"The Big One" : Christianity and homosexuality.

>Lawecon (posts 562 et al. in previous thread):

Thank you for a detailed and (mostly) patient answer. You have done much to clarify both where other Jews today situate their identity and where you, specifically, situate your self-identity.

To summarize (please correct me if I have misunderstood): Answers to the question, "What makes a Jew a Jew?" range from "membership in the People" (by birth or by voluntary conversion, and revocable or no) to "keeping certain ethical (i.e. behavioral) standards" (which seems to be approximately your view). Some Jews, following an answer towards the former end of the range, would say that the "Jews" who, as you say, idolize the Land by settling illegally in the West Bank, are still Jews because they will always be Jews no matter what they do, and/or because the State of Israel still recognizes their Jewishness. You, however, would dispute that identification because you believe such Jews have, by their "idolatry" of the Land, rejected their Jewishness.

For those of us who are Christians, our exposure to what constitutes Jewish ethical standards is often limited to the books of the Torah and other Hebrew scriptures. As I understand, both from my own limited historical training and from what I've learned from you, the extensive commentary and teaching traditions of the last two thousand years and more take a very different approach to the Torah than Christians often do.

For example, it is commonly understood by Christians that keeping kosher is an important ethical commandment of the Torah; and further, that male circumcision is a sine qua non of Jewishness because of the covenant with Abraham. You seem to dispute the necessity of the former; I'm not sure you have yet said anything of your view of the latter. But because I am ill-equipped to understand what ethical standards in the Torah are binding to Jewishness, I'm asking whether you can give us some broad standards of which are and which are not.

From what I understand from you so far, keeping kosher is not binding; but committing "idolatry" (of the Land, for example) is a transgression, sufficient to revoke one's Jewishness. I do not understand, for the moment, on what basis you make that distinction between binding and non-binding. Lest I simply assume that the distinction is arbitrary, I am asking whether you could explain the reasons by which you make that distinction.

Edited to correct a very embarrassing mix-up of terms, for which I apologize.

>566 (http://www.librarything.com/topic/136917) I am sorry, Os, but I am getting a bit impatient by your either not reading what I am saying or being so prejudiced against me (and Jews in general?) that you can't draw logical implications from it.

NO Jew, let me repeat that so you hear it, NO Jew would consider "eating pork" as being grounds for concluding that the pork eater was not a Jew or had ceased being a Jew. The Orthodox would not because, as I noted above, in their view you cannot DO anything that causes a Jew to become a nonJew. The Reform would not, since they regularly eat pork and have halachic reasons for doing so. AND I would not, although, in fact, I do not eat pork or shellfish or certain other "forbidden foods."

Get it? The only people who consider eating pork as an indicia of not being a Jew are ignorant Christians who have been misled by the myths of Paul followed by the greater myths of the Middle Ages concerning "what those Jews are like." It is exactly analogous to White People who KNOW that "Niggers are naturally lazy and dumb. They can't help it, that is just what they are like."

First, lawecon, I read all of your posts; so according to you, I must be default be a racist. Simply not understanding all of the subtleties of Judaism and the Jewish people before you actually provide the needed insight is, apparently, not a possible option. But, can you stop assuming that a Christian who doesn't understand which of the groups that you know of within the Jewish people consider which behaviors to be acceptable and worthy of eviction from the Jewish people to be prejudiced against Jews and acting like a racist southerner towards blacks? Every time you go on a tirade, I get a bit more information that allows me to understand this complicated (your word) business. You live in it and it's complicated to you, but I'm almost totally isolated from it, and I'm preduciced (by a bunch of Middle Ages myths that I'm not even familiar with, apparently) because I don't somehow get it from indirect implications in your posts.

So, now, I think I've got it. There's Jewish people (which I knew) and Judaism (which I knew), and within the Jewish people there are some who would consider you expelled from the Jewish people for certain behaviours, but these behaviors do NOT include (for any of these groups; you finally actually let me in on this subtlety) eating pork. So, if I don't know this, I've insulted you by asking. And I've insulted you repeatedly by tryiing quite hard to make sure I actually understand it. I'm still unclear about the way you interchange refrences to 'Jewish people' with people who practice Judaism (sometimes you refer to Jewish religious practice; sometimes to Judaism - these seem the same to me), but I'm not going to try because if it's too complicated (your word) for you to explain without accusing me of being various kinds of racist, it's not worth asking.

I'm done, and stuck with whatever understanding I've been able to extract from your repeated rants and insults, at least until I meet someone knowledgable about the subject, but without such a chip on their shoulder that just asking is considered a racist insult. It's just not worth the abuse from you, especially when I cannot predict when and why it will come spewing forth; only that it eventually will.

Os.

I don't think he can help it, and between the lines there was some helpful information for someone like me who has had limited contact with Judaism.

As I said before, there's no definition of Jew or Jewishness that doesn't involve a stance.

To this we may confirm that Lawecon's definitions involve a stance. That's too be expected. But can add that relatively few other Jews are standing where he's standing. While it may be interesting to ask him "what a Jew thinks," people should be aware, if they were not already, that his answers here are highly idiosyncratic among people who call themselves Jews.

people should be aware, if they were not already, that his answers here are highly idiosyncratic

You could have just stopped here.

The ~2

Nathaniel, you are about there, but we still need for you to further cut the ties to some Christian notions about Judaism. Let's start here: There is no distinction that I know of between "binding" and "not binding." Let me back up in explaining why.

There is, as you point out, The Torah (which I will try to consistently capitalize to maintain the distinction mentioned below between torah and The Torah). The Torah is the "Five Books of Moses" (albeit few Jews these days think that Moses wrote them). There is then the other books of the "Old Testament" which, along with The Torah, form the Jewish Bible or the Jewish Scriptures or the "Tanach."

The problem that you may be having is that most Jews, virtually all Jews except for a very small sect called the Karaites, do not read the Tanach for its "plain meaning" or "literally." They read it through the lens of the Mishnah (which is a summary of early Rabbinical Rules, that is NOT referenced back to the Tanach) or, more to the point, through the lens of the Babylonian Talmud (which is largely a commentary on the Mishnah that attempts to tie it back lo phrases in the Tanach).

Jews, in other words, aren't like "plain meaning Protestants." They are more akin to Catholics, yet even more extreme in the distance between what they "observe" and the literal text of the Tanach. So you can't read the Tanach and then ask whether any particular rule or law in it is "binding." It is not that simple.

It is further not that simple because, for reasons explained in the next paragraph, "studying torah (small t)" means studying either the Talmud or any of the many traditional or modern commentaries on the Talmud or any of the commentaries on those commentaries or.................. Jews believe that all these texts are "holy" and the study of and arguments about them are "worship."

To make things even more confusing, as Tim has pointed out from time to time, Jews have no centralized authority. So there is no one right interpretation of either the Tanach or the Mishnah or the Talmud or the commentaries on them. (As I said previously, Judaism is not creedal.) That there is no one right interpretation of torah doesn't bother Jews very much, however, because it was traditionally acknowledged that all such interpretations were "right," so long as each such interpretation was well formed and well argued. (This is an Eastern mindset that is difficult to explain to a Westerner, particularly a Western Christian.)

Each Jew, of course, thinks that his interpretation of this law or that law is the correct one, but he also generally acknowledges that he could be wrong and is willing to argue (ceaselessly) about who is right. (The argument is usually held to be properly at the level of the Rabbis, except among the Reform who extend this principle to all adult Jews in their right mind - or, some would say, whether in their right mind or not.) This is why I have often said in these discussions that the real meta-core of Judaism is argument, and if you want to reach a condition where the argument stops, where The Truth is definitively known, there is real doubt about your Jewishness.

Now, let's circle back and see why the use of the terms "binding" and "not binding" may be a mistake. The Reform, for instance, view the food laws in The Torah as having been appropriate for Jews at one point in history, but now as no longer appropriate (perhaps, in your terminology, no longer "binding") because conditions have changed. They point, for instance, to the numerous comments of Maimonides (a 12th century rabbinical authority who is widely cited to by Jews of all denominations) that the food laws were intended for health reasons. Now that we know much more about nutrition, refrigeration or other means of preservation of food, and how some diseases are transmitted through food, the Reform would argue, there is no longer a need for the somewhat crude food laws - which were given by G-d as summaries of these fields of knowledge. In your language, I suppose that means that the food laws are "not binding," but if so you seem to be using the terms "binding" and "not binding" in a manner different from the way Christians traditionally used them. (Let me just add as a parenthetical, that by "the food laws" I mean the permitted and forbidden foods. Most Jews still adhere to the slaughter rules, etc, which are also a part of "kosher.")

What you should note is that the above is AN ARGUMENT. It is intrinsic to Judaism that one advance such arguments for what one does or doesn't do. It isn't someone just saying "I'm not going to follow those rules because I don't feel like it." It is a coherent interpretation of the place of these particular rules, what G-d intended by them, and whether they still apply to current conditions. That is Jewish. It is entirely proper Judaism, whether you agree with this particular interpretation and conclusions or not.
SO IT IS INCORRECT TO MAINTAIN THAT A PERSON WHO EATS PORK IS NOT ACTING JEWISHLY AND ONE WHO DOES NOT IS. THAT IS WHY I ADVISED ARCTIC TO TALK TO THIS GUY ABOUT WHY HE ATE PORK YET STILL THOUGHT HE WAS ACTING LIKE A JEW. The difference is in the interpretation, not per se, in the act.

Now, to anticipate your next question: Well, if that is true, then couldn't the ideological settlers be acting Jewishly? I don't think so. I don't think so because there are certain sorts of arguments, certain sorts of rationales for actions, that are outside the boundaries of Judaism. You can't, for instance, argue for multiple G_ds or for a concern greater than worship of Hashem (idolatry) or for violation of the basic rules that we talked about a couple of weeks ago. (You can't, for instance, argue that it is proper under certain circumstances to substitute one particular human life for another.) Those are impermissible "moves" in the process of argument that place one outside of the boundaries of Judaism. Yet that is what I understand the Settlers to be doing, and I think that this is what they say they are doing. They say that the "commandment" (which isn't really a commandment at all) that Jews "Live in The Land, the Whole Land" primes every other commandment. It doesn't, and there is no such commandment. There was only conditional permission.

~5

And one should be aware that Tim is no expert on Judaism or Jews and that his beliefs about what "mainline Judaism" is like are absurd. (Largely because there is no such thing, and the only Jews who believe differently are the extreme Orthodox.)

~3

I think that is fine, Os. Since I offend you so much, I would suggest to you what I suggested to Arctic - put me on ignore.

Personally, I find your ramblings and your perpetual state of being insulted to be somewhat amusing, so I probably won't reciprocate. However, I won't be responding to your rantings and ravings and ramblings in the future, because you have proved that to do so is futile. As you state, you should find someone else who is better able to put up with you.

>7 lawecon: Thanks for this post, lawecon, which I find very interesting.

The tainted case against gay marriage (Guardian)

>7 lawecon:: Thank you, lawecon, for a lengthy and detailed explanation. I am going to bookmark that post for future reference, as you do an admirable job of clearly laying out how you understand Judaism.

There is one point, however, that I still don't understand well, and I hope that you will indulge me with a bit more patience. You say, "Jews have no centralized authority. So there is no one right interpretation of either the Tanach or the Mishnah or the Talmud or the commentaries on them." That is, as you have said many times, Judaism is not creedal.

Yet, you also say that, "there are certain sorts of arguments, certain sorts of rationales for actions, that are outside the boundaries of Judaism." If this is so, how are those boundaries determined? If some Jews accept the Jewishness, for example, of the West Bank settlers, than what authority determines that they are wrong in that acceptance?

~12

I think you are really asking two questions. First is the question about how there can be boundaries in a noncreedal noncentralized religion and, second, whether I am right about the Settlers.

The first question is a very good question, but the answer is a simple one. The boundaries are consensual. They are agreed to by "every Jew." (metaphorically) It is the same sort of answer you will get if you ask "any Jew" what they think of the coherence of "Jews for Jesus."

Tim and I actually had something like this discussion in the thread about circumcision - which thread I commend to your attention. My answer there was the same as my answer now. Circumcision is one of the markers, one of the boundaries of Judaism, It is well established. But, of course, it may ultimate change. It depends on future arguments and perspectives.

Your second question indicates that I have not been clear enough. My position on the ideological Settlers (note, again, as I said when this first came up, the ideological Settlers, not all the Settlers) is that their rationales and acts are fundamentally violating Jewish Law. They are acting unJewishly to the point where they should no longer be considered as Jews. Specifically, they have constructed an idol which they are worshiping and which, in their view, primes all of the rest of Jewish Law. Worshiping an idol is one of the above boundaries.

What you don't seem to be getting is that I could be wrong. In the case of one rabbi (hated by most of the other Settlers, but who still considers himself to be a Settler) I probably am wrong. Similarly, these sorts of disagreements are, again, the essence of Judaism. Ask any Orthodox about the Reform and they will say that the Reform are "nonobservant Jews." The Reform don't think so, and, as I pointed out in my last post, they have arguments for their beliefs and acts.

My problem with taking a moderate line on the ideological Settlers is, however, that I have read several Settler texts and several nonSettler texts and I don't see the Settlers answering the idolatry argument. I should see them doing so if it is not an accurate argument, since it is an argument that is fairly obvious given what they are doing and saying. If you really want to get into this, the Settler ideology is also remarkably congruent with the ideology of the Irgun (which had to be put down by force at the founding of Israel) and some of the other semi-fascist movements in early 20th century Judaism, suspiciously so.

In any case, I could be wrong. If you were a Jew you would ask for my evidence and arguments.

~12

Incidentally, I will admit at this point to doing just what I've been criticizing Christians for doing: trying to find one or more of the essential features of your religion in the other guy's religion.

Christians keep looking at Judaism and wondering where the creed is. Further, as we've seen, many of them think that the creed has to do with eating pork, attending Temple on the Sabbath, etc., because that is the way the Romans and Greeks thought of Judaism - it was the "peculiar features" of Jews.

I keep looking at Christianity and wondering where the boundaries are. All Americans get from our Christian fundamentalist friends is that Christianity is "belief in the saving power of Jesus Christ." But intrinsically that doesn't seem to be any boundary at all. The last time I checked Charles Manson believed in the saving power of Jesus Christ. So I keep asking people like John, who are clearly very virtuous people working within very strict boundaries, and they "won't tell me". That no one will tell me or often don't even seem to understand the question, doesn't, however, keep me from thinking that way.

>14 lawecon: I don't think it's that I won't tell you, but rather that I don't know. I can see lots of behaviour which I would characterise as "un-Christian", but does that make the doer a non-Christian or merely a poor or even bad Christian, aka a sinner (which we all are anyway)? And, as with your explanation of Judaism, is my brand of Christianity the only right one?

>13 lawecon:: Thank you again for a patient clarification -- you have removed most of the misunderstanding I voiced in post 12.

>14 lawecon:: As I think through this, I can't help but worry that I am quite guilty of contributing to your frustration; for I know that I have yet to put forward a clear articulation of who is or is not a Christian, mostly because I'm not sure I can do so.

The reason for this (at least for me) is an internal tension between my training as a theologian, according to which I can posit all kinds of creedal and doctrinal boundaries and limits; and my identity as a practicing Christian, according to which I am called to treat all my fellow humans, Christian or not, with love and charity. That latter tendency, coupled with my recognition of my own manifold failures to be a good Christian, make it very difficult for me to accuse somebody else of such failures -- or at least, difficult to do so without later regretting it. (Thus why, for all my frustrations over doctrinal disputes with her, I still count fuzzi amongst my LT "Friends".)

I suspect that the motive of charity is also that which animates John's refusal to set up a litmus test -- for it is not our place to judge the state of another's soul; only God can do that.

This inherent tension is also reflected in Scripture:
Matthew 7:1-5: "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. "
vs.
Matthew 7:15-20: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. "

>14 lawecon:

This is what it comes down to for me: "Christian" is a sociological category, not a theological one--because Christians are members of the religion, "Christianity," and religion is a sociological category. Or at least, it's not a theological category. In part because of the Greek philosophical influence, "religion" makes no sense as a category in Christian theological terms--there's only truth and untruth and perhaps maybe distorted truth, righteous behavior and unrighteous behavior and righteousness-neutral behavior. It seems to me that Christianity can't really make sense of "other religions" in the same way Judaism can. Correct me if I'm wildly distorting, but it seems to me that the difference between monotheistic Judaism and henotheistic Judaism is simply counting the number of gods. But for Christianity monotheism really needs to be an a priori truth, or else the Trinity is going to end up looking an awful lot like a tritheism. Ceteris paribus, henotheistic Christianity simply doesn't make any sense; there can only be one Unmoved Mover.

So where one places the boundary of "Christian" would depend in part on what sociology of religion one brings to the table, and actually be fairly theology-neutral. Christians actually have no special insight in what does or does not make a person a Christian merely because they are Christians, except insofar as they get to define their own self-identity.

This is why I'm constantly comparing the way one places the boundaries on "Christian" to the way one places the boundaries on secular categories, like "libertarian" or "Hegelian" or "alumni of Harvard University" or whatever. So Christianity simpliciter ends up being creedal more or less in the same way like libertarians or Hegelians are creedal. A libertarian who doesn't believe in free markets or a Hegelian who thinks Hegel was wrong about everything present clear contradictions. But beyond that, the categories are fuzzy because the way we use language results in most categories being fuzzy. Typically the best we can do is to come up with a set of Familienähnlichkeit, "family resemblances": "a series of overlapping similarities, where no one feature is common to all."

From this point of view, I think it makes perfect sense to say that, e.g., a Mormon is a Christian, but she might be a "weird" sort of Christian in more or less the same way that a microwave oven is a "weird" sort of oven. As an Anglo-Catholic I'm a "weird" sort of Catholic. Is a microwave "really" an oven or not? Unless you think there's a Platonic form of "oven-ness" the question is just plain stupid and not worth asking. But there's a crucial difference between the Mormon and the microwave: you can ask the Mormon, and you can't ask the microwave, or at least not get an answer from it. But unlike the microwave, the Mormon may well have her own opinion as to whether or not she is a Christian. This is why I privilege self-identity above all else in determining whether a person is or isn't a Christian.

Now there are theological categories which sort of approach "Christian" as a category. You could ask who are the members of the universal Church, the Body of Christ. And one answer to that, correct from a certain perspective, is that all persons baptised in the name of the Trinity are members of the Church. But then Quakers and the Salvation Army and some others aren't Christian. Some people would be okay with this; others would not.

But I think one has to remember that Christianity is, unlike Judaism, a universalizing religion. In the end, everyone gets held to the standards Christians do whether they identify as Christian or not, so there's not really any need for boundaries. So there is a sense, I think, in which every single human person is a member of the Body of Christ, because under many Christian theologies Christ's atonement was unlimited and all people are recipients of prevenient grace. In this sense--and I recognize the ways in which it is deeply problematic--Jews and Hindus and so on might not be seen so much as non-Christians as much as just really, really mistaken Christians--and I know Christians who would be more than willing to say that, e.g., Gandhi may have been a much better Christian than many who cry out "Lord, Lord."

This is another reason for privileging self-identity, I think; the Jew or the Hindu isn't Christian (except in the edge cases where maybe someone can be both) not so much because there's some theological distinction at work, but because they would be understandably offended to be referred to as Christian when they don't think of themselves that way.

Now, there are some people--our fundamentalist friends among them--who do use "Christian" unequivocally as a theological category; for these people, "Christian" and "saved" mean the same thing, and where one places the boundary of "Christian" would then depend on the soteriological assumptions one brings to the table. I think this use of the term is at best stupid and at worst dishonest--it forces the interlocutor to implicitly assume the theological worldview just to enter into the conversation--but they usually don't ask my permission before using the word that way.

The last thing that needs to be noted is that for many fundamentalists, their soteriology is such that iff Charles Manson died believing in the saving power of Jesus Christ--not just generally, but as concerns Manson specifically--then he would not only be a Christian, but he would be in heaven. For such people, "being a Christian" and "Christian behavior" might literally have very little, if anything at all, to do with each other. I wonder if this radical divorcing of salvation from any notion at all of being a good person isn't part of what is throwing you for a loop. Of course, I think that sort of position completely misinterprets what St. Paul means by "faith" and requires ignoring much of what the Gospels have to say about the judgment, but that's why I'm not that sort of Protestant Christian.

But even under less extreme theologies, there's always going to be a sense in which "people who are Christian" are always going to fall short of "acting like a Christian" because that's built into our theology in the form of original sin. There aren't ways to remove yourself from being Christian because Jesus says in the Bible that the only sin which is unforgivable is the sin against the Holy Spirit--and who knows what the heck that even means?

>17 cjbanning:: Would an "Amen" be appropriate here? (Tim, can we have a like button yet?) A very well-written and well-thought answer, cj!

>17 cjbanning:, 18 Likewise! I prefer to say "Hear, hear".

~15

Yah, well I think that is an important difference between Christianity and Judaism. In Judaism there are a lot of differences concerning what might be called secondary doctrines. (And what is primary and what is secondary, is, as I mentioned, time and place dependent.)

But there are also primary doctrines that are agreed to by "virtually" all Jews. (Let's put that differently, if there is any disagreement about these doctrines, then I'm unaware of it.) You go outside a secondary doctrine for the Orthodox, you aren't Orthodox - you either affiliate with a nonOrthodox denomination or you leave Judaism.

You go outside of a primary doctrine, the choice is no longer yours - other than the choice of whether you want to repent and make amends. You persist, you aren't Jewish.

~16

"The reason for this (at least for me) is an internal tension between my training as a theologian, according to which I can posit all kinds of creedal and doctrinal boundaries and limits; and my identity as a practicing Christian, according to which I am called to treat all my fellow humans, Christian or not, with love and charity. That latter tendency, coupled with my recognition of my own manifold failures to be a good Christian, make it very difficult for me to accuse somebody else of such failures -- or at least, difficult to do so without later regretting it."

The more we talk, the more we come up with what, in my view anyway, are important distinctions. You see, for me, and I believe for most other Jews, being a Jew or not being a Jew is in no way equivalent to being a good charitable loving human being. It would be wonderful if all Jews were good charitable loving human beings, but if any Jew claims to you that they are then he need psychiatric care.

Another way of looking at this is that the boundary conditions for Judaism are all negative. You shall not worship an idol. You shall not engage in human sacrifice or substitute one human life for another. Etc. There are also over 600 other mitzvah's, many of which are positive, but these aren't. So you can be an absolutely abhorrent person and still be a Jew. You may not be a good Jew, but you're still a Jew. Conversely, you can be a saint and not be a Jew - one of many reasons why Jews don't limit a place in "the world to come" to Jew.

~17

Let me break this up and approach it one step at a time - largely because I'm kind of fuzzy right now, and because there is an awful lot here.

Monotheism in Judaism isn't a metaphysical category. Very largely, there isn't any metaphysics or "theology" in classical Judaism. (Please, let's not get off on Kabbalah right now.) Monotheism, in Judaism, is an ethical category. You can either have many Gods who have many different interests and hence advise or command men to do different things, or you can have one G-d whose advise or commands is the "end all and be all." Now, of course, you will have endless controversies and debates over what that advise "really is," but at least it is not one thing for Zeus and another thing for Hera and another thing for Pan and........... Even more important, at least in the classical world where religion and loyalty to the state were the same thing, and probably still today, it is not one thing for Jews and another thing for Arabs or Amerids or Asians or Africans. It just is.

>20 lawecon: there are also primary doctrines that are agreed to by "virtually" all Jews.

And likewise for "virtually" all Christians. There have been threads listing some of them. But again the question is whether falling short makes you a non-Christian, or simply a Christian who falls short.

>21 lawecon: being a Jew or not being a Jew is in no way equivalent to being a good charitable loving human being

Again one could say the same for Christianity. Perhaps it ought to, but we recognise the Church as being a Church of sinners.

the boundary conditions for Judaism are all negative

That's interesting, and might indicate a difference from Christianity, where I would say that things like belief in Jesus the Christ, the Trinity, the Nicene Creed or whatever are more positive.

~23

""the boundary conditions for Judaism are all negative""

"That's interesting, and might indicate a difference from Christianity, where I hat things like belief in Jesus the Christ, the Trinity, the Nicene Creed or whatever are more positive."

I think that one should keep in mind that Judaism prescribes behavior, not generally belief. (I would say "not belief" but then we'd then have a replay of the dispute with Tim and other regarding how one "covets.") Negative commandments prescribe certain behaviors. Positive commandments commend or command certain behaviors.

""being a Jew or not being a Jew is in no way equivalent to being a good charitable loving human being""

"Again one could say the same for Christianity. Perhaps it ought to, but we recognise the Church as being a Church of sinners."

Well, I'm pretty sure that committing a forbidden act is a sin. But I'm not so certain that failure to always engage in commanded or commended acts is a sin. But as one of your Priests once advised me "When we say that heaven and hell begin in this life, we mean that you become what you do." Of course, this was an institution founded by Cistercians, s ably some sort of pinko Liberal imitation Priest. ;-)

I wonder if perhaps we are trying to drive too big a distinction between the creedal and the ethical. With respect to Christianity, at least, there is a certain extent to which the two categories overlap and are mutually informing and reenforcing.

Or, to quote from the Gospel that was read today: "Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." (John 6:28-29)

~ 25

If that satisfies you, Nathaniel, then fine. But to me it sounds quite vacuous. What do you you do to do the work of G-d? You believe a certain way. Really?

You don't care for the sick, you don't feed the hungry, you don't teach the ignorant, you don't do anything but believe? How comforting.

John, I guess your life of good works has been for naught. All you had to do was believe.

>25 nathanielcampbell:

Oh, without a doubt. I'm a big fan of the view that Pauline faith is set against only the works of the Law, not against good works in general. To me that makes the most sense when we compare the way St. Paul uses the word to the way St. James does.

But at least since Martin Luther, that's not the only view that exists within Christianity.

>26 lawecon:: "You don't care for the sick, you don't feed the hungry, you don't teach the ignorant, you don't do anything but believe? How comforting.

John, I guess your life of good works has been for naught. All you had to do was believe."

We had managed for the past 2 dozen or so posts to have a conversation of mutual civility and understanding, until now, when you fly off the handle by completely misrepresenting my point.

Read again what I said: "With respect to Christianity, at least, there is a certain extent to which the two categories overlap and are mutually informing and reenforcing." I did not say, "All you have to do is believe", or any other such clap-trap. I did not say anything about neglecting the good works to which we are called, especially the act of mercy Jesus enjoins upon us (caring for the sick, feeding the hungry, visiting the imprisoned, etc.) If you are going to accuse me of such a rank dismissal, you need to have at least a shred of evidence that I made it.

As cj much more reasonably says in 27, the most likely reading of "works" in New Testament theology are good works that naturally flow from gracious faith. In other words, "believing in me {Christ}" triggers good works, because the grace of faith compels virtuous action.

I'd go even further than that. If we're going to take away a coherent picture of the relationship between faith and works from the New Testament as a whole--i.e. from St. James, St. Paul, AND the gospels--then I think we need to understand good works (NOT "works of the Law") as an integral component of what is meant when St. Paul talks about "faith" or "belief." Not doing so usually ends up turning faith into a so-called "crypto-work" in any case, and/or ends up conflating faith with grace. (We are not saved by faith!)

Paul's notion is not all that antithetical to works. Many people quote Eph. 2:8 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith —and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God

But Paul does not stop there. If we look at verse 10 of that same chapter, we find: For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Or we could look at Philippians 2:12-13: Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.

Posing it, as LE has, as an either/or is not consistent with the biblical message. For Christians, the work of God in them is a motivator for Good Works, the kind of works that LE rightly describes. Why that is important to Judaism is something he has yet to describe, but for Christians it is clearly a sign of the work of God.

Example: I had an elderly gentleman whose wife was a member of my congregation. When he was 96 we came to me and asked how to become a Christian. (He had previously been about at interested in becoming a Christian as Storm Raven is.) We talked, prayed, and he made a commitment to Christ, and was baptized.

This man came from old Tennessee stock, and he was a mild racist. (I realize that term may shock some of you. Basically he never said anything about race, but at the Home where he lived, he made it very clear that he did not want any of the African-Americans serving him food, or in his room.) After his conversion he sat at a table, and the server, an African-American woman, came and told him, "You don't want to sit here, because I am serving this table." He looked at his wife and said, "I am a Christian now. I guess I have to make some changes," and he stayed at the table.

I never told him that he had to change his attitudes on race in our discussion, mostly because it did not come up, and I was unaware of his racism at the time. But through the work of God in him, he figured it out.

Another late-in-life convert called me one day in tears. It seemed he had fathered and abandoned a child when he was a young man, and after his conversion, he wanted to find his son, and provide for him and the mother.

Now, doing those things--changing attitudes on race, and looking after your children--do not make one a Christian. Non-Christians do those things. Atheists do those things. However in both these cases, the commitment to Christ changed the attitudes. Because they were a Christian, they did them.

(I can hear the taunts already. "One has to become a Christian to do those things? What kind of person is that?" No, the point is, these people were changed. In this case it was their commitment to Christ that changed them.)

There is a symbiotic relationship in Christianity between works and grace, and to split them apart is to misunderstand the faith, in my reckoning.

>9 lawecon:
Sorry for the long delay - four days in west Texas with no connectivity (that's a good thing) and our internet service was non-functioning upon our return. Using a temporary wi-fi connection to catch up. May be Thursday before dependable connection.

Lawecon, you rarely offend me, and I'm rarely insulted. I simply point out when you are being offensive and/or insulting, since I've put in so much effort to try to sort out the useful stuff you hide amongst the insults. But, glad you find it amusing - would never have guessed from your posts.

BTW - your post 7, above, is great. I flagged it 'favorite' for reference. Just the kind of clarity and responsiveness (especially since it was without the fog of insults and hyperbole), that I'd been hoping to get from you throughout this thread.

Os.

>31 Ealhmund: Since I struggle with slow and intermittent internet connections much of the time (particularly in South Sudan, although my connection in Kenya is much better), I'm amused and a tad relieved to hear that you have the same problems in the USA!

Anglican stance on same-sex marriage 'morally contemptible', says gay cleric (Guardian)

Jeffrey John, the dean of St Albans, accuses Rowan Williams of hardening the Church of England's attitude to gay marriage

Guesthouse couple win right to appeal (Guardian)

Owners of a guesthouse who refused a gay couple a double-bedded room can take their case to the Supreme Court

>33 John5918:
Fascinating - the lower court ruled that the guesthouse owners were descriminating against the couple's orientation with their practice of married's only in a room with one bed because a same-sex couple cannot marry, which is due to descrimination by the gov't based on sexual orientation!

Os.

An interesting take on a current controversy in Hungary over what makes a Jew a Jew: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2012/08/who-determines-who-is-a-jew/

The gist:

As a rising star in Hungary’s far-right Jobbik Party, Csanad Szegedi was notorious for his incendiary comments on Jews: He accused them of “buying up” the country, railed about the “Jewishness” of the political elite and claimed Jews were desecrating national symbols.

Then came a revelation that knocked him off his perch as ultra-nationalist standard-bearer: Szegedi himself is a Jew.

Following weeks of Internet rumours, Szegedi acknowledged in June that his grandparents on his mother’s side were Jews — making him one too under Jewish law, even though he doesn’t practice the faith. His grandmother was an Auschwitz survivor and his grandfather a veteran of forced labour camps.

Since then, the 30-year-old has become a pariah in Jobbik and his political career is on the brink of collapse. He declined to be interviewed for this story.

The church's wars over sexuality are coming to an end (Guardian)

Conservative evangelicals in England hope for a return to a Nigerian or Ugandan view of homosexuality, but it won't happen...

at last, we have an important evangelical figure admitting that conservative evangelicals are repelled by gay people, that homosexuality is not a choice, and that God won't cure it, even if omnipotence means He could: "A small proportion of people, including Christians, find that they remain exclusively attracted to the same sex as they grow into mature adulthood. God has the power to change their orientation, but he hasn't promised to and that has not been my experience."...

"It is cruelly unhelpful to suppose that anyone has chosen their sexual orientation..."

Church of England bishops urged to have honest discussion about gay clergy (Guardian)

Christian gay rights network tells bishops reviewing church's position on civil partnerships to 'speak the truth'...

the Christian gay rights network Changing Attitude has written to every member of the episcopate urging them to "speak the truth" about the role played by homosexual people in the church...

the official position of the church on gay relationships was not reflected in the pastoral practice of many bishops who support and ordain gay clergy, including those in civil partnerships. He urged those with knowledge of same-sex relationships to come clean about their experiences.

"We need you to be honest about who you are, what you really believe about the place of LGB&T Anglicans in the church and what you actually do in your dioceses, remembering that your discussion will affect all of you,"

Gay Washington senator remains rooted in faith (NCR)

Seattle pastor to parishioners: 'Authority never supplants conscience' (NCR)

"it may appear from the outside that Catholics are governed more by authority than by conscience. ... The role of authority in Catholic conscience formation is, indeed, complex; but, authority never supplants conscience."

The "call of conscience" is "the Catholic categorical imperative,"

Why a Bible belt conservative spent a year pretending to be gay (Observer)

Timothy Kurek, a graduate of the evangelical Liberty University, decided to 'walk in the shoes' of a gay man and emerged with his faith strengthened...

Timothy Kurek grew up hating homosexuality. As a conservative Christian deep in America's Bible belt, he had been taught that being gay was an abomination before God...

Kurek's account of his year being gay is an emotional, honest and at times hilarious account of a journey that begins with him as a strait-laced yet questioning conservative, and ends up with him reaffirming his faith while also embracing the cause of gay equality...

In one gay bar, Kurek was stunned to discover gay Christians earnestly discussing their belief in creationism. "I found gay Christians more devout than me!"...

he felt his experience not only should show conservative Christians that gay people need equal rights and can be devout too, but that it can also reveal another side of evangelicals to the gay community.

"The vast majority of conservative Christians are not hateful bigots at all. It is just a vocal minority that gets noticed and attracts all the attention,"

That is a nice story, John, but as we all know it is off point and contains parts that you have said elsewhere you fervidly disagree with.

As to the former, an orthodox Christian doesn't hate gay people. He uniformly loves everyone unconditionally. He may, however, hate homosexual acts. He certainly doesn't think, as I do, that they are none of anyone else's business.

As to to the second point, you would never say that creationism is "more devout."

So why are you pointing us to this story?

>40 lawecon: why are you pointing us to this story?

Because I think it has some relevance to the topic "Christianity and homosexuality". I don't therefore see how it is "off point".

On-topic is off-topic! :)

I guess that, once again, we have a problem with definitions. "Homosexuality" to me connotes a condition - one is or is not homosexual. That is different from an act, which homosexual individuals may or may not engage in. In a given interpretation of Scriptures, what is forbidden and an abomination is the act, not the state or condition of being homosexual. No one, on such a strict reading, should hate the homosexual, just the act. (I believe that is a more or less direct implication or interpretation of what I just said above. But I guess both John and Tim missed what was said.)

I would think that you two would understand the difference between an act and a state of being because "unconditional love and forgiveness" are apparently, in your definition system, wholly remote from acts of actual love and forgiveness, but only have to do with the Holy State of the loving and forgiving Being.

>43 lawecon: I have not indicated any agreement or disagreement with the article I posted in >39 John5918:. But since it's about a fundamentalist Christian and his attitude towards homosexuality (an attitude and definition which you or I are entitled to disagree with), I still fail to see how it is off topic.

In a given interpretation of Scriptures, what is forbidden and an abomination is the act, not the state or condition of being homosexual. No one, on such a strict reading, should hate the homosexual, just the act.

That's more or less the Catholic teaching, yes, and I think Tim and I are probably both aware of it. Apparently that's the not the teaching that this particular fundamentalist Christian received from his church.

Well, if you realized all of that to start with, then why were you confused when I asked about the relevance of this article to this thread?

>45 lawecon: I was confused because I understood you to be saying that it was off-topic. As far as I can see it is very much on-topic for the title of this thread. But now I think I'm repeating myself.

>45 lawecon:: The thread is about Christianity (in whatever form) and homosexuality. The article is about Christianity and homosexuality.

Are you having trouble with your reading comprehension again?

Ten years before church gay weddings - Jeffrey John (BBC)

A prominent gay cleric says it could take 10 years for same-sex marriages to be held in church.

But the Dean of St Albans, the Very Reverend Jeffrey John says he is confident the church will eventually welcome gay couples at the altar...

"I believe that before long we'll see some kind of official services within the Church to bless gay partnerships, but not same-sex marriages.

"I think that will come but it could take another 10 years. That's how the church works, we're always two steps behind everyone else."

I hope this is considered to be on topic...

~47

For the third time now: This thread is about homosexuality. Homosexuality is a trait of certain human beings. Christians unconditionally love human beings, regardless of their traits. The article is about hatred of homosexuals. That cannot be a Christian doctrine. (See definition of Christian doctrine in the last sentence.) Thus the article cannot be about Christianity and homosexuality. It may be about some other cult and homosexuality, but there are many other cults, and this thread is not about them.

>49 lawecon:: I give up. Important theological distinctions about Christian love have been explained to you multiple times, and yet you stubbornly refuse to listen. Instead, you keep throwing out this straw-man version of Christian love that you've constructed so that you can beat it with your stick and declare us all stupid or degenerate.

I was willing to indulge you the first couple of times on the assumption that you didn't know any better. But after explanation after explanation, the refusal to learn is your own choice. Deal with it.

Weeeead. (Boston accent)

Totally off topic, but was it in the last incarnation of this thread that Tim, lawecon and I got off-topic and started discussing snakes and lizards? Well, this morning there was a dead Nile monitor lying by the side of the road in the middle of Juba town, a couple of hundred metres from my office. It wasn't a very big one, probably just shy of one metre.

Wow. Do they bite? I mean, when they're not dead.

Don't know, really. They kill chickens alright. My closest encounter with one was helping a Presbyterian missionary to chase and kill it after it had caused havoc in his chicken house. I've seen them bigger than two metres long along the banks of the Nile, but never approached one of the big ones.

Edited to add: Ah, Wikipedia tells me, "The Nile monitor has a very aggressive temperament with a powerful bite and a lashing tail and therefore is very dangerous".

~52

Nile monitors are really mean tempered, so you are probably fortunate that this one was dead.

>52 John5918:: "It wasn't a very big one, probably just shy of one metre."

Living the sheltered life of an academic theologian, I just shiver to think that "just shy of one meter" qualifies as "not very big."

I haven't looked for awhile, but I believe that Nile Monitors can reach at least twice that size. Their relatives, the Komoto Dragons, look like small dinosaurs and are very dangerous (as well as possibly venomous). These are not nice critters. Definitely nothing for an amateur without substantial herp behavioral training to play around with.......

>54 John5918:

I find it odd that you live near enormous, dangerous lizards, and yet you only know they're dangerous because you looked it up on Wikipedia.

PS: I'm glad I didn't change the Wikipedia page, causing you to try to pet them :)

>57 lawecon:

Komodo dragons aren't venomous, but their mouth is full of toxic bacteria.

>58 timspalding: There's a South African page circulating somewhere on the internet which purports to be questions which tourists have asked, and the increasingly frustrated humorous replies. One is, "Do you have poisonous snakes?", to which the reply is something like, "No, all our snakes can be handled safely and make wonderful pets".

I think here we just tend to assume that creatures are dangerous until proven otherwise! I killed a snake in my back garden recently. Later research suggested that it was almost certainly harmless, but with the gardener assuring me it was dangerous and my dogs playing around it, better safe than sorry. But generally we just tend to respect wildlife and give it a safe berth. Most creatures seem to leave you alone if you leave them alone, unless they're particularly big and hungry, or territorial, or whatever.

~59

There is some back and forth disagreement about that. The last report I saw, about a year ago, the dissectors thought they had located a poison gland.

~60

Do you have mambas in South Africa? If so, it could also be said that your snakes handle people, and chase them because they're so affectionate.

>62 lawecon: Green and black mambas, of which I believe the latter is the really nasty one.

Black mambas will get you your exercise if you irritate them (you get to run really fast). http://the20thhole.blogspot.com/2009/03/beware-of-black-mamba.html

As Douglas Adams said:

"So what do we do if we get bitten by something deadly, then?"
He blinked at me as if I was stupid.
"Well what do you think you do?" he said. "You die of course. That's what deadly means."

>65 jbbarret:
Ahh! 10 points extra credit for working a Douglas Adams quote into a thread on homosexuality and monitor lizards.

Os.

PS. You may use your points for credit in the nearest Nutri-Matic tea dispenser.

Gay couple win Berkshire B&B refusal case (BBC)

The law takes its course; no special exemptions for religious people.

What, what !! Weren't we just being told that the law was nothing but exceptions for religious people? News flash. Someone post this to the three other threads being argued on that question. (I personally have the principal proponent of the contrary view on ignore and have no intention of ever taking him off.)

I love the way you can conflate one person's post to a universal maxim.

United Kingdom law does not have force in the United States.

(Unless you'd care to rejoin the Empire?)

>67 John5918:: A quote from the B&B owners: "We believe a person should be free to act upon their sincere beliefs about marriage under their own roof without living in fear of the law. Equality laws have gone too far when they start to intrude into a family home."

Now, granting the caveat that Myopic gave us in 70, isn't it the liberals in the United States who are constantly harping on conservatives for using the power of government to impose their morality upon others?

Yet here, we have the government ordering a Christian couple to violate their moral consciences and rent a single room to a gay couple.

71: And U.S. law forces Christian nationalists and KKK sympathizers who run hotels and bed & breakfasts to violate their moral consciences and rent to black couples, Jewish couples, and mixed race couples.

Do you think we should abolish the laws regarding equal treatment for racial, ethnic, and religious groups? If not, how are those laws "imposing morality upon others" any different than a law requiring owners of public accommodations such as a bed and breakfast or a restaurant to serve gay individuals on an equal basis?

(a) They were not subject to the legislation as owners of a "family home", but as proprietors of a property marketed commercially for the accommodation of members of the public. They may still legally refuse to have gay friends to stay.

(b) Christian beliefs about marriage do not usually extend to the assumption that occupants of a double bed must necessarily always have sex in it, or to the supposition that having a sinner under one's roof is to condone the sin. Do these owners permit divorced and remarried couples to rent a double room? Or unmarried couples? Or couples in which one partner is a non-Christian? All of these are subject to judgement under the Scriptures.

>71 nathanielcampbell: we have the government ordering a Christian couple to violate their moral consciences

That's not how I see it. Inviting people into your private home is up to you and the law has nothing to say about it. But if you set up in business, offering a service, and you discriminate against certain groups of people, then you are breaking the law. If you don't like the law, don't open a business, but if you do open a business, obey the law. They are being disingenuous here when they refer to their "family home". When they declared it a B&B and decided to make money out of it, then it became a business.

I'm sure a lot of the cafe owners in the USA who had a "no blacks" policy in their business establishments during the bad old days would claim that they were following their "moral consciences", but it's not acceptable in our society.

>71 nathanielcampbell:-74: I actually agree with SR and Myopic (and John) on this one, but I thought I would stir up the kettle a little bit with some provocative thinking on the role of government in regulating society.

It just seems that we can be disingenuous at times with the rhetoric. If we agree with a particular regulation, then it is a legitimate use of government to ensure moral values like fairness and equality; but if we disagree with a regulation, then it is an illegitimate "imposition of morality" by the government.

In other news, it looks like DOMA's days are numbered.

76. I hope so.

~75

This was an issue, in 1964. In fact, it was probably the reason that Barry Goldwater lost the presidential election that year. But the issue was not argued on religious grounds, and had you pitched it to Barry that way he would have voted the other way.

I'm not sure what's interesting here. Most agree that hotel chains should not be discriminating against gay couples, and that the government should not compel you to invite gay people to your Super Bowl Sunday party. Bed and Breakfasts are definitional—are they more home or more business? Meh.

>76 StormRaven: By a fortuitous chance, DOMA appeared in today's Grauniad, so now I know what you're talking about.

There was also this little snippet:

3.4% of US adults identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender

That's actually rather less than I would have expected, although the survey does say "that its findings did not account for LGBT people who, for whatever reason, did not want to acknowledge their sexual orientation in the interviews".

Edited to add: The extreme right wing response to the British B&B saga:

BNP leader Nick Griffin posts address of B&B case gay couple online

Griffin uses Twitter to say 'A British Justice team will come ... & give you a bit of drama ... Say No to heterophobia!'

Police in Cambridgeshire have said they are investigating complaints made after the leader of the far-right British National party, Nick Griffin, posted the address of a gay couple on the internet and appeared to urge his supporters to demonstrate outside their home.

>80 John5918:: "That's actually rather less than I would have expected"

I don't have the source at hand, but repeated studies have shown that pretty much everybody overestimates the percentage of the population that is LGBTQ, mainly because that minority has gotten so much press attention over the last decade or so. The best sociological studies appear to peg it at 3-6% of the population.

That's actually rather less than I would have expected

To put that number in perspective, about 2.2% of the U.S. population is Jewish. About 4.8% of the population is Asian, 0.9% Native American.

There's a lot of noise around the "one in ten" notion, which ultimately traces back to Kinsey and to surveys of incarcerated prisoners. The real number may well be higher than 3-6, but it's unlikely to be 10%. Either way, as SR points out, those are percents that would put gay rights on the "radar" even if it wasn't such a hot issue now.

Knights of Columbus key contributor against same-sex marriage (NCR)

The Knights of Columbus, the U.S. Catholic fraternal organization known for its wide-ranging charitable work and parish fish fries, has been a significant contributor to political efforts opposing same-sex marriage across the country, according to a study commissioned by a coalition of Catholic groups that support same-sex marriage.

Fish fries?

> 84 Now some thing I can comment on fish fries, I love them. By your question do you not have fish fries in Africa? I espically love them with steak fries with tarter sauce on them.

>85 baron770: Well, we have fried fish, especially Nile perch and tilapia, which I love, but I hadn't come across the term "fish fry".

>80 John5918: A comment on Nick Griffin's stance in the Grauniad includes:

a quite reasonable argument against prejudice is crudely reversed, and then run with, to occasionally hilarious, though, more frequently, desperately boring effect. Thus with homophobia, it's: "You're criticising me for what I believe, so that makes you (ta-da!) heterophobic!" Similarly, racism: "Yeah, well, you're hostile to my views, so that makes you (ta-da!) racist to white people." It's tiring, it's pathetic

Back to the reptilian off-topic strand - I've just cruised past a crocodile basking itself on a rock in the middle of the Nile where it flows past Juba. Not a huge one, a couple of metres or so long.

>86 John5918:
A fish fry is simply when you get together and fry up a bunch of fish and eat it with other foods. Similar events with different food would be a shrimp boil, a crawfish boil, and a BBQ (bar-b-que). I'm not sure there are any vegetarian equaivalents that have made it into the American English lexicon.

Os.

edited to clarify that you then eat the food.

>89 Ealhmund:
If you know what a "fish fry" you must have spent time around the Great Lakes ? Fish fries are popular in Wisconsin and other states around the Lakes. The best fish fry can be found up north in a little bar off the beaten path.

Down here we have low-country boils.

>91 RidgewayGirl:
Sounds painful.

Baltimore pastor speaks his mind in homily on same-sex marriage (NCR)

The St. Vincent parishioners gave Lawrence a standing ovation.

$1,000 is, what, three seconds of air-time?

I'm not sure that's surprising in any way. Is it note-worthy?

No. Minnesota's one to watch, however. It's apparently razor-close. That probably means same-sex marriage will lose, as polls tend to underestimate the strength of its foes. (Many people don't like to tell a random pollster that they don't support gay marriage.) I suspect Maine's will pass, though.

95: It depends on where you are buying air time, and in what medium.

~95

There you go. Bishop gives $1000 of Church's money to promote Satan. Tim's response: "Well, so what, that is only three seconds of air-time !!" What is it I was saying about hypocrisy and double-standards? Nothing strong enough, apparently.

~96

Not at all, just another example of Christian unconditional love in action.

>99 lawecon:

No, I think it's bad. I'm just surprised at the amount. It's rather a token amount to give. I'd like to hear the story behind it.

US university accused of 'Sovietisation' of Catholic intellectual life (Guardian)

University of San Diego rescinded visiting fellow invitation to liberal theologian who has argued case for same-sex marriage

University withdraws theologian's invitation after pressure from financial contributors (NCR)

Lesbian answers bishop's call for dialogue on gay marriage (NCR)

Storm over Stonewall's Cardinal Keith O'Brien 'bigot' award (BBC)

A row has broken out after the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland was named Bigot of the Year by gay rights charity Stonewall.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien's stance on gay marriage was singled out at Stonewall's annual awards in London.

~101

Yes, such a token amount. "But Cardinal, it was just one little boy. Such a token amount."

What an ass.

>103 lawecon:

You mistake me, Lawecon, as well as insult me. I not only don't think the Catholic church should be opposing gay marriage, I volunteer for the organizations you think I'm against!

>102 John5918:

This is not a new story. The idea is about in conservative Catholic circles that Catholic universities should not invite, host or honor speakers who don't toe the line on everything. The Newman Center erupts in a new fury of this sort every week.

A row has broken out after the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland was named Bigot of the Year by gay rights charity Stonewall.

Christians always seem shocked when they are called out for their bigotry. Reading the article it seems that the Cardinal's award was well-deserved, and that the defense offered for him is more or less "he's just being Christian so he can't be a bigot".

~104

Well, Tim, I seem to be having the same problem you have with Jews and Judaism. You KNOW, for instance, that Jews who do or don't do certain things aren't "real Jews" or at least devout followers of Judaism. Presumably you got that information off the net or from dealing with certain Jews during your life.

During my life I have obtained information about Catholics and Catholicism from the same types of sources. What I learned from those sources was that a major distinguishing mark of Catholicism was that Holy Mother Church, not the conscience of each Bible Believing member of the Church reading Scriptures according to his own understanding, was the source of doctrine and moral authority. When I was in my teens Catholics couldn't even own a Bible without the prior permission of their Parish Priest.

So when you tell me that you "don't agree" with what is apparently an important public policy position of The Church, and that you volunteer for organizations opposing that policy, I, on the same sort of basis that you make a judgment about Jews, just conclude that you are a bad Catholic. Indeed, I think that I'm being much more accurate than you, since anyone who is not deaf, dumb and blind knows that there are significantly different sects or denominations of Jews with different practices and beliefs, but their is only one Holy Roman Catholic Church.

So enjoy the judgment of your views and affiliations on the same informed basis that you make your judgments.

>102 John5918:: "Cardinal Keith O'Brien's stance on gay marriage was singled out at Stonewall's annual awards in London."

However much I may disagree with the Cardinal on whether secular governments should offer the legal rights of marriage to gay couples, I think that Stonewall has made the "Soviet" move here of branding legitimate disagreements about policy as "bigotry". That's a problem. To think that anybody who disagrees with you is automatically a "bigot" is a dangerous and illiberal mindest.

108: The Cardinal did a little more than just disagree on policy. He likened same-sex marriage to relegalising slavery, said it was an "aberration" and a "grotesque subversion" of human rights, and claimed it might clear the way for polygamous marriages and would cause "further degeneration of society into immorality".

>107 lawecon: a major distinguishing mark of Catholicism was that Holy Mother Church, not the conscience of each Bible Believing member of the Church reading Scriptures according to his own understanding, was the source of doctrine and moral authority

I think your understanding of Catholicism is a little dated.

Over the Pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism.

Joseph Ratzinger (aka Pope Benedict XVI) in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II ,Vol. V., pg. 134 (Ed) Herbert Vorgrimler, New York, Herder and Herder, 1967.

>106 StormRaven: Might be worth noting this part of the article:

Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson... who is gay, has been among those giving cross-party support to a same-sex marriage bill which is being brought forward by the Scottish government... added: "But where I disagree with Stonewall in these awards is the need to call people names like 'bigot'. It is simply wrong. The case for equality is far better made by demonstrating the sort of generosity, tolerance and love we would wish to see more of in this world."

111: And despite Davidson disagreeing with Stonewall, they still awarded her their highest honor, putting the lie to nathanielcampbell's assertion that they made the "Soviet" move.

They aren't merely branding their critics bigots. They are pointing out that actual bigots are bigots while simply disagreeing with others who don't agree with them who are not bigots.

>111 John5918:: "The case for equality is far better made by demonstrating the sort of generosity, tolerance and love we would wish to see more of in this world."

But as we just saw in another thread, SR doesn't see any point in generosity, tolerance, and love. For him, those are empty and often hypocritical gestures.

Why should you try for compassion when it's so much easier to seethe with hateful intolerance against people you don't like?

~110

Well, you may be right. It use to be, for instance, that Holy Mother Church claimed she was the Mother Church since her doctrines were from the early days of Christianity and her priesthood had unique authority by apostolic succession. These days, one can't keep up with the changes, or the alleged changes, in the doctrines, and no one believes that the Apostles buggered little boys - maybe the Greek Fathers, but not the Apostles.

her priesthood had unique authority by apostolic succession

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+apostolic+succession%3F

Some one here is the master of non sequitars.

I will accept the proposition that the Catholic Church is bigoted against gay to the extend we can also say that Liberals are bigoted against rednecks, atheists are bigoted against fundamentalists, and All Intelligent Sports Fans are bigoted against the New York Yankees.

To say that a practice of a given group runs counter to the beliefs of that group is not as much bigotry as it is insistence on the certitude of one's beliefs. Not every certitude is bad (I don't think Storm Raven would say that he SHOULD tolerate Christian beliefs and actions) but the basic problem with it is that it leads to a closed world system. (For example people who KNOW what other people think, even though they have never stated that is one of their beliefs.

~117

Yes, someone is the master of non-sequiturss

~115

Second entry on the Google search you wanted me to perform, but which you apparently did not perform yourself:

"Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops). "

from Catholic Answers http://www.catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession from the authorization of this entry:

"NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004"

New Statesman:
"Stonewall's award may be offensive but it offends all of the people who most urgently need offending."

>119 lawecon:

You wrote "her priesthood had unique authority by apostolic succession." My point was that you fail to distinguish between the priesthood and the bishops. Priests are not part of apostolic succession--they aren't conceived of as successors of the apostles. The distinction is rather basic, easily Googled, and even now not apparent to you.

To say that a practice of a given group runs counter to the beliefs of that group is not as much bigotry as it is insistence on the certitude of one's beliefs.

You should let the KKK and the Aryan Nation know that they are not bigoted, but merely insisting on the certitude of their beliefs.

Or maybe you should reconsider your argument.

~121

The term "Priesthood," Tim, usually refers to clergy as opposed to laity. In your church the most important (for some purposes) members of the clergy may be the Bishops (albeit, strangely the do not elect the Pope), but it is rather obvious that this was not true at the time of the Apostles or in most other churches these days. There simply were not and are not any bishops. So it may, indeed, be the claim of your church that only bishops are the successors to the apostles, but, if so, there apparently was an historical gap between the death of the last apostle and the existence of the first bishop.

Once again, you are so blinded by your own parochialism that you can't even figure out what the other guy is saying. (But maybe you can now tell us again how familiar Jesus was with the "Jewish Bible.")

>123 lawecon:

Forgive me. When you said "priesthood" I thought you meant "priesthood." I forgot to apply the usual nonsense filter, in reality a lens cap.

As for the Jewish Bible, I'm sorry that so very many secondary sources, and many convincing primary ones, think you're wrong—that, indeed, there was a fair degree of consensus on canonicity in the first century—and that your response to this is to attack my religion as if that covered for having a quirky, minority view on a scholarly question.

~124

As to your second paragraph: It is good to see that, having been confronted with direct evidence of the wrongness of one of your "scholarly" views, and having no evidence of your own, your position hasn't changed one iota. It is particularly amusing when you get like this (as you typically do) in dealing with topics on which you apparently have no knowledge at all - like the history of Judaism and the development and meaning of the Jewish Canon.

As to your first paragraph and last line of your second paragraph, I suggest you get a dictionary and any thorough history of Christianity, rather than relying solely on the propaganda of your Church and the technical language that only applies in the context of your Church faithful. You will then have a better grasp on how to speak English and the obvious falsity of some of your Church's doctrines. (However, to say that a doctrine is historically false is not to say that said doctrine doesn't exist, as you did before you, once again, shifting your position.)

yawn

>125 lawecon:

I'm sorry you imagine that I have seen some evidence I have not. It's certainly odd that you would decide that, for example, Josephus' tally of the books of the Bible was worthless because he "wasn't a good Jew." I don't think it's odd that you would dismiss mainstream Biblical scholarship. That's par for the course.

As to your first paragraph and last line of your second paragraph, I suggest you get a dictionary and any thorough history of Christianity, rather than relying solely on the propaganda of your Church and the technical language that only applies in the context of your Church faithful.

The distinction between priest and bishop is not some weird Catholic thing. It's fundamental to historical Christianity of all stripes—Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox of both Nestorian and Monophysite varieties, and even Marcionism!—from a least the second century until the Reformation. After the reformation it continued to be fundamental to the majority of Christians, who aren't Protestant, and to a sizeable number, often a majority, after that. That it is fundamental to all Christians for 3/4 of Christian history and to probably 75% of them in the last quarter. That would regard this distinction as "propaganda" is very odd. When you look to these these "thorough histories of Christianity," did you get them from a door-step Jehovah's Witness?

Unusually, I think I'm with lawecon on this one.

It used to be, for instance, that Holy Mother Church claimed she was the Mother Church since her doctrines were from the early days of Christianity and her priesthood had unique authority by apostolic succession.

This is not seriously misleading (especially to an informed audience), but just simplified by abbreviation. The Catholic priesthood (sic) does surely claim to derive unique authority (e.g. to administer the sacraments) by virtue of the apostolic succession: priestly ordination can only be carried out by a bishop in that succession. (Hence the obsession with apostolic succession among some American Episcopalians, as well as various splinter groups of Continuing Anglicans and would-be Western Orthodox.) Just pretend that he wrote "hierarchy" instead of "priesthood".

But criticizing a church for fossilized conservatism, and then sniping at it for admitting any change, does seem simply a form of bile excretion.

~127

Tim, I'm not going to bother rehashing your misunderstanding of "Bible" with you. I did it once. I quoted a contemporary scholarly work on the topic of the use of the term "bible" to refer to the core scriptures of late Second Temple Judaism. You never quoted any authority for your absurd position. But apparently you've forgotten all of that now, and I'm not going to bother to look it up for you.

Once again, I said nothing about "the distinction between a Priest and a Bishop." I did say;

(1) Catholics (and Mormons) make the distinctive claim that their clergy are the direct successors of the Apostles according to some weird understanding of descent, and

(2) To the extent that this claim is limited to Bishops it must be historically false since there were no Bishops in Christian communities at the time of the death of the last of the Apostles, and certainly not during the lives of most of them.

Work on those memory and reading skills, won't you?

~128

"But criticizing a church for fossilized conservatism, and then sniping at it for admitting any change, does seem simply a form of bile excretion."

I don't know where this came from, but it is a total misreading of what has gone on in this thread. What has gone on is that Tim is, once again, telling us out of one side of his mouth what a knowledgeable and devout Catholic he is and telling us out of the other side of his mouth how he supports organizations that work against announced doctrines of the Catholic hierarchy. (In this case the Bishopric of which he then says are the successors to the Apostles.)

My observation was and is that it is amazing to me that one can be so two faced. It use to be, as I said, that Catholics towed the party line and were proud of that fact. Now it seems that self-described "good Catholics" affirm only those doctrines that are sufficient abstract that they have no practical effect and trumpet their disobedience of Holy Mother Church on socially unpopular doctrines. I, of course, have no problems with Catholics that think that they are individualistic Protestants, that is their problem, not mine. But it doesn't seem all that Catholic, does it?

Being knowledgeable about something—especially in a context of extreme ignorance—is not related to being devout. I doubt you'll find that I claim to be "devout," whatever that means. Rather, as I reconstruct it, I make factual claims about something which has, in fact, no direct relationship whatsoever to my belief or non-belief, and you disagree with it with nasty messages about my Catholicism and, now, dark accusations about my devotion. This tactic strikes me as bigoted and insecure. You will notice that, while i have often attacked your facts, I have never attacked your beliefs. As an act of ordinary niceness, I think you ought to do so too.

Since you asked, however, here's a brief statement on my justification for the issue.

Now, it is incontrovertible that the weight of direct church teaching is that homosexual acts are a sin by definition, and to the extent that the issue is discussed directly—rather than assumed—that the sacrament of marriage is necessarily between a man and woman. A case could, I think, be made that this sort of argument bears the same relationship to the fundamentals of Christian faith that Catholic pro-slavery arguments once made. Right or not, I suspect this is how it will play out over the long term. In the case of slavery, the church eventually came to realize that slavery was a violation of the most basic injunctions and principles (eg., to love your neighbors, to treat others with dignity, etc.), and that pro-slavery sentiment in the New Testament did not have the same basic relationship to that core. Much the same could be said of usury, the appropriate attitude toward Jews, or, to take a simpler example, to Paul's various statements about appropriate dress. The church often makes progress—develops—by distinguishing between lower-case and upper-case tradition, between culture and the constants of the faith.

Now, do I disagree with the church on this? Well, yes and no. I take considerable refuge in the fact that this isn't my job to decide, nor does it impact me in any significant way. I do not protest in favor of the Catholic church marrying gay people and I have no plans to ask my priest to marry me to a man. Indeed, I am rather against those who do such, as I recognize that, if any Catholic diocese were to do this, it would split the church, which a Catholic really must believe is a sin far more consequential than anything sexual. If the church is to ever allow same-sex marriage, the decision could not be made without a church council. I won't be attending and, well, that's the way it should be! Indeed, I'll probably be dead long before it.

Fortunately, the situation with same-sex marriage laws in Maine is not so fundamental, but based on a secondary issue--whether the church may appropriately compel non-Catholics to follow Catholic teaching. Here there is a much larger, albeit mostly post Vatican-II, body of thinking. I won't turn into a quote machine, but only reference the obvious fact that the church in the US at least is not pushing to criminalize homosexual sex, premarital sex, or masturbation, or to prevent the sale of condoms.(1) Nor—to get closer to the issue—does the church advocate for laws against divorce, or for the law to prohibit divorce and remarriage with a living ex-spouse which, like "gay marriage," simply doesn't exist as far as the church is concerned. The church has come to accept that a decent respect for conscience and the limits of its own discipline means allowing Protestants to divorce. Indeed, the church does not even prohibit its own members from divorcing in law—priests have been known to tell their shocked parishioners to do so, to satisfy the claims of justice, preserve their parental rights, etc.!(2) It merely believes civil law does nothing essentially and can, for the church purposes, be treated as irrelevant. The question is: Must same-sex marriage be different?

On this, despite official statements, I think a fair reading of the central church teachings here is supportive, even without Nathaniel's entirely true bit about individual conscience. Further, because it doesn't touch the issue of sacred marriage for Catholics, this is basically a question of the church supporting one side in a dispute. (Even if the church DID advocate against a divorce law—as it's done in various countries—there is no question whatsoever that "toeing the line" here(3) is not a required part of Catholic belief.) In such cases, even if they're right, we're not in the sphere of assent to core doctrines, but of the more ordinary disagreement with your bishop on non-core issues. While this may go against your beliefs about Catholics, that's not at all rare.

I hope that explains my case. With more time I could perhaps have said it better. Given the general hostile nature of your comments, it goes without saying it's largely not for your reading anyway, but for others who may be curious what the thinking looks like.

---

1. The institutional church in the US is largely unified in believing that, while condoms may be sold, church institutions should not be legally compelled to provide them to its employees for free.
2. Every year our priest practically shouts at us to in no way listen to those who imagine that the Catholic prohibition on divorce, or its strong bias toward forgiveness, says you should stay with an abusive, alcoholic or otherwise unfit spouse—no, you should "get out of there!" and legal divorce is often the best next step.
3. Not "tow." The metaphor is a footrace, not a tractor-pull.

>130 lawecon: lawecon, you appear to have overlooked my quote from Ratzinger in >110 John5918:. Is he one of those Catholics who "trumpet their disobedience of Holy Mother Church on socially unpopular doctrines" and "think that they are individualistic Protestants"?

>131 timspalding: Thanks, Tim. I think you've put that pretty well.

Feel free to add your thoughts. I would have written it both better and shorter with more time :)

Catholics (and Mormons) make the distinctive claim that their clergy are the direct successors of the Apostles according to some weird understanding of descent

It's not that weird: the Zen Buddhist tradition of dharma transmission is rather similar.

Maryland Catholics celebrate passage of same-sex marriage referendum (NCR)

I think the following editorial from NCR is interesting in the light of comments in this thread about what Catholics are "supposed to believe".

'Intrinsically evil' canard is a deception

From the linked article: "Which action is more moral? Voting for a candidate of a party that has a clear anti-abortion plank but has never effectively acted on that plank, or voting for a candidate whose party's social policies have a proven track record of reducing abortions?"

Nice one.

Regarding the referendum:

Pastoral Letter from the (Episcopal) Bishop of Maryland (October 2012)

California's 'ex-gay therapy' legal fight signals homophobes' retreat (Guardian)

Jim Daly, relatively new head of the far right (from where I sit)/evangelical group "Focus on the Family" here in the US, has been proposing a new focus for the group (see article, here , which sounds like a bit of resignation that same-sex marriage is likely inevitable in the US. He is also talking about more cooperation with the Democratic party leaders and reducing/eliminating the strong connection to the Republican Party.

In another article, which I can't seem to find today, he said (and I'm paraphrasing from memory) they need to change their focus more towards immigration, poverty, orphans, and foster care. Thus getting more in line with Christ's focus as related in the Gospels. Energy spent on concern for the stanger, the poor, widows, orphans - sounds pretty much on target to me.

Needless to say, he's catching a lot of flak from some precincts.

Os.

>138 Ealhmund:
"He is also talking about more cooperation with the Democratic party leaders and reducing/eliminating the strong connection to the Republican Party. "

My guess ? He won't get a whole lot of cooperation from Democrat's. Despite the rhetoric from the Right as to how independant they themselves are, they have a group mentality that is easily swayed into backing such "groups" as "Focus on the Family". Democrats are more independant in their thought processes, not that they do not care for the poor and such, just not as easily organized into "groups" with titles. Fine if Focus on the Family is going to make it's presence known for those who need help but why do they need the government ? If you are not trying to make laws to benefit your belief, I would think you could spend your time more wisely than mucking about in the government.
WOW...that was a Republican thought process......but really, what is this aliening with the Right or the Left when it comes to good works...just do it. Unless you have an agenda it makes no sense..... the government should not be involved in a religious agenda. Democrats will see this in no time. It is only those who want less government who are willing to allow outside religious groups to become inbedded in the political process.

If two young men, "Joe" and "Dave" came to your place of worship and asked if they could make a covenant proclaiming their undying love for each other, would you let them do so?

Shouldn't that be "Jon" and "Dave"?

Why not ? What reasons would I have to deny them ? How would their covenant affect me ? Better yet , what do I stand to gain if I deny them? I fail to understand how the actions of "Joe" and "Dave" affect me.. other than in the sense of a more tolerant society . No different than when divorce became acceptable. In fact the acceptability of divorce may affect me far more than if "Joe" and "Dave" form a covenant. More children affected by divorce.

>140 quicksiva:
No problem here. How would I know if Bill and Harvey haven't already made such a covenant in my place of worship, but simply chose to keep it private? Whether or not any of us are living a righteous life before God, we are more likely to continue on (or find) the path by remaining connected with a community committed to growing in love of God and His children.

Os.