How Do They Know What Displeases God?

Written by

Anglican, Authority, Episcopal Church, God, Religion, Scripture

Yet another commenters’ debate about homosexuality, at the TitusOneNine blog, illustrates how some traditionalists are invincibly certain that God
is offended by homosexual activity per se. I can
imagine God upbraiding those folks out of the whirlwind — much as he reputedly did
in Job 38 — asking them, in effect: Who the [expletive] are you to be
issuing grand pronouncements about what does or does not displease me?

UPDATE: One commenter tried reversing the logic, asking how "revisionists" can be so certain that God is not displeased by homosexual activity, especially given that he allegedly said so in the Law and in Paul’s epistles. My response was:

Many modernists simply don’t know whether God is or is not offended by
homosexual activity per se. The fact that the Bible says so doesn’t make it so. We’re simply not privileged to know God’s thoughts in
the matter, at least not with any degree of confidence.
It hasn’t been shown that homosexual activity
between consenting adults is otherwise harmful (apart from the choler it seems to inflict
on some of my fellow straights).
Consequently, modernists don’t
think we have a warrant to impose our personal sexual preferences on gays and
lesbians by telling them they’re not supposed to be expressing their love
sexually.

Comments

46 responses to “How Do They Know What Displeases God?”

2005-08-14

bls

Honestly, who cares anymore? They see what they want to see, and ignore any evidence to the contrary.
People who blithely ignore the concrete results of their so-called “philosophy” – what actually happens to other people as a result of what they “believe” – aren’t worth worrying about for another minute.
And as a matter of fact, this could be described as sociopathic – unfeeling indifference to the fate of other people in favor of one’s own self-absorbed worldview.
Well, they’re welcome to it. Now, let’s move on to other things. The Church exists for the benefit of those who don’t belong to it.

Reply
2005-08-14

udonno

I think that if the gay people want to be gay let them but don’t insult my religion by saying that what I believe will hold such vile acts. If you believe in God but not the rules he laied down for us then stop proclaiming this falsness.

Reply
2005-08-14

bls

See what I mean? Perfect example of what I’m talking about.
So again I ask: why should we spend one more moment of our precious time thinking or talking about this?

Reply
2005-08-14

trevize

bls,
What results do you mean? Could you be specific?
I’m guessing that you’re referring to gay suicide, low self-esteem, etc. Most people on T19 would agree that these are concerns. Isn’t it fair to say that people will always find it difficult to discipline themselves, if they choose to adopt a lifestyle which requires some discipline? Certainly, you will find that most people on either side of the debate agree that people with attractions to the same sex deserve love, respect, and welcome, without necessarily condoning their choices.

Reply
2005-08-15

Simeon

While I get the impression that trevize is probably a nice guy (from reading posts both here and at EveryVoice), the fact of the matter is that he doesn’t represent how the majority of “conservative” Christians present themselves to the GLBT community. That is demonstrated by “udonno” above – his/hers is firmly the majority view there.
So yeah, I’m with bls – no need to “spend one more moment of our precious time” with that.

Reply
2005-08-15

bls

Which “choices” is it, trevize, that people don’t “condone”? The choice to love another human being, and to form a partnership with him or her? The choice to commit to lifelong mutual support and respect? The choice to adopt children who’ve been left to languish in foster care? The choice to work for one’s entire lifetime in the effort to help other people – or simply to be a productive citizen and a good friend and neighbor?
This describes the gay people I know.
So I’m sorry, but I don’t take moral guidance from people who can’t seem even to distinguish between right and wrong, or between morality and immorality. And who, further, continue to attempt to wreak havoc and destruction in other people’s lives, rather than building them up as we are allegedly called to do.
Who are themselves, IOW, committing immoral acts and refuse to stop. Well, we’re not fooled any longer. It’s completely obvious by now that most of the particular problems gay people have faced in the past – suicide, low self-esteem – go away when we’re not in contact with these self-righteous and arrogant persons. They make us sick, literally.
That’s enough, thanks. Time to shut the door at last and move on.

Reply
2005-08-15

trevize

“Which “choices” is it, trevize, that people don’t “condone”? The choice to love another human being, and to form a partnership with him or her? The choice to commit to lifelong mutual support and respect? The choice to adopt children who’ve been left to languish in foster care? The choice to work for one’s entire lifetime in the effort to help other people – or simply to be a productive citizen and a good friend and neighbor?”
All of these are great things bls, and I don’t see most people having a problem with them, as I’m sure you know. Indeed, I think there needs to be more avenues for these kinds of choices to be made possible. Why should they only need to be made in the context of a sexual relationship?
“It’s completely obvious by now that most of the particular problems gay people have faced in the past – suicide, low self-esteem – go away when we’re not in contact with these self-righteous and arrogant persons.”
With all respect, I’m not sure if that’s true, from what I’ve read of the stats on drug use, etc. I have my doubts about how many of the issues gay people have arise solely from homophobia. Then again, we live in a world where a huge percentage of people are on medication for depression (is it 1 in 7 in France?), so it’s not as if gay people are that special anymore in this regard.

Reply
2005-08-15

bls

Trevize, I assure you that I know much more about this subject than you do. I’ve lived with it for 50 years, and I know quite well what I’m talking about. I know what gay life used to be like, and I know what it’s like now. You absolutely don’t. Believe me on this.
I’m trying to be polite, but I’ve really taken just about all the *$&% I’m going to take on this topic. It’s long, long past time for you folks to sit down, fold your hands in your laps, and listen quietly and politely to us. You need to stop picking nits and arguing, and spend some time deeply listening to what people are telling you about what damage the Church and society do, and have done, to gay lives.
And BTW, you need to stop the silliness about forbidding unitive sex to married couples – unless you’re willing to forgo this yourself.
If you can’t or won’t do these things, I’m really OK with that, too. Just as I said above, I honestly don’t care what “re-asserters” think or believe. You’re certainly welcome to think what you like. But I’m simply not going to waste another precious moment of my life “discussing” this topic any longer.
The discussion is over.

Reply
2005-08-15

trevize

“And BTW, you need to stop the silliness about forbidding unitive sex to married couples – unless you’re willing to forgo this yourself.”
Well, being unmarried and gay myself, I don’t have to make the decision right now, but I expect that I will.

Reply
2005-08-15

bls

It doesn’t work like that, Trevize. The demand is lifelong celibacy, no exceptions, no arguing, no debates about “choices” and who “condones” them or not.
Take it or leave it.

Reply
2005-08-15

bls

(And the effrontery, BTW, of people who think we ought to be interested in whether or not they “condone” our private lives! It’s a gigantic slap in the face to our partners and families, something they themselves would never stand for.
What stunning, unbelievable arrogance! Remarkable that they don’t even recognize how incredibly insulting this is, and would be to anyone. Do these people think we’re animals in the zoo, or inmates who have to ask their permission?
I’m afraid those days are over, my dears. You’re really going to have to learn to mind your own affairs at some point, and leave us in peace. And really, stop thinking about sex, at long last. Get your minds out of the gutter.)

Reply
2005-08-15

Sister Mary Magnifique

It is impossible for a hatemonger to imagine how much psychological hurt (s)he is inflicting on people who simply parted the womb. Sister Mary Magnifique loves the hatemonger, but kindly asks that (s)he keep his bile-sodden opinion to himself. She personally can’t imagine living a life with a lawn and two car garage and neighbors who invite her over on memorial day to play cards, but that is not her vocation. The Lord calls us all differently. If we were in fact like the majority of living things, we’d be insects, creeping and crawling upon the face of the Earth just as Our Lord demands. Right, class?

Reply
2005-08-15

trevize

bls,
Perhaps I should have used the term “approving of” rather than “condoning”. In any case, if you really feel there is no room for question or debate, and your convictions are so strong that you cannot tolerate submitting to the dominant view, I wonder that you stay. This is different from a situation where the dominant view is not your own, but there is still an atmosphere of openness and debate.
“It doesn’t work like that, Trevize. The demand is lifelong celibacy, no exceptions, no arguing, no debates about “choices” and who “condones” them or not.
Take it or leave it.”
Then I would leave it thanks. An emerging church is a good alternative at this time. Getting away from a traditional service can often provide more opportunities for evangelism.
As it is right now, I am happy to say to my mostly evangelical church, “what they don’t know about my personal uncertainties won’t hurt them”.

Reply
2005-08-16

Simeon

trevize wrote: “…your convictions are so strong that you cannot tolerate submitting to the dominant view”
Well, the dominant view of whom ? As an inheritor of Western Civilization, I see bigotry against the GLBT community fading in Europe, Canada, etc… Even the reversal demonstrated by “Dubya” and his Christian Right neo-cons is, in the long view, only a blip on the radar (cold comfort to the targets of their ire, I realize…)
Yes, I know…”But the Global South”! Quite frankly, cultures in places like Nigeria and Uganda have plenty of their own problems, and I hardly take them as shining examples of superior moral rectitude. And I’m willing to bet serious money that they are only “allies of convenience” for the reactionary right-wing of the Anglican church – and only as long as they are useful.

Reply
2005-08-16

bls

One argument that’s really quite interesting is the one suggested above: that “all these great things [lifelong partnership, mutual care and support, adoption of children, making a good life together] can be done outside a sexual relationship.”
Isn’t this really quite a bizarre idea? Is there anybody, anywhere, who truly believes that “good pals” do these things together? Yet this is another of the “debating points” you see at every turn in this discussion.
I think conservatives in the Church fail to recognize that most gay people have already moved on. Traditionalist objections to our “lifestyles” are a relic of the 1950s, and gay people are living quite full lives these days, thanks to the gay rights movement and our own insistence that the world is not going to get away with murdering us any longer. We’re not content with second-class status any longer, either, and we’re particularly uninterested in people who can’t look reality in the face and recognize that they’ve been wrong and admit it.
Trevize, should I leave the United States, too, since the “dominant view” is still disapproval of homosexuality? And BTW, in the Episcopal Church, the “dominant view” is one of acceptance of homosexual people. The conservatives are the minority – and as I’ve already mentioned, they are welcome to their views. Apparently you’re not aware of this, but this “discussion” has been going on for 40 years now, and there isn’t an “atmosphere of openness and debate.” The conservative mind has shown itself to be immovable, and I have now given up trying.
BTW, I, in turn, wonder why you hang around Episcopal blogs and get involved in this discussion, when you’re not a member of the Church, but I’m too polite to say so.

Reply
2005-08-16

bls

So, once again: I really wonder why we should take moral instruction from people who seemingly aren’t able to separate good from evil.
When people live good, productive lives; when they do no harm to others, and try in fact to do good; when they do their best to build up their friends and neighbors and families; when they do their best to leave the world better than they found it, although are of course sinners as all people are – when all this is true and they are condemned anyway, then why should we pay the least attention to the people who condemn us?
Really, folks. Calling homosexuality a “tendency towards an intrinsic moral evil” is simply untrue, and we have a hard time giving credence to anything else you say.
Time to come up with a new philosophy around this issue, I’d say, or else acknowledge that what you really want is simply to get rid of the homos – a goal with no basis in religion at all.

Reply
2005-08-16

bls

(Trevize, I shouldn’t have said that thing above about you “hanging around Episcopal blogs and getting involved in this discussion” in quite that way. Sorry – I was ticked off. You are of course welcome to hang around anyplace you like.
Please, though, do grant me the same consideration. I don’t question why you’re here; I expect you have some good reason, and I accept that. Again, please grant me the same consideration.)

Reply
2005-08-16

trevize

simeon,
“Well, the dominant view of whom ? As an inheritor of Western Civilization, I see bigotry against the GLBT community fading in Europe, Canada, etc…”
It’s pretty clear that the view of same-sex sexual activity being not pleasing to God is NOT the dominant view in ECUSA, or indeed in most Western countries. You’ll notice that my sentence began with an “if”. I was just trying to cover all bases in order to understand what was making bls so unhappy.
“Isn’t this really quite a bizarre idea? Is there anybody, anywhere, who truly believes that “good pals” do these things together?”
Personally, I see the denigration of friendships and mixed-age, multi-purpose tribal communities as a huge problem for our culture. So, yes, I think that people in faithful friendships should start doing these things, and yes, I don’t think it needs to involve sex. Looking at the way marriage is these days (with or without the same-sex attracted getting in on it) there are going to be a lot of very lonely people hitting old age within a generation unless we start encouraging some kind of covenant friendships.
“when all this is true and they are condemned anyway, then why should we pay the least attention to the people who condemn us?”
If those people are simply condemning you without qualification, then yes, you shouldn’t pay attention to them. I’d have thought that was obvious.
“Please, though, do grant me the same consideration. I don’t question why you’re here; I expect you have some good reason, and I accept that.”
bls, I hope I have been! I guess I find this debate interesting, and I have trouble finding people to discuss this topic with in my own context.

Reply
2005-08-16

bls

Trevize, if you can name even one “couple” composed of two friends who’ve vowed to take care of one another for the rest of their lives, and who’ve signed legal contracts to that effect, I’d really be quite impressed. Just one will do.
This sort of thing just isn’t something that “friends” do. It’s what married people do. Now, I’m not opposed to friends doing it also, but there isn’t any legal mechanism for this to happen. When people go to the hospital – even now, for gay people under some versions of “Civil partnership” – they are told that only kin can make medical decisions for them. That’s what marriage is: it creates kinship between unrelated people, who then assume one another’s burdens. And like it or not, Trevize, 95%+ of Americans marry at one time or another in life.
In any case, is there really some rational reason that gay people who love each other shouldn’t have sex together? Again, I ask for only one such reason. Just one.
Sex is unitive in a bonded relationship, as even the Catholic Church admits. So what in the world is the rationale, please, for telling a couple who love each other that they can’t have a sexual relationship? Why are gay relationships made anathema, while heterosexual ones celebrated? They are relevently alike in most ways. In addition, there have always been and will continue to be bonded gay partnerships; what good comes from making them illegal? Why does the Church wish to continue to bury its head in the sand on this matter? Sheer laziness, I’d say.

Reply
2005-08-16

trevize

“Now, I’m not opposed to friends doing it also, but there isn’t any legal mechanism for this to happen.”
Exactly. I guess I’m saying that our ideas of what constitutes lifelong relationships are becoming somewhat outdated and impractical. Perhaps you have a certain image of “what friends do” which is limiting.
“In any case, is there really some rational reason that gay people who love each other shouldn’t have sex together?”
I can tell you what I think, but I can give you no guarantees that you will consider it rational. In fact, I predict that you will consider it hogwash.
I consider that the erotic is a spiritual analogy, whose purpose is given first in Genesis, and supported also by Christ’s words, a physical and spiritual re-union of flesh between male and female. I make a demarkation between affection and the erotic, and I don’t think it is unreasonable to do so.
I also think that, in a majority of cases (though probably not all), erotic attractions to the same sex are generated not by a preset genetic or otherwise biological “switch” only, but by a complex interaction of personality, social, familial and biological contributors. I have no reason, then, to affirm that “God made someone gay” or that God’s intention is for someone to choose a same-sex sexual partner. Rather, I think the those attractions are often the result of a personal mechanism that was employed in response to the pressure of gender identification and gender affirmation.
“In addition, there have always been and will continue to be bonded gay partnerships; what good comes from making them illegal?”
None. I wouldn’t advise it.
“Why does the Church wish to continue to bury its head in the sand on this matter?”
It shouldn’t. It should say what it means and mean what it says.

Reply
2005-08-16

bls

Trevize, I simply asked you to provide me some evidence that human beings actually do what you claim they do. You’re the one who brought it up, not me, so I asked for just one example.
The plain fact is that most people aren’t celibate and don’t wish to be. Most people don’t dream of a lifelong relationship with a friend; they dream of a love relationship, one that includes physical intimacy. Hugs, kisses, closeness, a warm body to hold. You can’t separate genital sex out as some completely different sort of thing; physical intimacy involves a whole range of things, and most people simply can’t get through life without physical contact.
Celibcay is a calling, as they say. Most gay people – most people – don’t feel so called. Why would you insist that people do what doesn’t come naturally to them? That’s no better than forcing heterosexual marriage on gay people – the old way of doing things.
And last thing: a lot of like being gay. We think it’s a good thing, and in any case it’s an integral part of who we are and we don’t want to change it. I don’t want to be straight, and never have wanted to be.
Christ was talking specifically about divorce, you know, and I suspect about the fact that a man had a great deal of power over a woman in those days.

Reply
2005-08-16

trevize

“Trevize, I simply asked you to provide me some evidence that human beings actually do what you claim they do.”
Well, at least one example would be the monastic phenomenon. I could very well have demanded from you evidence for committed same-sex relationships 60 years ago, and you would have been hard pressed to find one. Why? Of course, because the culture did not encourage it.
“And last thing: a lot of like being gay. We think it’s a good thing”
That’s pretty obvious. I don’t see how it changes whether something may or may not be good in God’s eyes.
“Why would you insist that people do what doesn’t come naturally to them?”
I’m not insisting anything, nor do I have the power to make people do it.
“Hugs, kisses, closeness, a warm body to hold. You can’t separate genital sex out as some completely different sort of thing”
To me, it’s always been pretty clear when something goes from warmness, closeness and affection to *turning me on*. Whether or not it’s genital is not the issue.

Reply
2005-08-16

trevize

bls,
http://www.celebratefriendship.org/
This is an interesting site, and there appear to be a lot of people who feel the same way, though I’m not sure how many of them are pursuing celibacy as well. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Reply
2005-08-17

bls

That’s easy: Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas. There are plenty of others, too. If you need, I’ll break out the Gay 101 course notes and make a list. There have always been gay marriages, lots of ’em.
That’s the point. There are and have been many instances of gay partners making a life together – but precious few, if any, of “friends” doing so. I just can’t think of one.
In case you’re interested, though: since the gay marriage debate arose, I’ve argued that there should be a third category of partnership, and that we could help create it if we’d argue for Civil Unions rather than marriage per se. I think people – particularly elderly people – should be able to form legal partnership agreements so that they can support and care for one another if they need to. Other people, too, but most others are interested in regular marriage – if for no other reason than to protect their children.
If you want to be celibate, then by all means go ahead. But remember that it’s not a one-size-fits-all argument, and again, if you’re religious, it’s a “calling.” That’s a religious idea, too, and there’s no such thing as a blanket “call,” applying to an entire group of people by virtue of a certain characteristic. Monastics and priests take a vow of celibacy, true – but many leave (around half, I believe) because they can’t keep the vow.

Reply
2005-08-17

bls

For example: when people believe they are “called” to the religious life, they spend a long time praying about it, and conferring with a spiritual advisor. The idea is to determine what God wants, and to act on that discovery; you don’t jump into the convent in a day and a half.
“Discernment” is a key idea in this effort. Yet the anti-gay crowd claims that we’re all “called” to celibacy, completely ignoring the actual meaning of this concept. In fact, it’s really quite anti-religious to think that people are “called” to something automatically. It ignores God completely.

Reply
2005-08-17

trevize

“Yet the anti-gay crowd claims that we’re all “called” to celibacy”
I think you’re looking at two different uses of the expression “calling”. The first is a rather romantic-sounding *destiny* idea that presumably emerges after someone has been guided for some time by the Spirit. This calling seems to be pre-destined by biological factors in some way (ie. only very low-sex-drive individuals are “called” to celibacy). The second is to say that someone is “called” not to murder, or not to be a glutton. That is, it is a kind of expectation Christ has of us (“if you obey me then you will follow my teachings”).
Presumably your anti-gay individuals are referring to the second kind of calling.
“I think people – particularly elderly people – should be able to form legal partnership agreements so that they can support and care for one another if they need to.”
We agree on something then. I’m actually keen to get away from the idea that these legal agreements must be binary ones. Western society has a bit of a stigma attached to shared living arrangements (hippy communes and cults spring to mind), but I actually believe that modern shared-living communities, or “tribes without blood” could work well given the issues we will continue to face in the coming years. Even on a practical resources-and-time level, they offer a much better system, and provide more opportunity to give time and energy to wider communities such as schools.

Reply
2005-08-17

bls

The second is to say that someone is “called” not to murder, or not to be a glutton.
No. These are rules that apply to everybody without exception. Everyone is to refrain from murder and gluttony.
That’s what makes it different from a “calling” – which applies only to a few, invidually. That’s why it’s an error for the Church to use this word. And they ask from gay people something not asked of anyone else: celibacy for life, no exceptions. And of course everything that implies.
So long, Trevize. I’m going to get off this topic now. I’ve said all these things about a hundred million times by now, and I’m just plain sick of talking about it. Sorry!

Reply
2005-08-17

bls

(BTW, the calling to monastic life is really anything but “romantic.” It involves giving up one’s entire life to the service of God and other people, and trying to live close together in a community of others, owning nothing and living under the rule of obedience to a superior. You consult with others about your progress, discuss your own spiritual development in detail, and do whatever work you’re assigned. It takes 5-7 years to get to the point where you profess final vows – meaning you give up your own life entirely and plan to remain in your community until death.
It’s quite a big deal.)

Reply
2005-08-17

trevize

“And they ask from gay people something not asked of anyone else: celibacy for life, no exceptions.”
I have issue with your consistency here, particularly when we consider what current science is saying about non-monogamous-leaning men who are expected to be monogamous.
But I understand that you don’t wish to talk about this anymore. I often feel the same way. Perhaps another time then.

Reply
2005-08-18

bls

Good grief. “Monogamy” and “celibacy for life” aren’t even remotely comparable.
BTW, it’s statements like this that convince me that, even if we were to take such-and-such a scriptural prohibition literally, there is absolutely no logic in the anti-gay argument at all.
Finally – really, finally! this is the last post! – there’s no Biblical prohibition against lesbianism at all. Romans 1 wasn’t read that way for 400 years. The verse is certainly not unambiguous, in any case, and even if it does refer to lesbianism, are you telling me that one ambiguous passage, out of tens of thousands, should be enough to make me repress my desire for love and intimate relationship for 75 years? I ought to turn my life completely upside down for this?
If so, then why in world would I want to belong to this religion in the first place? It’s completely insane.

Reply
2005-08-18

trevize

“Good grief. “Monogamy” and “celibacy for life” aren’t even remotely comparable.”
Really? For a man who’s body is apparently structured for spreading his seed and enjoying sex with as many women as possible, to be allowed only a situation where he may not even be able to do it more than once a year? I’d have thought this situation follows fairly smoothly from your logic of what is “fair” and what is “unfair” for people attracted to the same sex. For him (if indeed this is true) the situation may as well be celibacy.
“I ought to turn my life completely upside down for this?”
I guess, the way I interpret Romans 1 and the general issue of gender re-union applies to women as much as to men. Is it my life? Or is it Christ who lives in me? I don’t want to “belong” to any religion. I just want to belong to Christ.

Reply
2005-08-18

bls

Trevize, I keep telling you: marriage is not simply about sex. It’s about physical – and emotional – intimacy and closeness. It’s an exclusive partnership that is unlike any other relationship; it is the merging of two human beings into one entity. (In the marriage vows in the Book of Common Prayer used to include the phrase “With my body I thee wurship.” This is what puts marriage into a separate category, and it’s something that does not happen in friendship, no matter how close.) Celibacy for life denies a person this possibility – and even the possibility of this possibility. Monogamy only denies a person the possibility of being promiscuous. I can’t see where the two are related at all – particularly not in the spiritual sense. The Church demands of gay individuals a highly unnatural suppression of normal – and healthy – emotional and physical expression.
In Genesis, God doesn’t create a sex partner for Adam; God creates a helpmeet for Adam – someone for him to have and to hold, till death them do part. I’m not quite clear on how “spreading one’s seed” gets into this discussion. That’s a buzzword from evolutionary psychology; what does it have to do with what we’re talking about?
And BTW, I don’t think I’ve ever used the word “fair” during this discussion, so I don’t know how any of my “logic” could possibly follow from the concept.
In any case, I see you ignore, along with everybody else, the existence of lesbians – who are certainly not “spreading their seed.” Why is this always, always about gay men? How come lesbians are routinely ignored in this discussion?
And BTW where did Christ say anything at all about this issue?

Reply
2005-08-18

bls

And please explain to me why, if I should fall in love with someone (in the true sense, the one that includes the desire to kiss and hold them, and more) – which is of course involuntary and is normally considered a wonderful and beautiful experience, something that is one of the delights of human existence – please explain why I should have to dismantle this love, take it apart and destroy it with my own hand?
For what possible reason? Our tradition is sometimes called the “three-legged stool,” and it consists of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. I’m asking about for the “reason” part here: what is the rational reason for becoming less than I am, simply because there exist a few Bible verses that may or may not disapprove? The punishment in Exodus for not keeping the Sabbath was death, you know – that’s clearly written in 3 separate and distinct places. Charging interest on loans is expressly forbidden in many more verses than the few that speak of same-sex sexual behavior. Women were not to approach the livestock when they had their periods. Long hair in men is “unnatural,” and women are to keep silent in Church. They’re certainly forbidden to be priests or pastors.
How come we don’t pay any attention to any of those things these days – and nobody cares?

Reply
2005-08-18

trevize

Hi bls,
There’s a lot of ideas in your last two posts, so I’m going to try and address them one-by-one.
“It’s an exclusive partnership that is unlike any other relationship; it is the merging of two human beings into one entity. (In the marriage vows in the Book of Common Prayer used to include the phrase “With my body I thee wurship.” This is what puts marriage into a separate category, and it’s something that does not happen in friendship, no matter how close.)”
I should probably say that I don’t agree with the extent to which the church (like the culture surrounding it) has elevated, above all other relationships, the romantic and sexual relationship that we call marriage. The final results of this are seen in our atomised 21st century society, but I think the “error” has been going on for some time. For example, I disagree with the idea of “forsaking all others”. I disagree that there cannot be loving friendships, with affection and faithfulness. The constant linking of love and sex in our culture is unnecessary.
“In Genesis, God doesn’t create a sex partner for Adam; God creates a helpmeet for Adam – someone for him to have and to hold, till death them do part.”
The first is from scripture. The second is not. A “helpmeet” hardly means that no other significant relationships are possible outside this person, that no love or cherishing or support is possible outside this person. A helpmeet does suggest that the married partners will help eachother in a practical sense, which I agree with.
“How come lesbians are routinely ignored in this discussion?”
I was citing a separate phenomenon, the idea that certain men seem to be biologically structured for promiscuity. This is less frequently the case in women. In any case, it has nothing to do with homosexuality at all, except that both are claimed to be situations that we now understand better than Ancients did because of scientific discovery.
“And BTW where did Christ say anything at all about this issue?”
He didn’t, which to me is not surprising since it was unlikely that his audience would have thought that same-sex erotic acts were pleasing to God. The closest things I can see are when Christ mentions sexual immorality and when he refers to Genesis when speaking about divorce.
“And please explain to me why, if I should fall in love with someone … please explain why I should have to dismantle this love, take it apart and destroy it with my own hand?
I’ve never been in that situation, but I do feel that all these things should be able to be met in a close intimate friendship sans erotic love. As such, I am frustrated at the culture we live in, which denies this as a possibility.
“How come we don’t pay any attention to any of those things these days – and nobody cares?”
There are heaps of arguments for and against all of these things. In fact, I think there is purpose in many of the ones you cite. The prohibition against money-lending should apply to many of today’s financial practices (eg. the way banks encourage credit card use to people who cannot afford it). Women and men wearing hair differently (or another practice depending on culture) helps to maintain a gender-culture dichotomy which I believe God still supports.
Others are sometimes misinterpretations. For example, I interpret some of the passages on women being silent as Paul speaking with irony or mimicking, not with conviction.

Reply
2005-08-18

Sister Mary Magnifique

Ah, Trevize, at last you say something that the gays can relate to! That god might speak with a voice of irony through Paul.
“Oh, yeah, and tell the women to be quiet and the boys not to hold each others’ winkies…Like that’s gonna happen!” The Almighty must have gotten a big kick out of that particular versette.
Sister Mary Magnifique, for one, in her tenure as headmistress at St. Onan’s School for Indulgent Boys has witnessed the rampant disregard for Genesis, Deuteronomy, and Romans among the young men. (She can not speak for the women as they are not her charge.)
On first discovery, the beatings that were intended to diminish the frequency of the Vile Acts of the Young and Not-So-Young were near ceaselss. “Stop abusing the temple of the Lord” we would instruct them as they recieved the lash. But no matter how much we beat them they never stopped.
In order to restore order at St. Onan’s the staff finally had to accept that scripture in church canon that forbids male homosexual acts was, in fact, an instance of the Divine Ironic Voice.
I fully endorse the decision to change the tone of voice in which we will read the scriptures. It makes life much easier on already over-worked nuns and already-conflicted boys alike.
Thank you for your time,
Sister Mary Magnifique, OCJ

Reply
2005-08-18

trevize

SMM,
I feel as though you’re mocking me with your tone. I hope that’s not your intention.
I believe the case of sexual experimentation among children is something different from what we’ve been discussing. Further, I think the limited options our society presents for affection, association and gender affirmation between boys (because of some fear of homosexuality) is, in fact, counterproductive.

Reply
2005-08-18

trevize

BTW, I work at a public school where discipline means practically nothing, and I can tell you that the kids hurt eachother enough without the staff administering more punishment. I’m convinced that what we call “homophobia”, at least in young boys, has absolutely nothing to with sexual orientation, and everything to do with gender-culture conformity, as well as the ridiculous stereotypes of what constitutes “gay”. But the latter could possibly be seen as a prophecy for the former.

Reply
2005-08-19

Sister Mary Magnifique

I do not mean to mock you personally. I mock the _situation_ whole-heartedly.

Reply
2005-08-19

D. C.

Sister Mary Magnifique, your comments are welcome, but please leave your persona and your mocking third-person writing style at your own blog.

Reply
2005-08-19

GP, or Sister Mary Magnifique out of the Habit

D.C.,
No problem. All personas held at bay at the front door. While I do find this discussion to be very important, I also find that it is mostly pointless. I was attempting to diffuse what I perceived as a potential flame war with a little humor. My intention is never to mock anyone but to bring light to what I think is a silly argument.The Divine Ironic Voice? Since when are readings of scripture examples of irony? If anything, literalists argue that God “says what He means and means what he says.”
Trevize, as much as I have read of your comments, I still have no firm graps on your beliefs. On the one hand, you seem to stand against homosexuality as a valid expressions of love while suggesting that perhaps gayness is just misdirected friendship(?). Meanwhile, you suggest that monogomy is not the “natural order for the male”. I fail to understand how this spreading of seed had anything to do with the original post that We Do Not Know What Displeases God.The ability to reconcile male promiscuity with scripture while condemning some monogomously coupled gay men is entirely above my head.
—Unless one considers the scripturality of the statement in a polygamist/Ancient Kings of Isreal sense, but unfortunately the Law of the Land doesn’t recognize that pradigm for social and “natural” marriage contracts any more than it recognizes one between anything other than (1) man and (1) woman, from which I am sadly excluded.
The whole point of the post at TQC to me was that we don’t know what pleases God. As is typical of the debate on this subject, we have roamed far afield from the author’s original thesis, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
Thank you and sorry if I caused any trouble,
GP

Reply
2005-08-19

trevize

GP,
That’s ok – just got a bit confused by your last post.
“The Divine Ironic Voice?”
I believe the apostle Paul, being a human being, wrote with a lot of emotion in his letters. The passage to which I was particularly referring was this:
1 Cor 14:33-36
For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. 36 Did the word of God originate with you?
I think there is strong evidence that Paul’s words in verses 34 and 35 are not explicit instructions, but mimickry of his “opponents”. I say this because of verse 36, where he asks ironically, “Did the word of God originate with you?” Also, as I understand, there is a small particle in the Greek text just before verse 36 (missing in eg. NIV translation), which is interestingly translated “What!?” in the KJV. It may be seen like the Wayne’s World exclamation “NOT!”. If you look at other passages where it is used similarly, Paul goes on to give a harsh response to an arrogant position.
“On the one hand, you seem to stand against homosexuality as a valid expressions of love while suggesting that perhaps gayness is just misdirected friendship(?).”
Not exactly – it would depend on the person.
“Meanwhile, you suggest that monogomy is not the “natural order for the male”. I fail to understand how this spreading of seed had anything to do with the original post that We Do Not Know What Displeases God.”
As I said before, I only introduced the promiscuity thing because some people argue that our new understanding of homosexuality being “natural” demands a change in Biblical interpretation on this topic. The point was that, despite some evidence of promiscuity in men being “natural”, we have had few demands to change our Biblical interpretation on the topic of monogamy.
“The whole point of the post at TQC to me was that we don’t know what pleases God.”
Fine, let’s go blow up another country then.

Reply
2005-08-19

GP

GP: “…you seem to stand against homosexuality as a valid expressions of love while suggesting that perhaps gayness is just misdirected friendship(?).”
Trevize: “Not exactly – it would depend on the person.”
As open minded as this seems to be trying to sound, I have to remind you that it is not up to you to decide on a case to case basis at all. Sorry. Not your job.
The points about the Pauline letters are interesting, though.

Reply
2005-08-20

trevize

“As open minded as this seems to be trying to sound, I have to remind you that it is not up to you to decide on a case to case basis at all. Sorry. Not your job.”
I didn’t think we discussed the origin of homosexuality in this thread. I lamented the strict moulds of nuclear-family-like arrangements, whose weaknesses gay couples seem to be copying.

Reply
2005-08-20

D. C.

“The whole point of the post at TQC to me was that we don’t know what pleases God.”
My point was actually a bit different: We don’t know for sure what displeases God. As with other areas of life, all we can do is make our best estimate and take our chances. (That is, of course, to the extent that we are concerned about pleasing or displeasing God.)
It seems to me that, other things being equal, we ought to err on the side of doing the least harm, as best we’re able to discern what that is; both near-term harm to others and long-term harm to the human race and the rest of God’s creation.
Proceeding from that premise, my take on same-sex unions is that we seem to do more harm to others by preventing gays and lesbians from “marrying” whom they will, than by insisting that the same gays and lesbians follow what some believe to be God’s will.
(I’m not overwhelmed by the fact that a majority of Christians or even of the human race would probably oppose SSUs if asked. That’s a datum to be considered, but raw numbers aren’t dispositive. If they were, we’d all be pagans or Muslims or Mormons or whatever, depending on where, and when, we happened to live.)
I appreciate the insightful comments.

Reply
2005-08-21

GP

D.C.,
You’re absolutely right. Your post was about G(?)od’s displeasure. I think it’s safe to say that if an Almightly exists, treating each other with respect and dignity would please him(?) while other behaviours are less clear. Sorry. Didn’t mean to misquote.
Trevize, you too, are right. We didn’t discuss the origins of homosexulaity, because, like any further comments, the subject is irrelevant.

Reply
2005-08-22

bls

Trevize, I sort of dropped out of this discussion because as I said I’ve said all these things thousands of times before and have grown very weary of it. I didn’t mean to ignore your replies, but I really have wean myself from these conversations.
Let me just finish by saying that I know many gay couples who’ve been together for years. I don’t think they are “copying” certain other relationships; I think they’re together because they love and care for one another – and three’s a crowd in that sort of thing, basically. It may well be that men want to “spread their seed,” and sometimes they do – but they still tend to want to come back to a primary relationship. We don’t live as autonomous individuals in the world – and most people want to be physically close to someone else at some point in their lives. If this is beneficial to them, and not harmful to others, arguing against it on the basis of the “gender-culture dichotomy” seems very artificial to me. If God seems to like the idea of a world with gay people in it – and all indications are that this is the case, for a gay love relationship can be quite as lovely as any other – then we have to ask the question again: “How Do They Know What Displeases God?” Jesus came along abolished the dietary laws by saying that “Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person; but the things that come out from within are what defile….But what comes out of a person, that is what defiles. From within people, from their hearts, come evil thoughts, unchastity, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly. All these evils come from within and they defile.”
In fact, Christian philosophy explicitly compares marriage to the relationship between Christ and the Church. (For myself, I’ve never understood this; if this is so, then it seems to me that, looking at the Church’s history, Christ got stuck with a demented harpy from the wrong side of the tracks.) This is meant, I think, to represent a singular relationship – a spiritual kind of merging of two distinct entities into one.
As I’ve already said: please be celibate if you want to be. Work for partnership arrangements that aren’t marriage. Do what you must. But please recognize that other people do things differently.

Reply