avevale_intelligencer (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
avevale_intelligencer) wrote2011-10-19 10:45 am
avevale_intelligencer) wrote2011-10-19 10:45 am
Given pause
If, having read this post, you click on the link below and read the essay to which it links, I ask you as a courtesy not to comment there. I don't know this person and he doesn't know me, and I don't want him to get grief that I've earned. If you want to shout at someone, shout at me, all right?
The essay is a defence of the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality and marriage. It hasn't changed my mind on either of those issues, so there's no need to get on my case about that. I still think any two or more adult human beings who love each other should be able to express that love in whatever way they want, including marriage. I still think the Catholic Church is wrong.
What's given me pause--apart from the fact that this essay is incredibly well-written, closely-reasoned, and gives references--is that it makes it harder for me to believe that the Catholic Church's position is not supported by Christ's doctrine. The very first paragraph knocks the usual argument ("Jesus never condemned homosexuality") out of the court with a basic counter that even I should have been bright enough to see. It's only in the final paragraphs, where he suggests that liberals "deny that any difference exists at all" out of "disguised hate," that he goes completely off the beam. The rest of the article is uncomfortable reading for someone like me who, while not being a Christian, has always believed in a core of rightness under all the corruption and politicking. If this writer is correct, that belief is unfounded.
I don't know what to think now. I don't agree with the writer, obviously. I would very much like to know what my Christian friends think about this. (I think I can predict what my atheist friends will say, and I fancy the words "so," "you," "told," and "I" will feature strongly. I would like to take that as read, but I expect there's little chance of that.)
If you'd prefer not to get involved, that's fine.
http://fpb.livejournal.com/84324.html
EDIT: thank you very much to everyone who has commented so far. These comments have made the whole thing much clearer and put it into perspective for me. I'm glad I posted this, rather than just worrying about it on my own.
The essay is a defence of the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality and marriage. It hasn't changed my mind on either of those issues, so there's no need to get on my case about that. I still think any two or more adult human beings who love each other should be able to express that love in whatever way they want, including marriage. I still think the Catholic Church is wrong.
What's given me pause--apart from the fact that this essay is incredibly well-written, closely-reasoned, and gives references--is that it makes it harder for me to believe that the Catholic Church's position is not supported by Christ's doctrine. The very first paragraph knocks the usual argument ("Jesus never condemned homosexuality") out of the court with a basic counter that even I should have been bright enough to see. It's only in the final paragraphs, where he suggests that liberals "deny that any difference exists at all" out of "disguised hate," that he goes completely off the beam. The rest of the article is uncomfortable reading for someone like me who, while not being a Christian, has always believed in a core of rightness under all the corruption and politicking. If this writer is correct, that belief is unfounded.
I don't know what to think now. I don't agree with the writer, obviously. I would very much like to know what my Christian friends think about this. (I think I can predict what my atheist friends will say, and I fancy the words "so," "you," "told," and "I" will feature strongly. I would like to take that as read, but I expect there's little chance of that.)
If you'd prefer not to get involved, that's fine.
http://fpb.livejournal.com/84324.html
EDIT: thank you very much to everyone who has commented so far. These comments have made the whole thing much clearer and put it into perspective for me. I'm glad I posted this, rather than just worrying about it on my own.
no subject
The author's point was that there are an awful lot of things Jesus could have quite rightly condemned - including murder - but didn't. I think a better answer as to why he didn't is that he didn't *need* to condemn those things: There were already prohibitions in place against them. Jesus only gave time to condemning the things that specifically needed *him* to condemn them - chiefly, the practice of people in positions of privilege and authority condemning the less fortunate/educated/pious around them.
I think the guy's quite right that Jesus' focus - and his intention for *our* focus - was on promoting the good things people can do in future, rather than condemning the bad they happen to have done. Unfortunately, the piece then ties that with a set of assumptions about sexuality and gender that don't strike me as the least bit biblically supported (though the are very much a part of several mainstream church traditions).
(He's also quite wrong, IMHO, that the point about Jesus not specifically condemning homosexuality is "the usual argument"; I've always seen it more as the obligatory first bullet point: "let's just get this silly little red herring out of the way, before we get onto more serious discussion of the issues".)
no subject
*nods* That's been my impression, too. The discussions I've seen have been more about intent, about the meaning of the words "fornication," or "neighbor," the cultural context the Bible was written in, Jesus's message of love and reconciliation vs. his treatment of the moneylenders in the temple. None of which I saw given more than a glancing treatment in fpb's post.