory. Why people might have the audacity to oppose it ideologically, philosophically, morally, spiritually, medically, or any reason at all.

As I mentioned above the criminalization of homosexuality was only ruled unconstitutional in the U.S. in 2003. American families headed by same-sex couples were only granted legal parity with opposite-sex headed families in 2014. That would seem to fit your concentration on "the Modern/Post-Modern era within living memory". In both cases opposition to basic justice was cast in terms of upholding Christian virtue. Quite frankly it comes across as incredibly tone-deaf and self-aggrandizing for you to argue that these are in no way unjust and constitute some form of 'audacity'. Though I suppose it could be considered audacious to deliberately work to deny someone the equal protection of the law and claim they're not doing it out of hate.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I'm really only saying that vitriol is against Christians for holding their views and speaking up for their beliefs is wrong.

<snip>

Saying homosexuality is immoral is not hateful.

This seems to summarize Aijalon's argument for the special privilege he feels his own position should be accorded. Something along the lines of "We get to pass judgment on you immoral sinners, but you don't get to have an opinion about us". I believe there may actually be some scriptural basis for this:

quote:
Judge others, that ye shall be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye must not be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall not be measured to you again.

Or something like that. I guess it depends on which translation you use. [Big Grin]

Part of the problem is that Christians and Christianity seem to expect a certain amount of deference to their own moral superiority. When that superiority is questioned they seem equal parts flummoxed and offended. An example from a few years back from Fred Clark:

quote:
For decades, the religious right has been pre-occupied with two issues above all else: abortion and homosexuality. And on both of those issues, they have wielded power and influence by claiming the moral high ground — claiming to represent the godly, “biblical” truth of right and wrong. Anyone who disagreed with them on these issues was portrayed as less moral, less godly, less good.

That claim — that framing of these issues as right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, biblical vs. unbiblical, moral vs. immoral — was asserted and accepted for most of the religious right’s 30-year run.

But not any more. That claim is still being asserted, but it is no longer being accepted.

<snip>

For decades, the religious right has been arguing that their purchase on the moral high ground ought to result in their political triumph. The political opposition to that used to be a form of “yes, but …” — yes, these political preachers are correct about morality and immorality, but other factors need to be considered, or other complications have to be accounted for, etc.

Opposition to the religious right’s agenda on Tuesday [November 6, 2012] did not take the form of this “yes, but …” argument. It was simply, “No.”

It was not a disagreement about the political implications of the preachers’ righteous moral claims, but a denial of those claims, of their righteousness and of their morality. No, these political preachers are incorrect about morality and immorality. No, pretending that some “biblical definition of marriage” is a pretext for denying people their rights or delegitimizing their families is not good or decent or right.

All italics from the original, which is worth a read in its entirety.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
While I'm not so fond of Mousethief's intervening

If by this you mean I was junior hosting, that was not what I intended to do, and apologize for cutting too close to the line.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

Crœsos: You're comparing me to a stereotype of Christian gay-bashers, I'm not political, didn't vote for trump, quit caring about gay marriage laws. I don't believe that it's God's duty to bless America, or that God will curse us for "turning out back" on morality. I advocated that the Oregon cake shop should just pay the fine for discrimination, it's the law, and Jesus said pay your taxes.

As your article pointed out, the political advantages for right wing Christians have just about evaporated, but a lot of Christians are pouting about this. This translates into a political mindset.

I really don't share the political mindset, just don't. So you may gloat all you like, this will terribly irritate many a Christian, doesn't really bother me. For me this is about the church's inner core beliefs. It's about how the church should deal with social issues internally. It needs to be on the right track internally before it can spread out politically.

You also stated upwards I think twice about my use of the term "detestable". I had thought we had an academic discussion about the use of that word as far as its impetus to create socio-political will power in the Hebrews to enforce the code.

The following link shows that's the word in use in various translations

http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20.htm

Out of the three listed translations on the default page, detestable is used by three.

I most often rely on the consistency of Young's Literal Translation, which has similarities with the KJV.

Young's uses the term "abomination". That seems pretty straightforward, I don't think that sounds any better to you than detestable though.
http://biblehub.com/ylt/leviticus/20.htm

Point being, the Bible as a moral resource begs for an interpretation that can be applied to our time. I hold that the Bible is a true story, and I'm progressing more toward symbolic and figurative interpretations in time, as the literal ones have often failed me (still insist on strict interpretations of terms if at all possible). I definitely don't think the Bible tells us "everything" we need to know about God, as much as theologians tell me so. Biblical interpretation is the point of the other thread I guess. My point in this thread I suppose, was, that it's obvious where demonization comes from. Perhaps the simple way to put it is - bad combination of Christianity and Politics.

[ 22. June 2017, 15:44: Message edited by: Aijalon ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

I most often rely on the consistency of Young's Literal Translation, which has similarities with the KJV.

There's your problem.¹ Translation across time doesn't work that way.² Context is everything.

¹One of them.
²Actually doesn't work that way in contemporaneous translation either.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I really don't share the political mindset, just don't. So you may gloat all you like, this will terribly irritate many a Christian, doesn't really bother me.

This would be more believable if you didn't consider pointing out that homosexuals have equal rights under law to be "gloating". That interpretation implies a lot of discontent with the political fact that the state now treats homosexuals a lot closer to on par with heterosexuals than it has in the past.

[ 22. June 2017, 17:22: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I really don't share the political mindset, just don't. So you may gloat all you like, this will terribly irritate many a Christian, doesn't really bother me.
This would be more believable if you didn't consider pointing out that homosexuals have equal rights under law to be "gloating". That interpretation implies a lot of discontent with the political fact that the state now treats homosexuals a lot closer to on par with heterosexuals than it has in the past.

As I recall, I was responding to the tone of article you linked to. Smacked of a little gloating, just sayin. You don't think it was eh?

..........I've been sick and will try to catch up with other posts as I can.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Glad you're better and back mate. That's impressive. We won't give up on you.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
... You also stated upwards I think twice about my use of the term "detestable". I had thought we had an academic discussion about the use of that word as far as its impetus to create socio-political will power in the Hebrews to enforce the code.

The following link shows that's the word in use in various translations

http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20.htm

Out of the three listed translations on the default page, detestable is used by three.

I most often rely on the consistency of Young's Literal Translation, which has similarities with the KJV.

Young's uses the term "abomination". That seems pretty straightforward, I don't think that sounds any better to you than detestable though.
http://biblehub.com/ylt/leviticus/20.htm ...

Just out of curiosity, have you ever read any part of the Bible translated into a language other than English? Cuales son algunos sinonimos de "abomination" en espanol?*

Christianity came into existence at a time when the vast majority of people were illiterate, the experts on the Old Testament were Jewish, and Young's Literal Translation and the KJV didn't exist. How do you think those Christians learned Christianity? They relied on the instructions of their leaders and spiritual advisors, the lives of the saints, the teachings of the church fathers, and the traditions of the Church. The Trinity that Christians worship is not "The Bible, some translations, and my thesaurus".

---
*What are some synonyms of "abomination" in Spanish? Aversion (aversion), odio (hatred), repulsion (revulsion), aborrecimiento (abhorrence), rencor (resentment), ojeriza (spite), repugnancia (repugnance), asco (disgust), execración (execrable), horror (horrible), pánico (panic), espanto (fright).

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

I meant to say that out of five translations 3 agreed with the same word. I am merely pointing out that I'm not pulling this out of the air.

Hi Soror, what method would you suggest we use to come up with the right word. I don't think mocking the process or the scholar for giving us tools to work with is very helpful.

No one is worshiping a thesaurus here just for using one.

The point about Young's literal translation, if you care to know, is that Robert Young insisted on translation consistency, whereas the KJV was made in favor of artistic readability in some ways, and it has many different words in place of a single Hebrew one.

If anything, Young was probably agreeing with you that we should not need to consult a thesaurus constantly when we're reading the text.

[ 30. June 2017, 20:25: Message edited by: Aijalon ]

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
... Hi Soror, what method would you suggest we use to come up with the right word. ....

I suggest worrying less about words, and worrying more about human beings. Human beings are so much more than just words someone may choose to describe them.

ETA And there's really no such thing as a "literal" translation. Of anything. Perhaps you mean "word for word", but that is still choosing a word - among other words of similar meaning - from another language.

[ 01. July 2017, 04:20: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

My point in this thread I suppose, was, that it's obvious where demonization comes from. Perhaps the simple way to put it is - bad combination of Christianity and Politics.

It's clear to me where it comes from - fear. Fear of the 'other' plus a large dash of misogyny.

Religion and politics are merely vehicles which, often, carry these two attitudes. They are useful in that they rationalise sexual prejudice.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
ETA And there's really no such thing as a "literal" translation. Of anything. Perhaps you mean "word for word", but that is still choosing a word - among other words of similar meaning - from another language.

And meaning can actually sometimes be lost or obscured in a word for word translation, as with idioms.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
ETA And there's really no such thing as a "literal" translation. Of anything. Perhaps you mean "word for word", but that is still choosing a word - among other words of similar meaning - from another language.
And meaning can actually sometimes be lost or obscured in a word for word translation, as with idioms.

And at least with anything from the OT, not just a different language but a different language system.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I meant to say that out of five translations 3 agreed with the same word. I am merely pointing out that I'm not pulling this out of the air.

Hi Soror, what method would you suggest we use to come up with the right word. I don't think mocking the process or the scholar for giving us tools to work with is very helpful.

No one is worshiping a thesaurus here just for using one.

The point about Young's literal translation, if you care to know, is that Robert Young insisted on translation consistency, whereas the KJV was made in favor of artistic readability in some ways, and it has many different words in place of a single Hebrew one.

If anything, Young was probably agreeing with you that we should not need to consult a thesaurus constantly when we're reading the text.

You're locked in an ancient prison of distorting mirrors. The way out is over them.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Here's a link.

I haven't checked the provenance of the site, but the OT use is quite wide ranging, and some of those usages strike me as arcane.

Plus I rather like the idea that a more accurate word than "abomination" is "taboo" i.e a social or religious custom.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Sometimes I think Muslims are very fortunate in that the Koran was given in Arabic and written in Arabic, sparing the kerfuffle of versions, translations and interpretation.

It may be wrong, but it is consistently wrong.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I meant to say that out of five translations 3 agreed with the same word. I am merely pointing out that I'm not pulling this out of the air.

Hi Soror, what method would you suggest we use to come up with the right word. I don't think mocking the process or the scholar for giving us tools to work with is very helpful.

No one is worshiping a thesaurus here just for using one.

The point about Young's literal translation, if you care to know, is that Robert Young insisted on translation consistency, whereas the KJV was made in favor of artistic readability in some ways, and it has many different words in place of a single Hebrew one.

If anything, Young was probably agreeing with you that we should not need to consult a thesaurus constantly when we're reading the text.
You're locked in an ancient prison of distorting mirrors. The way out is over them.

*yoda voice* how very wise you sound, yes!

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
... Hi Soror, what method would you suggest we use to come up with the right word. ....
I suggest worrying less about words, and worrying more about human beings. Human beings are so much more than just words someone may choose to describe them.

ETA And there's really no such thing as a "literal" translation. Of anything. Perhaps you mean "word for word", but that is still choosing a word - among other words of similar meaning - from another language.

The Bible is an ancient document, full of words. The words mean something. Scholars often think too much of words, I'm not a scholar, but without them we would know nothing at all about the meaning of ancient words, it would all be forgotten.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Dude,
You need to try smoking a different strain or hit it with less enthusiasm.
If you are trying to be funny, you failed.
If your were attempting to communicate anything significant; massive fail.
Did you not understand what Soror Magna said? Because you didn't address it. Perhaps we can find a more simple way to explain the concept.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
... Hi Soror, what method would you suggest we use to come up with the right word. ....
I suggest worrying less about words, and worrying more about human beings. Human beings are so much more than just words someone may choose to describe them.

ETA And there's really no such thing as a "literal" translation. Of anything. Perhaps you mean "word for word", but that is still choosing a word - among other words of similar meaning - from another language.
The Bible is an ancient document, full of words. The words mean something. Scholars often think too much of words, I'm not a scholar, but without them we would know nothing at all about the meaning of ancient words, it would all be forgotten.

Meaning precedes and transcends words. To be imprisoned by them is loss of freedom.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Dude,
You need to try smoking a different strain or hit it with less enthusiasm.
If you are trying to be funny, you failed.
If your were attempting to communicate anything significant; massive fail.
Did you not understand what Soror Magna said? Because you didn't address it. Perhaps we can find a more simple way to explain the concept.

Maybe you would do well to refrain from only trying to inflame everything with inane characterizations of me as a drug abuser, it's lame bro. Or is this all about you looking like the comedian?

Maybe Soror will come along and give us some more good advice about interpretation. Or maybe he only wishes to disqualify all Biblical interpretations on said subject so no discussion can go on.

Leviticus is often mentioned by rarely quoted, though people seem to be familiar with it, the discussion is always glancing off the actual subject at hand.

In the American Standard:

LEV 20:13 And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

If abomination is not good, then what fits? I don't think anyone is going to find anything favorable. Perhaps a scholar has?

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Dude,
You need to try smoking a different strain or hit it with less enthusiasm.
If you are trying to be funny, you failed.
If your were attempting to communicate anything significant; massive fail.
Did you not understand what Soror Magna said? Because you didn't address it. Perhaps we can find a more simple way to explain the concept.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

You do know that eating shellfish is also described as an "abomination" too, don't you? As well as many other things.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Maybe you would do well to refrain from only trying to inflame everything with inane characterizations of me as a drug abuser, it's lame bro. Or is this all about you looking like the comedian?

Whilst I admit I think it is amusing, it was a metaphor.
Your postings have often been confused, erratic and lack cohesion. Though I still think your apparent position will be equally as ridiculous, it would be easier to engage were it more coherent.
Essentially, it does not matter if a particular passage thinks homosexuality is an abomination unless one thinks everything in the Bible is literal. And then you run into the inconvenient and the inconsistent.
And this is why pointing in the text to say this is where the demonisation comes from is off. Because you lot ignore much else, why not this?

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
... Maybe Soror will come along and give us some more good advice about interpretation. Or maybe he only wishes to disqualify all Biblical interpretations on said subject so no discussion can go on. ...

"Soror Magna" is crappy Latin for "big sister". Carry on translating. And assuming.
[Killing me]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I meant to say that out of five translations 3 agreed with the same word. I am merely pointing out that I'm not pulling this out of the air.

Because of course theology is a democracy. Majority wins.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
*yoda voice* how very wise you sound, yes!

This is not gloating. It's nasty.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

Aljalon:

A Hostly warning: You're straying awfully close to personal attack in some of your recent posts. I suggest you cool your jets a little, and start adding light, not heat, to the temperature on this Board. For heat we have Hell, and at the rate you're going, someone (not me) is sure to decide that's the best place to deal with you.

John Holding
Host in Dead Horses

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

Just as a point of interest, Aljalon already has been called to Hell, but afaik has never bothered to post on the thread.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
... Maybe Soror will come along and give us some more good advice about interpretation. Or maybe he only wishes to disqualify all Biblical interpretations on said subject so no discussion can go on. ...
"Soror Magna" is crappy Latin for "big sister". Carry on translating. And assuming.

Ok, sister (Sorry, I don't know Latin) tell me how one should approach translation of this verse, I'm wide open to discussion. If you just don't believe that we can make sense of it because there are too many competing translations or hermeneutic options.... then say that.

I have various translations and consult whatever sources I can for the best and clearest view I can possibly get. What do suggest I do? What do you do?

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

John Holding,

I will start a thread in Styx, not inclined to say anything in Hell.

All the best.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Ok, sister (Sorry, I don't know Latin) tell me how one should approach translation of this verse, I'm wide open to discussion. ...

Well, if you know English, you know some Latin. Magnanimous. Sorority. You know lots of other words that have Latin roots. Question. Discussion. Vacuous. Specious.

My point is that you failed to notice linguistic details like foreign root words and gender when reading material written by a contemporary in your own language. Maybe this translating thing isn't as simple as you think it is.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Again, to answer the OP, it comes from our narrow, perverted misunderstanding of the New Testament 'clobber' verses.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Ok, sister (Sorry, I don't know Latin) tell me how one should approach translation of this verse, I'm wide open to discussion. ...
Well, if you know English, you know some Latin. Magnanimous. Sorority. You know lots of other words that have Latin roots. Question. Discussion. Vacuous. Specious.

My point is that you failed to notice linguistic details like foreign root words and gender when reading material written by a contemporary in your own language. Maybe this translating thing isn't as simple as you think it is.

You seem to say you know something, so please share it, what have I missed out of the verse?

You can have the last word, this is my last post on the subject.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Dude,
You need to try smoking a different strain or hit it with less enthusiasm.
If you are trying to be funny, you failed.
If your were attempting to communicate anything significant; massive fail.
Did you not understand what Soror Magna said? Because you didn't address it. Perhaps we can find a more simple way to explain the concept.
Maybe you would do well to refrain from only trying to inflame everything with inane characterizations of me as a drug abuser, it's lame bro. Or is this all about you looking like the comedian?

Maybe Soror will come along and give us some more good advice about interpretation. Or maybe he only wishes to disqualify all Biblical interpretations on said subject so no discussion can go on.

Leviticus is often mentioned by rarely quoted, though people seem to be familiar with it, the discussion is always glancing off the actual subject at hand.

In the American Standard:

LEV 20:13 And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

If abomination is not good, then what fits? I don't think anyone is going to find anything favorable. Perhaps a scholar has?

Point being, this is the source of where the demonization comes from, I'm not saying that demonization is the right thing, simply for this thread anyway that it hasn't come from nowhere, and I don't think it will just go away either, that is, unless we just stop caring about interpretation completely.

What's that 3500 year old Bronze Age homophobia got to do with anything? Apart from showing glacial cultural evolution to date?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Martin60

quote:
What's that 3500 year old Bronze Age homophobia got to do with anything? Apart from showing glacial cultural evolution to date?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0