| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
Getting sick of the homophobes |
|
Falling rain
since 2008-01-31
Posts 2178Small town, Illinois 
|
UGH! Okay so before for I start my story, let me give you a little bit of a background story. I'm bisexual. I'm not embarrassed about it and I'm open about it. But I don't rub it in peoples faces. Ya know? My friends and family know and they're fine about it. (Lucky me, right?) I live in a small town where everyone knows everything. There's a good side to that and a bad side to it. Too bad I got the short end of the stick. So tonight I went on a walk. It was nice, warm, with a light breeze. And I had the energy to get my butt out of the house for a while. Near the end of my walk, I walked by a group of kids on the street. Now, I'm not the type of person who likes walking by strangers in the dark. Sorta freaks me out to be blunt. Side note: Well people know about my sexuality and they haven't really done anything in a negative way about it (like harassment or threats).. yet. When I was walking by this group, I get insults and slurs. (I think that's the right word.) I don't know these people personally, so I can't judge, but on what right do they have to insult someone they don't know? Somehow they found it funny to follow me and make fun of me while I was on my walk. They were on bikes so no matter how fast I walked they'd catch up. I was out numbered by quite a bit and I ask politely for them to leave me alone. Hah! What good that did! They'd just insult me more and make fun of me. Side note: For those of you who don't know, I have a low self esteem. And I take things to heart most of the time. Its not new to me to be insulted like they did and I try to shrug it off as much as I can. But all those insults sorta build up over time. Back to the story. Thank god I didn't walk far from my house because I had to run home to get away from them. I was really scared that they were going to try and hurt me or do something. Because I'm a pacifist, they wouldn't have to worry about being hit back. ~~Sigh~~ I'm just getting sick and tired of people. We're all different in our own ways. Can't we just celebrate our differences instead of treating others badly? Is there a chance for peace, love, and understanding? But to be honest I think that might never happen.. ***This is just me venting and fuming out hot steam  . Thanks for reading if you did.  *** |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Zach Booker-Scott - All Rights Reserved | |||
SEA 
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 2000-01-18
Posts 22676with you |
Zach,  it's a shame they don't know you, I think you are a great guy! I think you are funny, and quick witted, sweet and just all around nice. they are missing out. Some day the bad things they said and did, will haunt them. Really. You did the right thing by removing yourself from the situation. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Zach, I don't like Homophobes very much, either. Whatever else you can say about them or hope about them now or in the future, they're dangerous. I don't think they're likely to feel sorry later, though it would certainly be nice. One of the things I especially don't like about them is how they seem to swell from the fear of others, like ticks. That's just disgusting. Being a pacifist doesn't mean that you have to emulate jello. It simply means that you've made a decision not to hurt other people. It can also mean that you've made a decision not to get hurt yourself in the process. This is often a good idea. All martial arts are not about beating up other people. Some are simply about learning how to manage the way other people (and you yourself) deal with your aggression. This is not a bad thing either. As far as practical solutions are concerned, a cell phone with 911 on speed dial is a useful thing for a lot of people to have these days. Probably more big city folks than small town folk,. you'd think, but this is around the age when a lot of folks are confused about their orientation, and I suspect that the notion of S & M flits across their mind, though not that openly, and without actually thinking to call it that. They can get bisexual mixed up with the M part because none of it's very much at the formally verbal level in their heads. And in groups, all thinking seems to go out the window anyway. People turn into ill mannered and aggressive chimps. As you were unfortunate enough to see. The thinking part of the human brain is a thickly spray-painted coating over the outside of the thing, only a few millimeters thick, and everything underneath is not very rational at all, and very much more well practiced and familiar. When you get older, you'd be better in a place where bisexual folk are accepted as normal folk, for the most part, and it's the idiots with the dragging IQ's and knuckles who are generally understood to need the compassion for their handicaps. Love is hard enough to come by for anybody in its genuine forms, between consenting adults. Best wishes, Bob Kaven |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Funny you should post this now Zach. The issue has just hit the headlines again here because of some idiot bishop who seems determined to prove that the Church is composed of right wing bigots: "People who depart from this [heterosexuality] don’t share the same faith. They are acting in a way that is not normative according to what God has revealed in the Bible. The Bible’s teaching shows that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the way to express our sexual nature. We welcome homosexuals, we don’t want to exclude people, but we want them to repent and be changed." Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali You feel like repenting Zach?  The full article is here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5744559/Change-and-repent-bishop-tells-gays.html |
||
|
Falling rain
since 2008-01-31
Posts 2178Small town, Illinois |
Hey Bob.K, First off, whats S&M? I never heard of that before. lol. And I had my cell phone with me just in case. Good thing I didn't have to use it. And I know what you mean about the pacifist thing. It's mostly controlling my anger for me. Its also like a meditation. I want the world to refrain from using violence to solve problems. And I want to start that movement by not using violence. I never got into a fight before. So I think I'm doing pretty good so far. Rob, Lol. How did you know that I wanted to repent for who I am? Pfft.. As if! Its because of those religious people is why I don't like religion too much. I know where the Bishop is coming from but really? Do you really |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Zach, S&M is folks who graft pain, whether expressed toward self or others, onto sexual expression. That's a very short and over-simplified answer that many would find fault with. The S is short for sadism; the M is short for masochism. The practice is somewhat confusing for those who don't play, and especially for those who are unsure of their attraction to it in the beginning or along the way. Hence the sort of roaming gangs of folks you ran into, who confuse other people with folks who want to be beaten up, and feel themselves justified in doing so. I think. They get a free pass on an exploration of sadistic impulses, have a chance to get some release, and can tell themselves that the other folks were asking for it. All without a single moment of honesty anywhere along the track. They may also tell themselves that the feeling of satisfaction that they're enjoying is pleasure that they protected society. It's all very roundabout and unconscious and unbearably self-righteous. Have I helped clear my earlier posting up while staying within bounds of clarity and and social acceptability? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
And, actually, if I remember my bible correctly, marriage is between, a man, several wives, a couple of concubines, and his flocks and belongings. Sometime, should one of his brothers happen to die, the wife and the flocks of his brother as well. But biblical readings have varied tremendously through time. The business back before the civil war about "The Sons of Ham" being black, and being given as slaves was widely quoted as justification for slavery throughout the south. Has this reading changed? Are the folks down there still saying that God demands that we have slaves and the Bible is the reason for it, or might the thinking have somehow altered. Personally, I doubt that the text has changed all that much, only that mankind has been forced to admit that — in one of the kinder explanations — that our understanding of The Word has been flawed. Wouldn't be the first time. Doubt it's the last. |
||
|
Falling rain
since 2008-01-31
Posts 2178Small town, Illinois |
Bob, Yeah that makes much more sense. I mean the S&M part. But the Bible hasn't changed much text-wise. The way people interpret the words change frequently. But if I remember right. Men can't not be married and are frowned upon on having a intimate relationship. Same goes for women. People here have Southern idealistic thoughts (I think that's the right word) on this topic, so they are very religious and stay close to what the Bible says. What the Bibles says no to. They'll follow closely and stay by it. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Hi Zach I think Bob gave you good concise replies on both the violence (mental and physical) and the religion thing. On S&M and BDSM you can read more widely here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadomasochism because as Bob hinted it is a complex, and often misunderstood, issue. (Ron, I hope I'm not overstepping the site guidelines.) But if you read all that you might begin to see why I kinda disagree with Bob about S&M having anything much to do with what you experienced on your walk. In my view (and I am somewhat qualified to talk because it used to happen to me), such behaviour is little more than straightforward bullying - picking on someone who is weaker or different. The fact that they might have known you were bi was probably only significant in the sense that it made you different from them (or so they would like to make out, see later); I don't think they would be thinking anything so complex as "hey, all bisexuals like S&M lets give him some" - that sounds a bit far fetched to me. In any event I wouldn't worry too much, things will change, you may change. I know I did. When I was your age I was firmly convinced I was gay. After all, I had the physical relationship to prove it, didn't I? Nothing is simple Zach. These labels we attach to ourselves, or have attached by others, mean very little. At a purely animal level I suspect we are all pretty much bisexual to one degree or another; do you know about the Kinsey scale? It's a simple attempt at articulating what is a very complex issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale But at least it's a move away from these very simplistic labels, and recognises shifts over time. So some of those idiots in that group who harassed you were probably not as different from you as they might have liked to pretend, and in a few years some might well be your friends. As for the established churches I frankly despair. You would have thought that in this day and age we would have progressed beyond the stage of wasting our time squabbling like school kids (sorry that's an insult to school kids - I should have said hyenas) over the interpretation of ancient texts that can obviously be twisted round to mean whatever one wants them to mean. Mainstream religion really does sometimes give extra depth to the modern slant on the word "pathetic". Worthy of pity indeed. |
||
|
Falling rain
since 2008-01-31
Posts 2178Small town, Illinois |
Hey Rob, I didn't know S&M was that complex. But I see your point. Would I be in some form masochistic? Being a pacifist I didn't do anything to stop them. Well except ask politely. But you see my point, right? I didn't think they were thinking in the way of S&M. They're too simple minded to think or understand such a thing to be frank. I just think they'd think it would be fun to do such a thing to selected people. No I didn't know who those people were considering that it was night time and I couldn't see them that well. Lol I know right? Religion is just falling in my standards. Doesn't seem like they're doing much to raise them anytime soon really. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Could be worst. Be thankful you’re not a Republican . . . . |
||
|
Falling rain
since 2008-01-31
Posts 2178Small town, Illinois |
Hah! Good point Huan Yi. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
A bisexual Republican is an oxymoron Huan. |
||
|
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
quote:Don't let this one experience with people take away your faith in the human race, as there is always one great, understanding person out there for every jerk. It is never going to change I don't think Zach, people are always afraid of things they don't understand. Fear being the one single emotion that can hold anyone back from accomplishing great things. My entire family goes by this old saying, "Feel the fear and do it anyway." Fear can create some really good adrenalin. I am sure in your lifetime you are going to see the laws change, and that will increase understanding and acceptance. There will always be those that do not accept change, and that is just life I guess. I believe there is a chance for hope, peace, and understanding, and I also believe it begins with me. I am sorry that incident happened to you, but you handled yourself well. I hope you discussed it with your parents? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Moonbeam, Suffice it to say that if we are speaking of ill-will toward homosexuals, whether in action or thought, then I find it as despicable as you do. But believing that a behavior is morally wrong, or even non-normative, is not the same thing. Bob, The religious interpretation of the "sons of Ham" in Genesis as being the black race, and thus justifying racism, is eisegesis in the extreme, and morally unjustified. It is set over and against all the mandates to love your neighbor, welcome the stranger, etc ... etc ... Likewise, we have no biblical statement whatsoever of polygamy being okay. At best we have what seems a permissive forbearance, while all the polygamists of the OT tended to reap a whole lot of trouble because of it. (I know how difficult marriage is, with ONE person) The presence of polygamy in the Bible, therefore, cannot reasonably be said to be prescriptive, only descriptive. This is verified both by the foundation of Creation as recorded in Genesis (one man and one woman), and the reinstatement of that same standard by Jesus in the New Testament, when questioned about divorce ... "But from the beginning it was not so". At any rate, these examples of yours (regardless of how you feel about homosexuality), are a far cry different from the biblical texts that speak about homosex, for the simple reason that the prohibition of homosexuality is consistent with the Biblical account of Creation and marital union. Racism and polygamy, as untoward departures, are quite inconsistent with the whole. The Biblical texts still have enough objectivity about them (as does most any text), to dismiss the suggestion that all interpretations are equally valid and elastic. (though I would concede that many fundmentalists create a rigidity that is no better an extreme) I really didn't (and still don't) want to make this thread into a debate about the Bible and homosexuality. However, putting the mentioned bishop in the same ilk as the sidewalk mockers and potentially violent, is not just in my estimate. I still believe it is possible to deeply care for, and even love, someone whose behavior you don't assent to. Falling Rain, I hope you are not offended at my making this distinction. I understand how someone in your circumstances (especially in light of much that has been said and done) might find such a distinction difficult. I am sorry this has happened to you, as it would be unnerving for anyone who is mistreated, regardless of the perpetrators "excuse" to do so. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (07-09-2009 10:07 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, I agree that the "Sons of Ham" business is morally unjustified. I would also suggest that this is an interpretation that is a modern interpretation, and that slavery was accepted and justified not only throughout the world but specifically throughout the Christian world for at least 1500 years. It would be nice if this were not so. While many folks in the United States followed the English anti-slavery model, there was still a large number of pro-slavery folks in the United States, even in the North. Because so much of society was ordered around religion, religion was a strong contender in this debate as well. "Sons of Ham" was part of the rhetoric of the era. Whether you believe that God said there should be Slavery or not, many of the people of the era would be willing to kill you for suggesting that this was not the case, as would many of the religious leaders. I can't tell you what God said. But a large number of honest and believing Christian men and women believed and had been taught that this was the way that things were. If you spoke to them now, odds are that they'd give you a fight on what they'd believe to be an honest basis. I happen to think they'd be wrong. So what? What it is set against is generally not much of a problem. Saint Bernard said that there was such a thing as a just and holy war against another religion, and the fact that religious folk were expected to take life was gotten around by giving them maces instead of swords, if I recall correctly. He thought it was fine to kill Jews as well. If I remember correctly. The fact that such policies conflict with Love thy neighbor and Thou Shalt not Kill seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle. Religions absorb contradictions like Bounty Brand Paper Towels are supposed to absorb Water. There are statements in the bible that actually state that you are supposed to marry your brother's wife if he dies. This doesn't mean "if you are single." This means, "You are supposed to marry your Brother's wife" because to do so keeps property in the family and takes care of the wife and the children and preserves the notion of honor. Even if you are already married, this is what you are supposed to do. You project the mores of the current world back onto the culture of a nomadic tribe where this sort of family structure may well have been adaptive. Then was not now. The notion of marriage at that time, indeed the notion of love between people, may well have been considerably different. Much of what we consider about love today is very much a result of the formal notion of "Romance" that grew up in Provence around the year 1000. See Denis de Rougement Love in The Western World. The notions of Marianism, The Great Mother, and the idealization of the beloved are only a few of the these that contribute to this very rich theme of both religious and cultural development. The notion of The One seems in many ways to come out of this cultural development. We may see some of the themes that comes out of this period as being biblical in their development. An examination of the data is probably well worth the effort before going along with this assumption which may, at least in part, be open to question. As always, Stephen, your comments about the nature of love itself seem both lucid and generous. If honest, I find love hard to dishonor between equals. It seems to generate its own warm yet shadowless light. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Sorry Stephen, I certainly didn't mean to imply that Rochester's comments were in the same vein as the abuse suffered by Zach on his walk. He raised the subject in his title of homophobic behaviour generally, and that item just happened to be in the news that morning. However in a sense the bishop's attitude was imv considerably more disturbing than the comments directed at Zach. On the one hand we have a group of fairly ignorant adolescents simply verbally bullying someone different to themselves. On the other we have a learned and erudite senior member of the Church of England who presumably knows full well what he is doing, trying to make the point that you made again in your post, viz, that while he holds no ill-will towards homosexuals and welcomes them into the Anglican communion he condemns their behaviour as morally wrong, as against the will of God and as likely to sent them straight to hell. They should moreover repent and be saved. There is something deeply distasteful about that stance to me. I disagree with you that the interpretation of the Bible is not infinitely flexible, I think it is just exactly that, except to all those who want it to say what they want to believe. When a bishop stands up and effectively says: "I condemn your behaviour and what you are because this little book I am holding says it is wrong", I feel rather depressed. [This message has been edited by moonbeam (07-10-2009 10:59 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Who should condemn anyone for sincerely having "homophobic", even racist, even sexist beliefs? All people deserve tolerance regardless of their beleifs. It is the manners in which they treat people that don't deserve what the people deserve. I have patience and tolerance for both "homosexuality" and tolerance for varying degrees of fear or disagreement. What is the continuing problem though is that people confuse a way of doing something with the people themselves, and which is the most dangerous confusion for it results in people treating people and manners as one and the same and when they condemn and attack someone's manners they therefore condemn and attack the people that bear those manners they are condemning. As long as people don't make the distinction between people from what people believe in or do, they continue to treat them as one and the same, and as much as they hate something people do they hate the people and treat them according to their hate as well. That is what converts disagreeing beliefs into dangerous behaviours. The only way we may overcome that is by having as much patience and sympathy for the people behind the beliefs and manners despite our impatience and dislike of their beliefs or manners. Respect and sympathy for people themselves must transcend whatever disrespect or disagreement we have with their beliefs or actions. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Long on ideals, short on practicality Ess. "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Matt 7-20 Separation of the act and thought from the "real" man is an enticing path to follow, and I can think of at least one religion that uses it as a central tenet. I think the problem with an all-embracing approach like that is twofold: Firstly, it doesn't really stand up to the test of experience. How can you reasonably be expected to "respect and agree" with the murderer of your daughter? Separating the act of murder from the hand that wielded the knife is not really a progressive thought. It may be a different matter to sympathise with the abused childhood that created the murderer and then use that understanding to create a platform to begin the process of forgiveness, but to trying and separate the act from the man is imv unhelpful. That isn't to say that narrowed down your postulate doesn't have some merit. If you, for instance, say that you should have respect and sympathy for a person with whose ideas and actions you disagree provided those ideas and actions do not harm another creature, then I am more in accord with you. This is very simplistic of course. Secondly, have you ever been on the receiving end of someone who says to you as a bisexual person: "I respect and sympathise with you as a person, but you should know that your actions and views are evil and you will go straight to hell"? Well I have, and it doesn't feel nice I can tell you. It certainly doesn't make one feel like the person really respects or likes you at all. It feels like you are being told you are bad. It feels like the person is imposing their values on you and judging your behaviour, which despite your idealistic postulate, makes one feel like they are judging you. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Moonbeam Please take a look at this thread for now. It will show you more of the context in which I am speaking. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, It doesn't show me unless you care to be specific about the point you wish your readers to draw. If you want to have a private chat with moonbeam, of course, email is always available. Otherwise, I'd appreciate your keeping the assumption of my ability to read your mind down to a minimum. I really don't know unless you actually say it, most of the time. I got very poor grades in ESP all through college and grad school. Maybe others who did better can translate for me. Sincerely, Bob Kaven Grumble, grumble, grumble. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Bob, What part of the discussion don't you understand? If those people that Zach met directed their comments to bisexuality itself and why they may think it wrong, it probably would still be innappropriate at the time, but it would be a LOT less wrongful than insults and attacks directed at him personally, in which his own personal safety was threatened. I don't think the difference and distinction is small at all. Even in smaller examples, it may make a great difference. I was out the other night at my aunt's birthday and a girl was going out to smoke and my grandmother asked her outright "are you so stupid"? I could tell by the softened tone in her voice at the end of saying that she already realized she mispoke. I smoothed it over a bit by saying she meant to say that smoking was stupid, not the girl that was going out to smoke. My grandmother is very respectful even though she strongly disagrees with somethings such as smoking, but a little confusion like that can lead to a very disrespectful manner. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Moonbeam, By the way, good to chat with you. It's been a little while. quote: I think there may be a misunderstanding as to what, according to sound Christian Theology, may send someone "straight to hell". We are all sinners. So any particular sin is not (or should not be) singled out as especially damning. We all have the "disease" of sin, if you will, and are called to repentance in various ways. It is our personal spiritual estrangement from God that will, if unremedied, send us to hell. Which is why there was that thing at Calvary, that didn't make distinction between sins as far as redemption goes. But let me pose it to you this way, would you think the Bishop equally intolerant for welcoming adulterers, or pedophiles, or extortioners, while demanding repentance? I would think that of one or more of these examples, or of something else I could put there, you would expect, nay demand that kind of demand. You have your moral lines drawn as well, in your own thoughts. And a community, in your eyes, is certainly not "anything and everything goes" ... if I may ascertain from things you've written on this forum. I think the crux here, is in the basic disagreement about whether homosexuality is sinful, versus something more like race or eye-color, that is genetically determined and simply a part of natural variation in human beings. While I certainly recognize that no one simply wakes up one day and says "I think I'll be homosexual" (this is also true of a host of behaviors that even you do not accept as moral), I also find little or no persuasive evidence for the latter view. You simply disagree with the Bishop and myself, about whether this particular behavior/ orientation has a moral dimension. You don't disagree with the Bishop and myself about whether firm lines should be drawn when it comes to community and public approval. You don't disagree with drawing lines, you just draw yours at a different longitude. quote: As I mentioned before, this sounds reasonable until real texts, written by real people are examined with the thought of determining what they were saying. Some ambiguity, but if texts were as obscure as many pretend, there wouldn't be enough transmission of thought to even enjoy a good classic novel. For example, would you care to make an exegetical case that adultery is acceptable in either the Old Testament or the New? The infinite elasticity you speak of is only gotten by saying "I have freedom to disagree with and depart from the text to any degree". And if that's what you mean, I agree with you. But for those who take scripture as revelatory, and as the way in which God has spoken objectively to some degree, not just as a moppet of our own feelings, then texts cannot be so easily dispensed with. On the Theological side of things, as Tim Keller asked; Would it be reasonable to expect a God to never have anything to say to challenge or critique us or our own cultural trends? It would more reasonable to think that a God who is not just our own imaginitive fiction, would probably say things that deeply resonate with us as truth, and at the same time offer some other things that would challenge our views, thoughts, assumptions. Things that would be difficult. Such is the nature of three things people have trouble with, but have never abandoned ... authority, relationship, and love. quote: How is the Bishop's stance any different than your own with the Bishop? Aren't you openly telling us that, though you would wish him no harm, that you think his attitude and words contemnible? Aren't you offering him real moral censure? From your own perspective, why should it matter whether it is from a written revelation, or from what you might call a self-evident-ethic. I'm not saying its wrong for you to do so. (Obviously I've never felt or communicated that it is wrong to say something is wrong). But I am trying to show you that your arguments need to address the subject (if that's what you wish), rather than castigate the castigators, which is self-refuting. I have to agree with you that though I appreciate Essorants desire to "respect" all parties ... I cannot go so far as to divorce person completely from action and thought. Bob, I appreciate your thoughtful reply. No time just yet. Gotta go to sleep now. Try to get back sometime early next week. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (07-11-2009 12:05 AM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, quote: "Moonbeam "Please take a look at [underline]this thread[/underline] for now. It will show you more of the context in which I am speaking." Those would be the parts after the salutation to this posting and before the beginning of this paragraph. Neither the context nor the points are clear to me for having been unspecified. Woody Allen reports having been once failed on a metaphysics final in college for having been discovered looking into the soul of the student next to him. I have tried and tried, I confess, but people keep telling me that I don't understand. Reluctantly, I confess that I cannot read minds. I can make interpretations, but they require evidence and a therapeutic contract at a minimum. Skill and insight are also helpful. This is merely a discussion that I don't understand and which for some reason you feel I should. I should point out that we have had this confusion before on this topic, the extent that a person and his actions are the same or different, and to which a person may be taken to task for his actions or blamed for them. I can't say that I have a concrete answer to that question, by the way, at least in the more moderate ranges in which the question might be asked. I have only a large degree of confusion about it that I find gets clarified on a case by case basis. But I still do not understand the issue or the context that you believe I should understand so readily. Perhaps there are others who do, and who might be willing to explain this to me is simple, understandable language, so I can follow the discussion. This would be a good thing for me. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Hi Stephen, the feeling is reciprocal I think "sound Christian theology" is as flexible as it needs to be to retain a sustainable number of faithful from century to century. Opinions as to what is "sound" also, I think vary with cultural and social variations too. For instance a Catholic convent school in Cheltenham will have a different view to York Minster (that won't mean a great deal to you I know, sorry). Forgive me for not answering your directly posed questions. There's not much point because you know what my answers will be, you picked up the general drift of my beliefs correctly from earlier exchanges. So let's just cut to the chase. You are of course heading in the right direction when you say: "the crux here, is in the basic disagreement about whether homosexuality is sinful, versus something more like race or eye-color, that is genetically determined and simply a part of natural variation in human beings. While I certainly recognize that no one simply wakes up one day and says "I think I'll be homosexual" (this is also true of a host of behaviors that even you do not accept as moral), I also find little or no persuasive evidence for the latter view." At this point I wrote a long passage about the nature of homosexuality, and then I suddenly realised that we may not be talking about the same thing at all. I've rarely discussed homosexuality with members of the C of E clergy but I have read their public comment and on the two occasions I have been drawn into conversations I received very conflicting views of what the Church's stance was. The first time was about 33 years ago with a friend who was at Durham Uni and was intent upon being ordained. He was on the evangelical wing of the Church, and held the view that any desire whatsoever mental or physical to love a person of the same sex in any other way than an absolutely platonic one was a sin punishable by eternal damnation. My other conversation was about 10 years later with the then Bishop of Dover, Tony Tremlett, who was at the time a strong contender for a future Archbishop of Canterbury. He was also a borderline alcoholic, probably gay himself, and my godfather. Over a night of endless tumblers of whisky he told me, amongst many other "sex tips for boys", that the Church regarded only those actually currently indulging in active and promiscuous homosexual acts as sinners. There seems to be a similar confusion in the published information I've read. So before going any further and wasting time arguing points we didn't need to argue, do you mind clarifying for me what exactly "sound Christian theology" means by homosexuality worthy of condemnation and in need of repentance? (I'm trying to respond to your point about addressing the subject, but later I will also try and explain why I, as you put it "castigated the castigators") |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Moonbeam, While there are differences among the Churches (those who hold that homosexuality is, in fact, sinful) regarding the differences (and similarities) between mental proclivity and action, and our approach to both, there are some basic things which are universally accepted. Firstly, the belief that Biblical Marriage is the divinely determined standard against which all sexual ethics are measured. Adultery, Fornication, Pederasty, and many other categories are deemed sinful because of their shared departure from the divine will and concerning human sexuality. Though they may have other moral dimensions, primarily they are wrong because of denying that God's determined parameters are the best. Failures of those attempting to stay within those parameters notwithstanding , it is still the only spiritually "live" option, biblically speaking. In addition to this, is the shared belief that the physical makeup of men and women are complimentary by natural design ... and that this striking compatibility (including the miracle of conception as a by-product of heterosexual union) is a not-so-subtle clue to the divine will concerning sexuality. It is the sacred reciprocity of the genders. This doesn't mean that there won't be different approaches or ideas about the distinctions you mentioned. Jesus said that to look upon a woman lustfully was essentially the same as adultery. Not to doubt the existential import of Jesus' words, but, on a practical level, do they make no distinction between someone who struggles, and someone who eagerly pursues the wrong? Does it mean that my wife should divorce me, or consider me utterly unfaithful, every time I have a stray thought? I don't think so. Rather, I think Jesus was reminding us of the "wellspring" from which action and thoughts flow ... the heart (in a poetic, not a medical sense). That is the battleground where personal sanctification must be won or lost. But regardless of distinctions between thought and open life-style, the Bishop Nazir-Ali's statement about repentence is dependent upon none of these practical or public distinctions; It only rests upon the shared beliefs about the sacredness of marriage and gender that I mentioned above. Don't know if that clarifies or not. But a "sound" view should be one that doesn't deny either the similarities or differences between proclivity and open action. Still those who believe homosexuality to be (in some way) sinful, and who would give very different answers about the issues you raise, all share the same understanding of marriage and gender. Stephen |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Fortunately, according to Ahmadinejad, there are no homosexuals in Iran which obviates the issue there entirely. . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Bob, Sorry for missing your comment. quote: That is because I intended on giving a general context to complement the specific one of this thread, not another specific one. The general point is that a person and his deeds or behaviour are never the same and therefore shouldn't be treated as if they are. This is not going to the extreme of saying there are not or shouldn't be any associations between them, nor never any thing done toward the person himself on behalf of something he might do, but it is making an important distinction that often does adjust the way we treat someone. It is important not to treat someone indiscriminately according to how you think about his actions or behaviour, for here is a perfect example of how people in one way or another had very negative feelings about Zach's sexuality but instead assimilated Zach himself with his sexuality and acted hostile against him personally instead of just generally against the aspect of his sexuality. [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-18-2009 04:14 PM).] |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Hi Stephen and thanks for the explanation. Ok, you've shifted the focus (perhaps productively) onto the question of when the sexual act can take place and yet remain, as you put it, as a spiritually live option. Paul, I think, points out (I Corinthians 7:7,8,9) that the best course is celibacy, but failing that marriage between a man and woman and procreation within that marriage is acceptable, for now, in God's sight - though whether "recreational" sex, and sex not involving any possibility of procreation is included in that option is unclear. One would have to assume I think that as celibacy is the ideal, any form of pleasure or prolonging of the sexual act beyond the mere act of fertilisation would be discouraged as bordering on the sinful even within the marriage bond. The options it seems are therefore narrowed considerably if one takes what you seem to be saying is the "sound" biblical view. You have to be a man and a woman in Christian matrimony and you have to do the act quickly and expediently with the minimum of pleasure. I'm sure Paul and God would applaud the recent developments in artificial sperm production as being as step towards the ideal of no marriage, no sex, no physical pleasure and plenty of babies. So now against that background let's look at what my problem was with what Rochester said. I think he was consistently condemning all forms of "sin" in the sense that a heterosexual couple living together is a sin, a one night stand is a sin, even sexual fantasies outside marriage (and probably within it too) are sins, and of course any form of non-heterosexual behaviour is sinful. But Rochester is part of, and a leading figure in, what can really only be described as a private club. I suspect you'll agree that that is a fairly good analogy to cover the various religions and sects in the world, which, like clubs, hawk and advertise their various incentives, promises, carrots and sticks, and have their own particular membership qualifications. And in that context I have no problem at all with Rochester citing the club rule book and barring a certain segment of society from membership on the basis of whatever particular shortcoming he chooses. But that's not what he did. Using presumably this fallacious idea of separating the sin from the sinner (no more than a convenient device) he welcomes the defective individuals into the club premises, but calls upon them to reform themselves in order to get the full benefit of membership. The effect of this is to seek to apply his parochial club rules in a universal manner. Thus we get the ludicrous situation where each individual religious club in the world decrees that mankind is or is not acting according to what it deems to be the "correct" set of rules. An analogy would be the golf club which excludes women. No problem with that at all - it's against the rules for women to join. Fine. But then the same club goes further to say that no woman can ever be any good at playing golf unless she repents (has a sex change) and becomes a man. Patently ridiculous and arrogant. But incredibly, rather similar to what Rochester was saying I think. But you are right. I do draw lines. I do try and apply a universal rule. It's not a perfect one I know, it can be problematic in application, I know that too, but it certainly doesn't rely on a human interpretation of a so called divine rule book, and it's a rule that I feel viscerally any compassionate "god" might embrace. It's simply to act in a way so as to try not to cause harm or unhappiness to other creatures. Unfortunately I rarely live up to it, but I'm trying. I think this covers your questions about my attitude to "Adultery, Fornication, Pederasty" they obviously have the potential to cause harm, and if they do I condemn them. But it leaves the way completely clear for a loving union between two men or two women. It also raises the issue of whether by condemning all homosexuals as sinners the Bishop was being cruel, causing harm, causing unhappiness. I think he was. Now let's take a quick look at your other contention: "the physical makeup of men and women are complimentary by natural design ... and that this striking compatibility (including the miracle of conception as a by-product of heterosexual union) is a not-so-subtle clue to the divine will concerning sexuality". Yes it could be that, but why make things difficult? Why rely on what you call a "clue"? Why not simply programme humans so that it is impossible for men ever to be attracted to men and women to women? Why tempt us into sexual sin? I don't think you can argue that God would intervene in the matter of physical make-up without accepting that he messed up by not ensuring compliance with his will. And God doesn't mess up. The fact is that everything in life is a "clue" to God's will if you are a Christian - the argument becomes circular and meaningless. And what about homosexuality in animals. Are my hen pigeons "sinful" when they mate with each other? You talk about what is "natural" - and sure, heterosexual sex is natural, but then most animals are also known to seek sexual pleasure with others of the same sex. As an extract from Wikipedia recently put it "A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species." Are you sure homosexuality and bisexuality aren't natural Stephen? Perhaps these animals are all condemned to purgatory? The truth is imho that the labels homosexual and heterosexual, like most labels, are clumsy and bordering on the useless. We are all sexual creatures, and, as might be expected, our drive to seek sexual pleasure is as varied as our selves. I suspect if we want to assign any label at all the most accurate would be to say that we are all bisexual. Sure, the level of bisexuality will vary with age, health, social and economic circumstances, etc etc, but the fact probably is, that given a particular set of conditions, there are very few of us that would not perform the sexual act with someone of the same sex. That statement of course, and indeed all of the last two paragraphs, assumes purely the physical act - the animal act of seeking orgasm. Whether that constitutes true homosexuality, or whether there has to be a mental dimension involving something more than just the physical for bisexuality to tilt towards the exclusively homosexual or even for a bisexual to be a "true" bisexual, is another discussion. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Moonbeam: quote: Well, you've responded with what I would call isolated "proof-texting" to say that the Bible portrays sex as stoic and that the only reason it is recommended (or even created) is as a means to an end ... biological reproduction. Frankly this sounds much more Darwinian than Biblical, especially if we consider that Scripture places love at the center of the Marriage union ... insisting that sex, pleasure, and even reproduction should find their purpose in this light. In the places where Paul does talk about sexual intercourse, it is not at all suggestive that it should be done with as little as possible pleasure, or merely as a means to the end of biological reproduction. He only says not to abstain or withhold one's body from the spouse (a principle of love and other-centeredness) except for agreed times of prayer and fasting (1 Corinthians 7:5). What should exegetically challenge your view (or rather, your view of the Biblical view) is 1) the fact that God created pleasure itself (including sexual pleasure) falling under the Genesis epithet of "very good". 2) The joys of romantic bliss expressed in the love poetry of the Old Testament, and 3) The unequivocal sanction of the Marriage bed expressed in both Old and New Testament Scriptures. So, the shortest answer to your answer that the Bible promotes an all-business-and-no-fun view of sex ... is that you are confusing anti-sex religiosity (a kind of free reinterpretation, supported by a unbalanced focus upon certain elements in scripture) with a more balanced biblical view of the subject ... a more global look at the text. The difficulty of supporting the position (or philosophy) you describe, is evident from the fact that you say that it is "unclear". quote: Regardless of the club analogy ... I have shown that his words may more reasonably flow from spiritual conviction based upon the scripture's views of marriage, sex, and gender. And thus far, your observation that religious people have villified the fullness (including the pleasurable aspect) of sex within marriage, does not have much to do with these basic convictions. One may reasonably deny any stoic (nearly Gnostic) view of the sexual nature of the body, while still holding the sanctity of marriage and gender communicated in scripture, with little ambiguity. In other words, there's no evidence that the Bishop, or someone who shares his view about homosexuality, must also share the view that sex is best as an insipid mechanism for making babies. quote: No more than a convenient device? And I thought you were pretty keen on treating all people with respect, even those who do things you consider to be wrong. The fact that you don't call it "sin", doesn't make it any different, really. Why should I believe such a distinction to be a mere "device" with someone like the Bishop who disagrees with you Theologically, but a virtue with you? quote: From a Theological perspective, repentance is not exactly self-reform. And it doesn't mean that someone must be morally perfect and "fixed" to have fellowship with a Christian community. It does mean, however, that open sin and open denial that such behavior is even sin (in fact, in many cases a vocal insistence that the behavior be publically honored), requires that boundaries be drawn. Of course, this is not unique to homosexuality, but to many other sins as well. But aside from the Theology, I would ask you whether the vocal Bishop would be accepted into your "Moonbeam" club? Though you might shed the label 'religious', you still hold that the Bishop is a sinner of sorts, in an Athenian humanist kind of way. How is this so different?quote: The analogy breaks over the crux I mentioned earlier. If you deny that homosexuality is sinful, and assert that it is a phenomenon no different than something like gender itself or skin color, then of course any line drawn would seem to you unjust. If homosexuality is sinful, and not something cogently explained by genetic pre-determination, the analogy of female golf players is a lost ball. quote: Again, those who are against homosexuality feel that it is not harmless. Obviously sin impedes our relationship with God. If (and this again is the crux) homosexuality is sin, it cannot be harmless to those who willing participate. Also, to attempt to find satisfaction and happiness in ways that are, by design, contrary to human nature, are bound to be harmful spiritually, psychologically, and socially. It's always a catch-22 in discussing these issues however, I'm aware. What I would call evidence of harm, you would say are phenomenon spawned by backward homophobic views ... and that if everyone else accepted homosexuals freely openly, they would not struggle with issues of their own sexuality as much. We are somewhat bound (given our present views) to interpret the data differently, I'm afraid. quote: Why didn't God make us automata? Is that what you're asking? Whatever your views on the difficult question of freewill (difficult both for Theist and atheist), this can be no argument for the acceptability or unacceptability of any particular behavior. You would surely say that pederasty is wrong. And yet I could retort that nature produced this phenomenon just as surely as nature produced breast-feeding and friendship. The Christian answer, of course, is that much goes on in this world that is not positively God's desire, but was a result of sin entering humanity through Adam. Difficulties notwithstanding, this is an answer which does not undermine the moral standard we both hold, and gives us hope for some kind of resolution. For the naturalist (though I'm not certain that you are a naturalist), everything is the product of an impersonal nature with which we can have no recourse, and invalidates our deepest convictions as much as we invalidate immoral behaviors. Of these two difficult answers, one remains merely difficult, while the other makes morality itself absurd. quote: And what about cannibalism in animals? Are you recommending animal behavior is an ever-trusty guide to what is morally acceptable in human beings? If not, are you suggesting that Christian Theology says that non-human nature is a perfect standard, and that only humanity (in a kind of vacuum) took the fall? quote: Can you validate this "fact", with other than suspicion? From my theological standpoint, I don't put the possibility of any behavior outside my mere humanity. Thankfully I don't think that the "mere" is intractable. But the admittance of a tendency either in the animal world, or within the human psyche, is no argument for its "rightness". Stephen |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Hi Stephen, me again quote: quote: Yes Stephen perhaps you have shown that, but you've also demonstrated what I was trying to say in my opening post to you, that given sufficient time, resources and energy (in this case centuries of revision, manipulation and interpretation of the texts) you can develop pretty much any argument or position about "spiritual conviction" from the pages of the bible. The current mainstream christian viewpoint (if there is such a thing) is no more really than selective "proof-texting" as you call it, collation and amalgamation over a long period of time arguably commencing with the First Council of Nicea and then progressing through a series of revisions sponsored by kings, executed by old men and fuelled by wars and murder. Ok, maybe that's inflammatory, but the fact is that what we see today as mainstream, is here purely by chance and vested interest. Gnosticism might have been adopted at Nicea, and any one of countless other "faiths" and interpretations of scripture since. Even in my lifetime what you see as the mainstream Anglican position has shifted in significant ways, so goodness knows what it will look like in 200 years time in its ongoing game of catch up to meet the expectations of modern secular society. So why, given all these entirely chance happenings, variations, different interpretations and ongoing revisions, anyone in any religious communion should have the audacity to claim they, and they alone, are "right" about anything, let alone the rightness or wrongness of someone's sexuality, baffles me. But then I guess that's what you would call "faith"? It's mystical, it's illogical, but it's true. quote: Ok here you are, quite rightly, pulling me up on my too general statement. I'll try and explain more precisely what I mean. I believe in the necessity of people understanding that they will be help accountable for their actions. The idea of "the person" somehow being absolved from any connection with "the action" is not an idea I am happy with. On the other hand I also believe that the person committing a crime on day 1 and being a sinful person who I don't respect, can also be the person saving a child from drowning on day 2 and be the angel who I do respect. We can be both bad and good and a mixture of both, and there is no need for this artificial device of separating deed and person. The reason I said it's a "device" is because, having set up the artifice, the church often use it to be incredibly patronising imv. "O my son, I condemn your sinfulness as a gay, you must repent or be doomed - but by the way don't worry I'm not condemning you personally, just your sin". Small comfort to a vulnerable young man I think. quote: Glad you asked that Stephen. It shows you haven't really grasped where I'm coming from. Probably my bad explanation again. I don't know whether I would welcome the Bishop into my "Moonbeam" club. In some respects he doesn't meet my entry rules; he sometimes comes over as an arrogant, uncompassionate bigot. But in any event you are absolutely right that if Rochester was merely banning homosexuals from his club then he and I would be adopting very much the same approach. But he's not doing that, he's proclaiming that his particular club rules are universal, he's not satisfied with merely running his little parochial golf club and banning women. He is actually saying that women are an abomination in the sight of god and shouldn't exist, either in or out of his club. In contrast to him I am quite happy for him to hold the views he does and not condemn him as a sinner or in need of repentance. He can go about his business in the world hold the views he holds, I'm happy to chat to him, have dinner with him, respect him even for his better qualities; he can exist as a bishop in the C of E without me proclaiming to the world that all bishops are evil and in need of repentance. My rule book might say that bishops who are against homosexuality are not welcome in my personal club, but what it does not say is that is that my rule book has a valid universal application. Unlike his, apparently. quote: So, let me get this clear Stephen, what you are saying is that the bishop feels that two men who love each other are harming themselves because they are sinning and therefore impeding a relationship with god? The Bishop might feel he is like a doctor who advises a patient that he must stop drinking alcohol because otherwise he can never climb Everest. The difference is that the patient can see and feel deleterious effects of the alcohol on his body, and he sees and believes in Mount Everest. The two men by contrast feel only love and affection and happiness in each other's company, and are being advised that they risk forgoing a god who they can neither see nor believe in. And it seems extremely odd to me that you would presumably accept the argument that an African man in a predominantly white society would feel much more comfortable if he was accepted and welcomed as a human being rather than vilified as a sinner because of his blackness, yet you can't accept the parallel argument in respect of homosexuality. quote: I don't think I'm a naturalist or a theist, or an atheist, if that helps - I guess I'm still just a rather aimless explorer. Still, I find the gymnastics that theists indulge in to justify their varies positions utterly fantastic - rather akin to the man on the train who decides the landscape is in motion rather than he himself: adopting the most unlikely explanation for a given set of observable phenomena. The complicated answer is that the all-powerful, all-good god suddenly decided not to ensure man behaved as he wanted him to behave, and to set little tests all over the shop; to give him freewill to see if he'd fall. The simple answer is that the god mainstream Christianity portrays doesn't exist. The boundary between behaviours that are "natural" (occur in nature) and the set of those behaviours within that group that are considered immoral by humans, of course varies significantly over time, place, culture, circumstance etc. What you vilify as pederasty now was at one time, and in some cultures, considered acceptable. I think you are on a hiding-to-nothing if you try to justify your christian beliefs today by appealing to what I may or may not consider morally right or wrong. For this is again an over-complication. It's quite simply that today, the general societal feeling, and I am with society on this, is that pederasty causes harm and should therefore not be encouraged. Why do we have to burden everything with the weight of some grand universal law according to God? Why not simply attribute it to the changing conditions in the world, our increasing comfort and knowledge of ourselves and accordingly more time and sensitivity to the needs and desires of others rather than simply to our own selfish desires and survival. quote: Neither, I was simply answering your suggestion that the shape of the male and female genitals are a trusty guide to God's intentions as to sexuality. You introduced the biological dimension, not me, and I am merely pointing out that the whole animal kingdom behaves in a perfectly consistent and logical way. It seeks orgasmic pleasure wherever and whenever it can, it eats (its own species if necessary) to live. Both are perfect "natural" by definition - they happen in nature - just as the act of male/female union is natural. You insist in picking out certain features of natural behaviour which don't accord with your club rules and then condemning them as universally bad and sinful. quote: If you're talking about needing evidence I doubt I can validate it. I base my "suspicions" upon the fact that the vital "animal" passions are very strong, and amongst the strongest is the desire for sexual pleasure and orgasm. This makes complete sense in view of the critical importance of procreation in a species. It just seems likely to me that all animals will seek this pleasure from whatever source they can obtain it. But we are broadening the discussion here, or at least losing sight of the reason I made the contention, and to a large extent you admit all that needs to be admitted when you say, very candidly and honestly, "I don't put the possibility of any behavior outside my mere humanity". If you recall I was specifically answering your suggestion that there "is the shared belief that the physical makeup of men and women are complimentary by natural design ... and that this striking compatibility (including the miracle of conception as a by-product of heterosexual union) is a not-so-subtle clue to the divine will concerning sexuality". My contention is that this statement does not sit very well with the observed behaviour of the animal kingdom as a whole, and for a particular religion, sect, or bishop to decree that because the observed behaviour of the world doesn't fit its or his particular set of rules therefore that behaviour is sinful and wrong, strikes me as at the least arrogant and at worst potentially divisive and harmful. And finally I suppose that as my ex-racing pigeons have "fallen" with man, they will go to hell for not repenting of their lesbianism? Rob |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
MB: quote: Only you're not exactly arguing from the Bible, other than piecemeal, which tells me that the text is harder to manipulate than you think. If you're going to say what Paul believes about sex, you should take him globally. Not doing so, is what proof-texting means. And if you're going to bring up all the mountains of "revision, manipulation, and interpretation" (though I'll grant you there's a plethora of interpretation, while denying that all interpretations are therefore equal), you really should be more specific than such a sweeping allegation. The idea that the Biblical texts have been revised countless times, I don't believe to be a sustainable argument ... at least when one is willing to discuss particulars and details. If you're willing for such an exploration, start another thread, and I'll join you. quote: Yes, a bit inflammatory, and absolutely wrong. I assert that the pronouncements of scripture on the subject of homosexuality (most notably the Pauline texts) predate the council of Nicea significantly. Could you explain what the council of Nicea has to do with the Biblical references to homosexuality, and explain in specifics? And the deconstructionist observation that all writers of texts have agendas (giving rise to your reference to 'vested interest' of those who write differently than you), is an argument that is too strong, in that it cuts in all directions, not just those who disagree with you. quote: Gnosticism wasn't adopted at Nicea. Though what did happen at Nicea was a formalized Canonization of texts already universally circulated and accepted as authoritative among the early Christian Church. It was more of an acknowledgement and confirmation, than an arbitrary determination. quote: Obscurantism amounts to throwing many allegations out, wide, far reaching, condemning, none too specific. As far as all the "revision" of the Biblical texts, concerning homosexuality, can you specify? I never heard the Bishop say that no one else was "right about anything", or even that he is always right. But aside from that, aren't you claiming that your treatment of homosexuals is more "right" than that of the Bishop? quote: You've all but restated the doctrine in different words. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is (in simplest form) an affirmation that all human beings have virtue by being made in the image of God, and are not wholly ruined. That's hardly different that you saying that a person is a mixture of good and bad. Separating deed and person, in this context, is in relation to love and respect, not always in relation to drawing boundaries. I may love and respect someone who loses their temper ... but I still draw lines and don't let their temper rule the day. I think you need to explore the meaning of the phrase a bit more, before rejecting it out of hand. There are qualifications about the statement, and, as far as I see it, it is little different than what you try to describe as an alternative. You remind me a bit of Chesterton when he wrote about unwittingly rediscovering England. quote: The Church, at her best, has never been about making people comfortable in their sin, nor about taking delight in exposing sin, regardless of the particular sin in question. If there is any "doom" the church speaks of, it is self-chosen, resistance of God to the very end, who is more than reluctant to let them have their way in such departure. And the Church's doctrine of perdition is certainly not moored to any one particular sin. The Church also feels that all young men are vulnerable in quite a different way, to their own lusts, to various temptations and rationalizations of others, false comforts etc ... quote: Your language and tone is not that of someone droning private club rules of small consequence, but that of someone morally offended. Don't pretend that you're not saying you are really right about this while the Bishop is really wrong, and so exuding the same assumption of universality. Even if debate is not to be always thought of in terms of "win/lose" (since I think all sides learn), to seriously court relativism removes you from reasonable debate altogether. quote: I have never known a homosexual (and I've known a few) who didn't struggle with their homosexuality ... feelings of guilt, low self esteem, emotional turmoil. You would say this is only due to a larger non-acceptance of homosexuality as normal. I would say that at least some of it is due to nature of homosexuality. I'm not saying that a person may not persist in a chosen path despite difficulties. Aren't there people who commit adultery who are "fine with it", as well? As I said, we're bound to interpret the data differently, as long as we disagree about whether such, in fact, involves sin. quote: I certainly don't think homosexuals should have less legal rights than others. But as of yet, I don't think you've said why you think it is a parallel. I know black people who are somewhat offended that homosexuality has been made into a "civil rights" issue comparable to that of physically inhereted racial traits. I too see significant differences, and don't think the one can be thrown up as a quick-win argument for the other. The laurels of one argument don't always belong to another that is only superficially similar. quote: If you want to explain human morality, which even your complaint about God "setting little tests" hinges upon, apart from God, then do so. We may end up disagreeing, but I would hope you might retract your claim of simplicity. quote: Two questions: 1) Do you not think that cultures, despite their many wonderful beauties, can be really wrong? Do you not think the Jew-exterminating culture of the Third Reich was wrong? 2) Are you really willing to suggest that child molestation is not abhorrently wrong? quote: Do you only believe so because of a general societal feeling? quote: 1) There is more to God than just law, and the simple answer is, We don't have to "burden everything". 2) Because if you attribute it simply to the changing conditions of the world, then it is nothing more than flux. 3) Whose comfort? 4) Is retaining sensitivity to the needs and desires of others a kind of overarching moral precept, or is it something that too may pass away with "changing conditions"? quote: And unless you're okay with your neighbor eating their own human children, then you too are picking out certain features of natural behavior that are appropriate to human morality. The Christian view holds that nature is fallen but not totally ruined, somewhat a guide but not totally trustworthy ... providing a philosophy that is at least consistent with the picking and choosing we all do. It is hard for you to deny this view, while affirming and picking just as passionately yourself. A complimentary match of nature that produces children, cannot easily be tossed aside as little different than cannibalism or parasitism. "... Then I dreamed that one day there was nothing but milk for them, and the jailer said as he put down the pipkin: "Our relations with the cow are not delicate -- as you can easily see if you imagine eating any of her other secretions." ...at these words something seemed to snap in [John's] head and he gave a great sigh and suddenly spoke out in a loud, clear voice: "Thank heaven! Now at last I know that you are talking nonsense... you are trying to pretend that unlike things are like. You are trying to make us think that milk is the same sort of thing as sweat or dung." "And pray, what difference is there except by custom?" "Are you a liar or only a fool, that you see no difference between that which Nature casts out as refuse and that which she stores up as food?" (From 'The Pilgrim's Regress' by C.S. Lewis) quote: Should we always seek this pleasure from "whatever source we can obtain it"? quote: And much of what you believe is morally acceptable in humans also "does not sit very well with the observed behavior of the animal kingdom as a whole". If a moral pronouncement strikes you as arrogant simply because it doesn't fit nature "as a whole", then you should apply the same standard whether the moral pronouncement comes from a religious tongue, or a non-religious tongue ... from a Parrish Priest, or a Pip pontiff like yourself. Quit being so arrogant, potentially divisive and harmful. Actually I would say none of those things about you, except that you happen to be mistaken about this one.quote: I don't know that animals should be expected to act other than they do, and it is never a moral issue (though we sometimes train them to behave differently). We certainly know that people are quite different in this regard, if we can deduce anything from what you've said about the behavior of the Bishop. Otherwise, why not just say its his very valid nature to do what he does? Stephen |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Bonjour Stephen, another gay day dawns quote: I've already accepted that it's hard to interpret the Bible text in a way that is convincing and doesn't open up easy paths to challenge. People have spent lifetimes trying to do it, and of course the mainstream churches have, as I said before, spent centuries doing it. Yet even they shift their ground and mysteriously decide that theological interpretation can change to suit the needs of the day - women priests is one of the latest that springs to mind. You've granted me the only thing I was asking for: " I'll grant you there's a plethora of interpretation". Yet despite shifts within your own church, and despite all the competing interpretations, you and the Bishop insist that yours is the correct one, on it seems to be little more foundation than the fact that your club has been around longer than anyone else's, is more powerful and has more members. All I'm asking for is a little humility, just the teeniest little acknowledgement that you might just be wrong about some things, same sex love being one of them. quote:The current mainstream christian viewpoint (if there is such a thing) is no more really than selective "proof-texting" as you call it, collation and amalgamation over a long period of time arguably commencing with the First Council of Nicea and then progressing through a series of revisions sponsored by kings, executed by old men and fuelled by wars and murder. Ok, maybe that's inflammatory, but the fact is that what we see today as mainstream, is here purely by chance and vested interest. Yes, a bit inflammatory, and absolutely wrong. I assert that the pronouncements of scripture on the subject of homosexuality (most notably the Pauline texts) predate the council of Nicea significantly. Could you explain what the council of Nicea has to do with the Biblical references to homosexuality, and explain in specifics? And the deconstructionist observation that all writers of texts have agendas (giving rise to your reference to 'vested interest' of those who write differently than you), is an argument that is too strong, in that it cuts in all directions, not just those who disagree with you. Misunderstanding here Stephen, I wasn't talking about homosexuality specifically, but merely a continuation of my effort to try and get you to acknowledge the essential man-made and man-changed nature of any theology and therefore it's fallibility. quote: No it wasn't, but it could have been. Moreover, again, the various tenets that were adopted were decided by men, and by some accounts, by a very limited number of men. So from very early we already see the disenfranchisement of large elements of interested parties who disagreed with the interpretation sponsored by Constantine. That's not a criticism of what happened - I am not stupid enough to think that everyone could be pleased - it's simply a fact which means that there were and are other interpretations, and which logically means there must be some doubt about the infallibility of the one adopted. quote: Again, I wasn't talking about homosexuality specifically, but merely trying to point out again that claims to absolute rightness are difficult to sustain. As far as arguing specific points are concerned, having spent an entire evening listening to a debate between two supposedly competent theologians who were also both C of E clergy about homosexuality I wouldn't dream of trying to venture into specifics. A plethora of biblical references and arguments left me, and most other people I think, totally confused. All that was clear was that the protagonists vehemently disagreed about the rightness of homosexuality in God's sight and that they were both equally convincing. So by all means Stephen argue back and forth within your own church club with the "tools" (biblical words) you have at your disposal and which you believe in, but don't seek to use those tools that most of the rest of use don't view as useful, or maybe even real, to persuade us of our sinfulness. The Bishop is sometimes wrong? Is that what you're saying? If so that's one of the first times I've ever heard any serious Anglican (if that's what you are) say something like that. Very refreshing. In fact if Bishops would simply preface all their pronouncements with words to effect that what they were about to say was merely their interpretation of scripture which might be erroneous I would be halfway to being happy. The other half would be an admission that scripture itself might not be the only valid interpretation of our spiritual existence. My "treatment of homosexuals"? More "right" than the Bishop? Are you being serious? Ok, let's see: The Bishop is saying that they are sinners and need to repent. I am saying they are human beings (or members of the mammalian community of Earth if you prefer). quote: Yes I am a little like Chesterton in his most pompous personification I think, but without his redeeming wit and intelligence regrettably You are right of course in saying that the good and true import of the phrase "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is more or less as I stated, but the point I was trying to make was that the phrase, or more specifically the idea, can be used artificially in a kind of politically correct way. For instance it's not fashionable for people to fail at anything these days, so we no longer have winners and losers in school sports days but merely competitors competing to reach their own personal targets. Similarly it's out of the question to castigate an actual person for a crime, so this idea of separation is sometimes appropriated to avoid doing so. Anyway I'm drifting from the point which is that I find the idea of someone genuinely thinking that they can call a homosexual act committed by someone a sin without that person feeling personally hurt and personally denigrated rather far fetched. quote: My tone it seems is what you would like it to be. You are trying to compare apples with pears Stephen. I'm not the one with the detailed rule book claiming it has universal application. I'm not telling the Bishop he's a sinner and must repent for going to Communion each Sunday. I'm not even saying he is wrong in what he says necessarily. What I am saying however is that he is wrong to try and impose what he thinks on other people in a manner that may cause them hurt or harm when he cannot possibly be certain that he is right. There's no relativism here. I impose the same strictures on myself: I would be equally wrong to impose my views which are necessarily subjective and may, by some grand objective standard, be wrong on other people. I'm going to leave it there because I know you will have lots to say about that last sentence. I'm ready for you . quote: Yes, I think we should leave it there. I'm interested though to hear about your experience of homosexuals "struggling" with their sexuality. Given your obvious involvement with church that doesn't entirely surprise me. My friend from Durham I mentioned earlier because an Anglican minister and now works in an inner city environment, doing amongst lots of other kind things, counselling work with minority groups of all kinds. He made a similar comment to yours about gay people, but I pointed out to him that most of the gay people he comes into contact with are in contact with him precisely because they do have problems. His sample is therefore biassed. Moreover he himself will admit that when a gay person joins his church he makes no effort to condone the "sin" or accept it. So here we have a gay person who dearly wants to be a church member but is being made to feel like he or she is a sinner and therefore inadequate. Under those circumstances it's hardly surprising that such a person is going to "struggle" - the attitude of the church has created a deep and difficult conflict in that person. Looking at the people I know who are atheist in their views, or at least neutral or disinterested in the church, the closest gay person I know is my sister. In her case the "struggle" was exactly the opposite of your suggestion. She struggled for many years trying to fit in with what was expected by society and parents, by entering a heterosexual marriage, having children etc etc. She was never truly happy, she had a deep friendship with her husband, but nothing more. Only in the last 5 years has she had the courage to change her life to something that conforms more closely to her deepest feelings. I have never seen her so happy or relaxed. The struggle it seems is over at last. quote: 1 Yes. Yes. 2 No. They all cause harm, and you bolster my point. All I was trying to do was point out to you that you cannot assume that what you, Stephen, and the Anglian communion do and say today is necessarily right. In two centuries Rochester's speech may be held up as an example of an arrogant institution imposing strictures that caused harm and misery. I repeat: I think you are on a hiding-to-nothing if you try to justify your christian beliefs today by appealing to what I (or you) may or may not consider morally right or wrong. quote: I believe it because I believe it, society seems to agree with me. quote: 1) If you say so. 2) The world is flux. Is that so bad? 3) Ours, yours, mine, humanity's generally. Or don't you think that, materially speaking, we have advanced from the cave? 4) It may change yes, as indeed it has. As it will in the future no doubt. And yes, if humanity is subjected to some event that brings personal survival to the point of criticality on a regular basis then it may well reduce. I don't think it will ever pass away entirely incidentally - but that's a long and complicated discussion. quote: Mixing human morality and the behaviour of nature is always problematic as Lewis finds in that passage. And why do we have to mix or compare them? It's fallacious. Of course to some elements of nature, dung flies for instance, cow dung is food. That is not to say that in what we consider to be our enlightened state we shouldn't seek to modify our own particular animal behaviour to make us feel better about ourselves. This concept of trying not to cause harm to others is part of that of course. I say again that I only raised this whole issue of how nature behaves in the context of your contention that nature provided man and woman with body parts which fit, and therefore this is an overt indication of "god's will". Nature also provides that on occasion male pigeon mates with male pigeon and female with female so why isn't this god's will? And simply writing with ever increasing velocity, as Lewis and Chesterton tend to do, "that's foolish!!", isn't going to weight against the point. Nobody's "tossing anything aside" either. I'm not saying that, in nature, cannibalism or parasitism is any more or less desirable than conception and birth - it just happens. For all you know the mouse may have a very good and, by mouse morals, acceptable reason for eating her young. I won't speculate too much, but who knows what weird and wonderful rituals the mouse ministers in the church of the great mouse might have dreamt up as being a moral compulsion for all good churchgoing mice. Or it may simply be that nature for some reason judges that in the long run the well being of mice generally is best served by the action. I don't cite homosexuality in animals as something that we should copy or indeed cannibalism. I merely cite it as evidence that it is not some special corrupt moral peculiar to our species that compels humans to behave in such a way, we just do it because it's natural. quote: That's irrelevant. Whether we "should" or not is a purely moral question. You're mixing again. quote: Ok let's calm down here! And step back a bit.First off you didn't make a "moral pronouncement" - you took a physical attribute of men and women and said that because x therefore y; where x is the shape of genitals and y god's will. That's how I originally came to point out that what happens in nature isn't a good guide to your god's will if you are consistent in your approach. Second, and separately, the bishop did make a moral pronouncement about the observed behaviour of the animal world (or maybe he means that homosexuality in humans is wrong but in animals it's ok?), which takes us right back to the problem noted in the section above about making moral pronouncements about the whole animal kingdom. You say I am making such pronouncements? You say I apply a different standard to religious people from that I apply to secular? Where? How? quote: It may be that the bishop can validly take refuge in the contention that he is merely expressing his animal nature, but as you say yourself morals aren't relevant where animals are concerned, an accordingly he would find it hard to invoke that defence while pronouncing "god's will" I think. A pleasure as always to talk to you. Rob |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
MB: quote: Your position, it seems to me, would make it impossible to come to any certainty about anything in scripture (or any other text for that matter, since your deconstruction shouldn't be partial). I wouldn't mind so much a plea for humility where you feel its lacking, followed by an exegetical analysis of the scriptures which have led many people to believe that homosexuality is sinful. But you haven't. You haven't admitted that not all doctrines have the same degree of textual support. You're shying away from the texts, by pointing out that the church has not agreed on everything, ignoring huge swarths of commonality and agreement that surround the skirmishes. I am contending that the particular view of marriage and gender, of which I've been speaking, is one of these commonalities, and that those who disagree do so by doing violence to exegesis. That assertion of mine can't be confirmed or denied by repeating your philosophy that the presence of disagreement means that all ecclesiastical beliefs are therefore equally valid (or invalid). I might be wrong. But we have to go to the texts, don't we? If you deem that unnecessary, we have no common ground, since most Christians believe that God has revealed truth through the Biblical texts. quote: I'm not at all misunderstanding you. I am asking you to move from a nebulous statement about the alleged mountains of revision of texts and beliefs, and to present something specific to me. You mentioned the Council of Nicea, though didn't elaborate, and so I thought it would be a good place to start. There was no wholesale revision of anything (textwise) at the council of Nicea. And if that is the case (regardless of extra-biblical theological discussions and pronouncments that took place) then we should still look at the biblical texts, for questions of Biblical interpretation. quote: No, it couldn't have been. The doctrines of Gnosticism cannot be reasonably derived from the actual texts that were accepted from the earliest Christains onward. That's why other, later texts, were written by Gnostics in order to teach Gnosticism. This shows that the Biblical texts are not as "elastic" as one might think. Since these accepted texts were enough, for those who from earliest times accepted them as authoritative, to teach something essentially different than Gnosticism. And this is statement offers no valuation on Gnosticism. It is simply a statement that Gnosticism cannot be sustained from the Christian texts. quote: The only major "interpretation" discussed at Nicea was Trinitarian doctrine, though there were other, lesser things. Arius and his follows, who held that Christ wasn't divine, and didn't even claim to be, were already marginal in numbers. This council was an "official" refutation of that doctrine. But we don't have to depend upon such official statements for interpretations. All we have to do is read and study the texts. Most atheists I know wouldn't hesitate to say that Jesus claimed divinity. The more important thing about the council, as relating to our discussion, is that texts were formally canonized which had been recognized as authoritative since long before (not arbitrarily squeezed in as a political ploy). The question of whether homosexuality is sinful, for a Christian, is the question of whether the alternative interpretation can be reasonably sustained by appealing to the texts as a whole. Where the protestant agrees with the skeptic is in this: there is no guarantee of infallibility of interpretation. Still that does not mean that the polar opposite of Papal infallibility is therefore true. It does not mean that all interpretations are leveled a priori, when there is a very robust and sanguine text to consider and encounter. quote: That's why the primary thing is to encounter the text. Sometimes the erudite help. Sometimes the technical jargon is merely baffling. I'm not asking you (right now) to necessarily even agree with him, or to accept divine inspiration ... but what do you think Paul meant in Romans chapter 1, and the other New Testament texts which refer to homosexuality? I think its always a bad idea to visit the commentators first, rather than visiting the text first. Of course, I don't mean to be presumptive. It just seems to me, by the way you're speaking, that you're not really centering on the raw material, though you may have studied it for yourself. quote: If you're not sick, Rob, then you don't need a physician. I thought we were discussing the sins of the Bishop anyway. Really I'm only telling you that the Bishop is acting consistent with what scriptures teach, not that I'm here to muscle you into believing it too.quote: I don't understand what you mean here. You obviously think the Bishop's stance is arrogant and dehumanizing. You have to the right to think so. But the reason you give; namely that he is making a moral judgment, is inconsistent with your own stance of saying he is an arrogant bigot. quote: You've got a valid point here. But I don't think the point is always missed. Let's pretend we were talking about something else entirely, something of which there was no question in your mind about ... You would surely recognize that confronting someone, or merely being frank with them, can cause real pain. And yet you might still deem it necesssary ... and still care very deeply about such a person. To me, essentially, that's what "hate the sin, love the sinner" means. quote: Then you are publically saying he is wrong, "for imposing what he thinks on other people in a manner that may cause them hurt or harm when cannot possibly be certain that he is right". Two questions: 1) How do you know that he cannot be certain that he is right? and 2) Are you certain that you are right about this? quote: I feel you bolster my point for this reason: You mentioned pederasty being acceptable at one time by a certain culture (Greco-Roman, primarily), and reproved me for trying to pin you on a morality that may not be universally right. Then when I mention child molestation, you contradicted yourself and said that it causes harm. But shouldn't you be in just as much doubt of your own cultural definition of harm? And if not, how can you really say that a culture can be more right than another on any given question? quote: Silly me, I thought a philosophy forum was for providing reasons for beliefs. Really, Rob, to get back to the context ... You first reproved me for bringing up pederasty as something that is really wrong, universally so, regardless of what a particular culture happened to think about it. You replied by saying: "It's quite simply that today, the general societal feeling, and I am with society on this, is that pederasty causes harm and should therefore not be encouraged." To which I replied "Do you only believe so because of a general societal feeling?" So by replying to my question with "I believe it because I believe it" are you saying that you have reasons other than what society happens to now think, and you're just not sharing them? I'm still trying to figure out if you think anything transcends culture, or social conditioning? Do you think you're trapped to believe what you believe merely because of some kind of socialization? quote: It seems you and I both would have to know that the world is not entirely flux, to even use and understand the word "bad". quote: As I've already said, the picking and choosing you do, as to what and what should not be emulated in human behavior (such as deftly not eating one's young, or attacking a stranger out of sheer instinct), is more consistent with my position than with yours. Nature doesn't have to be bereft of clues to the best, or without hierarchy of beauty and propriety. This is where the Taoists were right. The fact that when men and women conjugate, the wonder of pregnancy and birth ensues, is a strong (but you are right in saying non-conclusive, if one doesn't want to accept it) clue that there is intendend complimentariness between the genders that is absent with same-sex-sexual relationships. quote: But that is no evidence for such as long as you concede that there are "natural" things that are atrocious for human beings to do. quote: I don't see how it's irrelevant to a discussion (between you and myself) about whether homosexuality is sinful. That was the Bishop's statement If I recall, that you responded to, which led to our conversation. quote: Yes, you objected to condemning homosexuality in humans, on the basis that it does not fit with "the observed behavior of the animal kingdom as a whole". However, since you also reject things in human behavior which are prevalent in the animal kingdom, what is the difference? quote: The Bishop doesn't believe he is merely expessing his animal nature, by doing what he does, and needs no such refuge. But you, who find some degree of fault with his actions, to be consistent with your own philosophy should probably grant him such clemency. I think we should start going with the short posts again. Can someone say "Carpal Tunnel"? Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Moonbeam, I had to laugh at my own response ... I guess I spend so much time in philosophy that I forgot we were in the Alley. Scratch what I said about having to back up your beliefs with reason. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
What people fail to realize is that the bible doesn't even refer to homosexuality. It only refers (and breifly at that) to sex between people of the same gender, but without reference to any context of love and a special relationship between the people involved. Take any line from the bible, that is supposedly about homosexuality, and you will see that it is not about homosexuality, but about sex between people of the same gender, which is a great difference, for just sex between people of the same gender is far from being an equivelant to homosexuality. There is no example of an equivlent of what we refer to as "homosexuality" something that is also love but not just brotherly love, something that is also sexual but more than just sex. Beyond brotherly love, the bible only refers to the aspect of sex between people of the same gender. Therefore it is very faulty for translators and interpreters to treat that as if it is equivelant to our word and concept "homosexuality" that includes so much more than just the aspect of sex, but contexts of special relationships and love, the same things that people of different genders have between them, and that makes their relationship just as special and important between people of the same gender. In the original bible there is no equivelant of the word "homosexuality". But even more important is that there is no indication of anything equivelant to the concept and meaning of "homosexuality" in the bible either. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I suspect the whole disagreement, the part that I've been looking at here at least, is a failure of much of the religious community to understand and be compassionate to the legitimate needs of people while at the same time claiming near exclusivity in defining what those needs may be. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, I think you've misjudged the text for the following reason ... Neither does the Bible mention adultery (sex with someone outside of monogamous marriage) within the context of 'love'. Should it therefore be deduced that adultery is "okay" as long as this aspect of "love" is present? That's quite a tenuous method of Biblical interpretation, when the simplest explanation would be that the Bible condemns adultury along with the too-obvious-to-mention insight that sex is often accompanied by what is called "love". It would be more than a stretch to think that this was a mere oversight ... that the Biblical writers wouldn't think for a moment that adulterers could actually experience love for their extra-marital partners. The drama is heightened by the fact that, if they were really writing against homosexuality in all of its emotive forms, it would still never be mentioned in the context of true love. Care to explain how Paul could/would put homosex in the context of true love, and still condemn it? Therefore, with the subject of homosexuality in the Bible, as with the subject of adultery in the Bible, it would be better to ask what it is most likely that the writers of the texts meant when they wrote them, in light of the entire teaching of scripture concerning sexual ethics, marriage, and gender, and to go from there. Bob, I appreciate what you're saying. But I can't help observing that any moral stance, involves a conflict over what is a real "need", or more precisely, over what is the right way to meet it. Someone might "need" money, but they shouldn't get it from a company that is not theirs, even if a company employee goes along and consents. An awkward analogy, but you can understand what I'm getting at. To an understandably difficult discussion for all ... Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephen, Thank you for a sympathetic response to a testy interjection. You're a kind man. Nevertheless, there is a bit of something to what I'm talking about here. I know gay folk who are every bit as decent and as worthy as I am or as you are. More so than I am, I can tell you. I think that we have the question backward. It should not be, what do they need to do to be moral people or to be right people. It should be, what should the religions of the world do to earn the devotion, the faith and understanding of such people as these. There may be folk that you would rather leave alone in the wilderness, I don't know. I have no particular fondness for many murderers, and those who prey on children require all my efforts even to consider at all. But those people who have an honest love for each other, and who do their best to practice charity and compassion and decency — I must say I'm sorry, here, but if religion cannot accept folks like this, then I think it is religion that is at fault, and not the people themselves. I don't mean here Christian people, I mean anybody, Jewish, Hindu, Jane, Muslim, I really don't care. If they have so lost the primary meaning of love and compassion in their zest to parse the rules, I believe they have missed the point. I can't say that I wish to impose such a view on anybody, but I do believe it makes very good sense. And I don't mean logical scientific sense, either, since I am not trying to make a scientific or logical argument here. I am simply saying what seems most right to me. I need to ask myself, is the God that I wish to be worthy of, the sort of God that would exclude honestly loving people who, near as I can tell, neither mean nor do harm to others? Is that the loving God that I have come to, those times that I have been able to come that far? Without trying to force anybody to agree with me, I can and do say, I don't think so. I hope I am forgiven my failures in compassion; but I would feel much better if I was able not to make them in the first place. I'd be interested in any thoughts you or anybody else might have on the matter. Always a pleasure to speak to you again. Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Bob I think Stephen's point is that religious people are being loving and compassionate in the best way they know how by guiding people towards behaving as they believe the Bible says they should. It's kind of an impasse but in my next post to Stephen I try to point out some of the pitfalls of adopting a "we know what is best for you" approach. Ess I think your attempt to discuss what the various passages of the Bible say about same sex relations was brave but futile and illustrates why, these days, I try to avoid getting into text specific discussions. The mainstream religious community have had centuries to prepare defences to every possible line of specific attack on their interpretations of the texts, and in my experience, every such discussion ends in an inconclusive result at best. Stephen Smiling at your "reason" post. I can assure you I'm trying to be "reasonable"! That's why I'm taking so long to come back at you. That and the sore wrists. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, No. I am not saying that love justifies being unfaithful, but I am saying that love proves that homosexuality is far more and far different from the depthless and sex-centered references in the bible that people treat as referring to "homosexuality". Unfaithfulness such as adultry is contrary to a loving and loyal relationship, but how is loving someone of the same gender contrary to a loving and loyal relationship? How do you treat those things as being on the same level? The problem I see is that the bible and you don't include the very things that make homosexuality a good thing. Instead all you do is exclude those very things or exclude them from counting, and then treat your own representation with those things excluded as the context that makes the same gender in intimicy a bad or wrong thing. But when you don't let such important contexts of relationship, love, and loyalty, etc count, things that give homosexuality meaningfulness and virtue (just as they do heterosexuality), but refer only to sex (as the bible does) then you yourself are manipulating the "equation" in such way that makes sure it can only add up in your mind to something that looks inferior or looks like a vice, or looks like sin, in comparison to representing a relationship between people in an enriched and meaningful state. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Moonbeam That may be true. But discussing such things I think is very important. For Stephanos and many others give what seems unwavering faith to using the bible for their approach and judgement about homosexuality. But the danger in this is that I find the bible very inadequate as an authority on homosexuality for the reasons mentioned earlier. There is more than enough evidence of homosexuality in real life that it is faulty to insist that a few brief words in the bible, and words that center only around sex between people of the same gender, should be taken as the "authority" by which ultimately to judge instead. I think there is a legitimate sin that the bible refers to which involves people of the same gender. We see this in the the Book of Judges where men surround a house and demand the Levite guest to be brought out so they can rape and molest him. They don't demand a woman, but they specially demand the man (even though the master of the house gives them two women instead, to make it less a sin?) Here is an example or suggestion of a sin which involves people of the same gender in the bible that might have been frequent in those times. But I can't fathom how that should be treated as an equivelant of what we refer to today as "homosexuality". How is it right to treat sex and sex crimes involving people of the same gender as the equivelant of or what defines "homosexuality"? [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-25-2009 11:27 AM).] |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
. [This message has been edited by moonbeam (07-27-2009 06:06 AM).] |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
And also Stephen I meant to say before that I do not aim any of my less than flattering comments about orthodox christians at you personally. I have found you throughout all our discussions at PiP to be not only a knowledgeable and great debater, but also a kind and patient person willing to tolerate even my dogmatic and sometimes brusque tone. I strongly suspect that had you been around 40 years ago to teach me divinity at school by now I'd be the vicar for Little Wallop instead of Rowan Atkinson. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I hope my "tone" is not taken personally either, Stephanos. I try to speak as correctly as possible, but unfortunately I know it may come across as rather stiff and cold sometimes. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!" (26:165-166). "Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant!" (27:55). "For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women : ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." (7:81). "And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!" (7:84). "He said: "O my Lord! help Thou me against people who do mischief!"" (29:30).” “Qur'anic verses and hadith condemn sexual acts between members of the same sex. Islam, one of the Abrahamic religions along with versions of Judaism and Christianity, rejected homosexuality from the religion's beginning.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_issues_and_Islam Now it’s my understanding that Islam has had no First Council of Nicea and then a series of revisions. To Moslems the Qur'an is the literal word of God and they don’t get to write the tunes He dances to. They don’t get to be buffet Moslems picking what of Islam they care for in their personal diet. Personally, I couldn’t care less, except that this twisting and turning of a religion to suit if not legitimize one’s own personal appetites strikes me as distasteful. I’m probably not a Christian, (I’m certainly not my mother’s Roman Catholic), I make my own choices taking my chances. . . and I’ll find out if that was OK when I get there. . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: "Personal appetites" or whims, I agree are not a good ground for changing a religion. But what about better understanding and enlightenment? Isn't it a good thing for people to adjust their religion to what makes more sense? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Good point John, and yet some Moslems interpret the literal word of God as a message to kill infidels and others peace and love to all men. The origin of the message does not seem to be too important, what men do with it is what matters. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "better understanding and enlightenment" By whom except those with a vested interest in finding accommodation to their preferences? The phrase is a mask. If Jesus himself came back and repeated the words in the Bibles on the subject word for word plenty would say he was no more than a man behind the times. . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, A very thoughtful response by you. Where I can agree wholeheartedly: In being compassionate, kind, loving to all, regardless of "sins" or even disagreements. Christians are still bound to believe that God defines sexuality and even love. Therefore, as far as the "Church" goes, such standards need to be there. But the "Church" is not the only community that Christians are a part of. They are also a part of the world and various forms of community around them. This leaves plenty of room to hold standards, and still to not leave someone "alone in the wilderness", as you put it. Essorant: quote: One is contrary to a standard: faithful monogamy. The other is also contrary to a stardard: heterosexual monogamy. One is being untrue to one's spouse. The other is being untrue to one's gender. If gender is equally as sacred as marriage, then you can see how both adultery and homosexuality can be "on the same level". quote: No one is "manipulating the equation". I've already pointed out that adultery too may involve what is called "love", for the extramarital partner, to show you that love, by itself, cannot justify anything. You counter by pointing out that adultery involves betrayal of a person. I've responded by saying that homosexuality involves a kind of betrayal of one's own person ... one's own gender. Whatever you think Ess, you shouldn't keep repeating that the context of "love" makes everything different. That is not a given. It depends on whether anything else is afoot. So to advance the conversation, you'll have to tell me either why you think gender isn't divinely determined, or why you think gender isn't violated by homosexuality. quote: I've never been thin-skinned Ess. This is a "rant" forum anyway. You've always been respectful to me, regardless of our divergence in thought. John: quote: John, The usual popular-level belief about the Council of Nicea, and the actual Council of Nicea are quite different. In this, Christianity and Islam are the same. Both have texts which have not undergone any changes beyond what is part-and-parcel to the transmission of texts through time, via the process of translation. Because of the immutability of texts, most of the "suiting of one's appetites" or, at least the "suiting of one's views", involves denying clear contexts of meaning ... or either to say outright, as Essorant has done, 'I don't agree with scripture on this point'. quote: That's a good point John. Which would lead me to ask how calling oneself a "Christian" could reasonably square with such a view of Jesus. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (07-27-2009 11:29 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, quote: But what about another standard: truthful monogomy? If two people of the same gender desire and love each other most would it be truthful monogomy for them to go and enter monogamy with others they don't have any such desire and love for in order to meet the standard of being heterosexual? Don't you think truthful monogomy is much more important than trying to limit all monogomy to heterosexuality? quote: But if gender is sacred why would you suggest it can't have variation and still be sacred? What makes you deny the presence of still having goodness and sacredness, even if you wouldn't consider something different (homosexuality) as an example of the best "ideal"? There are many things that may not be most "ideal", but that doesn't mean they no longer have goodness and sacredness. What makes you demand that we treat homosexuality as contrary to goodness and sacredness just because religiously it is not the ideal of goodness and sacredness? quote: I agree that it is not a given. But don't you agree that there are differences and things that are transcended and/or overlooked because love is more important? Can you look at two people of the same gender that honestly love each and are loyal to each other, and honestly say that gender is not one of those things? quote: I can't find any reason why gender can't be divinely determined nor any reason why gender ceases to be divine by having some variation and exception. I don't think homosexuality violates gender because nature and goodness have some flexibility and exceptions by which homosexuality is still able to be natural and good within gender even if comparatively it is not as natural and religiously not as good or ideal as heterosexuality. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I'm unclear how being gay makes somebody untrue to their gender. Simply because a woman can bear children doesn't mean that she has to bear children. Nor does it mean that deciding not to bear children makes her untrue to her gender. Nor does this mean that being gay precludes her from bearing children or raising them, and raising them well. I do not see how being gay means that a man cannot have sex with a woman and that the union will result in children and that the man will not be a good father. At least as stated this seems an ill-considered proposition. Being true to one's gender does not consist of bearing as many children as possible, nor does it actually require bearing children at all. That is unless you are to assume that people are only biology and have no other dimension. In which case, you have reduced us to the same level as non-sentient plants and animals. If you are somebody who takes a primarily scientific approach to things, and I feel this is an entirely reasonable thing to do, but not an essential thing, then you should have no problem with the biology is destiny reasoning that you propose. If you feel there are important psychological, ethical and spiritual dimensions beyond the business of genetics, then the proposition becomes not impossible but highly problematic. My own inclination is to believe that folks are more than simply a message being passed from one set of genes to another. The things that I find meaningful in my life tend to fall outside that scope, into art and poetry and thought and relationships. I will admit that these may be things that genes have provided simply to keep us people suckered into reproducing more genes. I also find very little meaning in such an interpretation. And this line of discussion leaves theology out of it. I don't recall any discussion of how God loves thy DNA with all His Heart, if you'll pardon the somewhat reductive metaphor. I generally see much more of a whole person kind of thing, without leaving out significant body parts and features; none of your God loves everything about you except your tan, or the size of your nose or how fat you are or how thin or your gender. And this doesn't even bring the notion of love and respect into things. I find what Stephanos says about Christian Church and Christian Communities much to the point here. I've know quite a few gay folks who've had quite a robust religious life as Christians. It's been very meaningful to them. They've evidently found something deeply healing in the Christian Communion, if it's all right for me to speak of an overriding sense of Christian Community in this way. I don't feel I should be more upset for them than they seem to be for themselves, but I do feel that they are somewhat ahead of the curve on this one. Other religious groups have the same issues, and in some of them the issues are actively dangerous and violent. I have the sense that on this issue, as on so many of the issues that divide us, we find ourselves all attending a carnival of misinformation, and we seem to be happily advertising its wares to our fellows, each of us more certain than the other that our patent medicine vendor will be able to cure chillblains, cancer, the croup, distemper in farm animals, Consumption, and be a wife's friendly companion in times of pain anxiety and stress. Buy some now. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: Since when did desire become the standard of truth? I suppose we would have to re-think covetousness too, since it is most "true" to the desires involved with covetous people. I could give many other examples, many of which you also hold to be wrong, that would not be justified by the naked fact of desire, which apparantly you mean when you say "truthful". quote: Sacred, in its most basic form, means that which God has blessed and deemed proper. If you do not accept the authority of God's word about such basic matters as marriage and gender, how do you determine what is "sacred"? What does sacred mean? Adultery doesn't fit the ideal either; so why not, according to your line of thinking, consider that it too may be "sacred"? quote: The Mafia has family loyalty, moreso than your family I suspect. Does that justify organized crime? You are misunderstanding me, if you think I am saying that there is nothing "good" even in a sinful relation. Loyalty has certain virtues, wherever it may be found. But the context may still be wrong. Most things that are wrong, are rationalized by the surrounding virtues. Even an uncultivated thicket makes some flowers. And when God has determined a garden, there can be little argument that the two are the same. quote: You argue strangely ... You say that you don't see why it can't be divine, and then concede that it is religiously "not as good or ideal". Is your standard for "divinity" sheer natural existence? If so, then I suppose everything could be called that. And, if you concede that it is "not as good", why could it not be sinful for that reason? You misunderstand me if you think I mean that God is not involved (in ways of goodness) even in the most sinful of lives. He was in mine, even before I ever knew him. And in the most depraved relationships may grow things like friendship, which do not cease to be good because of the wrong. This probably answers some of Bob's questions too, if he surmises that by "gender" I am focusing entirely on biology or genetics. Bob: quote: Bob, firstly, there is nothing in scripture that explicitly says choosing not to bear children is sinful. While "nature" is a good clue to God's will, it is not everything. For someone like me, it must be coupled with what is fairly unambiguous in divine textual revelation, and consistent from beginning to end. I could certainly argue that adulterers can also prove to be good fathers in many ways ... even good providers to their spouses. It is always possible to argue from such points of tension. Most women who choose not to have children, do so only for a time, or end up having them despite their overt wishes. And many women who don't ever have children, attribute this to some physical disfuction or another. But more to the point ... My answer to your objections, would be that God deems sexual intimacy and complimentarity even more basic to gender, than child-rearing. To a marriage, the period of child-rearing is much shorter than the physical complimentarity of sex, which is throughout. And choosing not to have children does not violate gender in the same way homosexuality does, seeing that the sexual acts invariably involve someone "playing the woman ... or man". Not having children, like not marrying (which was actually recommended by St. Paul) represents a kind of passive abstinence (which is permitted by God, since marriage nor children are required), while homosexuality is a more fundamental deviation from God's will and design concerning marriage itself. quote: Have I left theology out of it? The caveat I would add to your idea of divine love, given and reciprocated, is the idea of authority. God is called "Father" in scripture, for the reason that in many instances, especially where human arguments can be unceasing, love is best expressed as accepting a judgment call or pronouncement. Which leads me to ask again, whether it can reasonably argued that such a pronouncement has not been made in divinely inspired scripture (in a holistic kind of way, rather than in a proof-texting kind of way) regarding homosexuality. If you would be willing to explore such an issue, a couple of good books are: "Out of Order: Homosexuality and the Bible and the Ancient Near East" by Donald J. Wold. and "The Bible and Homosexual Practice" by A.J. Gagnon. I do understand Bob, that the approach to the text of the Bible, must differ for us ... hence the impasse. But Christians, especially those who hold that "sola sciptura" holds a great truth, are bound to think that God has spoken, partially through nature, and clearly through scripture, though the human arguments may never come to water-tight conclusion. That's not to say that there aren't more ambiguous subject matters in the Bible, but I don't think they have the same textual weight as this one. I still respect you and the thoughtful energy you (and Essorant too) put into these discussions. your friend, Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephen, It is always refreshing to speak with you. To further confuse the discussion of gender, I suggest the Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender which covers far more material than I suspect anybody would like to deal with in a discussion of this sort. I found it useful as a way of clearing my thinking process. The article does make clear that should you wish to speak of somebody being "untrue to their gender," you will need to be much more explicit about what you mean. quote: Yes, you could make such an argument; and by mentioning it, you float a trial balloon. Unspoken is whether or not you intend this to be a comparison to relationships between same sex folks. I will go with the affirmative on that, otherwise it serves no purpose in bringing the suggestion up. One of the key distinctions here is the nature of the relationship. Another is the difference between "many ways" and "the essential ways." In a relationship in a couple with an adulterer present, the nature of the relationship as a container for the rearing of the child is already fractured and the love between the spouses is compromised; whatever other factors may be involved in that relationship, there is always an insecurity there. One of the parents is willing to do something that will endanger the security of the child's relationship with both parents for personal gain. The child feels that on some level. In a stable same sex relationship, this is not the case. The two relationships are different in their ability to provide the containment function for the child. Were the same-sex relationship be adulterous, of course, the same problems would apply, but we haven't specified that. As to adulterous fathers possibly being possibly good fathers in many ways, I wouldn't question that. The notion that the adulterous partner would be male is a bit stereotypical. But I would suggest that there is a difference between ways of being a good parent, and that some of them may be more important than others. Monitoring how much diet coke your kid drinks may be a very loving thing to do, but it may be less important overall than being a faithful partner to your spouse in raising that child. The feeling of having a secure home base is, in the long run, more important than getting an early childhood grip on your sodium level. If a child feels solid in herself, she can always learn to monitor her own sodium level later on. If not, she may never be able to do so. Doing many things right is not as important as doing the core things right. Having folks who love you there for you in a dependable way is one of those core things. Having that parental relationship there for you is vital, and it's better if it's very stable, whatever it is. quote: I wish you wouldn't do this. I know that you believe you can speak for God with certainty. I understand that within your community, other folks believe the same thing and believe that God said and says the same things that you do. In speaking with people who don't share your beliefs, though, it would help if you didn't expect them to do so already, and to believe that simply because you've said them they must be true. I don't know what God says, honest. And when other people act as if they do it sounds as if there are holes in their reasoning process. I believe it doesn't sound that way to you, and that the statement sounds completely natural and true. To me it is simply the beginning of a familiar conversation where everything goes back to essentially, Because God said so. If God says so or not, surely there some way of discussing this that doesn't try to bludgeon me with an authority that I'm not all that certain exists in the way that you conceptualize it. You may feel I'm being presumptuous here. I'm trying to find a way to talk that's not an appeal to a higher power. I don't want to be bullied, I want to understand as best I can and explain as best I can and reach some sort interesting new way of considering things. I have an odd relationship with Saint Paul, and "It is better to marry than to burn" would not necessarily count as a ringing endorsement from where I sit. "Burn" with lust or "burn" in the pit was never been entirely clear to me. Probably "lust," I guess, but hardly on a "the greatest of these is love" scale in terms of marriage. A bright and charitable man in so many ways, a good man, but not a humble man, I think. quote: I think you've hit on something here. That is, I think there are lots of things in the bible with lots more textual weight than this issue. Idolatry, for example, which ought to be a major subject in every church in the country when it comes to people's love of money. People's lack of attention to social justice and the crimes that are committed in the name of punishment every day in this country and throughout the world. People read the "Eye for an eye" verse as though it was demanding at least equal retribution instead of limiting it. Issues of war, issues of how we treat the poor and the elderly and the ill. The bible is rich with text on all these issues, and relatively speaking, not so much on this one. This issue has had way more written about it than it's textual importance suggests, and I think the reason for that has something to do with us, not with the mote but the log. Your friend, Bob |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, quote: Since when did it become a nonstandard, Stephanos? I suppose we would have to rethink rape too, and forced marriages, when they are "true" to being heterosexual, and if mutual desire and love on both sides is not necessary? If two people of the same gender desire and love each other most, you will call it false or sinful, but if they involved themselves with people whom they don't have any such desire and love for to meet the "standard" of being heterosexual, you will call it "truthful"? Come on, Stephanos quote: I consider sacred as meaning special. A special relationship, such as a very loving and loyal relationship, is special, therefore it is also sacred. Of course a very religious and beliefful relationship in God is special and sacred too. quote: Adultry is not sacred because it deceives and is disloyal to a special relationship and a breach to a vow, etc. When two people of the same gender love each other though, the gender is part of the person whom (s)he loves, just as hair, eyes, nose, etc. It is part of the one (s)he loves, not committing a wrongful act on the other or breaking a vow they make. Don't you think that is a great difference? quote: You missed my point a bit Stephanos. The question was not meant to consider things that love DOESN'T justify, but to consider the things that it DOES justify or transcend or overlook. If my parents believed that it would be wrong for me to have a special love for or marry someone of a different race, would it therefore be wrong for me to have a special love for and marry someone of a different race? What is the difference? It is not necessary to be of this or that race to have mutual desire and love with someone. Nor is it necessary to be a different gender, therefore, how can gender possibly be a more important "base" than the mutual desire and love two people have for each other, whether of different or the same gender? quote: I was just speaking hypothetically from a religious sense of "hierarchy". If it be "not as good" as heterosexuality that wouldn't mean it were not good anymore, just as winning silver metal at the Olympics is "not as good" as winning gold, but is still good. Something is not "bad" just because it is not the best or most ideal example of something. [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-30-2009 06:38 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: Of course adultery and homosexuality are different in many ways. I of course, brought up adultery to say that the alleged virtues thereof (or the moral justification thereof) can be argued in a similar fashion. You rightly argue against the rationalization of adultery. But all the while you have your own rationalizations of homosexuality. I of course can give you what I consider to be meaningful reasons for the censure of homosex, but to you, greater "good" will trump them. I suppose the same could be said by anyone arguing the virtues of adultery. If you think this is unheard of, think again. There are pro-adultery dating services, and serious writers/thinkers saying that faithful monogamy is unnatural, and that occasional affairs may be healthy. I'm not sure how our impasse may be solved. But it does give an interesting dimension to your statements about divine authority. I think there is one, ultimately, bearing on moral issues where no human consensus will be found. Of course, I would object to the influence of homosexuality on any children involved, just as you would presume adultery to have a negative affect on children. Intuitively, I feel that Children need Father and Mother (though of course there are exceptions, where this is impossible), and that vibrant heterosexuality should be modeled for children, who do find themselves asking "what is right?", regarding their own sexuality. That research can never be conclusive, either for or against such claims, I am aware. quote: Bob, the original context that brought me into this discussion was a criticism of a Bishop, who believes essentially the same as I do about the divine specificity involved with human sexuality and marriage. I, of course, would like to explain how a view that does not make homosexulity an acceptable alternative to heterosexuality, should be reasonable. It's just that there is much data that will always be interpreted differently according to our views. There is no more of a hole in my reasoning, which attempts to interpret data in light of a divine statement, than in your reasoning, which excludes divine authority and gives more weight to your sensibilities (and your own choice of what is most important in relationships). I certainly don't like it when you say that St. Paul is arrogant, and anyone who says that God definitely said something. But wishes are wishes, and I suspect our prospective views of things have bound us to certain feelings toward the kinds of arguments we each tend to use in these discussions. My argument is certainly not "just because God says so". It is coupled with many reasons ... none of which, like yours, are incontrovertible. I do feel that if you really believe that Gender is so ambiguous (a position which is much more academic than really believed or felt, except in rare unfortunate cases), I'm not sure we have that much common ground to speak from. I feel that out of political correctness, people are generally afraid to say openly that homosexuality is a form of gender confusion, akin to transvestism. quote: Nor do I think this particular prescription of Paul's was meant to be on that level. But it is a persuasion that it is better to enter a God-sanctioned relationship where the sublimities of love may be learned in time, rather than to enter into sinful fornication which would only serve to damage, if not destroy the relationship altogether. Not all statements are on the same level. Some meet us where we are, rather than where we should be. quote: Our common ground: This should not be a pet-sin (usually someone else's) to harp on. And there is much to clean up at home. Our divergence: Conceding the former point doesn't mean that homosexuality is less significant than the other issues mentioned, given the words used in scripture to describe it. "Abomination" is pretty strong language, that is never used for mere ceremonial pollution. And if one is to conclude that homosexuality is a sin at all, then it is one of the few of which not only sanction has been demanded, but nearly celebration ... making it quite unique, along with the responses of the Christian communities (both the rancorous and more civil). later, Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant ... Be back later. Must sleep. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I'm curious whose definition of adultery you guys are bandying about? If ya'll are going to unilaterally condemn something, don't you think you should define it first? From where I'm sitting, it doesn't sound like you're talking about adultery at all. It sounds, rather, as if you're talking about betrayal. They're not necessarily the same things, you know? That's not unimportant, I think, because a comparison of sexual preference and betrayal is going to sound a lot different that a comparison of sex with one person versus sex with another person. The latter makes some sense, I suppose, even if it accomplishes very little. The former, however, makes no sense at all. There is nothing there to compare. |
||
|
crosscountry83 Member
since 2009-07-30
Posts 345 |
You are lucky your friends and family accept you, how did you tell them about it? |
||
|
Falling rain
since 2008-01-31
Posts 2178Small town, Illinois |
Well if your willing to hear the family story you might as well get comfy. Its sorta long. This was back when I was 14. I was dating this girl for about 3 months and she was falling head over heals for me. (might be over exaggerating on that LOL) And well I could only respect her like a friend and my emotions for her weren't getting any stronger like her's were. I didn't feel like moving in the next step in the relationship and I had to break up with her. While this all happened I was struggling with keeping my secret under wraps. I wasn't ready to tell my parents. They being really big religious parents, and I thinking they wouldn't approve of my "life style." I just didn't know how to do it. Or go out at it a certain way. Until one day I was freaking out. Bottling up every emotion I hid from them was finally coming out. After dinner I asked them to meet with me in their room so we could talk. My parents were always supportive and accepted what I did. They always were kind and helped me in any way they could. So they were concerned and curious on what I had to talk to them about it. So I explained to them my situation about me and my girlfriend and about me not having an attraction to her or girls generally at that moment. All the while asking for advice, I was crying my eyes out. They understood and accepted me for who I am. That's my story there. What I did with my friends I just told the ones I really trusted and had a deep relationship with first. They were the hardest to tell. For me most of them were okay with. I consider myself lucky. But of course not everyone can be okay with who you are. One of them was convinced that I had a crush on him. LOL. I had to tell him many times that I didn't. He accepted it but I still don't think he's happy about it. Oh well, his loss. But slowly everyone grew to knew about my sexuality. So that's pretty much it. But on another thought.. A month or so back I also asked my Mom if she would have a problem if I dated guys. Her answer was, "I'd be lying if I said I would be comfortable with you dating guys." I was sort of upset when she told me. But after a while of thinking I was okay with what she said. That only goes to show you that not everyone has an easy experience like I did. I feel sorry for those who can't come out to their parents because I think parents and their children should have a great amount of trust. I mean if you can't trust your own family, who else can you? Anyway... Enough of my ranting. I hope you enjoyed the story. Sorry If I bore ya to death. -Zach |
||
|
crosscountry83 Member
since 2009-07-30
Posts 345 |
You didn't, thanks for telling me, very insightful. Rileigh |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp?pg=1 . |
||
|
Falling rain
since 2008-01-31
Posts 2178Small town, Illinois |
I find it funny how you guys get way off topic here. lol. If you wanted to talk about something separately start a new topic -Zach |
||
|
crosscountry83 Member
since 2009-07-30
Posts 345 |
Haha, but that's part of the fun of The Alley, isn't it? Look at Balladeer's threads with 200 posts on them. How is THAT possible to keep on topic? lol Rileigh |
||
|
Falling rain
since 2008-01-31
Posts 2178Small town, Illinois |
Ahh true enough Rileigh. Haha.-Zach |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
