quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Christian unrest requires hostility to the tottering edifice of accreted tradition and those who identify with it. End of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Christian unrest requires hostility to the tottering edifice of accreted tradition and those who identify with it. End of.

---

Rubbish. Christian unrest might equally require hostility to the unthinking rejection of the wisdom of the past. As for hostility to "those who identify with it", I believe the 10C's phrase for that is "being a jerk".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Christian unrest requires hostility to the tottering edifice of accreted tradition and those who identify with it. End of.

---

Rubbish. Christian unrest might equally require hostility to the unthinking rejection of the wisdom of the past. As for hostility to "those who identify with it", I believe the 10C's phrase for that is "being a jerk".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I think Gottschalk needs to define what s/he means by 'traditional Christian teaching'. Then folk can let him know if they feel the Ship is hostile to it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Christian unrest might equally require hostility to the unthinking rejection of the wisdom of the past.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Is it me or has hostility to traditional Christian teaching on the Ship considerably intensified in the past years, including hostility to those who hold such teachings? I mean there are the usual boards where discussion continues but I do perceive a general wave of intolerance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
I do not have concrete evidence but just a feeling, though, that the new modern (or postmodern) consensus on ethical questions is somewhat seen as the norm here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:

There are many things I cannot accept about the current re-evaluation or outright rejection of traditional ethics, nor can I encourage others in said rejection, or congratulate them on an inclusion that, from my perspective, remains, and a way, has to, remain incomplete, imperfect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Thank you all for your answers. SvitlanaV2 pretty nailed down my sentiments. I hope that it is clear to all that holding to traditional beliefs with respect to mariage, gender, same-sex attraction does not imply or, even less, necessitate hatred, contempt and hounding of people who do not hold to those beliefs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
There are many things I cannot accept about the current re-evaluation or outright rejection of traditional ethics

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Thinking that a person is wrong is not equal to hating them, having contempt for them or hounding them, and does not require all these things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
My unrest lies in my insensitivity, indifference, self-regard, self-indulgence, self-worship...all idols that are already vanquished by Christ the Redeemer, but to which I still cling. There is thus this inner unrest with which I have to deal, or do I?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Only en passant...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
I cannot how see how such a temerarious presumption (granting for a moment "not wanting to help them, etc", which is not evident, either) can be correct.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
@Mousethief

I replied "en passant" because I mistakenly thought that the question of sex in the Nicene Creed was in jest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
I hope that it is clear to all that holding to traditional beliefs with respect to marriage, gender, same-sex attraction does not imply or, even less, necessitate hatred, contempt and hounding of people who do not hold to those beliefs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
If being opposed to homosexuality is a core tenet of Christianity, then the drafters of the Creed fucked up bigtime. But it is a conciliar document and we can add to it. Where should we put our hatred of homosexuals, do you suppose before "one baptism for the remission of sins"? Or after "the resurrection of the dead"? Decisions, decisions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
@Mousethief

I replied "en passant" because I mistakenly thought that the question of sex in the Nicene Creed was in jest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
...

Do you support civil gay marriage or not? If not, how is that not a form of hatred towards another group in society?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
These are the kinds of attacks which have driven me from serious discussion of most issues here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
...

Do you support civil gay marriage or not? If not, how is that not a form of hatred towards another group in society?

---

These are the kinds of attacks which have driven me from serious discussion of most issues here.

---

On the front page of Purgatory we have three Trump threads, two on Brexit, two on medical care (and another three/four if you count body image, personality tests, addiction and behaviour). There's also something on nuclear weapons, prayer, child abuse by a church leader, death, and a Bible verse.

Nothing you want to talk about there at all?
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Thinking that a person is wrong is not equal to hating them, having contempt for them or hounding them, and does not require all these things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
When your statement goes along the lines of "If you believe this, then you hate..." That is an attack on a person and/or their beliefs, even if you try to soften it later with "unless you can prove why you don't hate..."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So basically, it's just the sex thing.

And nothing regarding usury, war, slavery, universal franchise, capital punishment, or the wearing of hats? Because I'd have thought that the application of traditional Christian teaching would have extended further than what folk got up to in the bedroom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Thank you all for your answers. SvitlanaV2 pretty nailed down my sentiments. I hope that it is clear to all that holding to traditional beliefs with respect to mariage, gender, same-sex attraction does not imply or, even less, necessitate hatred, contempt and hounding of people who do not hold to those beliefs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Thinking that a person is wrong is not equal to hating them, having contempt for them or hounding them, and does not require all these things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
I hope that it is clear to all that holding to traditional beliefs with respect to mariage, gender, same-sex attraction

---

quote:

---

Civility and the respect of another's opinion have become less important than manifesting one's opinions loudly and in uncivil ways.

---

quote:

---

Christianity remains for me, this promise and guarantee of renewal in Jesus Christ - which does require repentance, metanoia, aspiration towards love and grace, but also taking up our crosses and following Christ the obedient, the penitent, and the sufferer.

---

quote:

---

My unrest lies in my insensitivity, indifference, self-regard, self-indulgence, self-worship...all idols that are already vanquished by Christ the Redeemer, but to which I still cling. There is thus this inner unrest with which I have to deal, or do I?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It is one of the great mysteries to me why some Christians have taken to making sexual ethics the defining characteristic of Christianity. To the point where non-Christians also generally see this as being what the church is about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My sense is that Christianity has become more polarised in the Anglophone West as secularisation has increased, and populations are identifying less and less with organised religion.

Some Christians have responded by seeking to align their values more with the wider society, and others by re-stating the values that their churches have traditionally taught.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Is it me or has hostility to traditional Christian teaching on the Ship considerably intensified in the past years, including hostility to those who hold such teachings?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
'Cause openly hating on brown people has fallen out of fashion. Need another rallying call for the faithful in a secularised world. Need a them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It is one of the great mysteries to me why some Christians have taken to making sexual ethics the defining characteristic of Christianity. To the point where non-Christians also generally see this as being what the church is about.

As has been said, the creeds don't show an interest in the subject. And yet now people are obsessed. Ironic, in the context of talking about tradition, that the primary concerns seem to have shifted so much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I haven't noticed any such increase. Right now a couple of self-proclaimed "traditional" Christians are getting a lot of stick, but I'm not sure it's for their traditionality. Lamb Chopped is about as traditional (theologically conservative) a Protestant as we have on the Ship, and she very, very seldom gets a Hell call or a lot of stick for her beliefs. And it's not like she's a wilting violet. She definitely wades in with both feet. By and large traditionalists who meet with hostility bring it upon themselves by their attitudes and delivery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
I think so, although it's hard to say. The Ship is very much a progressive space - zero Trump supporters (AFAIK), few conservatives, heavily anti-Brexit. The biggest fight I've seen this year was between two branches of the Judean People's Front over Jeremy Corbyn; the dead horse subjects used to generate that sort of anger, but now there's an overwhelming progressive consensus and arguments only flare up occasionally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
What Do We Think About The Gays. I think I would have more sympathy with the OP if the post just said what it meant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
As stated by other further up the thread, the trouble is that there is no agreed set of "traditional" Christian beliefs or values other than those expressed in the Nicene Creed; anyone who tries to claim there are is only seeking to apply their own, or their denomination's, rules, prejudices and preferences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm Traditional about the Creeds, the Trinity and the Person of Christ. And liberal on the hot button issues. And remain a self-identified evangelical. Go figure!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:

Of course, there are the official definitions of unrest given here. My unrest is of another sort.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
The Ship is very much a progressive space - zero Trump supporters (AFAIK), few conservatives, heavily anti-Brexit. The biggest fight I've seen this year was between two branches of the Judean People's Front over Jeremy Corbyn; the dead horse subjects used to generate that sort of anger, but now there's an overwhelming progressive consensus and arguments only flare up occasionally.

Part of this is down to society's DH values shifting leftwards, but I think it's also down to the sorting process which creates echo-chambers. A conservative poster needs to be exceptional to avoid hostility (e.g. Lamb Chopped) and these people are rare. My hunch is that the average conservatives are gradually silenced or driven away and the ones who remain tend to be more hard-headed than most. This then reinforces the negative view of them, creating more hostility, driving more away until finally you're left with a few conservatives who tiptoe around, plus Russ, romanlion et al in a guerrilla war with pretty much everyone else. A similar dynamic happens in right-wing spaces.

---

I agree with this - I like it here, but do spend most of my time not getting involved. There's a definite group think (no different in that respect to anywhere else) that has the effect of causing most people to conform or leave; or turn into a crusading lunatic who rubs everyone up the wrong way.

I still find virtually every thread on SoF interesting, but struggle to summon the energy to engage. I'll fight my corner on the things I really know about - the military, rural England, Trad ACism, steam engines, but on the things where I've just got opinions I more often than not hold back.

I'm not even *that* conservative.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
My hostility toward those views predates the Ship, so no change there -- but I'm certainly less patient now with the people who hold them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Is it me or has hostility to traditional Christian teaching on the Ship considerably intensified in the past years, including hostility to those who hold such teachings?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think CS Lewis might be partly to blame for that.

In Perelandra he argues that God might make a rule that is to be obeyed - in Perelandra, the rule not to spend a night on the Fixed Land - merely for the delight of obedience rather than for any utilitarian reason. Which leads back into issues of power and authority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
There are plenty of non-credal churches. Off the top of my head: the Baptists, the Mennonites, the United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, as well as bunches of non-denominational churches, Pentecostal and Holiness churches. To the Catholics and Orthodox, they probably don't seem very "traditional." ......

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

It's too facile to say all the arguments are crap or contradictory; not all of them are. Some (Brexit) ignore the facts, as far as I can see, but not all do. But they revolve around certain concepts of power. At the end of the day, I think this is the stumbling-block for many "traditional-view" posters here.

---

quote:

---

- internationalism (migrants good, Brexit bad)

---

quote:

---

- gender-bending (anything goes so long as you don't speak in favour of traditional gender roles)

---

quote:

---

- political correctness (can't believe anyone voted for Trump; free speech as long as you don't say what we don't like)

---

quote:

---

- anti-capitalism (profit is bad, small business has no rights and unlimited liability)

---

quote:

---

- anti-racism (racism is a huge sin that the whole white race should atone for)
and the general attitude that alternatives to this worldview are long-disproven crap that can be dismissed, part of the Bad Old Days that we're trying to get away from.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
It seems to me that some churches have replaced the creeds with what they call their 'Statement of Doctrine' or something similar. In effect this has become their creed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
It's a defence mechanism, a portcullis to be lowered if heresy threatens.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Eutychus, in general I agree. Yet, IME, people who wish to join such churches have to undergo a set of classes when the beliefs of the church are studied and have to be agreed upon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Eutychus, in general I agree. Yet, IME, people who wish to join such churches have to undergo a set of classes when the beliefs of the church are studied and have to be agreed upon.

---

I think you're out of date.

That sounds like a 1980s "R1"-only charismatic-church "commitment course". I've never heard of an FIEC church doing something like that. They might invite assent to a statement of faith, but I very much doubt they'd take someone through the whole thing in the way you describe.

[ETA as stated above, I think most churches with this kind of thing don't say much about it at all until they want to use it to dispose of undesirable elements, when they leaf through it to see what will stick]

---

I'm probably back in the 1950's as regards the FIEC and, as you say, in the 1980's as regards the new churches.
However, it surely must be the case that an individual congregation wishing to join the FIEC must adhere to the doctrines and teachings espoused by the FIEC? Doesn't mean, of course, that the pastors will discuss these things with their members, although I would hope they would.
 

---

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Forthview:

quote:

---

Yes, I know that some Catholics,(not all that many that I know) are obsessed with maintaining traditional points of view on sexuality and gender which have more to do with culture than with Christianity. Perhaps they are rightly criticised for being narrow minded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
I fear the 'traditional' Christians have fallen into the contemporary trap of thinking that sex is more important than anything else we do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by marsupial.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My sense is that Christianity has become more polarised in the Anglophone West as secularisation has increased, and populations are identifying less and less with organised religion.

Some Christians have responded by seeking to align their values more with the wider society, and others by re-stating the values that their churches have traditionally taught.

---

I appreciate that a lot of religious conservatives see it this way, which presumably is why they are religious conservatives. But isn't this way of seeing things kind of circular -- it *assumes* that the developments that conservatives oppose are rejections of doctrines that are essential to the Christian faith, as opposed to more peripheral doctrines that may be partially or wholly mistaken. History shows that sometimes the secular world gets things right, or at least partly right, and doctrines once seemed essential to the faith no longer seem so essential after they're found to be less than defensible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
*snip* My hostility toward those views predates the Ship, so no change there -- but I'm certainly less patient now with the people who hold them. Whole bunches of people in and around my age cohort have changed their minds, and new generations of people are growing up without the iniquitous views of women and gay people that used to hold sway. It's time for us to stop giving that shit the time of day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think CS Lewis might be partly to blame for that.

In Perelandra he argues that God might make a rule that is to be obeyed - in Perelandra, the rule not to spend a night on the Fixed Land - merely for the delight of obedience rather than for any utilitarian reason. Which leads back into issues of power and authority.

---

Yes, I've had people counter with that. But making up a rule that will cause people anguish just so he can enjoy people obeying it - in the one case where only 50% of the population are affected, in the latter 10% - just seems, well, weird. It's a bizarre argument to make. "God wants the best for you, except don't wear green. Nothing wrong with green, but he's just decided to ban it so that we can all enjoy not wearing green and stoning to death anyone who does."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think CS Lewis might be partly to blame for that.

In Perelandra he argues that God might make a rule that is to be obeyed - in Perelandra, the rule not to spend a night on the Fixed Land - merely for the delight of obedience rather than for any utilitarian reason. Which leads back into issues of power and authority.

---

Yes, I've had people counter with that. But making up a rule that will cause people anguish just so he can enjoy people obeying it - in the one case where only 50% of the population are affected, in the latter 10% - just seems, well, weird. It's a bizarre argument to make. "God wants the best for you, except don't wear green. Nothing wrong with green, but he's just decided to ban it so that we can all enjoy not wearing green and stoning to death anyone who does."

---

This sounds like an episode of "Star Trek: The Next Generation". There was a planet with young, very fit, very blonde adults. They had "sex at the drop of a hat--*any* hat". Their deity/creator--alien(s) in an orbiting space ship, who really was kindly disposed to his "children"--was training them in law and obedience. Every day, a different area was declared forbidden--on pain of death. The locals were ok with it, because they simply avoided it. But they didn't think to tell visitors...which is at the heart of the episode.

Arbitrary rules are cruel, unfair, and all that stuff. If God is really like that,...
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
He isn't. He OBVIOUSLY isn't. He really is obviously utterly unlike anything ... small, small minded.

I think we are weak on benevolence here. I am. I get flinty. There are those who are strongly benevolent. I had another fail with a friend recently over his homophobia. He redeemed it simply by coming round on his vintage motorbike and we hugged to our amusement. I never want to fail with him again. We did a year ago over Brexit and then Trump ... and then Islamophobia. But he loves me. And I need to learn, as I have with a close family member, never to lose it.

That.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I notice that the OP mentions trolling going 'either way'. I am curious as to which concrete examples of trolling against traditional Christians are being thought of here.

I take trolling to be distinct from robust criticism.
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
I cannot conceive of unrest apart from the consciousness of my own sinful state and shortcomings. The Church - my church -, and Christ, through it/her offers me a path of reconciliation and healing through the sacraments, fellowship and the recognition of the daily struggle. Practically and pastorally, this may not always be evident, but it is here.

The issues of personal salvation are as pressing as those of "social justice". They have to go together - the spiritual life and the works of corporal and spiritual mercy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
It seems to me that some churches have replaced the creeds with what they call their 'Statement of Doctrine' or something similar. In effect this has become their creed.

---

The difference between such "statements of faith" and "creeds" is that these days, the latter are a unifying instrument that believers are invited to affirm (incidentally, we were invited to recite the Nicene creed in church last Sunday, which is not something we often do) whereas "statements of faith" are usually designed to keep certain categories of people out.

Whenever I have seen such "statements of faith" invoked it has been by leadership, to remove somebody or keep them out. In other words - again - it's a proxy for power plays.

There are plenty of decent people in FIEC churches (including Ship lurkers, as I know for a fact). They just don't go to war invoking their "statements of faith". The latter are not the sum of the members.

---

quote:

---

The oddest thing to me about the prevalence of “statements of faith” in evangelical circles is that such statements arose due to an “aversion for all creeds but the Bible.” (That phrase is from the 1845 Address to the Public on the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention.)

That anti-creedal Baptist impulse of “no creed but the Bible” is why most evangelical churches today, unlike their mainline Protestant counterparts, do not recite the Nicene or Apostles creeds in their worship — or pretty much ever. Instead evangelicals have statements of faith — the new creeds we refuse to call creeds.

Also consider this: The Nicene Creed is a mere 222 words long. The Apostles Creed is only half as long.

The statement of faith used by the Southern Baptist Convention and its seminaries is more than 5,000 words long.

At that length, a statement of faith no longer functions as a creed-by-another-name. At that length, the SBC’s statement of faith seems intended to provide denominational lawyers and scribes a pretext for condemning anyone who gets out of line.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I find the sociological perspective more interesting. The sociology of religion routinely posits religious groups as either in low or high tension with the surrounding culture. Indeed, there's a spectrum between the very high tension sect and the low tension church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Thanks for those who provided detail on the role of the Creeds in evangelistic churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
... the mournful cries of displaced hegemons ...

---

So that's what happens when you build houses or factories on prime agricultural land, poor things!

[ 26. July 2017, 14:46: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 

---

Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Gottschalke; I do wish you'd tell us whether you think the State should refuse to allow equal civil marriage, because that's the sticking point for me. I don't mind what you think of LGBTQ+ people, but I do care if you want to inflict what you think of them on them, unwillingly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
I am not sure I understand you. You speak as if I had some sort of power over what other people do or some sort of public power. I have no such power nor seek it - I only want and seek power over myself, to restrain myself, to discipline myself...but ultimately to surrender myself to God's will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Gottschalke; I do wish you'd tell us whether you think the State should refuse to allow equal civil marriage, because that's the sticking point for me. I don't mind what you think of LGBTQ+ people, but I do care if you want to inflict what you think of them on them, unwillingly.

---

I am not sure I understand you. You speak as if I had some sort of power over what other people do or some sort of public power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The point is rather do you think the state should allow equal marriage, or do you think it should itself restrict civil marriage to heterosexual couples? If you did have the power to control this issue. If you were an MP, would you have voted for or against equal marriage?

It's not that hard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
I fear the 'traditional' Christians have fallen into the contemporary trap of thinking that sex is more important than anything else we do. Ironic, then, that they accuse more socially liberal Christians of being slaves to the Zeitgeist.

---

quote:

---

I fear the 'traditional' Christians have fallen into the contemporary trap of thinking that sex is more important than anything else we do. Ironic, then, that they accuse more socially liberal Christians of being slaves to the Zeitgeist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You do. It's called a vote.

But that's beside the point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm sorry, how is it a counterfactual?

If one lived in Nazi Germany and didn't vote for parties which supported the rights of Jews, did one therefore not (at least contribute to) the hatred Jews?

What's the difference? How is it suddenly not hatred when it comes to gay people?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:

I will only say I don't believe in political solutions to human problems.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

It's not only "would you vote for an MP that supports same-sex marriage" but "would you speak up in favour of SSM being legal even though you think it's wrong."

---

quote:

---

However we also need to recognise that, at least in part, we Christians have brought these difficulties on ourselves, and we need to be prepared to put our own house in order.

First, some of the organisations that have been most vociferous in condemning the intolerance that led to the resignation of Tim Farron are those that have consistently stood against the grant of any civic rights and freedoms to the LBGT community. It is hardly surprising that the gay community is suspicious of the political objectives of evangelical Christians. Christians need to adopt a political philosophy that is appropriate for a genuinely plural society that encompasses both believers and unbelievers.

Christians in a plural society have to be prepared to tolerate others acting in ways that they regard as sinful, or even offensive, and extend to them the right to act in ways that they believe are self-harming. As far as the Bible is concerned the greatest sin is idolatry and the worship of false god’s, which means that the grant of freedom of religion is inherently the conferral of permission for people to sin, harm themselves, disobey God’s law and deprive him of the honour and glory he is rightly due.

Attempts to ban other religions, or even to require conformity to a particular form of Christian faith and practice, have proved impossible and counterproductive throughout church history, and no Christians I know advocate such a step.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Please do get your equivalences right. And do not forget that homosexuals were actively hounded, persecuted and killed by Nazis as well.

---

quote:

---

And your point is?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
"Saying "I don't believe in political solutions" is tacit support of whatever the status quo happens to be. "

It doesn't follow.

---

quote:

---

It seems that none of you have been reading what I have been writing since yesterday. I admit to be somewhat obscure - something I need to correct.

You've assumed a number of things and you are the ones who seem obsessed with one issue.

---

quote:

---

I believe in the eminent value of the sacramental solution, in grace, in God's healing power above everything else... in comparison to which all other solutions seem to be approximations. But again, I am speaking for myself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Please do get your equivalences right. And do not forget that homosexuals were actively hounded, persecuted and killed by Nazis as well.

---

True but nothing to do with the point I was making. Which is quite simple: if you live in a country where a community has their rights curtailed, are you not contributing (if not actively exhibiting) hatred by refusing to do something politically about it?

It's quite a simple question.

quote:

---

And your point is?

---

It is the same point that I've made above. If you refuse to support civil marriage of gay people you are in effect hating them.

We'd probably agree that voting for the Nazi party was an act of Jewish hatred. And I think it is reasonable to say that not-voting for an anti-Nazi party is also a form of hatred.

If not, why not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Gosh, where to start?
1.You seem to have some direct insight into people's minds. In 1933...did everyone who voted for the NSDAP hate Jews?

---

quote:

---

2. My abstentionism from the political processes predate any glimmer of a debate on marriage rights for homosexuals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
I will only say I don't believe in political solutions to human problems.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Gosh, where to start?

2. My abstentionism from the political processes predate any glimmer of a debate on marriage rights for homosexuals.

---

What kind of a moral is that? "Oh well I never vote, don't you know. The fact that this fascist party is planning to kill a load of their opponents is clearly nothing to do with me, because I've never voted.

A pathetic one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Gosh, where to start?
1.You seem to have some direct insight into people's minds. In 1933...did everyone who voted for the NSDAP hate Jews?

---

"Justice is what love looks like in public" Cornel West.

quote:

---

2. My abstentionism from the political processes predate any glimmer of a debate on marriage rights for homosexuals.

---

What kind of a moral is that? "Oh well I never vote, don't you know. The fact that this fascist party is planning to kill a load of their opponents is clearly nothing to do with me, because I've never voted.

A pathetic one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Gosh, where to start?

2. My abstentionism from the political processes predate any glimmer of a debate on marriage rights for homosexuals.

---

What kind of a moral is that? "Oh well I never vote, don't you know. The fact that this fascist party is planning to kill a load of their opponents is clearly nothing to do with me, because I've never voted.

A pathetic one.

---

Gottschalk can however be bother to start a thread about it on a Forum which, he asserts, won't give him a fair hearing.

Funny old world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Grief, I never started a thread on this particular issue of homosexual mariage - it's been hijacked by a few elements here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But I'm fairly sure that simply refusing to engage is no better than standing against gay marriage or supporting a politician who stands against gay marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm sorry, how is it a counterfactual?

If one lived in Nazi Germany and didn't vote for parties which supported the rights of Jews, did one therefore not (at least contribute to) the hatred Jews?

What's the difference? How is it suddenly not hatred when it comes to gay people?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Godwin calling.... Godwin calling.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
You must be joking unless you meant something else. Of course, there is a difference. As a matter of fact, gays have more right today than Jews had back then in Germany under the NSDAP. Your equivalences are just beside the point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
"Saying "I don't believe in political solutions" is tacit support of whatever the status quo happens to be".

---

Well it does really doesn't it. If the status quo is killing Jews or slavery or racism and you've got the power to do something about it but don't, then you are tacitly supporting it. Are you not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Grief, I never started a thread on this particular issue of homosexual mariage - it's been hijacked by a few elements here.

---

To be fair, it was implicit in your second post on the thread. You were asked to clarify what you meant by 'traditional Christian', and you responded by saying it was the holding a traditional view on sexual ethics.

You could have said usury, you could have said communal living, you could have said pacifism, you could have said something about the creeds. But you didn't. You literally have only yourself to blame at this point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:

1.You seem to have some direct insight into people's minds. In 1933...did everyone who voted for the NSDAP hate Jews?

---

quote:

---

2. My abstentionism from the political processes predate any glimmer of a debate on marriage rights for homosexuals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

tl;dr - principled abstention is a perfectly honourable way of sticking to your beliefs without using them as a stick with which to beat others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

Indeed I think that the criticism could also be made of anyone who votes for any party more progressive than the one that's most likely to get in. I think that would be generally bad for the political climate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But actually, I HAVE noticed a significant uptick in hostility toward my beliefs, and I've been here what, fifteen years now? (I lurked a bit before signing on)

---

Speaking only for myself, I have no hostility towards you. Occasional frustration, yes, but no hostility.
As far as your beliefs, I am less likely to be polite about certain expressions of belief, yes.
But it truly is the presentation which matters regarding hostility of response.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It is one of the great mysteries to me why some Christians have taken to making sexual ethics the defining characteristic of Christianity. To the point where non-Christians also generally see this as being what the church is about.

---

'Cause openly hating on brown people has fallen out of fashion. Need another rallying call for the faithful in a secularised world. Need a them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Is it me or has hostility to traditional Christian teaching on the Ship considerably intensified in the past years, including hostility to those who hold such teachings? I mean there are the usual boards where discussion continues but I do perceive a general wave of intolerance.

The Ship has been a place where I have learnt a lot over the years. I am grateful for the wide representation of views and opinions, and for the usual cut and thrust of debate. I do not have concrete evidence but just a feeling, though, that the new modern (or postmodern) consensus on ethical questions is somewhat seen as the norm here.

Trolling can also go either way,

Just wondering.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

The prostitute is the allegorical "woman" so often associated with the apostate Hebrews, she is the backsliding church. Get used to this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Godwin calling.... Godwin calling.

---

I didn't call anyone a Nazi, I was asking what the difference was between rights for Jews in Nazi Germany and rights for gays in the present.

If there is a real difference, I'm not seeing what it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
One needn't call anyone a Nazi to fall prey to Godwin's Law. Just introducing Adolf or the Nazis into the debate does it. A classical definition can be found here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Is it me or has hostility to traditional Christian teaching on the Ship considerably intensified in the past years, including hostility to those who hold such teachings? I mean there are the usual boards where discussion continues but I do perceive a general wave of intolerance.

The Ship has been a place where I have learnt a lot over the years. I am grateful for the wide representation of views and opinions, and for the usual cut and thrust of debate. I do not have concrete evidence but just a feeling, though, that the new modern (or postmodern) consensus on ethical questions is somewhat seen as the norm here.

Trolling can also go either way,

Just wondering.

---

In case you didn't realize it, the church as a public institution is being literally eaten by humanism. Eaten alive.

15Then the angel said to me, “The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. 16The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire.

The prostitute is the allegorical "woman" so often associated with the apostate Hebrews, she is the backsliding church. Get used to this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As per Godwin:

"Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler to think a bit harder about the Holocaust"

I'm not comparing someone else to Hitler. I'm saying that there is no real reason to think that hatred of Jews in Nazi Germany is different in kind to deriving gays access to civil marriage (ie hatred).

If you think it is, then let's discuss why it is different and not hatred.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oh right, so you're not going to answer. Even though you are misapplying the thing that you've brought in to close down discussion.

Never mind then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
One needn't call anyone a Nazi to fall prey to Godwin's Law. Just introducing Adolf or the Nazis into the debate does it. A classical definition can be found here.

---

quote:

---

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1

---

quote:

---

I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler to think a bit harder about the Holocaust

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Forget Nazi Germany then. Let's say slaves in 18th century British colonies.

Would you say that slaves, being humans deprived of their humanity, were hated by the plantation and shipowners?

Is hatred not associated with depriving other groups of the civil rights one personally enjoys?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK, so you've defined hate outwith of the actual act of depriving someone else of the rights that you enjoy. Interesting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
mr cheesy-- you'll have to unpack that. I'm not sure that I follow you. I thought I was agreeing with you in substance if not the exact angle.

---

quote:

---

Sometimes this can be addressed, and fears relieved; but sometimes it stays at an irrational and hysterical level-- while I've not seen it manifest itself in hateful acts, I'm aware that it happens.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
My abstentionism from the political processes predate any glimmer of a debate on marriage rights for homosexuals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:

I believe in the eminent value of the sacramental solution, in grace, in God's healing power above everything else... in comparison to which all other solutions seem to be approximations. But again, I am speaking for myself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
The Ship is very much a progressive space - zero Trump supporters (AFAIK), few conservatives, heavily anti-Brexit. The biggest fight I've seen this year was between two branches of the Judean People's Front over Jeremy Corbyn; the dead horse subjects used to generate that sort of anger, but now there's an overwhelming progressive consensus and arguments only flare up occasionally.

Part of this is down to society's DH values shifting leftwards, but I think it's also down to the sorting process which creates echo-chambers. A conservative poster needs to be exceptional to avoid hostility (e.g. Lamb Chopped) and these people are rare. My hunch is that the average conservatives are gradually silenced or driven away and the ones who remain tend to be more hard-headed than most. This then reinforces the negative view of them, creating more hostility, driving more away until finally you're left with a few conservatives who tiptoe around, plus Russ, romanlion et al in a guerrilla war with pretty much everyone else. A similar dynamic happens in right-wing spaces.

---

I agree with this - I like it here, but do spend most of my time not getting involved. There's a definite group think (no different in that respect to anywhere else) that has the effect of causing most people to conform or leave; or turn into a crusading lunatic who rubs everyone up the wrong way.

I still find virtually every thread on SoF interesting, but struggle to summon the energy to engage. I'll fight my corner on the things I really know about - the military, rural England, Trad ACism, steam engines, but on the things where I've just got opinions I more often than not hold back.

I'm not even *that* conservative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I now watch myself very very carefully in my Ship interactions whenever I take an unpopular position. Erin used to be the one who would bite people in the ass for dogpiling simply due to content (and not added jackassery), but she's with the Lord now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarah G:
I'd want to see the contrary arguments given a fairer run-out so they could be analysed in a balanced way. However it tends to be one person only, up to their neck against pages of counterarguments and hopelessly outnumbered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wabale:
I can just about follow the argument that not being prepared to advance or defend LGBT rights shows ‘hatred’, though I would have thought the word ‘indifference’ is more accurate - and incidentally I think it gets more to the heart of the matter and actually encourages a reply.

What I don’t understand is why this very interesting thread has suddenly turned into an attack on the position of having nothing, or as little as possible, to do with the state. Surely this has been a ‘traditional’ Christian position for nearly 2000 years, though not, as it happens, the predominant one. Yet it’s one that many people here apparently won’t tolerate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
*snip* My hostility toward those views predates the Ship, so no change there -- but I'm certainly less patient now with the people who hold them. Whole bunches of people in and around my age cohort have changed their minds, and new generations of people are growing up without the iniquitous views of women and gay people that used to hold sway. It's time for us to stop giving that shit the time of day.

---

I'm not sure that I agree- in my experience one of the reasons that whole age cohorts have shifted on this issue is because there were people who gave them the time of day and who spent the time to work through the issue(s) with them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wabale:
I can just about follow the argument that not being prepared to advance or defend LGBT rights shows ‘hatred’, though I would have thought the word ‘indifference’ is more accurate - and incidentally I think it gets more to the heart of the matter and actually encourages a reply.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk back on page 1:
I hope that it is clear to all that holding to traditional beliefs with respect to mariage, gender, same-sex attraction does not imply or, even less, necessitate hatred, contempt and hounding of people who do not hold to those beliefs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

At the same time, there must be a recognised right for Christians to say that they regard both as meaningless and wrong - without being vilified with stupid, manipulative Orwellian neologisms like "Hinduphobic" or "homophobic" for simply expressing disagreement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It is hard to believe that most of the evangelical right share your desire for gay people to enjoy the same freedoms as straight people in a liberal pluralistic society. 'cause they sure don't act like it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
At the same time, there must be a recognised right for Christians to say that they regard both as meaningless and wrong - without being vilified with stupid, manipulative Orwellian neologisms like "Hinduphobic" or "homophobic" for simply expressing disagreement.

---

quote:

---

My experience has been that most people change their minds about things like female clergy or same-sex marriage because of personal experiences, not because of analytical discussions of views.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
At the same time, there must be a recognised right for Christians to say that they regard both as meaningless and wrong - without being vilified with stupid, manipulative Orwellian neologisms like "Hinduphobic" or "homophobic" for simply expressing disagreement.

---

Nope, there does not need to be this right. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to escape vilification for what you say. Say whatever you want -- I'll defend that right. But I will not hold back on saying what I think about what you say.

---

 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Because civility is over-rated, and nobody ever managed to change another person's mind without painting him or her as a villain.

Are you even listening to yourselves?
 

---

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Because civility is over-rated, and nobody ever managed to change another person's mind without painting him or her as a villain.

Are you even listening to yourselves?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Because civility is over-rated, and nobody ever managed to change another person's mind without painting him or her as a villain.

Are you even listening to yourselves?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Because civility is over-rated, and nobody ever managed to change another person's mind without painting him or her as a villain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Because civility is over-rated, and nobody ever managed to change another person's mind without painting him or her as a villain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Because civility is over-rated, and nobody ever managed to change another person's mind without painting him or her as a villain.

Are you even listening to yourselves?

---

• Ordination of women (yes, I know that's a dead equine. There are bound to be several in this mix by definition);
• the nature of marriage and roles within it;
• authority, authoritarianism, and freedom: where to draw the lines (particularly in the public sphere)
• authority of Scripture (particularly over one's life);
• proper use of Scripture and/or tradition in the church;
• whether there is any value in humility, obedience, and self-sacrifice (all things called by varying names, positive or otherwise, depending on what your viewpoint is);
• whether denial of certain doctrines (such as the resurrection) are sufficient to render one either "not a Christian," or "not saved";
• Whether one should submit to wrongheaded authority, and if so, under what circumstances;
• The comparative value of personal liberty when compared to other social or religious goods;
  whether intellectual freedom has any limits, or ought to have;
• What form the relationship between church and state ought to take, and how best to bring about that state of affairs;
• whether religion is only for the private sphere;
• to what extent a public official or a provider of public goods (such as a chef) ought to be permitted to take actions based on personal religious standards.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Because civility is over-rated, and nobody ever managed to change another person's mind without painting him or her as a villain.

Are you even listening to yourselves?

---

I would suggest that you are wrong on both counts. I've seen minds changed, in depth, without painting of villainy. Lots of times.

As far as civility being over-rated, I would draw Lamb Chopped's attention to the situation south of the World's Longest Undefended Border, and see some of the problems caused by the lack of civility. If anything, I would call it under-rated.

---

quote:

---

I will not hold back on saying what I think about what you say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I've watched this thread morph from someone making a general complaint to having people virtually walk up, plant a finger in his (her) chest, and demand to know his/her views on homosexual issues, and basically refuse to discuss anything else at all until the OP answers that question. Which he/she has every right to refuse, as that's not the point of the OP.

Why this determined desire to drag the whole fucking thread into yet another Dead Horse sex feast?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

Why the hell is it a fucking VIRTUE now to attack the poster rather than the post, and to declare ahead of time an intent to vilify (seriously, folks?)

---

quote:

---

I've watched this thread morph from someone making a general complaint to having people virtually walk up, plant a finger in his (her) chest, and demand to know his/her views on homosexual issues, and basically refuse to discuss anything else at all until the OP answers that question.

---

quote:

---

Why this determined desire to drag the whole fucking thread into yet another Dead Horse sex feast?

---

quote:

---

Come back, guys. You don't have to agree with me. But can we at least re-learn what it means to treat fellow posters as human beings (even wrongheaded ones) rather than "you are automatically an inhuman asshole because you won't sign up to my doctrine X"?

---

quote:

---

• Ordination of women (yes, I know that's a dead equine. There are bound to be several in this mix by definition);
• the nature of marriage and roles within it;
• authority, authoritarianism, and freedom: where to draw the lines (particularly in the public sphere)
• authority of Scripture (particularly over one's life);
• proper use of Scripture and/or tradition in the church;
• whether there is any value in humility, obedience, and self-sacrifice (all things called by varying names, positive or otherwise, depending on what your viewpoint is);
• whether denial of certain doctrines (such as the resurrection) are sufficient to render one either "not a Christian," or "not saved";
• Whether one should submit to wrongheaded authority, and if so, under what circumstances;
• The comparative value of personal liberty when compared to other social or religious goods;
  whether intellectual freedom has any limits, or ought to have;
• What form the relationship between church and state ought to take, and how best to bring about that state of affairs;
• whether religion is only for the private sphere;
• to what extent a public official or a provider of public goods (such as a chef) ought to be permitted to take actions based on personal religious standards.

---

quote:

---

Come back, guys. You don't have to agree with me. But can we at least re-learn what it means to treat fellow posters as human beings (even wrongheaded ones) rather than "you are automaticaly an inhuman asshole because you won't sign up to my doctrine X"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
You are, like some others on this thread, asking to be allowed to say shitty things about your fellow human beings without having shitty things said to you in return.

---

quote:

---

You want to be treated as a human being even when you are in the very act of advocating that some people be treated as less human than others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

Why the hell is it a fucking VIRTUE now to attack the poster rather than the post, and to declare ahead of time an intent to vilify (seriously, folks?) over the content of someone's post rather than bending our brains to try to show the poster the error of his ways? We can do better than that. We can BE better than that. Are you learning your manners from Trump, now?

I've watched this thread morph from someone making a general complaint to having people virtually walk up, plant a finger in his (her) chest, and demand to know his/her views on homosexual issues, and basically refuse to discuss anything else at all until the OP answers that question. Which he/she has every right to refuse, as that's not the point of the OP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Because civility is over-rated, and nobody ever managed to change another person's mind without painting him or her as a villain.

Are you even listening to yourselves?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
So it's the religious who need to look closely at ourselves and see if we are talking to people or condemning groups simply to make ourselves look righteous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Even Jesus would have been planked from Purgatory.

---

And, with his presumed carpentry background, made something cool from the plank.

 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Less heat and more light might be generated if "Hindu" were substituted for "gay" in some of the foregoing interchanges.

As an evangelical Christian, I disagree profoundly with Hindu beliefs and practices, but I have nothing personal against Hindus.

---

quote:

---

Kaplan Corday seems to particularly object to the word homophobe. I tend to agree that it's a stupid word - most homophobia doesn't have much, if anything, to do with fear. But it's the word we have, and we all know that it means the same as racist or sexist, but for gay people.

Homosexualist was already taken, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

• the nature of marriage and roles within it;
• proper use of Scripture and/or tradition in the church;
• whether denial of certain doctrines (such as the resurrection) are sufficient to render one either "not a Christian," or "not saved";
• whether religion is only for the private sphere;
• to what extent a public official or a provider of public goods (such as a chef) ought to be permitted to take actions based on personal religious standards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Even Jesus would have been planked from Purgatory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
As an evangelical Christian, I disagree profoundly with Hindu beliefs and practices, but I have nothing personal against Hindus.

---

Why do you disagree profoundly with Hindu beliefs and practices?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
"When we discover that certain ideas about man, history and society seem, to those who believe in them, to be either self-evident or so manifestly correct that opposing them is a mark of stupidity or malice, then we may be fairly sure we are dealing with an ideology and ideological thinking."

My point in quoting this is to show that we should perhaps never give up the task of trying to dialogue, discuss and learn, in spite of our convictions and beliefs, and that we all need a healthy dose of distance from ourselves, our beliefs, and everything else, all peppered with humour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Ruth, I think you do these boards a disservice. In the 15 years since I first came across SoF, I've changed my mind on these issues:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

• the nature of marriage and roles within it;
• proper use of Scripture and/or tradition in the church;
• whether denial of certain doctrines (such as the resurrection) are sufficient to render one either "not a Christian," or "not saved";
• whether religion is only for the private sphere;
• to what extent a public official or a provider of public goods (such as a chef) ought to be permitted to take actions based on personal religious standards.

---

In a large part, it was due to being exposed to different viewpoints on these boards. I encountered points of view that varied from the charismatic evangelical environment that I'd grown up in. Of course, my change of perspective wasn't solely down to SoF, but it played a big part. And there are quite a few other issues which I changed my mind on too.

IMHO one of the most worrying aspects of our polarised society is that class and social media result in people living in echo-chambers where they have their viewpoints endorsed, reinforced and never challenged. Ship of Fools has fortunately been a place where those things can and do happen, and on the whole, it still is.

I share that concern, though, that in this echo-chamber world, we need to work even harder to include and not dismiss, even if we strongly disagree with someone.

I've just travelled to Uganda and met some wonderful Christians there. The default Christian and State viewpoint there is, however, 'traditional' on the dead-horse topics that we're talking about. I vehemently disagree with that. For better & worse, much of the world does not share the ideals of the liberal west.

How to respond to someone (or pretty much an entire nation) for whom the entire concept of accepting LGBT values as moral and Christian is so alien to their experience of culture, society and church - (as indeed it still the case for some in the west today)? Is it always the best course to go on the front foot - attack, challenge, confront?

There is great power in the words 'I see things differently.' I see those four words as one of the greatest tools we have. They allow disagreement without forcing confrontation. They invite questions.

I understand that on a discussion forum things don't work the same as in normal conversations, and posting the above here would be of no use at all. But the point is there are gentle ways to approach people. I hope that SoF doesn't just become another echo-chamber. To an extent it has. I'm in the majority here now, but I want my views challenged. That means we need to work harder than ever to include people with different views than us.

Gottschalk, I disagree with you on the DH issues that have been talked about. I understand your apathy to politics, and used to feel much like you do. I hope you continue to feel welcome here. You're evidently not a prolific poster, but you've been around the Ship a long time, and your perspective is valuable. You obviously value humility and sacrifice highly - I fully agree with that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Thinking that a person is wrong is not equal to hating them, having contempt for them or hounding them, and does not require all these things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Excellent. Nice sea change started on page 4 and continuing here. Brian McLaren's strong benevolence is manifest. Anyone would think the HS is at work!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:

It turns out that our enactment and respect of the rules of (civil) engagement will depend on how strongly we feel about the subject, on our proximity to the underlying substantive issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
You want to be treated as a human being even when you are in the very act of advocating that some people be treated as less human than others.

---

As far as I'm concerned that's where the "Christian" in "Christian Unrest" comes in.

---

quote:

---

I'm quite impressed with the recent posts in this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that's why I was puzzled by Martin's post that the HS is working through the reconciliation. Isn't the HS also working through the conflict, because often you can't have one without t'other. I used to do marital counselling, (what an idiot I was in those days), and was all in favour of married people having a pop at each other, because quite often then the love would appear. But no conflict, no love, quite often.

Hence, unrest seems essential in many areas of life to me, otherwise we have repression and depression.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
As an evangelical Christian, I disagree profoundly with Hindu beliefs and practices, but I have nothing personal against Hindus.

---

Why do you disagree profoundly with Hindu beliefs and practices?

---

Presumably Kaplan believes that there are statements which can be made about God that are either "absolutely" correct or incorrect, and believes the Christian ones to be correct and the Hindu ones incorrect.

To trivialise things: you and I can be looking at a red bus. One of us can say that it's red and the other can say that it's green. But, however strongly held the views of the latter, the fact is that it is red. In the same way, "traditional" Christians believe that there are (at least) some core beliefs and stories about God which are either correct or incorrect - and, indeed, they will seek to persuade others of the understandings they believe to be erroneous through evangelism and missionary work.

This approach certainly goes against the popular views of "it doesn't matter what you believe, what's important is that it works for you" and "all religious paths are ultimately equally valid routes to the divine". But it doesn't mean that one doesn't value the individuals with whom one disagrees - indeed, the attempt to change what they believe has often been seen as an expression of Christian love (as we could just not bother and leave them wallowing in their error).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
It may be the evangelical wish to change the beliefs of others that is key. I don't think a simple view of truth as something fixed, clear and absolute makes disagreement more difficult, but if you are evangelical then you won't want to let it go, so the persistence of different beliefs represents a failure of your evangelism, and counts against your own faith, which, if it's absolutely true, ought to be irresistibly attractive once heard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Excellent. Nice sea change started on page 4 and continuing here. Brian McLaren's strong benevolence is manifest. Anyone would think the HS is at work!

---

And is not at work, when people are laying into each other? I find that strange.

---

quote:

---

And the unrest is in challenging ideas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
It may be the evangelical wish to change the beliefs of others that is key. I don't think a simple view of truth as something fixed, clear and absolute makes disagreement more difficult, but if you are evangelical then you won't want to let it go, so the persistence of different beliefs represents a failure of your evangelism, and counts against your own faith, which, if it's absolutely true, ought to be irresistibly attractive once heard.

---

Or it could just be that some believe some ideas are true and some are not true.

I think some aspects of Hinduism are absolutely disgusting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Can they be absolutely disgusting if our brothers and sisters believe them?

---

quote:

---

You might feel disgust, that's common enough including within Christianity, but our reactions often say more about us than what we are reacting to.

---

quote:

---

Believing that truth is simple, knowable and clear, the redness of a red bus in broad daylight, has a sort of brexitty appeal as opposed to the decadent, trendy, contextual theories that it all somehow depends on lots of things, but there is a huge arrogance in asserting it in relation to religious belief in a world that has lots of religions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
But the talk of green buses got me looking up pictures of United Counties. They were nice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Many people think Christianity is disgusting - and they've a perfect right to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
lilBuddha said

quote:

---

And the unrest is in challenging ideas.

---

Yes, if they include our own ideas.

---

quote:

---

Believing that truth is simple, knowable and clear, the redness of a red bus in broad daylight, has a sort of brexitty appeal as opposed to the decadent, trendy, contextual theories that it all somehow depends on lots of things, but there is a huge arrogance in asserting it in relation to religious belief in a world that has lots of religions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:

Thinking that something is disgusting is also perhaps not the same as thinking something is wrong. Aesthetic v.s. Ethical judgements?

Any thoughts?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
lilBuddha said

quote:

---

And the unrest is in challenging ideas.

---

Yes, if they include our own ideas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

If you're about to vilify someone for not being prepared to consider the idea that gay marriage is a good thing, then you should be mindful of the fact that you refuse to consider the possibility that it isn't. Closed-mindedness works both ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

If you're about to vilify someone for not being prepared to consider the idea that gay marriage is a good thing, then you should be mindful of the fact that you refuse to consider the possibility that it isn't. Closed-mindedness works both ways.

---

That feels like MLK saying at the end of his speeches "..but it's OK, y'know, some people believe that black people are not human and they've every right to do so.. it's a free country. Other views are available"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

If you're about to vilify someone for not being prepared to consider the idea that gay marriage is a good thing, then you should be mindful of the fact that you refuse to consider the possibility that it isn't. Closed-mindedness works both ways.

---

That feels like MLK saying at the end of his speeches "..but it's OK, y'know, some people believe that black people are not human and they've every right to do so.. it's a free country. Other views are available"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Ideas can certainly disgust us; some aspects of hyper-Calvinism do it for me, but the disgust is in me.

And you described some bits of Hinduism as absolutely disgusting. That absolute says this is not about you, and not about to change. How can conversation develop from there?

There's no arrogance in saying some things are true and that some things are better than others, but saying my religion is true and yours is false is arrogant. It's like saying your accent is stupid, but mine - well I don't have an accent, I just pronounce words properly. With, in the case of religion, danger instead of silliness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, 'phobia' means fear, but 'homophobia' doesn't. Why is this so difficult to get across? Words don't mean the total of their constituent parts, because language changes all the time, so homophobia usually denotes negativity about gays, not fear.

Etymological fallacy.

---

quote:

---

Fear and avoidance of sameness, monotony or of homosexuality or becoming homosexual.

In common use the term refers to irrational hostility or negative attitude (rather than fear, but often including avoidance) toward those of same sex sexiual orientation. In psychoanalytic theory this negative attitude is sometimes assumed to arise from fear of one's own homosexual impulses even in one with opposite sex sexual orientation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

- Being willing to accept a challenge to one's own ideas.
- Not being close-minded - i.e. listen to & understand the other point of view, and consider the possibility they might be right.

That's not the same as treating all opinions as equal or lacking strong, well-thought out convictions oneself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
To me the issue is not about whether one is a vocal supporter of gay marriage, as I've noted above.

To me the main problem with these so-called "Traditional Christian" values is that they're self-contradictory.

It seems to me to be a fairly basic point that if one wants the rights and protections of living in a liberal democracy, then one has to be prepared to at very least not stand in the way of others rights.

If for no other reason than that if gays are not given protection today then maybe the state will decide that the Roman Catholics deserve no protection tomorrow.

And that's the difference; whereas there are some closed-minded liberal bigots who want to close down anyone who disagrees with their understanding of individual freedom, there is a much larger group of "traditional Christians" who think that God has told them x y and z about various issues and therefore that gives them the right to restrict other people's freedoms.

The vast majority of liberals in the world and on the ship have no wish to close down (for example) churches or mosques which do not have women leaders or do not support gay marriage.

Believe in a religion I find offensive and disgusting. That's absolutely your right. But that doesn't extend as far as you having the right to organise civil society to fit your norms and beliefs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I've always been baffled by this lust for truth among the religious - why not just say that it works for me?

---

quote:

---

...except some of us were *taught* to figure out new words by way of etymology, such as learning Latin- and Greek-based prefixes and suffixes. It was supposed to be a very good and wise thing, and I still find it handy. (A couple of years of Classical Latin helps, too.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I've always been baffled by this lust for truth among the religious - why not just say that it works for me?

---

Well, I believe it to be Truth. Jesus Christ is the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. Not just something that might work for me.

But whilst I hold very strong opinions about Jesus, I recognize that I can't prove them to someone else, because faith doesn't work that way. It's not something that admits proof in the mathematical sense, or even the test of a hypothesis in the scientific sense.

So whilst I am certain that Hindus, for example, are wrong about their beliefs, I recognize that I can't demonstrate that in an objective fashion, and that they are perfectly entitled to think that they are right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, 'phobia' means fear, but 'homophobia' doesn't. Why is this so difficult to get across? Words don't mean the total of their constituent parts, because language changes all the time, so homophobia usually denotes negativity about gays, not fear.

Etymological fallacy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
lilBuddha said

quote:

---

And the unrest is in challenging ideas.

---

Yes, if they include our own ideas.

---

Absolutely. There are plenty of people on this site who will happily castigate fundamentalists for being unwilling to countenance ideas other than their own, while being just as - if not more - unwilling to accept any hint of a challenge to their own ideas.

If you're about to vilify someone for not being prepared to consider the idea that gay marriage is a good thing, then you should be mindful of the fact that you refuse to consider the possibility that it isn't. Closed-mindedness works both ways.

---

First, hatless' condition to my statement isn't profound, but part of the very statement. As well as something I've said multiple times on this very site.
The challenge to equal marriage from Christian "traditionalists" is that God said so. If one doesn't believe in that particular god, there is nothing to consider.
If one does believe in that particular god, all it takes is a perusal of the pages and pages in DH to find very well considered reasoning.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
To me the main problem with these so-called "Traditional Christian" values is that they're self-contradictory.

It seems to me to be a fairly basic point that if one wants the rights and protections of living in a liberal democracy, then one has to be prepared to at very least not stand in the way of others rights.

...

And that's the difference; whereas there are some closed-minded liberal bigots who want to close down anyone who disagrees with their understanding of individual freedom, there is a much larger group of "traditional Christians" who think that God has told them x y and z about various issues and therefore that gives them the right to restrict other people's freedoms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
You are, like some others on this thread, asking to be allowed to say shitty things about your fellow human beings without having shitty things said to you in return. You want to be treated as a human being even when you are in the very act of advocating that some people be treated as less human than others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
There is however a notable exception: posts from a conservative perspective that are well-reasoned, coherent, and polite. These simply tend to be ignored altogether, and I find that troubling.

---

quote:

---

It suggests to me that all those cuddly Democrats haven't really thought their positions through, or aren't really willing for their own ideas to be challenged. They aren't there for interaction, they're there for mutual reassurance - which is hardly unrestful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
If someone with an outside opinion makes a good point it quickly vanishes without note. If someone in the majority does the same, it gets echoed and amplified with a stream of "Great point! Answer that!" comments or upvotes.

Conversely, the mistakes an outsider makes are both easily spotted (with multiple people to notice them) and then magnified as the home team gloats over them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The historic Nonconformist view is exactly that: that in a secular society everyone should be free to practice their religion and make their opinions known (provided they don't lead to violence etc.) There is no monopoly of one religion by the State, which has to listen to those opinions and aim to bring about a consensus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Believe in a religion I find offensive and disgusting. That's absolutely your right. But that doesn't extend as far as you having the right to organise civil society to fit your norms and beliefs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
One of the reasons for my disaffection with modern politics and the state is precisely because it seems to confuse the two and reinforces strong centralised, inhumane government. And the second one is the lack of proper concern for subsidiarity and local government - which for far too long has been and continues to be the preserve of party stooges or nationalistic nutters, or in a few cases still, of the local grandees.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
One of the reasons for my disaffection with modern politics and the state is precisely because it seems to confuse the two and reinforces strong centralised, inhumane government. And the second one is the lack of proper concern for subsidiarity and local government - which for far too long has been and continues to be the preserve of party stooges or nationalistic nutters, or in a few cases still, of the local grandees.

---

Very much the point made in this recent TV programme which suggested that, at least in local government, a true an-archy would be much better. It is though, I feel, a rose-tinted view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
=Whereas you have the right to organise civil society to fit your norms and beliefs because... what, exactly?

---

quote:

---

What's so special about you that means you get to decide what civil society should look like while those who disagree should just shut up and accept it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Hmmm. I think there's a LOT of fear in homophobia in particular. There certainly is in Islamophobia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And 'silly' used to mean happy in English. I remember that 'silly sheep' is found in some English poems, but can't find one. Maybe Shakespeare.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Language suggests that right is right, as in being right handed is correct. Left handedness is sinister, cack-handed (is cack here shit?) and wrong. Wrong as in wriggle, writhe, wrangle, wreathe and all those other non-straight wr words. Including write, of course.

Language is very interesting, and it probably does carry the traces of how people used to think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Civil society, and the state, is not as neutral as you'd think it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Very much the point made in this recent TV programme which suggested that, at least in local government, a true an-archy would be much better. It is though, I feel, a rose-tinted view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Language suggests that right is right, as in being right handed is correct. Left handedness is sinister, cack-handed (is cack here shit?) and wrong. Wrong as in wriggle, writhe, wrangle, wreathe and all those other non-straight wr words. Including write, of course.

Language is very interesting, and it probably does carry the traces of how people used to think.

---

Yes, it appears that right (opposite of left) was first used in the 12 century and derived from the word meaning correct. Apparently the older word was swiþra which meant stronger.

So I suppose that suggests a change in thinking:
This is my stronger arm
This is my correct arm
This is my right arm

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And 'silly' used to mean happy in English. I remember that 'silly sheep' is found in some English poems, but can't find one. Maybe Shakespeare.

---

When we set up a charity to oversee Christian social action in Ipswich, we called it "Selig (Suffolk)". This was a direct reference to the still-used phrase "Silly Suffolk" in which "silly" means "blessed".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:

Can I think something is wrong without it disgusting me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Aided by the significantly greater percentage of right-handed people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Language suggests that right is right, as in being right handed is correct. Left handedness is sinister, cack-handed (is cack here shit?) and wrong. Wrong as in wriggle, writhe, wrangle, wreathe and all those other non-straight wr words. Including write, of course.

Language is very interesting, and it probably does carry the traces of how people used to think.

---

Yes, it appears that right (opposite of left) was first used in the 12 century and derived from the word meaning correct. Apparently the older word was swiþra which meant stronger.

So I suppose that suggests a change in thinking:
This is my stronger arm
This is my correct arm
This is my right arm

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:

Can I think something is wrong without it disgusting me?

---

Sure. I think Hindus are wrong. I don't think they're disgusting.

Conversely, I think prawns are disgusting, but I don't think they're wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Conversely, I think prawns are disgusting, but I don't think they're wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oh yeah, I've just realised that God's right hand is the important one.

---

Also "Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing" assumes that your right hand does good things and your left hand would stop it from doing them if it found out.
 

---

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:

Can I think something is wrong without it disgusting me?

---

Sure. I think Hindus are wrong. I don't think they're disgusting.

Conversely, I think prawns are disgusting, but I don't think they're wrong.

---

Exactly. I find avocadoes disgusting but they are not "wrong", nor is eating them wrong.

---

Except for millennials who ought to be saving up for deposits on houses?
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The historic Nonconformist view is exactly that: that in a secular society everyone should be free to practice their religion and make their opinions known (provided they don't lead to violence etc.) There is no monopoly of one religion by the State, which has to listen to those opinions and aim to bring about a consensus.

---

I remember reading about John Bunyan (who paradoxically seems to be remembered as a Baptist but seems more like a Congregationist..) who was imprisoned for preaching without a license or something. He'd been in a long-running dispute with local Quakers via a series of pamphlets. Views ran hot with either side accusing the other of being heretics.

But in the end he made bail and left the prison. The money was put up by... the Quakers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Yes. And no doubt they all went right back to disagreeing with one another. This is an awesome example of the attitude I'd like to see.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Yes. And no doubt they all went right back to disagreeing with one another. This is an awesome example of the attitude I'd like to see.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

But in the end he made bail and left the prison. The money was put up by... the Quakers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Yes. And no doubt they all went right back to disagreeing with one another. This is an awesome example of the attitude I'd like to see.

---

I'm not sure what happened afterwards. It must be confusing when people you think are the antichrist jump you from prison.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
This is one of my favourite theological books. It exemplifies how to disagree properly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
There is however a notable exception: posts from a conservative perspective that are well-reasoned, coherent, and polite. These simply tend to be ignored altogether, and I find that troubling.

---

This is one of the mechanisms which makes it so hard to debate when in hostile territory online. If someone with an outside opinion makes a good point it quickly vanishes without note.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Ficklepedia suggests that, after his 12 years in prison, he was released by King's declaration.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Apologies for name-checking Lamb Chopped again, but her posts are reasoned, considered and polite. (mostly) and she is not ignored. We have a few others as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that everybody is ignored on the internet. In fact, forums are not really for communication, are they? Well, fortunately, I love reading my own posts. What could be more satisfying? Such wise words.

---

heheheheh.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm quite impressed with the recent posts in this thread.

A word about - phobia. It does actually mean irrational or instinctive fear. And there's the rub. Labelling someone as, for example, homophobic, is saying that you perceive they are not rational and are governed by feelings of fear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I've always been baffled by this lust for truth among the religious - why not just say that it works for me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So whilst I am certain that Hindus, for example, are wrong about their beliefs, I recognize that I can't demonstrate that in an objective fashion, and that they are perfectly entitled to think that they are right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I am serious. Find me an instance. Where have I suggested that anybody be treated as a second class citizen? Anybody at all. Surely you can find an instance, me being so inflammatory and all. Surely in all these years you can find one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
There is however a notable exception: posts from a conservative perspective that are well-reasoned, coherent, and polite. These simply tend to be ignored altogether, and I find that troubling.

---

This is one of the mechanisms which makes it so hard to debate when in hostile territory online. If someone with an outside opinion makes a good point it quickly vanishes without note. If someone in the majority does the same, it gets echoed and amplified with a stream of "Great point! Answer that!" comments or upvotes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
However, anarchy can only exist in a bubble or in isolation. Given sufficient population, which we have in abundance, order is needed. And it will happen regardless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm quite impressed with the recent posts in this thread.

A word about - phobia. It does actually mean irrational or instinctive fear. And there's the rub. Labelling someone as, for example, homophobic, is saying that you perceive they are not rational and are governed by feelings of fear.

---

Phobia as a standalone word does have that meaning. Phobia as a combining form does not. Else you must think, as noted above, that the hydrophobic end of a molecule literally fears water. Which is plainly absurd. Words and suffixes move beyond their etymology. To treat the "phobia" in "homophobia" as "fear" is to commit the composition fallacy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Language suggests that right is right, as in being right handed is correct. Left handedness is sinister, cack-handed (is cack here shit?) and wrong. Wrong as in wriggle, writhe, wrangle, wreathe and all those other non-straight wr words. Including write, of course.

Language is very interesting, and it probably does carry the traces of how people used to think.

---

Yes, it appears that right (opposite of left) was first used in the 12 century and derived from the word meaning correct. Apparently the older word was swiþra which meant stronger.

So I suppose that suggests a change in thinking:
This is my stronger arm
This is my correct arm
This is my right arm

---

All of which was very apparent to me when I moved to the State of Victoria, Australia, where the police motto, emblazoned on all their cars, was "Uphold the Right" (though inexplicably in French, which I won't post here ). As a neophyte lefty* there was no ambiguity as to their meaning - or the bigotry and corruption that went with it.


*Now I guess I'm an oldophyte (?veteriyte?) lefty, though like DocTor clearly a traditional Christian one.
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
I find avocadoes disgusting but they are not "wrong", nor is eating them wrong.

---

So are. So is.
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
However, anarchy can only exist in a bubble or in isolation. Given sufficient population, which we have in abundance, order is needed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What I think may be going on in some minds (certainly in mine) is what I would call the portmanteau effect. Phobia has clear "baggage" as a word or a part of a word. I reckon that will transfer across in the use of homophobia as a label.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
However, anarchy can only exist in a bubble or in isolation. Given sufficient population, which we have in abundance, order is needed.

---

Certainly the people who provide order in our communities will tell us so. Fortunately, they're willing to shoulder the burden of imposing it on the rest of us.

Anarchism may be mistaken. That doesn't mean anarchism is an unprincipled position. An anarchist who refuses to vote isn't supporting the status quo any more than a Green Party voter where the Green Party have no realistic chance of getting in.

For that matter, it's a mistake to identify all engagement with society with engagement with the state. Authoritarian governments tend to want to identify the two. But a society in which public participation is limited to the state is an atrophied society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
An anarchist who refuses to vote isn't supporting the status quo any more than a Green Party voter where the Green Party have no realistic chance of getting in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
A green party voter signifies by his vote that he is concerned with environmental issues (and implicitly that either he doesn't care which of the man parties
wins the election or that he lives in a safe seat). When the votes are tabulated, the support for Green candidates will be obvious to see, and may cause the other parties to adopt more environmentally-friendly policies in order to appeal to that section of the population. So he has some hope hat his vote (and the votes of people like him) will help to advance his goals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
A green party voter signifies by his vote that he is concerned with environmental issues (and implicitly that either he doesn't care which of the main parties wins the election or that he lives in a safe seat). When the votes are tabulated, the support for Green candidates will be obvious to see, and may cause the other parties to adopt more environmentally-friendly policies in order to appeal to that section of the population. So he has some hope hat his vote (and the votes of people like him) will help to advance his goals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

Some people, I think, really are homophobic in that homosexuality genuinely does bring out a visceral disgust in them. But for other people, the belief that gay sex is a sin doesn't arise from any strong visceral feeling but is the consequence of their beliefs about other stuff. I think the overuse of the word 'homophobia' tends to obscure this distinction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
You are, like some others on this thread, asking to be allowed to say shitty things about your fellow human beings without having shitty things said to you in return. You want to be treated as a human being even when you are in the very act of advocating that some people be treated as less human than others.

---

Oh, I am, am I? Tell me. Over the last fifteen years, when and where exactly have you heard me saying "shitty things about my fellow human beings" and "advocating that some people be treated as less human than others? Give me chapter and verse. Where have you seen this behavior in me? Against whom?

Have I denigrated ...

---

quote:

---

I'd also appreciate an apology for the slur on my motives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I'm Roman Catholic and my perception is that there seems to be less willingness from posters to accept that people may hold nuanced positions on controversial topics.

[Followed by thoughtful discussion of his stance on gay marriage.]

So, on balance, yes I'd say there is less initial assumption of good faith, there is more open hostility and there is less apparent acceptance of nuanced positions. Instead there seems to be a line of debate that is intended to drive those with nuanced positions to agree or disagree with a black or white scenario, so as to be able to put them in a box as good guys or bad guys.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If there are significant other Green voters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Let's see how that would work in the United States. The Democrats lose the election to the Republicans in part because the lefty vote is splintered. [..]

---

quote:

---

(and implicitly that either he doesn't care which of the main parties wins the election or that he lives in a safe seat)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief
Phobia as a standalone word does have that meaning. Phobia as a combining form does not. Else you must think, as noted above, that the hydrophobic end of a molecule literally fears water. Which is plainly absurd.

---

quote:

---

homophobia Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.

---

quote:

---

‘It was a time of rampant discrimination, racism, homophobia and sexism.’
‘Unfortunately, society as a whole is still homophobic and there is homophobia in the Church.’
‘She is hardly the first woman to battle sexism and homophobia in the ring.’

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
"Outnumbered" is relevant if it drowns out the signal.
<snip>
The lone 1 might feel rather beleaguered, but you can still have some sensible discussions.

When all 10 are responding to each point of the 1, it's a bit of a challenge, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Conversely, I think prawns are disgusting, but I don't think they're wrong.

---

Except that they are wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A word about - phobia. It does actually mean irrational or instinctive fear. And there's the rub. Labelling someone as, for example, homophobic, is saying that you perceive they are not rational and are governed by feelings of fear.

This may be right, but it may not do justice to the reasons people have for "seeing things differently" - again a helpful phrase.

---

quote:

---

For that matter, it's a mistake to identify all engagement with society with engagement with the state. Authoritarian governments tend to want to identify the two. But a society in which public participation is limited to the state is an atrophied society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I find the sociological perspective more interesting. The sociology of religion routinely posits religious groups as either in low or high tension with the surrounding culture. Indeed, there's a spectrum between the very high tension sect and the low tension church.

---

I think you've truncated the spectrum of the sociology of religion a little there. "Hegemonic dominance" should be on there somewhere. Something along the lines of "this is a [Christian / Muslim / Whatever] country, so our laws, customs, and people should adhere to [Christian / Muslim / Whatever] norms". Quite a common phenomenon, historically speaking, and not unheard of today.

The complaints of Gottschalk (and similar) seem to be the mournful cries of displaced hegemons, those who are used to being regarded as the moral arbiters of everything who suddenly (and in their eyes unjustly) find their former authority questioned, or even outright denied.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
The state through a species of taxation seeks to enforce a largely unmonitored, unaccountable system of national sympathy upon us when that money could be channelled directly for the support of local issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
RuthW: Stop screwing around with the "anyone" statements. I asked you specifically if you had heard me, personally, denigrating any human group on the Ship. Have you?

---

quote:

---

At the same time, there must be a recognised right for Christians to say that they regard both as meaningless and wrong - without being vilified with stupid, manipulative Orwellian neologisms like "Hinduphobic" or "homophobic" for simply expressing disagreement.

---

quote:

---

Or do you look at my group membership and immediately consign me to a barrel of assholes? In which case I think you make my point for me about hostility to traditional Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A word about - phobia. It does actually mean irrational or instinctive fear. And there's the rub. Labelling someone as, for example, homophobic, is saying that you perceive they are not rational and are governed by feelings of fear.

This may be right, but it may not do justice to the reasons people have for "seeing things differently" - again a helpful phrase.

---

When I was at school and then starting at uni, gays (queers then) really did not exist for me and my group. We would talk of dirty old men, which teachers you needed to take care of, usually with no reason. So no phobia there.

Then when I was not quite 21, I was indecently assaulted in a largish private gathering by Robert Helpmann. Not surprisingly, I was homophobic for a number of years afterwards. Then I came to know some gays socially, and in particular received quite a bit of work from a gay solicitor. Madame and I became very friendly with him and his very long term partner. Views changed and what was left of the previous phobia has long gone.

---

I am sorry this happened to you. I hope you got the help and support you needed, and I hope you got access to justice.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Gee D--

What Doublethink said.

 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
RuthW: Stop screwing around with the "anyone" statements. I asked you specifically if you had heard me, personally, denigrating any human group on the Ship. Have you?

---

I'll screw around with whatever statements I want. I'm not going to spend a lot of time trawling through your old posts. I am talking about what you have said on this thread. Kaplan Corday said:

quote:

---

At the same time, there must be a recognised right for Christians to say that they regard both as meaningless and wrong - without being vilified with stupid, manipulative Orwellian neologisms like "Hinduphobic" or "homophobic" for simply expressing disagreement.

---

I disagreed, and you defended the statement. You posted a long thing about how Shipmates used to be able to discuss abhorrent views without resorting to personal attack, but now you're apparently trying to draw me into making this personal. Another thing that's not going to happen.

quote:

---

Or do you look at my group membership and immediately consign me to a barrel of assholes? In which case I think you make my point for me about hostility to traditional Christians.

---

My hostility toward several of your points of view is quite well documented, whether it makes your point or not. And group membership matters. This might be where the nuanced views come in, as someone might be working from within an institution to change it, but at the end of the day, group membership still one way or another supports the group and its stated doctrines and values.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
You have the right to free speech, but not the right to escape vilification for what you say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is not civil to tell someone they are sinners because of what they are, what they have no control over being.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
You have the right to free speech, but not the right to escape vilification for what you say.

---

Etymological hairsplitting notwithstanding, the slur "homophobic" is clearly abusive, implying that at the very least anyone who disagrees with homosexual behaviour has something wrong with them.

I neither fear nor hate homosxuals but, as in the case of Hindus, simply disagree with their distinctive beliefs and behaviours.

I have exactly the same right to escape being vilified for this as homophobic, as the right homosexuals have to escape being vilified as poofters or faggots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Yes. And no doubt they all went right back to disagreeing with one another. This is an awesome example of the attitude I'd like to see.

---

This is one of my favourite theological books. It exemplifies how to disagree properly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarah G:
I did think the link would go here but I like yours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
First, no-one has any control over whether or not they experience SSA, but they do have a choice as to how they respond to that inclination.

Christian disagreement is with behaviour, not orientation.

Secondly, homosexual activity is not more serious than any other of the range of sins which we all commit in response to a range of inclinations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

Then when I was not quite 21, I was indecently assaulted in a largish private gathering by Robert Helpmann. Not surprisingly, I was homophobic for a number of years afterwards. Then I came to know some gays socially, and in particular received quite a bit of work from a gay solicitor. Madame and I became very friendly with him and his very long term partner. Views changed and what was left of the previous phobia has long gone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But it is a sad state that if a person different from one does it, the difference is attributed to the assault. It is good that you have changed your view on this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stejjie:
What's interesting about it in the context of this thread is that while I agreed much more with Wright than Borg, I warmed more to Borg than Wright. Wright writes impressively and makes his case well. Borg writes much more warmly and however much I was saying "yes, but..."to his arguments, I did prefer to read him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
at the end of the day, group membership still one way or another supports the group and its stated doctrines and values.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is not civil to tell someone they are sinners because of what they are, what they have no control over being.

---

First, no-one has any control over whether or not they experience SSA, but they do have a choice as to how they respond to that inclination.

Christian disagreement is with behaviour, not orientation.

Secondly, homosexual activity is not more serious than any other of the range of sins which we all commit in response to a range of inclinations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
at the end of the day, group membership still one way or another supports the group and its stated doctrines and values.

---

Is this where your "assigning whole groups of people to second-class status" bit comes in? Just askin'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

The thing is, nuanced positions on controversial topics don't tend to do much for the lives of people directly affected.

---

quote:

---

Whether someone is ordained, gets married, or has an abortion --these are all yes-or-no, black-or-white things.

---

quote:

---

And consider whether it's okay for someone to have a nuanced position on interracial marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

The thing is, nuanced positions on controversial topics don't tend to do much for the lives of people directly affected.

---

On the other hand, I'm fairly sure turning DH into a liberal echo-chamber* doesn't get anyone ordained, married, or access to abortion either.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Whether someone is ordained, gets married, or has an abortion --these are all yes-or-no, black-or-white things.

---

Round here all of those things have ended up in nuanced positions. The Church of England allows women's ordination but has created structures for people who oppose it. Gay marriage is legal but Church of England registrars aren't allowed to perform it. Abortion gets progressively harder the closer the pregnancy comes to term.

You may think all of those nuanced outcomes are daft, but it's false to say they don't exist.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

And consider whether it's okay for someone to have a nuanced position on interracial marriage.

---

IME, most people do have a nuanced position. Most people would distinguish between, say, anti-miscegenation laws in the US, and endogamous minority groups like Gypsies and Haredi Jews that strongly discourage out-group marriage, even though both positions imply opposition to interracial marriage. Most people would probably see both as wrong but nevertheless draw a moral distinction between the two cases.

---

quote:

---

* OK I am being a bit hypocritical here in that most of my posts in DH have been making exactly the same point as the overwhelming majority of the Ship, so I am contributing to the dynamic Sarah G describes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
group membership still one way or another supports the group and its stated doctrines and values.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
opponents of women's ordination and same-sex marriage

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
You are, like some others on this thread, asking to be allowed to say shitty things about your fellow human beings without having shitty things said to you in return. You want to be treated as a human being even when you are in the very act of advocating that some people be treated as less human than others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm not saying any group of people are second-class human beings the way opponents of women's ordination and same-sex marriage do. I'm saying there are groups of people who espouse abhorrent views.

---

quote:

---

Opposition to women's ordination and same-sex marriage are both founded on the belief that there is something fundamentally and innately lacking, wrong, or inadequate about some people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm not saying any group of people are second-class human beings the way opponents of women's ordination and same-sex marriage do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is not civil to tell someone they are sinners because of what they are, what they have no control over being.

---

First, no-one has any control over whether or not they experience SSA, but they do have a choice as to how they respond to that inclination.

Christian disagreement is with behaviour, not orientation.

Secondly, homosexual activity is not more serious than any other of the range of sins which we all commit in response to a range of inclinations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
You may recall that I said nuanced positions may be problematic - obviously they aren't always.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
And group membership matters. This might be where the nuanced views come in, as someone might be working from within an institution to change it, but at the end of the day, group membership still one way or another supports the group and its stated doctrines and values.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
The state through a species of taxation seeks to enforce a largely unmonitored, unaccountable system of national sympathy upon us when that money could be channelled directly for the support of local issues.

---

Could you clarify "species of taxation" and "system of national sympathy" please? I don't understand what you mean by either phrase.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Just to put that in practical terms: I direct the choir in my parish. The choir is very multi-cultural (central-ish London) and therefore I tend to assume there is a spectrum of views on controversial issues.

I recall once the issue of same-sex marriage coming up in conversation with one of the choir. I can't remember what I said, but it must have made it clear that I didn't object to civil same-sex marriage. The soprano in question was shocked. I do remember that I said that since I believe in evolution, I can't embrace any doctrine that requires me to believe that the human race originated from one heterosexual relationship; and she replied that she *did* think we "all came from one man and one woman".

And there we left it. Should I have gone further and potentially created a rift? Or can the two of us co-exist - and make music?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
It would be good if people could take decisions about, say, rubbish collection, parking, preservation, schools, transport, etc. instead of it all taking place in Whitehall, or the County/Area Councils. I would like to see a return of powers, both legislative and judicial (more JPs perhaps?) to burgh and parish councils.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
...of course, you go on making music with others, whether you agree with them or not - music requires, demands and delivers another, perhaps a nobler sort of unity among a wide variety of people holding a wide variety of views.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
It would be good if people could take decisions about, say, rubbish collection, parking, preservation, schools, transport, etc. instead of it all taking place in Whitehall, or the County/Area Councils. I would like to see a return of powers, both legislative and judicial (more JPs perhaps?) to burgh and parish councils.

---

Waste collection and treatment need skills and economies of scale which are not possible at a parish council level.

This is nonsense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
You obviously no nothing of the issues regarding waste collection we've been through in my town and I am not denying there are aspects of the problem - treatment and the actual recycling - that can only be solved with larger resources and infrastructure. However, for the small decisions like when, where, and how collection is made - things that do not impact on treatment- we should be able to decide.

---

quote:

---

Wheelie bins and associated predicaments have been the bane of many townsfolk, not least the aged. I was not just dreaming something up, I'll have you know!

Anyway I feel you are not really interested by your virtue of your dismissal of the entire idea based on one aspect of the problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
You obviously no nothing of the issues regarding waste collection we've been through in my town and I am not denying there are aspects of the problem - treatment and the actual recycling - that can only be solved with larger resources and infrastructure. However, for the small decisions like when, where, and how collection is made - things that do not impact on treatment- we should be able to decide.

---

Why should you? Why should you have the right to determine bin collection in your village outwith of the impact it might have on the rest of the borough and the systems set up to handle the waste?

Given that you don't even take part in the political process, why should anyone take any notice of you shouting about the rights of your parish council?

quote:

---

Wheelie bins and associated predicaments have been the bane of many townsfolk, not least the aged. I was not just dreaming something up, I'll have you know!

Anyway I feel you are not really interested by your virtue of your dismissal of the entire idea based on one aspect of the problem.

---

I feel that you are inclined to want to have-your-cake-and-eat-it so you're right, I'm not interest in your wheely bin related predicaments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I, as an Orthodox Christian, have often found this to be true here. I will post something on a thread and have it completely ignored. If you (generic you) think it's wrong at least give me the courtesy of saying how.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There are some who will overreact and over-associate. I see this when there are disagreements, but not strictly limited to a left/right divide.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
So those who do not participate in the political process, should have no opinions, especially when they're not interested in imposing their opinions on others?

---

quote:

---

I can only leave you in your own little cloud-cuckoo fascistic land of fallacies, bile, invective and condescension.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
So those who do not participate in the political process, should have no opinions, especially when they're not interested in imposing their opinions on others?

---

I'm sure you have local councillors who are tasked to provide you with assistance in these matters, but you've gone way beyond that by saying (a) that you don't participate in the political process but (b) you have a political idea whereby decisions are made on a microscopic level in some kind of feudal system where presumably you are (or want to be) a JP and get some kind of deference.

quote:

---

I can only leave you in your own little cloud-cuckoo fascistic land of fallacies, bile, invective and condescension.

---

And you don't like being challenged, do you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

My main issue is that in the last decade or so our society has become increasingly divided and angry, that it's only getting worse, and that social media is driving a lot of the tension. The left and right seem to be feeding off each other's hatred, and it's happening at precisely at the point when we need to co-operate to deal with new problems like climate change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
@MrCheesy
You're still not giving me no reasons but instead mounting a bill of presumptions. And I am not a JP. So, instead of imagining motives for my ideas, is it really beyond your power to discuss their merits alone?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
@MrCheesy
You're still not giving me any reasons but are instead mounting a bill of presumptions. And I am not a JP. So, instead of imagining motives for my ideas, is it really beyond your power to discuss their merits alone, without always committing ad hominem and a host of other fallacies? Merits of the argument, not those (imagined, for you do not know me) the person!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Then when I was not quite 21, I was indecently assaulted in a largish private gathering by Robert Helpmann. Not surprisingly, I was homophobic for a number of years afterwards. Then I came to know some gays socially, and in particular received quite a bit of work from a gay solicitor. Madame and I became very friendly with him and his very long term partner. Views changed and what was left of the previous phobia has long gone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Would that be since the "Credit crunch" when the greed of the banks became a burden for the general population?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
I mean that I would prefer a more devolved, more local approach to taxation and welfare and I am not advocating for total isolationist autarchy. It would be good if people could take decisions about, say, rubbish collection, parking, preservation, schools, transport, etc. instead of it all taking place in Whitehall, or the County/Area Councils. I would like to see a return of powers, both legislative and judicial (more JPs perhaps?) to burgh and parish councils.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
I mean that I would prefer a more devolved, more local approach to taxation and welfare and I am not advocating for total isolationist autarchy. It would be good if people could take decisions about, say, rubbish collection, parking, preservation, schools, transport, etc. instead of it all taking place in Whitehall, or the County/Area Councils. I would like to see a return of powers, both legislative and judicial (more JPs perhaps?) to burgh and parish councils.

---

I mean, yes, that would be lovely. Except that as currently constituted, most of the wealth of this country is generated in a few square miles of land in the south-east of England.

They would get flying cars and robot servants, while the rest of us would be left the other side of the very big wall that would suddenly appear.

If we were starting with a clean slate, perhaps. But we're not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarah G:

Furthermore, as people have said, they will avoid being 'the one', leading to a Ship that lists permanently and very noticeably to port.

---

quote:

---

If two people have critiqued a post fully, you don't need to add more of the same. Use the time to phone your mother, make jam, or discover what's making the noise in the walls.

---

quote:

---

Dunno. Maybe people want the Ship to be a place where everyone thinks the same and 'wrong' views are never expressed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

There are many people* who hold certain convictions about personal morality, but don't want to deny any rights to other people.

* At least, here in the UK there are. My impression is that the US is more polarised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

Rarely have I come across anyone who starts from there. They start from other assumptions, some of which may be nobler than you seem willing to give them credit for.

---

quote:

---

By interacting, politely, with those who are willing to interact, some greater mutual understanding can be achieved - and possibly, some minds changed. Why refuse to do so on principle?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Some - those looking for hegemony - probably have the noose ready for the necks of us who won't succumb to their bullying. Here is my neck.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Not hanging, but there are actual cases using anti-terrorism powers to catch people putting out their wheelie-bins on the wrong day.

Source (admittedly from 2008).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Not hanging, but there are actual cases of councils using anti-terrorism powers to catch people putting out their wheelie-bins on the wrong day.

Source (admittedly from 2008).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Not hanging, but there are actual cases of councils using anti-terrorism powers to catch people putting out their wheelie-bins on the wrong day.

Source (admittedly from 2008).

---

That's been stopped.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If you want to go to the start, it is most often that someone they trust/respect told them. Parent, priest, etc. Normal and natural, but not noble. Noble comes in later, if it comes in. Honestly to want to save someone from Hell for what you perceive as their "sin" is noble.
God said, I believe it and that settles it is not noble.

---

quote:

---

There is a difference between being polite to a person and not respecting their position. I think the second is often conflated with the first.

---

quote:

---

And, honestly, in regards to many DH topics; this is 2017, not 1917. One needs to ignore an awful lot to have those some of those positions.

---

quote:

---

For instance, "The preponderance of evidence v. my religious tradition troubles me" will generate a different reaction than "Science is a tool of the Devil!" or a general ignorance of the scientific process.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I don't think, truly, that Christian disagreement is with behaviour, not orientation.

...

It is the sexuality of the person that is the issue, not the behaviour of the person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I don't think, truly, that Christian disagreement is with behaviour, not orientation.

...

It is the sexuality of the person that is the issue, not the behaviour of the person.

---

It really isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Just completely gobsmacked that you equate "homophobic" with "poofter" and "faggot."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I don't think, truly, that Christian disagreement is with behaviour, not orientation.

...

It is the sexuality of the person that is the issue, not the behaviour of the person.

---

It really isn't.

In Christian thought, all of us are tempted every day to do things we shouldn't do. Little wrongs, big wrongs, public wrongs, private wrongs.

Being tempted is not a sin. Giving into the temptation is the sin.

And some of us are more tempted to some sins than others. Some more prone to wrath, others to sloth.

Traditional Christian thought does not recognise sexuality as a black-or-white identifying characteristic. There are no gay souls. There are only souls that are subject to particular types and degrees of temptation.

It really is the behaviour and not the being subject to particular temptations that the Church condemns, and this fits entirely logically within a worldview in which no-one has any right to the comfort of sexual intimacy, and some are called to give up that comfort to serve God as a celibate monk or nun or priest.

You may deeply disagree with this point of view, but please don't misrepresent it.

---

quote:

---

"homophobe" is offensive and also dishonest and untrue, and that all are unacceptable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I don't think, truly, that Christian disagreement is with behaviour, not orientation.

...

It is the sexuality of the person that is the issue, not the behaviour of the person.

---

It really isn't.

In Christian thought, all of us are tempted every day to do things we shouldn't do. Little wrongs, big wrongs, public wrongs, private wrongs.

Being tempted is not a sin. Giving into the temptation is the sin.

And some of us are more tempted to some sins than others. Some more prone to wrath, others to sloth.

Traditional Christian thought does not recognise sexuality as a black-or-white identifying characteristic. There are no gay souls. There are only souls that are subject to particular types and degrees of temptation.

It really is the behaviour and not the being subject to particular temptations that the Church condemns, and this fits entirely logically within a worldview in which no-one has any right to the comfort of sexual intimacy, and some are called to give up that comfort to serve God as a celibate monk or nun or priest.

You may deeply disagree with this point of view, but please don't misrepresent it.

---

Well put, Russ.

Temptation is not wrong in itself, because Jesus himself experienced it.

The temptation of a man with SSA to have sex with other men is no better or worse than the temptation of a heterosexual man to have sex with as many attractive and compliant young women as possible.

---

quote:

---

Temptation is not identity or destiny in any objective or obvious sense, and therefore while such a man can choose to think, "I am by inclination polygamous/polyamorous and therefore that is what I am and must be", he can equally choose to be celibate or monogamously married.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
The state through a species of taxation seeks to enforce a largely unmonitored, unaccountable system of national sympathy upon us when that money could be channelled directly for the support of local issues.

---

Could you clarify "species of taxation" and "system of national sympathy" please? I don't understand what you mean by either phrase.

---

I mean that I would prefer a more devolved, more local approach to taxation and welfare and I am not advocating for total isolationist autarchy. It would be good if people could take decisions about, say, rubbish collection, parking, preservation, schools, transport, etc. instead of it all taking place in Whitehall, or the County/Area Councils. I would like to see a return of powers, both legislative and judicial (more JPs perhaps?) to burgh and parish councils.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

Besides, my point remains that the starting point for "the other side" is not generally that they consider such or such category of person inferior.

---

quote:

---

But there's a lot of room between those two extremes, and I think that where there's a reasonably broad consensus in a community, there's a tendency to consider any dissenting voice as sounding like the latter, or of merely sounding like the former to disguise what is erroneously perceived as their true position, i.e. the latter.

I'd say there's evidence of that on this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Just completely gobsmacked that you cannot understand that "poofter" and "faggot" are offensive, that "homophobe" is offensive and also dishonest and untrue, and that all are unacceptable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
You think there are groups of people who, irrespective of their attempts to interact, don't deserve the same treatment as everyone else on the sole basis of their views, which you qualify as "abhorrent" - a characterisation which those who hold opposing views to you would doubtless reject. I can't see how functionally, that's any different from seeing them as "less human".

---

quote:

---

By interacting, politely, with those who are willing to interact, some greater mutual understanding can be achieved - and possibly, some minds changed. Why refuse to do so on principle?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

Besides, my point remains that the starting point for "the other side" is not generally that they consider such or such category of person inferior.

---

I'm sorry, but it is. They might not think they think this, but it is the inevitable conclusion of their way of thinking.

---

quote:

---

You present this as if it is an equal exchange. It isn't. (...) these exchanges should not be considered equal. The consequences are not equal. Hurt feelings v. broken bones. Or worse.
The increased hate crimes after Trump and Brexit are clear demonstrations on how a POV can affect the actions of others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
What would you do if a neo-Nazi showed up here and posted flat-out racist things in Purgatory? Would you object?

---

quote:

---

If I called that person a racist would you tell me I was over the line?

---

quote:

---

Would you expect all of the people of color on the Ship to allow such things to be said of them and be polite about it?

---

quote:

---

all views are on the same footing and deserve the same consideration.

---

quote:

---

veneer of politeness

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I don't think, truly, that Christian disagreement is with behaviour, not orientation.

...

It is the sexuality of the person that is the issue, not the behaviour of the person.

---

It really isn't.

In Christian thought, all of us are tempted every day to do things we shouldn't do. Little wrongs, big wrongs, public wrongs, private wrongs.

Being tempted is not a sin. Giving into the temptation is the sin.

And some of us are more tempted to some sins than others. Some more prone to wrath, others to sloth.

Traditional Christian thought does not recognise sexuality as a black-or-white identifying characteristic. There are no gay souls. There are only souls that are subject to particular types and degrees of temptation.

It really is the behaviour and not the being subject to particular temptations that the Church condemns, and this fits entirely logically within a worldview in which no-one has any right to the comfort of sexual intimacy, and some are called to give up that comfort to serve God as a celibate monk or nun or priest.

You may deeply disagree with this point of view, but please don't misrepresent it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Isn't all politeness a veneer to some extent?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

I don't mistake politeness for fundamental niceness.

Some can very politely express blood-curdling views to me (as in "I raped her but didn't mean to kill her: after all, I raped several girls at knifepoint after her and didn't kill any of them" [sits back and waits for approval]).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
not generally that they consider such or such category of person inferior.

---

I'm sorry, but it is. They might not think they think this, but it is

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The Gay is a choice. etc. says that all LGBT+ are liars or completely deluded about a very primal element of themselves.

---

quote:

---

The temptation of a man with SSA to have sex with other men is no better or worse than the temptation of a heterosexual man to have sex with as many attractive and compliant young women as possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

If I called that person a racist would you tell me I was over the line?

---

As a host, yes, because you'd be in breach of Commandment 3.

As far as I'm concerned, those rules are only good rules if they are applied without exception.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

The temptation of a man with SSA to have sex with other men is no better or worse than the temptation of a heterosexual man to have sex with as many attractive and compliant young women as possible.

Temptation is not identity or destiny in any objective or obvious sense, and therefore while such a man can choose to think, "I am by inclination polygamous/polyamorous and therefore that is what I am and must be", he can equally choose to be celibate or monogamously married.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
First, my memory of Erin is older than all of yours, but I do remember that she had a very low tolerance for people who came here looking for a fight.

---

quote:

---

So I don't think it was always the way that people got the benefit of time to see if they'd break any of the commandments

---

quote:

---

and I don't think a robust response from the Hosts and Admins would have gotten a response from other hosts.

---

quote:

---

I believe holocaust denial is an offense in France (as it is elsewhere). Are you saying to me that it is right that someone in France can post such things on this website (providing they do it politely) when they'd not be able to do it in public away from their computer - and that interlocutors can be given reprimands instead?

---

quote:

---

the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause does indeed prohibit officeholders from blocking social media users on the basis of their views

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Who said anything about people coming looking for a fight? Are you assuming that someone arriving with an opposing view to the majority simply must be looking for a fight?

---

quote:

---

If you're suggesting there was a time when people got booted simply for their views without having broken any Commandments, I don't recall it.

---

quote:

---

From the Ship point of view, it might fall under the scope of Commandment 1 ("all the other negative -isms", which I guess we take to include "revisionism") and I would guess the H&A's would invoke that in dealing with it.

Having said all that, and despite thinking the US First Amendment can be terribly abused, I'm really not convinced making Holocaust denial an offence is a good idea. The subjective impression such laws produce in me is that there is the fear that the hypothesis cannot be refuted by cogent argument.

(This is one of the points I feel terribly un-French whatever my passport says. I think France's holocaust denial laws, and other similar legislation and policies, are above all a guilt-induced cultural reaction to France's treatment of the Jews during the war rather than a rational measure. It's hard otherwise to explain how François Hollande, as president of this oh-so-secular state, could suddenly don a kippah and participate in an act of worship in a synagogue, live on TV. I doubt you'd see him taking his shoes off as he entered a mosque for prayer. This whole issue goes quite a long way to explaining why Muslims are so poorly integrated in France compared to, say, the UK).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Interestingly, I've just this minute discovered that a US Federal court has just ruled on an issue not too far removed from this one:

quote:

---

the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause does indeed prohibit officeholders from blocking social media users on the basis of their views

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't know Eutychus - you tell me why a Neo-Nazi would start posting here if it wasn't for a fight. Fascism and neo-nazism are violent ideologies, indeed it is explicitly stated so within facism.

---

quote:

---

I can remember incidents where Erin chomped shipmates with few posts without the now customary warnings.

---

quote:

---

Again, I'd suggest in the past there were views that were simply unacceptable.

---

quote:

---

So you think this is a limp guilt-fest rather than a way to try to protect a minority from experiencing hate-speech.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not sure how we've got from "traditional Christians" to "neo-nazism" unless it is through guilt by association.

---

quote:

---

And again, I refuse to lump any group together, be it Republicans, rapists, or EDL supporters, as an indiscriminate mass, or immediately assign motives to people who turn up here with non-conforming views.

Posters sign up as individuals. If they start trying to act as representatives of a constituency, they'll soon fall foul of the commandment against crusading.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
we were simply asking if you thought there are unacceptable views. The answer seems to be no.

---

quote:

---

I'm afraid I think this is a deeply ambivalent attitude. It makes me wonder whether you are actually suited for a hostly position on these boards.

---

the Styx is available for you to air your grievances.

[ETA oh, I see you already availed yourself of it]

[ 29. July 2017, 10:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gottschalk:
The state through a species of taxation seeks to enforce a largely unmonitored, unaccountable system of national sympathy upon us when that money could be channelled directly for the support of local issues.

---

Could you clarify "species of taxation" and "system of national sympathy" please? I don't understand what you mean by either phrase.

---

I mean that I would prefer a more devolved, more local approach to taxation and welfare and I am not advocating for total isolationist autarchy. It would be good if people could take decisions about, say, rubbish collection, parking, preservation, schools, transport, etc. instead of it all taking place in Whitehall, or the County/Area Councils. I would like to see a return of powers, both legislative and judicial (more JPs perhaps?) to burgh and parish councils.

---

I appreciate the response, Gottschalk, though I'm a bit surprised that the referents turn out to be so mundane - now I find myself wondering what the traditional Christian teaching on wheelie bins might be...

---