Steps toward civil discourse in this sub-forum

[Texas Lynn]

Dogmatic pronouncements like this are pretty far from civil.

Are you sure about that? No one was named.

Let's be blunt, Lynn--you are the source of a lot of incivility. I actually agree with you on a lot of substantive matters (your flawed hermeneutic of the entire OT notwithstanding). But your dogmatic pronouncements, your snide insults, and your barely disguised contempt contribute nothing to the civility of the discourse here.

Everybody has an opinion. I could say the same about some of your posts. I've seen you tear some of the silly naifs new ones for no other reason than to bring 'em down a peg.

How about re-reading post #1 and seeing what you think about methodologies for civility I have suggested?

My pronouncements are no more 'dogmatic' than those interpreting obscure Biblical texts to harm families of which they do not approve and a lot less so.

As for "barely disgusised contempt" I think there must a required course on that in law school and you must've gotten an A.

No doubt I need to do better, and you, and all of us, but this about the way to do that. Some want the rules enforced so one side has the upper hand. I just want a level playing field.

BTW, see Engels, Fredrich, The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and The State.

 

[Texas Lynn]

A couple of random thoughts on civility here:

1. I think we can assume everybody is familiar with the passages from Leviticus and Romans. There is really no need to trot them out in every thread.

2. I think it is a mistake to equate "homosexuality" with "gay sex." More specifically, arguments based on "teh butt secks is teh nasty" don't really go anywhere useful.

3. I think it is also a mistake to assume people who believe gay sex to be a sin also want to do harm to homosexual people.

4. More generally, put away the broad brushes. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they are re-enacting scenes from "Cruising" every night. Just because someone is an evangelical Christian does not mean their religious experience is, in the words of Real Live Preacher, "a domineering father and endless hours of religious abuse punctuated with occasional beatings."

5. Even more generally, assume good faith on the part of all participants until you have good reason to believe otherwise. Gay people are not necessarily trying to "justify their sin;" straight people are not necessarily trying to "oppress."

I can agree with all of this except #3 if it is accompannied by voting on that basis, including voting in church bodies where voting takes place like our United Methodist annual and General Conferences.

I have a very hard time with that due to what I know of childhood abuse of a formerly intimate partner at the hands of a preacher-father and an adulthood punctuated by predatory activities and self-hatred. At some point self-righteousness is no longer a valid excuse for reprehensible behavior. Each and every action has a reaction. Buying clothes made in sweatshops does not cause Malaysian children to be chained to sewing machines but it does directly link to that reality. This is not my original argument. The evangelist Tony Campolo noted words from pulpits are directly responsible for hate crimes and he confirmed that in an interview with a death row inmate in 20 Hot Potatoes Christians are Afraid to Touch. Saying such things as that LGBTs are incapable of loving is not merely an innocuous opinion like saying the Yankees are great and the Red Sox suck. It is not merely thoughtless and ignorant. It is not well-meaning and misunderstood. The problem is it is understood all too well, but some object to that Truth to Power being spoken.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Nah, it is one side demanding the other follow their rules.

Do you really think so? Which and why?

I would think it would be about equal liability to rules if we are going to have rules with such things as civility as a goal.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear *Starlight*
If you are interested in what the Bible says about slavery one assumes you are interested in what the Bible says about same-sex unions.

Well, I'm more interested in what facts say.

Not sure what you are saying here, are you suggesting the Bible isn’t fact?

First, the evidence that the Bible isn't always right... [/quote] I didn’t ask you that. I asked you if you have any evidence to countenance same-sex sex, that you don’t believe the Bible is always right suggests any evidence you put forward isnt necessarily right anyway. But as you make this point my question to you how do you know what is right in the Bible and what isnt? I mean how would you know your views are in line with God’s and the Bible writers aren’t.

That makes no logical sense.

It makes total logical sense, all the main Christian churches and denominations recognise and state that same-sex unions are wrong because of the Biblical scriptures. I have already demonstrated this before.

Everything in the Bible has a specific context, based on the culture, the reasons why it was written, the specific audience it was written for, personal opinions of the person who wrote it... and these things can't be determined beyond any doubt. That's why there are different ways to understand the Bible.

No this is why people know that same-sex unions are error because people can see the Bible is clear enough.

My point is that some people disagree with you. What's your point?

My point is that some who disagree, disagree with the Bible and millions of others, not just me.

That's weird... are you saying that the Bible is correct because there are other people who understand it in the same way as you do and believe what it says? including Dianetics (from Scientology). So either you believe that ALL religious books are equally correct, or your argument fails.

On the contrary, yes the Bible is correct and there are many on this forum as well who say so, so I don’t see why you are implying what I am saying is somehow just my idea. I cant see why you find this difficult to understand. I don’t believe the Quran is from God, Muslims do, but Christians believe the Bible is the testimony and word of God.

Umm... "the Bible is a trustworthy and reliable standard in matters of faith and conduct" doesn't mean "the Bible is absolutely correct about everything it says".

Well not to you, but to those who believe it does.

 

[David Brider]

It makes total logical sense, all the main Christian churches and denominations recognise and state that same-sex unions are wrong because of the Biblical scriptures.

Except for all the ones that don't.

David.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear David Brider,

Except for all the ones that don't.

There arent any main ones that dont, I have given the statements of faith of the Roman, Anglican, Evangelical Alliance, who had you got in mind? Please demonstrate a major denomination/ministry that endorses same-sex unions by way of showing us their statements.

 

[David Brider]

Dear David Brider,
There arent any main ones that dont, I have given the statements of faith of the Roman, Anglican, Evangelical Alliance, who had you got in mind? Please demonstrate a major denomination/ministry that endorses same-sex unions by way of showing us their statements.

Follow the link.

David.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear David Brider,
None of these are major organisations, and the Anglican Communion is not divided on it as the Wiki site incorrectly says, Lambeth 1.10 is what the Anglican Communion believes despite a host of rebelious people who are almost all in the west and also in a minority.

 

[*Starlight*]

Not sure what you are saying here, are you suggesting the Bible isn’t fact?

Well, what I'm saying is that the Bible contains facts but also contains mistakes.

I didn’t ask you that. I asked you if you have any evidence to countenance same-sex sex,

Homosexual relationships, just like heterosexual relationships, aren't only about sex. They are about the commitment between two people to be together and love each other. Of course sex can be a part of their relationship

that you don’t believe the Bible is always right suggests any evidence you put forward isnt necessarily right anyway. But as you make this point my question to you how do you know what is right in the Bible and what isnt? I mean how would you know your views are in line with God’s and the Bible writers aren’t.

I compare what I read with reality, without blindly believing in everything.

It makes total logical sense,

It doesn't make logical sense, and I explained why. Will you give any counterarguments to my explanation, instead of just saying "no, you're wrong"?

all the main Christian churches and denominations recognise and state that same-sex unions are wrong because of the Biblical scriptures. I have already demonstrated this before.

As you've just been shown a few posts before, not all.

No this is why people know that same-sex unions are error because people can see the Bible is clear enough.

Some people believe that same-sex unions are wrong, and some don't... that doesn't prove anything.

My point is that some who disagree, disagree with the Bible and millions of others, not just me.

Understanding the Bible differently isn't disagreeing with the Bible, but only with your interpretation of it. As for some people disagreeing with millions of others... so what? The history is full of people who disagreed with millions of others and it eventually turned out that they were correct and the millions were wrong.

On the contrary, yes the Bible is correct

That's your belief, not a verified fact

and there are many on this forum as well who say so,

And that makes you right?

so I don’t see why you are implying what I am saying is somehow just my idea.

You said that the Bible is true because many people believe it's true. The same argument can be used to support any other religious text.

I cant see why you find this difficult to understand. I don’t believe the Quran is from God, Muslims do, but Christians believe the Bible is the testimony and word of God.

Some Christians do, but not all.

Well not to you, but to those who believe it does.

Well, of course the Bible seems absolutely correct to those people who believe it's absolutely correct, otherwise they wouldn't believe that. But what are you trying to prove here?

 

[David Brider]

Dear David Brider,
None of these are major organisations...

Really? The United Church of Canada? The Church of Sweden? Lutheran and Reformed Churches in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Austria, and Poland? Quakers? Metropolitan Community Churches? The Episcopal and Presbyterian churches in the USA? If you don't believe that these denominations count as "major", then I'd love to know what you mean by the word.

...and the Anglican Communion is not divided on it as the Wiki site incorrectly says, Lambeth 1.10 is what the Anglican Communion believes despite a host of rebelious people who are almost all in the west and also in a minority.

The fact that there are any people or churches within the Anglican Communion who dissent from the party line means that the Communion is divided - irrespective of where they are or whether they're a minority within Anglicanism, they're nevertheless there.

David.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear *Starlight*

Well, what I'm saying is that the Bible contains facts but also contains mistakes.

Still not sure what you are saying, so presumably you consider all the passages I cited aren’t fact but fiction?

Homosexual relationships, just like heterosexual relationships, aren't only about sex.

Again I didn't ask you that, I asked you if you have any evidence to countenance same-sex sex.

They are about the commitment between two people to be together and love each other. Of course sex can be a part of their relationship

And people can have commited relationships without sex, which is why I asked you if you have any evidence to countenance same-sex sex.

I compare what I read with reality, without blindly believing in everything.

But regardless of blindly beliefor well thought out, how would you know your views are in line with God’s and the Bible writers aren’t.

It doesn't make logical sense, and I explained why. Will you give any counterarguments to my explanation, instead of just saying "no, you're wrong"?

I explained why, there are millions who don’t dispute the Biblical passages that exclude and condemn same-sex sex, millions of people have exactly the same understanding of what the passages say. It was you who suggested some people don’t understand the Bible in the same way.

As you've just been shown a few posts before, not all.

As you’ve just been shown all major ones do.

Some people believe that same-sex unions are wrong, and some don't... that doesn't prove anything.

Of course it doesn’t it, depends on what they believe is the truth, hence why I have mentioned and cited the Bible.

Understanding the Bible differently isn't disagreeing with the Bible, but only with your interpretation of it.

Believing Biblical passages mean the opposite of what they says isnt understanding the Bible, its disbelieving the Bible. Having different interpretations and understanding of the Bible must first acknowledge what the Bible says.

As for some people disagreeing with millions of others... so what?

Indeed so what, the test is against the Bible, my point is that what millions agree on tests true against the Bible, and what you are saying doesn’t.

That's your belief, not a verified fact

Well of course I believe the Bible I have faith in the One whose testimony is in the Bible.

And that makes you right?

No the Bible is the truth, I am just pointing out to you many here believe the Bible and the truth.

Some Christians do, but not all.

Your comment makes no sense as if a Christian believed the Quran they wouldn’t be a Christian they would be a Muslim. But I would say all Christians believe the Bible is the word of God, to say one doesn’t and then claim one believes the Nicene Creed, which is a basic statement of faith, is a contradiction.

Well, of course the Bible seems absolutely correct to those people who believe it's absolutely correct, otherwise they wouldn't believe that. But what are you trying to prove here?

What are you trying to prove, I am saying the Bible is correct and you are saying it isnt? If you don’t believe it is correct then you need some other authority on which to base your opinion, otherwise it is your idea against the Bible.