Homosexuality!

[Synonym]

Less well than your manifest refusal to answer the question I asked you a few days ago/earlier/a few pages up-thread, which you certainly chickened out of answering.

What question was that?

The only unanswered question I am aware of from any discussion between us a few days ago in this thread, is the one I asked you in #579.

[Brownie]

I understand what you said about zeitgist and of course not one of us is immune to current thought and discussion but isn't that what progress is about;  as time goes on, we learn more about ourselves and human nature in general.  There was a time when people believed the earth was flat (some still do!), discovery is important so is the ability to admit we got it wrong and change our minds.  It wasn't good to be intolerant, cruel even, towards people whose sexuality was different to ours.  Certainly not good to give hormones, perform lobotomies and force fellow human beings to undergo horrible conversion therapy (which didn't work), nor to stick people in prison for just being themselves.  I'm glad to be growing old in an imperfect but ever improving society.

In any case, what difference does it make to you, or me for that matter, what other people do if they are not harming anyone?

...........

A bit later.  I've been thinking about this thread and there's no doubt we do this subject to death on all Christian forums, I can never resist joining in - but am I (& others) making things worse by putting my oar in?
It might be better if we all ignored it when someone starts a thread on the topic, it's their problem if they have a 'thing' about the love lives of others.  Perhaps we encourage them by responding.  If we didn't their obsession could lessen and they might get a life.

[Nearly Sane]

If it isn't challenged though, Brownie, it sits in the forum like a piece of excrement smelling bad and messing the place up. I don't want to post in or read a forum where someone can state that they think homosexuality is a disease and every just turns away and hopes that the poster goes away.

[Brownie]

Very true.

[Rhiannon]

Brownie, if you think that Christianity has anything to offer our society then you have to speak up for believers like yourself who are openly tolerant and welcoming towards homosexual relationships. If people like yourself don't speak up then those outside the church have no reason to think that Christianity has anything much to offer because it is contaminated so much by bigotry and intolerance.

[Rhiannon]

Neither. Just questioning some people's notions that their sense of morality derives from "instincts".

Most societies and tribes start off not particularly "fluffy", yet someone who happens to have been born into the UK in 19xx and whose sense of morality is "fluffy", is just going by the instincts God gave them? Nothing to do with the Zeitgeist?

Tolerant and fluffy aren't synonyms.

I agree but not sure what point you are making.

If someone says that their morals or tolerance is just natural instincts, the ones given by God, then I still question whether it is just a coincidence that the person who feels this way was born into a Zeitgeist that leans towards this. Considering that such attitudes seem not be the default state of how most tribes and societies start out.

Ok, let's just say that our default setting is violent tribalism and self-protection. Isn't Christianity about getting away from those?

Also, given that we know homosexuality has been around for millennia, and that many gay people describe homosexual attraction and feelings as natural, you appear to be saying that natural homosexual feelings are given by God?

[Synonym]

Ok, let's just say that our default setting is violent tribalism and self-protection. Isn't Christianity about getting away from those?

Also, given that we know homosexuality has been around for millennia, and that many gay people describe homosexual attraction and feelings as natural, you appear to be saying that natural homosexual feelings are given by God?

That's one for the theologians. I know there are some who say that we started of all innocent and then we got corrupted in the fall and so now you have people wanting to murder and steal and drop litter and commit sexual sins and so on. But I am not really interested in that aspect or making any assertions on it.

Just questioning that a person's morals and attitudes are them just listening to their "natural instincts" as they believe. No more no less.

[Synonym]

Brownie, if you think that Christianity has anything to offer our society then you have to speak up for believers like yourself who are openly tolerant and welcoming towards homosexual relationships. If people like yourself don't speak up then those outside the church have no reason to think that Christianity has anything much to offer because it is contaminated so much by bigotry and intolerance.

IME if someone thinks something is wrong then they are quite happy for others to not tolerate it. If they think it not wrong but know other's think it wrong, then they will want those others to be tolerant of whatever it is.

But if someone is considering whether to take up a faith by considering whether or not it says things they consider not wrong to be wrong, and if it does then is it at least tolerant towards whatever it is, then this seems an odd approach to me.

Shouldn't it be more about whether you are prepared to believe in God and accept Jesus (in the case of Christianity) and so on?

[Rhiannon]

Brownie, if you think that Christianity has anything to offer our society then you have to speak up for believers like yourself who are openly tolerant and welcoming towards homosexual relationships. If people like yourself don't speak up then those outside the church have no reason to think that Christianity has anything much to offer because it is contaminated so much by bigotry and intolerance.

IME if someone thinks something is wrong then they are quite happy for others to not tolerate it. If they think it not wrong but know other's think it wrong, then they will want those others to be tolerant of whatever it is.

But if someone is considering whether to take up a faith by considering whether or not it says things they consider not wrong to be wrong, and if it does then is it at least tolerant towards whatever it is, then this seems an odd approach to me.

Shouldn't it be more about whether you are prepared to believe in God and accept Jesus (in the case of Christianity) and so on?

Someone who finds the church's attitude to Christianity isn't going to engage with Jesus' message or seek further understanding. How can they accept something - or someone - when the public representation of that is intolerance of something harmless and normal?

[Synonym]

Someone who finds the church's attitude to Christianity isn't going to engage with Jesus' message or seek further understanding. How can they accept something - or someone - when the public representation of that is intolerance of something harmless and normal?

I wonder if you are you using intolerance as a synonym for "says is wrong" here. Most mainstream religions say it is wrong but they are not all populated by fire and brimstone preachers. Some, like Rowan Williams for instance, did seem tolerant sorts.

[jakswan]

Someone who finds the church's attitude to Christianity isn't going to engage with Jesus' message or seek further understanding. How can they accept something - or someone - when the public representation of that is intolerance of something harmless and normal?

I wonder if you are you using intolerance as a synonym for "says is wrong" here. Most mainstream religions say it is wrong but they are not all populated by fire and brimstone preachers. Some, like Rowan Williams for instance, did seem tolerant sorts.

So racists wbo claim being black is wrong could actually be quite tolerant?

Or would that be bullshit.

[Rhiannon]

Someone who finds the church's attitude to Christianity isn't going to engage with Jesus' message or seek further understanding. How can they accept something - or someone - when the public representation of that is intolerance of something harmless and normal?

I wonder if you are you using intolerance as a synonym for "says is wrong" here. Most mainstream religions say it is wrong but they are not all populated by fire and brimstone preachers. Some, like Rowan Williams for instance, did seem tolerant sorts.

Rowan Williams is pro-gay. He toes the church line on gay marriage.

A tolerant view says, this is what I think but I could be wrong so let's allow you to be yourself and leave all to God. An intolerant view says, I know what God wants and if you don't like it, tough.

[Synonym]

Someone who finds the church's attitude to Christianity isn't going to engage with Jesus' message or seek further understanding. How can they accept something - or someone - when the public representation of that is intolerance of something harmless and normal?

I wonder if you are you using intolerance as a synonym for "says is wrong" here. Most mainstream religions say it is wrong but they are not all populated by fire and brimstone preachers. Some, like Rowan Williams for instance, did seem tolerant sorts.

So racists wbo claim being black is wrong could actually be quite tolerant?

Or would that be bullshit.

Firstly I would be tempted to say that I think they are making a category error by ascribing "right" and "wrong" to skin colour.

But that aside, I think tolerance is about how you treat or deal with the thing you consider wrong, rather than the thinking that it is wrong in itself.

I might think that adultery is wrong but to advocate it becoming illegal and public floggings for the practitioners, would mean I am being less tolerant than if I just express an opinion against it, and/or perhaps refuse to assist someone in carrying one out.

[Nearly Sane]

Another good piece on Friday's vote in Ireland

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-marriage-was-nothing-to-be-proud-of-in-1983-1.2217299

[Shaker]

That was a great article, and so is this, by Father Gerard Moloney:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/i-don-t-care-what-they-call-it-i-m-in-favour-of-marriage-equality-fr-gerard-moloney-1.2216461

As a priest, I subscribe to the Christian understanding of marriage that it is a sacrament celebrated between one man and one woman – a public love commitment before God that each celebrant makes one to the other for life.

But it’s clear that not everybody shares this belief. Not all recognise marriage as a sacrament or give it any religious significance. They see it solely as a legal union between two people that is recognised and solemnised by the State.

The increasing number of non-church weddings points to this fact.

It is also clear that more and more people now believe this contract should be open to same-sex couples who wish to make a life commitment to each other.

While I see it as a sacrament, I believe it’s up to the citizens of the State to decide how they define marriage and who can enter into it.

And that’s how it should be, because we live in a diverse, complex society today.

More religious people should be saying this.

[Nearly Sane]

Some more brilliant writing

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/colm-tóibín-the-same-sex-marriage-referendum-and-the-embrace-of-love-1.2212702

[Shaker]

Yep, that was a corker.

[jakswan]

Firstly I would be tempted to say that I think they are making a category error by ascribing "right" and "wrong" to skin colour.

Why, you do not choose your sexuality or your skin colour.

[Synonym]

That was a great article, and so is this, by Father Gerard Moloney:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/i-don-t-care-what-they-call-it-i-m-in-favour-of-marriage-equality-fr-gerard-moloney-1.2216461

As a priest, I subscribe to the Christian understanding of marriage that it is a sacrament celebrated between one man and one woman – a public love commitment before God that each celebrant makes one to the other for life.

But it’s clear that not everybody shares this belief. Not all recognise marriage as a sacrament or give it any religious significance. They see it solely as a legal union between two people that is recognised and solemnised by the State.

The increasing number of non-church weddings points to this fact.

It is also clear that more and more people now believe this contract should be open to same-sex couples who wish to make a life commitment to each other.

While I see it as a sacrament, I believe it’s up to the citizens of the State to decide how they define marriage and who can enter into it.

And that’s how it should be, because we live in a diverse, complex society today.

More religious people should be saying this.

The majority probably do. Believing in a particular form of marriage and even campaigning for it, does not preclude a person from thinking that the laws are up to democracy to set not individuals.

Not sure what exactly in this quote would be controversial to a most religious people.

[Shaker]

The majority probably do.

Do they? How do we claim to know this?

[Synonym]

I am taking a punt that most people believe that laws should be set democratically, including most religious people.

And ultimately that this be the case is all the quote says. Nothing about this precludes a person from campaigning and lobbying for the laws they think ought to exist.

[Shaker]

I am taking a punt

A guess that you can't substantiate, then.

I really wish you'd said.

[Synonym]

I am taking a punt

A guess that you can't substantiate, then.

I really wish you'd said.

I was responding to your comment that the sentiments you quoted were something more religious people should get behind. I expressed an opinion that they probably would in response to your implication that there was something in the quote that they wouldn't.

Why don't you substantiate your implication that they wouldn't first, and then we can see how spot on my punt that most of them probably already would, was or wasn't.

[Shaker]

I was responding to your comment that the sentiments you quoted were something more religious people should get behind.

Yes.

I expressed an opinion that they probably would in response to your implication that there was something in the quote that they wouldn't.

So what is your opinion and your estimation of probability based on?

[Synonym]

So what is your opinion and your estimation of probability based on?

One thing would be my experience of religious people and that most of them agree with democracy and would not agree with theocracy.