New Thread: Is there room for dialogue? [Archive]

Daniel

01-23-2007, 02:44 AM

Daniel, why is that we grate on each other so? However, your comment below is true.

What you see as truth is experienced as condemnation.

Which brings me again to the questions that have been raised for me: how do opposing views communicate when one's truth is another's condemnation? But then, we all have truths that are received by others as a condemnation, whether on a small or grand scale. However, I am not starting a new thread on this, but just for you, I will stop responding to others just in case it might stray from the original intent of this post. If the members of this forum are interested in discussing the questions I have raised, they will. The question isn't for me to answer or guide.

You have come here looking for what? Debate? That is one word you have used. Yet, when you posted on this thread and then were challenged on your statement by me, for all intent and purposes, you shrank from that debate, that is, until I called you on it. Is it possible that you enjoy the thrust and parry, the heat annd battle of words?

In the past, I loved debate. But it wasn't my goal during these recent postings--or I actually would have debated. I used the word "debate" because it commonly occurs here and on every site like this, even when it wasn't the original intention. Please, don't be so quick to grab a single word like a bulldog and shake it 'till you get the result you want.

I'm still surprised that you were surprised that I do not support gay marriage. I really thought you remembered prior conversations. However, in the past, I believe I have also shared my occassional leaning toward separating religious and legal marriage, which would allow the church to continue in what it can support while leaving the government to make its own decision on gay marriage. I'm still thinking through these issues, so I don't state them boldly.

So I must ask, why do you come here, if not to complain- as you have- that you are treated unkindly? If I have been so unkind, why do you come back? What do you seek? If not reconciliation, what?

Hope is the thing with feathers
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune--without the words,
And never stops at all,

And sweetest in the gale is heard;
And sore must be the storm
That could abash the little bird
That kept so many warm.

Emily Dickinson

Blossom- I have taken the liberty of replying to your post here where it seems more appropriate to do so.

As for grating, while I respect your feelings as you state them, I would appreciate it if you would not assume what my feelings are. While this may seem a small matter, you have previously asserted that I have done the same to you- that is- assume what you are feeling and thinking. If we are to engage in discussion, I ask you to refrain from making similar assumptions.

Now. To address your question "how do opposing views communicate..." This may seem like the wordsmything of an editor, but as you state it, "opposing views" cannot, properly speaking "communicate". People do. Either with respect. Or not. And "having truth", in my view, implies that one is in possession of something which resembles a concrete object. Of course, objects- being objects- are all too often treated as something to be conquered, bought and sold.

I think it is much more helpful to say that we all have perceptions. We all have experiences that we call our reality. And the extent to which we can share these experiences with each other is related to the degree to which we are curious about each others lives and what value we place on our interconnectedness.

On the matter of the use of the word debate: I will not debate you on your statement here ( ;) ) but simply ask you to endeavor to mean what you say and say what you mean. Doing so will mean that you will not have to qualify your meaning as you have done above. And I will endeavor to do the same. There is nothing more tiresome that to have post after post dealing with the argument (and it always becomes an argument): 'but you don't understand me...I didn't mean that...I meant this'.

I am glad to hear that you are at least contemplating separating marriage into legal and religious distinctions, that is a step in the right direct as far as GLBTQ persons are concerned, though you will not find me jumping for joy. Such a position, in my view, rather than giving special rights to the minority, reserves and enshrines marriage for those who deem themselves more worthy and deserving of God's favor.

And lastly, you end your post with the allusion of hope, though you do not state what you hope for. That said, another reading of Dickison's poem suggests that you are the little bird who finds herself in circumstances or situations (abashed means: ashamed or uneasy) where it is hard to hear one's inner voice.

Would this be so, I can only offer in response that, at least for me (I teach singing after all), finding one's voice- whether outer or inner (a matter of contemplation) - entails active listening, which requires skill, patience, self-awareness and the proper attitude (posture). Unfortunately, those who declaim the loudest listen the least, rendering all who hear them, and themselves, deaf with their caterwaulling. The most beautiful voices, however, whether in life or art, arise out of silence, and reflect and inspire what can only be called Love.

I can say no more at this late hour, and wish you much peace.

Jamie McDaniel

01-23-2007, 06:23 AM

But if you want to make a difference, you have to go to those who disagree...

That is what Soulforce had been doing mostly since 1999. Take a look at our National Actions in the main menu. The Equality Ride is a great example of going to those who discriminate. Notice that, as a gay man, I didn't use the word disagree. My oppression should never be considered just another opinion.

...and very often, those you go to will not be nearly as invested in this subject as you are. Actually, those of differing opinions who are as invested will often be extreme individuals for whom it will be difficult to have a meaningful and thoughtful discussion.

Actually, I've found that the thinking, intelligent, good people who understand the situation but nonetheless hold onto their beliefs which view LGBT people less-than to be the most frustrating.

In any event, both the extreme and the good people who are solidly "frozen" in place are not the people a movement should be targeting. The civil rights movement did not really try to reach either the KKK or the more accepted White Citizens Council.

And I've always found it interesting that King wrote the following in his letter from Birmingham Jail (a letter addressed to ministers.)

"I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride towards freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice;"

Back to the original question:
I guess I'm asking, is there room on this forum, and in your life, for people who attempt to enter into dialogue without doing so as fully as you do?

The emphasis of the Soulforce forums is more on support for activists, LGBT people, their allies, and people looking to understand us. I never intended them to be an online version of a national action where we purposely seek to engage those who hold anti-gay views. That is why we have some guidelines.

That said, we do have these dialogues from time to time and we have tried to figure out the best way of handling them in order to respect the person without accepting the second-class status our guest would seek to impose on us. And sometimes these individuals are actually lesbian, gay, or bisexual themselves.

andrewlittle

01-23-2007, 11:35 AM

Jamie:
The emphasis of the Soulforce forums is more on support for activists, LGBT people, their allies, and people looking to understand us. I never intended them to be an online version of a national action where we purposely seek to engage those who hold anti-gay views. That is why we have some guidelines.

The difference between this and some other sites, in my opinion, is the constituency and intention.

This is not a public forum for the purposes of general discussion. It is a site, with rules clearly outlining the intent and restrictions, for dialogue between GLBTQA (allies tacked on the end) about issues that are faced in culture/religion. While the threads sometimes deal with discussions with people who do not fall into those categories, there is an expectation that those people will be cognizant of the fact that they are guests.

Just as it would be considered bad form, if not in reality stupid, to walk the streets of Chiapas Mexico singing the praises of neo-liberal economics, multi-national corporations, Euro-centric government domination, and the inherent justice in seeing Mexican Indians as children needing a firm hand, it is equally unacceptable to enter the virtual streets of Soulforce telling the inhabitants they are Godless sinners by their very nature.

So, really, part of the intention of this site seems to be to allow GLBTQA to discuss the issues, strategies, pros, cons, etc. of activism between themselves, as opposed to actively engaging in those processes with those who hold views that are different and/or discriminatory. It is permissable to listen in, and even to engage in dialogue, so long as the person remembers aware that they are guests in a place and time that is not their own, and conducts themselves according - with respect and an ethic of inquiry.

The inhabitants of the domain are not required, in my opinion, to necessarily show the same ethic of inquiry since they live here. I find it refreshing that, almost all the time, that ethic is used nonetheless.

Emproph

01-29-2007, 09:44 AM

I can’t say I’m quite internet etiquette savvy yet, so please give me the benefit of the doubt if something I say is perceived as offensive because I’m doing my best to be sincere here. I appreciate your company, your willingness to engage as it were.
Back to the original question:

I guess I'm asking, is there room on this forum, and in your life, for people who attempt to enter into dialogue without doing so as fully as you do?

If the answer truly is "no" (which has been discussed by this group in the past), then please, just close the forum and give people a written test to determine whether or not they should have access to the site.

Obviously your last point was a bit sardonic, but I can appreciate the sentiment. And If I understand “the original question” correctly, I think that it's extremely important to be at least willing and hopefully able to engage with others who may not reciprocate as fully as we wish. I often get behind on responding, or responding thoroughly.

Your first paragraph illustrated this need.
No, that was not my question, although it is also one worth asking. Those of you who are active on this forum are here because not only do you believe in this cause, but you believe that it is important to find nonviolent ways to engage a culture that disagrees with you, so that you can take steps towards the equality you seek. Conversing with people who agree with you will be uplifting for you, which is great. But if you want to make a difference, you have to go to those who disagree, and very often, those you go to will not be nearly as invested in this subject as you are. Actually, those of differing opinions who are as invested will often be extreme individuals for whom it will be difficult to have a meaningful and thoughtful discussion.
I can very much appreciate that. I think it’s one thing I see that was lacking in my dialogues with you. Perhaps I assumed you knew how invested I was in the subject matter, and I expected too much, too quickly anyway.

That one little caveat, that you’re not as invested is so important to understand. You don’t have to be as invested, but I need to know that. Not so I can dismiss you as any less serious, but so I can take better time to organize my thoughts around communicating more effectively, without the expectation of it necessarily being reciprocated. I have no problem with that arrangement. I bless it.

I’m generalizing of course and it goes for all sides, but I really think it’s important. And I’m not saying I’m good at it, but that tiny little blurb of: “hey, If I come across as offensive, please forgive me and reproof me” is an ocean of olive branch.

So back to the original question I would say, if you choose to engage us, please first understand that many of us are very raw and open and susceptible to emotional injury. Sometimes it’s prudent to take that extra step or two to ensure that your words or expressions are not taken offensively – just in case they are.

It’s not always what’s actually said that’s so offensive, it’s often what’s not said to ensure that it’s not taken as offensive that’s “so” offensive.

I had the privilege of working through this – to a certain significant degree – with a couple of people last summer. We gained mutual respect, at least as far as our conversations were able to go.

It seemed that once I understood that their willingness to communicate was sincere, then I felt confident with the relationship, even if a question was ignored here or there. I at least knew that it wasn’t an intentional insult. If it was important enough I could go back and ask again. Point being, I was confident that I would eventually get an honest answer. That was the most important part.

At the very least you will always eventually be able to get an honest answer from me. I eventually expect at least as much from others.

Sincerity. I believe that I’ve seen it in you, and I apologize that I wasn’t able to appreciate it at the time. Not that the situation wouldn’t have turned contentious still, but I think it could have take a more productive path.

I think it’s possible to agree to disagree, indefinitely if need be, but such a tenuous truce so to speak requires a specific understanding of what we're disagreeing on.

I’m going to leave it at that for now. I’m in a good spot right now so I thought I should credit the effort I feel you've made. So much of the time all that's needed is an acknowledgment of the seriousness of the situation. People are committing suicide, unnecessarily. Not because of the condemnation of homosexuality per se, but because of manner in which it is condemned.

That’s the real test. Not necessarily that we agree, but in the manner and spirit of how we disagree, and yes I know I fail, but I need your help in this. I need for you to take me seriously. That's really all I ask. No matter how delusional you may think I am, treat me like an equal enough to tell me so. It's a risk, I know, but I need to know you respect me enough to be honest with me. Ultimately that's all I can ask.

Blossom

01-29-2007, 10:12 PM

I had planned to respond to Emproph's very nice post here, and had been thinking about it through the day. But sorry, E., I'll push it off a bit more and reply to Zerbie's question from the thread from which this one span-off (sp?:confused: )

The Question:
And specifically, in the life of each person here, what are some examples in which you have a positive, strong relationship with someone who disagrees with you on the foundational issue of this site?

I am going to expand this to several areas, not just to homosexuality. This enables me share more personally. And, I will use one negative example.

1. In college, all my friends were conservative, devout Baptists. At the time, I was re-responding to my call to ministry. Not surprisingly, women in ministry did not go well with the party line! In this particular case, we did not debate much about the issue. We simply loved each other. To this day, I don't know if they changed their minds, but I know they loved me. The few people who I think actually supported me were the religion profs (although they could not have said so). My favorite music prof. was the head of the dept., and very proper and traditional. For some reason, he was always so kind to me and supported me in all our work together. I have reason to think he did not support women in leadership, yet I only felt love and respect from him. I suppose, looking back, that I simply must give thanks for their support. Although there was a time initially where I felt very uncomfortable, through their love and grace, I had a wonderful three years there.

2. Again, going back to my time at the Southern Baptist U.--This may not mean much to you guys, but the disagreement I am about to mention is a very heated one between Baptists and anyone who disagrees with them. Baptists believe in once-saved-always-saved. They lean on it and talk about it a lot. Andrew Little may chime in here and defend them.;) I see salvation as a relationship with God, not a one-time experience. I won't give a lot of time to it here, but I will say that I believe that my view can taken to a dangerous extreme. However, that's not the point for this discussion. I had numerous debates with friends and acquaintances regarding once-saved-always-saved. But in one instance, a whole room full of people (many who were my closest friends) jumped on the bandwagon against me. I was stubborn enough to plow through, even though I didn't change anyone's mind. It was a horrible experience for me. Not because it made me doubt my beliefs, but because I felt very, very alone.

3. I have one person who is very close to me who has strayed from the church. This person is very sensitive to any discussion regarding religion, esp. Christianity. I believe that [they] have been hurt in the past, and this is being manifested in a pushing away from God, or at least the God of their youth. I rarely say anything regarding religion to them. I just want to love this individual. Because of our exact relationship, I do not want to risk making them feel uncomfortable or unsafe with me. If they ever bring up the issue of religion, I am there and ready to listen and interact. But for now, I simply love and accept and value this person.

4. I have found it to much easier to discuss opposing viewpoints with men. I'm not sure why, but often, with female friends, I feel that the relationship is somewhat fragile, but with men, there's a natural give and take, where disagreements and even arguments which turn to fights can be forgiven and...respected. I know there are women who are able to do this, but I haven't personally found many. Just speaking from my own experience here, not wishing to make a solid rule about how men and women act or interact. However, back to my point, I have found it somewhat easy to disagree with men, to express our points of difference, and then to move on.

5. Regarding the issue of women in ministry, I do not get upset at those who disagree with me. Feeling a call to ministry is often a huge self-defining factor, and should be to some degree. However, it can be dangerous to wrap oneself completely in the identity of their specific calling by God. We are first God's children, beloved. Our foundation is God's love, not our response.

But, it is important to note that I feel less (to no) anger towards those who do not support my call in large part because I am free to follow that call. I would much more sensitive on the subject if I were not free to do so. However, I have debated on the issue in the past before I was in a "safe" place, and was able to have positive interactions regarding this without our relationships suffering. But then again, I do recognize how this point applies to those who do not feel free to live out their identity as homosexuals.

6. I have had a number of positive experiences in general with verbally disagreeing or debating in a positive way, but none that are ongoing relationships today...except...

7. My husband. We can agree, disagree. He likes who I am, even when that invovles serious disagreement. When we first dated, we had some great debates on docrinal issues, but have worked through most of them. Of course, in addition to the fact that our personalities click, we have that foundational love that draws us together even when we are divided.

tdogg

01-29-2007, 10:36 PM

Ok, I'll nibble on the bait here a while...

Examples of communication/relationship between myself and people who don't agree with me (those with similar views as yours Blossom):

1. Condemn me, end the last communication with "may God have mercy on your soul" - haven't spoken since.
2. Condemn me, accuse me, tell me what my emotions are, consistently attempt to take God and my faith away from me - finally had enough of the abuse and chose to cease communciation with this person who is a very close relative and who is great at holding a grudge.
3. Let's see, my stepmother sent a Christmas card to me from her and my father using their names, not mom and dad. She never calls me anymore. She returned the dog toy I leave there for my dog when I visit. Can barely stand to see me, much less hug me if we do have a chance to meet up.
4. Sister, good relationship, communicates by avoiding the subject (similar to some of your examples) - my partner not welcome at her home or around her family - must protect her children - long story, best saved for a different topic.
5. Another friend, responds with huge message full of scripture quotes and interested in continuing the communication - actually is somewhat loving still, although never best friends we are able to communicate and maintain the friendship we have, but honestly I don't have too much energy to devote to the same old song and dance.

Blossom, it's very difficult for me personally to continue communications with people who hold beliefs such as yours - I've been listening to it since about 10 years of age, and believe me that's a LONG LONG time. Really don't have much patience for it at this point in my life. I'm fairly comfortable with who I am, what I'm doing and my relationship with the Lord. If someone is interested in hearing my story and where I'm coming from, then I'm open to discussion. But if it's going to be continuing to defend my position, justify my beliefs and rationalize "ME" to another person, I don't have the time or energy or motivation or desire to continue the debate.

One question for you (and others who have so far been unable to answer the question) - how do you justify picking and choosing what you choose to belief from the scriptures - some you take literally and some you don't. I'm curious as to the mindset of that thought? I have friends/family who would look me in the eye and state they take the Bible literally cover to cover and have no problem 'living' it, however, they break law after law after law (including women speaking in church, cutting their hair, etc.).

Zerbie

01-29-2007, 10:52 PM

I don't think the website knows how much I wrote below - it says this message is too short!!! Haha! So I am adding characters to make it "long enough," la, la, laaaaa!!

I had planned to respond to Emproph's very nice post here, and had been thinking about it through the day. But sorry, E., I'll push it off a bit more and reply to Zerbie's question from the thread from which this one span-off (sp?:confused: )

Ah ha!! :D And there I was, repeating my request while you were already posting this here. I'm delighted to find this post. Gives me a much better sense of who we're talking with. :) Thank you Blossom.

The Question:
And specifically, in the life of each person here, what are some examples in which you have a positive, strong relationship with someone who disagrees with you on the foundational issue of this site?

2. Again, going back to my time at the Southern Baptist U.--This may not mean much to you guys, but the disagreement I am about to mention is a very heated one between Baptists and anyone who disagrees with them. Baptists believe in once-saved-always-saved. They lean on it and talk about it a lot. Andrew Little may chime in here and defend them.;) I see salvation as a relationship with God, not a one-time experience. I won't give a lot of time to it here, but I will say that I believe that my view can taken to a dangerous extreme. However, that's not the point for this discussion. I had numerous debates with friends and acquaintances regarding once-saved-always-saved. But in one instance, a whole room full of people (many who were my closest friends) jumped on the bandwagon against me. I was stubborn enough to plow through, even though I didn't change anyone's mind. It was a horrible experience for me. Not because it made me doubt my beliefs, but because I felt very, very alone.

That makes sense. Feeling alone. I've felt that too. You have a right to formulate, hold, and express your beliefs. I'm sorry that you felt your close friends were against you - perhaps they could have expressed their disagreement more kindly. I'm sorry you had a horrible experience. I won't address it any further than that, as all this talk of doctrines is WAaaaay beyond my experience - I'll be the first to admit total ignorance as to what Baptists (or any particular religious groups) believe.

3. I have one person who is very close to me who has strayed from the church. This person is very sensitive to any discussion regarding religion, esp. Christianity. I believe that [they] have been hurt in the past, and this is being manifested in a pushing away from God, or at least the God of their youth. I rarely say anything regarding religion to them. I just want to love this individual. Because of our exact relationship, I do not want to risk making them feel uncomfortable or unsafe with me. If they ever bring up the issue of religion, I am there and ready to listen and interact. But for now, I simply love and accept and value this person.

This sounds beautiful, it is probably just what your friend needs.

4. I have found it to much easier to discuss opposing viewpoints with men. I'm not sure why, but often, with female friends, I feel that the relationship is somewhat fragile, but with men, there's a natural give and take, where disagreements and even arguments which turn to fights can be forgiven and...respected. I know there are women who are able to do this, but I haven't personally found many. Just speaking from my own experience here, not wishing to make a solid rule about how men and women act or interact. However, back to my point, I have found it somewhat easy to disagree with men, to express our points of difference, and then to move on.

I too prefer to be able to disagree and even argue in a friendly way with my friends. My husband is much the same. He loves to argue, and his closest friends and colleagues are those with whom he can spend two or three hours debating anything from politics to how to analyze a Beethoven symphony. The only times when I draw a line in this kind of "debate/argument" is if somehow things are made into personal value judgments, either about an individual, or value judgments about groups of people (racist remarks, for instance, or remarks that gays are "not like normal people" being prejudicial judgments that offend me enough to put a little distance between me and that person.) Except where someone really, really crosses a line, I'm all for forgetting an argument the next instant. Okay, that's over, let's go back outside and play, kinda thing. :p

5. Regarding the issue of women in ministry, I do not get upset at those who disagree with me. Feeling a call to ministry is often a huge self-defining factor, and should be to some degree. However, it can be dangerous to wrap oneself completely in the identity of their specific calling by God. We are first God's children, beloved. Our foundation is God's love, not our response.

Wow - I would find offense at that. Not to mention the illogic. It makes as much sense as saying men should be prohibited from ministry because being male makes them unfit. :confused:

Can you elaborate on what you find dangerous about wrapping oneself in one's calling by God? The spiritual calling is everything! What do you perceive dangerous about that?

But, it is important to note that I feel less (to no) anger towards those who do not support my call in large part because I am free to follow that call. I would much more sensitive on the subject if I were not free to do so. However, I have debated on the issue in the past before I was in a "safe" place, and was able to have positive interactions regarding this without our relationships suffering.

But then again, I do recognize how this point applies to those who do not feel free to live out their identity as homosexuals.

[COLOR="Green"]Have you imagined yourself in a gay man's shoes? In a lesbian's shoes? If so, thank you for taking that step. Please keep doing it. When you read about anti-gay legislation, employment decisions, harassment on the streets and in schools, ask yourself how you would feel if you were that man or woman. Or his mother. Or her sister.

When I was a little girl and I was taught that we should sit idly by and do nothing while gay men died in the early AIDS holocaust because they "deserved" it, I asked myself, 'What would I do if were a grown up and had a gay man for a son?' And I could not bear to sit idly by!! :'( @/COLOR]

6. I have had a number of positive experiences in general with verbally disagreeing or debating in a positive way, but none that are ongoing relationships today...except...

Us?

7. My husband. We can agree, disagree. He likes who I am, even when that invovles serious disagreement.

That's essential.

I guess the problem with us on this board (I mean you AND us) is that we start out as strangers without a foundational "liking" or in fact any kind of relationship, and go straight into disagreement about something that impacts every aspect of the lives of the regulars on this forum. Off-line, were we colleagues, perhaps if this disagreement became overwhelming we simply wouldn't talk about these issues, and stick to shop-talk, movies, shoe-shopping, the weather. . . but on this forum, these topics are about all we got.

When we first dated, we had some great debates on docrinal issues, but have worked through most of them. Of course, in addition to the fact that our personalities click, we have that foundational love that draws us together even when we are divided.

That's good. It's necessary. I'm lucky to have that with my husband too.

Blossom

01-29-2007, 10:52 PM

tdogg,

Thank you so much for sharing. Actually attempting to answer my own question, gave me more to think about. And your sharing certainly has.

Please forgive me, but I am not prepared to interact on your specific question. I wish I were. Maybe later, I don't know. Your questions are good and will be answered quickly by those here. If you still want a response from my point of view, I may have to simply recommend some books for now. Sorry that's all I can offer right now.

I do hope others will respond to the general question of this thread. I don't want to interact with the answers, but just let them be what they are.

tdogg, I know you don't know me. But, for what it's worth, I am so sorry for the pain you have experienced. You didn't deserve it.

Blossom

01-29-2007, 11:19 PM

Me:
Regarding the issue of women in ministry, I do not get upset at those who disagree with me. Feeling a call to ministry is often a huge self-defining factor, and should be to some degree. However, it can be dangerous to wrap oneself completely in the identity of their specific calling by God. We are first God's children, beloved. Our foundation is God's love, not our response.

Zerbie:
Wow - I would find offense at that. Not to mention the illogic. It makes as much sense as saying men should be prohibited from ministry because being male makes them unfit.
Can you elaborate on what you find dangerous about wrapping oneself in one's calling by God? The spiritual calling is everything! What do you perceive dangerous about that?

In response to Zerbie, yes, I suppose I am offended by those who do not support women in ministry, but I am mainly offended for the sake of those whom they still oppress. These individuals don't have much power over me, so I focus my energy on what is productive. And I am able to converse with those who do not support women in ministry. Interestingly, it is often women who do not support women in ministry.

I sometimes have someone come up and say, "what do I call you, preacherette" and others are kind enough to share the fact with me that they don't believe women should be pastors. But I have learned to respond with grace and to not react inwardly or outwardly with anger. Sure, I think (know!) they are wrong. And if I see them use their belief to hurt another, I will need to take a stand and step in. But I can take their words and sentiments without it hurting who I am, and have seen some people change their minds--not because I debated them, but because I did what God has gifted me to do.

Actually, I have a somewhat unusual view that the oppressed should not have to defend themselves (please folks, read on, and realize this is an idea for thought, not an unbreakable rule). I would rather male clergy stand up for women clergy, and I would rather whites stand up for blacks, and so on. It just seems right that those who have political and cultural strength should use it for the good of their brethren who are not blessed with that same power. Maybe then, when the first help the last, when the strong help the weak, maybe then the oppressed will not find cause to rise up as the oppressor.

A quick response on identity as the called. For one thing, those who are called to ministry are not above those who are not called into that same role. We are not more loved or more precious. Our calling is special and that grace of being called should bring much thanksgiving. But identifying oneself only as a pastor, missionary, counselor can be dangerous because it limits us from valuing who we are as a whole. I am a mother, a wife, a minister, a friend, a child of God. And what of those who one day are no longer able to perform ministry? Who are they then? Who is a mother when her children leave the nest? Who is a husband when his wife leaves him? We must be more than any of these things, or when they fall away, who will we be? For me, I must seek my relationship with God to be the thing that defines me most. His love for me, unmerited though it is, is that grace which takes a broken person such as myself and makes me whole. And that love of God is the only thing that I can fully count on in my life. I love being a wife, mother, minister...but if I put my whole identity in any one thing, I may find I have nothing.

tdogg

01-29-2007, 11:28 PM

Thanks for that Blossom. I really appreciate it. I'm actually in a really good place within myself now. It took a lot of years of pain and hurt and crying, but I'm truly blessed and it was all worth it. I love the Lord and the Lord loves me, and I just don't need anyone else to affirm or approve that. I appreciate your comments!

Dialogue is difficult when it becomes personal - it can be perceived as a personal attack (and I find it often is a personal attack). Until we can set aside our need to attack and our feelings of being attacked, until we can understand why one would believe what they do, until we are able to hear their story and understand with compassion if it it doesn't change our position, we (we as humanity, not necessarily specific to anyone here) can't dialogue with an open mind and no hurt feelings. It's really hard when one has the experience of being hurt, accused, feeling attacked - gets the defense mode up and running full speed.

I can say I understand where a person might not agree with my position, I've heard the reasonings all my life. But for me personally, it doesn't work. I don't believe it in my heart, therefore, I don't buy it. But, I'm ok with the person who does - just as long as they aren't trying to sell it to me. Discuss it's virtues (or lack of), but don't ask for the checkbook. I think there is room for open compassionate dialogue, but it takes effort, consideration, compassion and LOTS of editing! :eek: :D ;)

frankandcathy

01-30-2007, 12:20 AM

I've been reading this thread and a few others and loving it all but also thinking:

WHERE IS THE CHURCH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST?

Church=spiritual family.

Just as no baby is meant to be born into a parent-less, family-less environment, no Christian is meant to walk outside of spiritual family.

I read so much about hurting people here. About how Christians have so often been condemning toward others and shunned others and sent back DOG TOYS??? What? What the hell does the dog have to do with anything? (Pardon my language.)

Here is tdogg who once enjoyed a vibrant relationship with her spiritual and natural family (except for the whole "hiding who I really am thing" of course) but at least it was positive from their side. Now she's like a leper to so many. What's that about?

Man, I'm so blessed by blossom, Andy, and others who are into what Jesus was into: people. They're more into people than their theology or doctrine.

In my humble opinion, there shouldn't be a lost or hurting person in a world with so many churches. Churches are supposed to be family, darn it. What exactly do Christians think they're doing here on Earth? Enjoying tivo? Loving Godiva? AUUUUGGGHHHH!

:o Okay, calm down, calm down.

This is the heart of who I am because this issue is what has changed my life. A spiritual family who has cradled me, loved me, helped me, corrected me, cried with me, sheltered me, and just all-around loved me is what has changed my life second only to salvation and God's presence with me.

Sigh. When, oh when, will the bride of Jesus Christ rise up and be about HIS business? Loving others and connecting them with God?

~C

andrewlittle

01-30-2007, 12:35 AM

I have to go to bed now - I'm old and need my sleep. But I just wanted to say, "Bravo, Cathy." Nice rant - I even think God loves a good rant now and then. I don't know that - just think it.

I will read it closer in the morning, and probably be more appreciative.

Zerbie

01-30-2007, 01:02 AM

[I]Me:

. Interestingly, it is often women who do not support women in ministry.

And if I see them use their belief to hurt another, I will need to take a stand and step in. But I can take their words and sentiments without it hurting who I am, and have seen some people change their minds--not because I debated them, but because I did what God has gifted me to do.

Brilliant!! That's how I feel when I am open about being bisexual. *I* know what it's all about, why do I care if they do?

Actually, I have a somewhat unusual view that the oppressed should not have to defend themselves

Oh! Totally!!!!!

(please folks, read on, and realize this is an idea for thought, not an unbreakable rule). I would rather male clergy stand up for women clergy, and I would rather whites stand up for blacks, and so on. It just seems right that those who have political and cultural strength should use it for the good of their brethren who are not blessed with that same power. Maybe then, when the first help the last, when the strong help the weak, maybe then the oppressed will not find cause to rise up as the oppressor.

y one thing, I may find I have nothing.

Quickly: regards the calling thing, you meant the same thing I meant, but in different words. I'm completely with you.

Regards the rest of your post: We have a real parallel here I'm going to point out. You say females are often most opposed to women as pastors. I have so often found gay people the most discouraging of my activism around "gay issues." It's an established pattern. As recently as last year, a gay man took me aside whispering, into his office, closed the door, and revealed to me "Zerbie, gay rights are controversial, and a lot of people are going to disagree with you!" Gee, ya don't say? :lol: Somehow, he thought I didn't know this, and wanted to warn and protect me. And plenty of "self-loathing" gay people oppose equality for gay people out of an expanded self-hatred, which I find saddest of all.

I am so with you about the oppressed shouldn't be the ones to fight oppression. Indeed, they can't be, not successfully so, b/c the nature of oppression is that their rightful power to do so has been diminished, if not utterly removed from them. And also that sadly, it can be construed as nothing but "selfishness." :rolleyes: :(

I've gotten looked at like I'm a maggot over this bisexual issue. Except for the time when it was my mother, it has always made me laugh. How incredibly silly!

But nothing sets me off quicker than if someone directs homophobic stuff at someone else. I have dealt with so much shit, shit even bigger than this gay/bisexual issue, that as for me, it rolls off - it doesn't get inside. There is no doubt for it to prey on. But for some others, there is a deep vulnerability that these things prey on. Knowing that, I will never stop countering homophobic language. It's seeing pain in someone else's eyes (or words) that makes an activist out of me.

It is very effective when straight people support their gay loved ones. It speaks to the other straight-identified folk more than testimonies of gay people, because sadly, many straight folk discount what gay folk say. :( It is also deeply meaningful, b/c it means that they "get" that these are human issues, affecting the entire community, not just its gay members. Homophobia hurts straight parents, siblings, children, cousins, friends, in a multitude of ways.

I feel such pride when my husband speaks out against anti-gay stuff, and verbally expresses all kinds of unconditional support to his gay friends! It is wonderful to share my life with someone who cares, who validates and loves the people around him so much. :love: Being married now, and by default 'straight,' I'm only more outspoken about LGBT issues because I will never, ever, ever abandon my gay friends in this socio-emotional-theologico-political tarpit - I am privileged to know such exemplary human beings and very proud to be a part of making the world a better place for those who are in every way my, my husband's, and your equals. It is humbling, whenever I think of it.

With that, I really must lie down.

Good night Blossom, everyone. :love:

keltic63

01-30-2007, 07:26 AM

Actually, I have a somewhat unusual view that the oppressed should not have to defend themselves (please folks, read on, and realize this is an idea for thought, not an unbreakable rule). I would rather male clergy stand up for women clergy, and I would rather whites stand up for blacks, and so on. It just seems right that those who have political and cultural strength should use it for the good of their brethren who are not blessed with that same power. Maybe then, when the first help the last, when the strong help the weak, maybe then the oppressed will not find cause to rise up as the oppressor.

A quick response on identity as the called. For one thing, those who are called to ministry are not above those who are not called into that same role. We are not more loved or more precious. Our calling is special and that grace of being called should bring much thanksgiving. But identifying oneself only as a pastor, missionary, counselor can be dangerous because it limits us from valuing who we are as a whole. I am a mother, a wife, a minister, a friend, a child of God. And what of those who one day are no longer able to perform ministry? Who are they then? Who is a mother when her children leave the nest? Who is a husband when his wife leaves him? We must be more than any of these things, or when they fall away, who will we be? For me, I must seek my relationship with God to be the thing that defines me most. His love for me, unmerited though it is, is that grace which takes a broken person such as myself and makes me whole. And that love of God is the only thing that I can fully count on in my life. I love being a wife, mother, minister...but if I put my whole identity in any one thing, I may find I have nothing.

There's so much here, and I don't have time to break it down!

My first thought: You're preaching to the choir, sister!

The parallels are in place, you've laid them out nicely. The concepts of oppression and discrimination are the same, regardless of their object, and the results are devastating to the victims.

Let me borrow a few of your words:

Our Orientation is special and that grace of being gay or lesbian should bring much thanksgiving. But identifying oneself only as a lesbian pastor, gay missionary, bi counselor can be dangerous because it limits us from valuing who we are as a whole. I am a mother/father, a wife/husband/partner, a minister/musician, a friend, a child of God. And what of those who one day are no longer able to perform ministry? Who are they then? Who is a mother when her children leave the nest? Who is a husband when his wife leaves him? We must be more than any of these things, or when they fall away, who will we be? who or what will we be when we no longer fulfill these roles? a GAY Child of God.

Blossom, You've got all kinds of Grace for yourself as a woman minister, even when Paul clearly states that you shouldn't even speak in church. Do you have any of that grace for God's LGBT kids?

Zerbie

01-30-2007, 12:18 PM

frankandcathy

01-30-2007, 02:16 PM

Zerbie

01-30-2007, 02:34 PM

I'm glad that post blessed you.

It breaks my heart that so many people can talk about Jesus or God but if you mention church, no way. It's that "place full of hypocrites" or "those self-righteous people who just want your money."

Sigh.

That is NOT what church is...well, it's not what ALL churches are. It's not what my church is or what Jesus' church is supposed to be.

No one is perfect and every church has flaws but, believe me, it IS possible for the body of Christ to..well, act like the body of CHRIST!

Don't give up hope! Loving churches are out there! We will grow a bit slower because our "growth track" is based on personal relationships with others and slowly building their lives but we ARE out there.

Blessings,
~C

That's a good word for it: blessed. :agree: Yeah, it did. So did your other post on the thread about Joe Brummer and that repulsive dude with the cuss words. A terrible incident defined christianity that way when I was little. It's about time I outgrew it. Obviously the problem is mean-spirited ignorant whack-os blaspheming (is that the right word?) the spirit of the religion. Hanging around this forum is good for gaining the perspective that there is a lot of goodness to it as well.

I think it speaks sadly about human nature that a true church grows so slowly. And that the goodness of a religious tradition can get so buried by the worst traits of people that it can be made invisible. Hate really needs to stop being the front man for christianity - does a real disservice to the message of the church.

Blossom

01-30-2007, 10:47 PM

The parallels are in place, you've laid them out nicely. The concepts of oppression and discrimination are the same, regardless of their object, and the results are devastating to the victims.

Yes, there are many parallels. The point that I am thinking about is this: how can I, someone who does not agree with your view of homosexuality, still use the common experiences we share to first of all, better understand you and care for you. Secondly, you may remember that I struggle with the issue of making my belief (or anyone's belief) into law--it's that darn libertarian leaning. So, in that case, (if I followed this leaning) I would support the Church's right (each denomination individually) to make it's choice regarding gay marriage, while leaving the state to make up its own mind. Those here would be able to be married by the state or by a number of liberal churches, just not by most conservative ones. However, my libertarian leaning always gets tripped up on the fact that we all believe that our beliefs should be made into law to some degree--murder is bad, stealing is bad, and so on. How do we decide which values should become law?

Let me borrow a few of your words:
...We must be more than any of these things, or when they fall away, who will we be? who or what will we be when we no longer fulfill these roles? a GAY Child of God.

I think we've realized this before--but here lies another difference between us. When I describe that foundational part of me that can never be stripped away, I do not include my sexuality. I saw myself as simply, a child of God, while you saw yourself as simply "a GAY Child of God". Our sexuality is, no doubt, a large part of all of us. I express it everyday in the way I feel about dressing up, or wanting my hair to look pretty, or through the perfumes I choose to wear. I express my femininity in the way I dote on my children as mothers usually do. I also express what others might consider to be more masculine traits, as well. But all of that, despite the fact that it is a huge part of my identity, cannot fully define me. Even much of sexuality can pass away. Almost anything in this life can be stripped away, but that root of who we are will remain, and from my perspective, who we are is: humans lovingly created in the image of God.

Blossom, You've got all kinds of Grace for yourself as a woman minister, even when Paul clearly states that you shouldn't even speak in church. Do you have any of that grace for God's LGBT kids?

Must grace involve changing one's mind on an issue? Or is grace the way we choose to interact with others, even when we disagree?

tdogg

01-30-2007, 11:05 PM

Cathy,yes its sad - I don't have much interest in attending church. I've had my best and most intimate moments of prayer and worship alone with the Lord actually. In my opinion, a house of God should be a sanctuary, a safe place for everyone, where they can find God's love pouring out everywhere without limitation. However, sadly, that is not my experience.
I was blessed to attend midnite mass at a local Catholic church, St. Francis (Sac). It was awesome, and I felt safe and at home. I'm not Catholic by denomination, but the priests and choir and attendees made me want to convert. Literally. It was totally home and God's presence was definitely evident. Francisicans are very accepting, apologetic, loving, kind and see all creations as gifts and blessings to Jesus. What a concept huh??!! I remember a service at our church when I was very young, the pastor, a very wellknown and respected Pentecostal minister turned away a woman at the door because she was in pants. He would not allow her to enter, he saw her dress as disrespectful to the Lord, the congregation clapped in agreement. However, I sat, as a small child, horrified that someone obviously in need of ministering (she was very upset, crying, etc) was turned away because of something so worldly and unimportant, her apparel.

Blossom, I want the same civil rights as the next person. If I want to be married in a church, I'll seek out a church that wants to marry me to my same-sex partner. I would never want to be married in a church that didn't respect, honor or welcome my marriage, myself and my partner. In my opinion, those are two separate issues - civil marriage and church marriage. Although it makes me sad that churches would choose to turn away anyone, I respect it is their choice. For state and federal government, not applying all rights and priviledges equally to all is unacceptable and a violation of my personal civil rights. Separation of church and state not only protects EVERYONE's civil rights, it allows for each of us to worship in our own way, to our own God without fear of reprisal or punishment. So, while others here may not agree, I am in agreement with you that I don't feel churches should have to necessarily offer everyone equal consideration or acceptance.

Truly LOVE is the key factor in humanity and civility - and until everyone sees that we will continue to struggle in our goal of achieving equality.

Zerbie

01-31-2007, 01:18 AM

Blossom -

Actually, what you describe, letting the state make it's own civil marriages and letting each church affirm or deny a religious sanction of marriage according to its dictates, is most certainly what I support and advocate. I believe you'll find many, if not most, or even all of us here, to hold that position.

What we ARE entitled to is equality in the eyes of the state. And each church is entitled to bless any union it deems fit, and deny those it deems unfit. The situation would be ideal. It's fair to the churches, AND it's fair to LGBT people, legally. Yes I personally disagree with churches who deny marriage to gay couples, I hold them "wrong." So what? I just don't choose to worship at one, and I would have chosen NOT to marry my husband at one. (In fact, I made choosing a pro-marriage equality minister a necessity when we planned our wedding.) Those who prefer can choose to worship at churches that exclude recognition of gay couples, and vice versa. No one's PERSONAL expression of belief gets stomped on in the religious arena. Problem solved.

No, I don't think you have to change your mind or opinions. UNLESS your opinion is that the state should restrict gay people, selectively, from enjoying equal status under the law. As long as you leave gay people to lead their lives enjoying the same rights and privileges that you do, I don't care if you choose to believe that, oh I dunno, all gay people are purple, say.

novaseeker

01-31-2007, 09:32 AM

However, my libertarian leaning always gets tripped up on the fact that we all believe that our beliefs should be made into law to some degree--murder is bad, stealing is bad, and so on. How do we decide which values should become law?

It's not really that stark, actually. Murder and stealing and the like are not illegal because of the Ten Commandments (although that's what people like to think) -- they're illegal everywhere on Earth, including in places that are completely uninfluenced by any of the Abrahamic religions. The key in deciding what to make illegal in a pluralistic society is what is in the social interest, and consistent with the legal values on which that pluralistic society is based. It isn't a question of deciding what the law should be based on what the Bible says, or what a specific religion says should be considered religiously illegal; it's rather a question of what, in the context of that pluralistic, civil state, should be civilly illegal -- a much narrower band of items, really.

The underlying legal values of the United States are enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. These are not religious documents, but civil ones, and they have their own internal logic and system of values in and of themselves. They were crafted to work that way because even in the day when they were drafted, the young republic was quite diverse and pluralistic in many ways, and the idea was to create a neutral, civil government that could realistically govern a diverse, pluralistic society. The Constitution's values -- liberty, freedom, justice -- are our nation's value system on the civil and legal level. The Constitution, of course, does not prohibit individuals from having personal (or collective) social values, and in fact it encourages this. But these values are proper in their own sphere (that is, in the social sphere) and not in the legal, civil sphere.

The legal, civil sphere must remain a neutral playing field in a pluralistic society such as ours if our society is to function in a way that is appropriate given its diversity. The alternative to the neutral playing field is the conflation of religion and politics, which we have seen to a worrying degree particularly on the American right -- and the creation of a political "war" based on religious beliefs. These people are fond of saying that their religious values take precedence over merely civil values, but in doing so they subvert the constitution which gives them the freedom to believe in the (sometimes quite odd) things that they do. In reality, it's fine for someone to believe that their religious values take precedence, but when someone holding constitutional office takes decisions based on values that are not our constitutional ones, our entire system of democracy, freedom, justice and liberty is put at grave peril. It undermines our constitutional system, and it creates very unhealthy precedents to the effect that anyone can bring any sorts of values to constitutional office and tryu to force them through as a part of the political process, constitutional values be damned. It's an attitude that is profoudnly disrespectful of the Constitutional system, and as a result one that ultimately is very dangerous for the future stability of our republic.

On the very specific issue of gay marriage, it's clear that we (that is the advocates of it) are going to win at the end of the day. It will take time, and it will take a lot of effort. And it will take patience for the proper moment in time to ask the constitutional question. But the constitutional jurisprudence of this country goes in one way: more freedom over time. It's just a part of our constitutional history, and gay marriage will one day be another chapter in the story of the recognition of rights and freedoms for all Americans. That does not, however, have any impact on what churches decide to do. Churches are not bound to marry anyone that they do not want to marry. Certainly the anti-gay-marriage activists, virtually all of whom are conservative evangelical Christians, know this as a fact, and it's honestly not what they are worried about. They know that gay people won't be allowed to marry at Mclean Bible Church -- that's not what they're worried about. They're worried that if the state allows gay people to marry, that gay couples will be popping up in mainstream life all over the place and that is what they do not want. It makes them uncomfortable, because they think that gay relationships are sinful, and they don't want to be confronted with them in their neighborhoods and PTAs and the like, and have to explain it to their children. So, they want to restrict the rights of gay Americans because of this discomfort, and cloak it in the language of "sin" when they know very well that many things that the church considers sinful are not illegal, and that this is a hopelessly useless test for what should be legal or not.

Daniel

01-31-2007, 10:36 AM

Nova- Excellent summation! You outline the the conflict for conservatives beautifully, though it is not a pretty sight:

They're worried that if the state allows gay people to marry, that gay couples will be popping up in mainstream life all over the place and that is what they do not want. It makes them uncomfortable, because they think that gay relationships are sinful, and they don't want to be confronted with them in their neighborhoods and PTAs and the like, and have to explain it to their children. So, they want to restrict the rights of gay Americans because of this discomfort, and cloak it in the language of "sin" when they know very well that many things that the church considers sinful are not illegal, and that this is a hopelessly useless test for what should be legal or not.

In point of fact, gay couples already are everywhere. Denying them the legitimacy of their relationships only furthers the head-in-the-sand-mentality, fear and ignorance. Setting barriers to Love and Commitment between gay persons is, ultimately, self-limiting: what you deny others you deny yourself.

keltic63

01-31-2007, 11:52 AM

Blossom

Yes, there are many parallels. The point that I am thinking about is this: how can I, someone who does not agree with your view of homosexuality, still use the common experiences we share to first of all, better understand you and care for you.

keltic
and do so without making me feel as I am to be pitied for not being "like you" in terms of sexuality?

Secondly, you may remember that I struggle with the issue of making my belief (or anyone's belief) into law--it's that darn libertarian leaning. So, in that case, (if I followed this leaning) I would support the Church's right (each denomination individually) to make it's choice regarding gay marriage, while leaving the state to make up its own mind. Those here would be able to be married by the state or by a number of liberal churches, just not by most conservative ones.

This sounds different from what I think I've heard you say before. are you now supporting the gov't endorsement of same-sex marriage? perhaps active listening comes into play here.

However, my libertarian leaning always gets tripped up on the fact that we all believe that our beliefs should be made into law to some degree--murder is bad, stealing is bad, and so on. How do we decide which values should become law?

and here is where your assessment of lgbt people shines through in a way that perhaps you haven't noticed before. for you, homosexuality is equal to murder and stealing. active listening: is that what you wish to say about homosexuals?

I think we've realized this before--but here lies another difference between us. When I describe that foundational part of me that can never be stripped away, I do not include my sexuality. I saw myself as simply, a child of God, while you saw yourself as simply "a GAY Child of God". Our sexuality is, no doubt, a large part of all of us. I express it everyday in the way I feel about dressing up, or wanting my hair to look pretty, or through the perfumes I choose to wear. I express my femininity in the way I dote on my children as mothers usually do. I also express what others might consider to be more masculine traits, as well. But all of that, despite the fact that it is a huge part of my identity, cannot fully define me. Even much of sexuality can pass away. Almost anything in this life can be stripped away, but that root of who we are will remain, and from my perspective, who we are is: humans lovingly created in the image of God.

are you asexual? when you're 98, will you be neither heterosexual or homosexual simply because physical intimacy is either less important or less frequent? I mention that I am a "Gay" child of God because homosexuality is the minority. and I do believe that I am created in the image of God.

Must grace involve changing one's mind on an issue? Or is grace the way we choose to interact with others, even when we disagree?

Does grace allow us to withhold blessings from those we deem as "other"?

Blossom

01-31-2007, 10:46 PM

keltic
and do so without making me feel as I am to be pitied for not being "like you" in terms of sexuality?

Is it possible for me to believe that some of your views and actions are wrong without making you feel that I "pity" you? Really, I think there are a number of ways that conservatives (and fundies) express their views. Some show anger, some show pity, some show indifference, and others... I'm not sure how to answer this question yet.

This sounds different from what I think I've heard you say before. are you now supporting the gov't endorsement of same-sex marriage? perhaps active listening comes into play here.

I believe I've made the point before, either here or on UMC, more likely here. I have considered this for a while and have not come to a conclusion. I am more focused on the church's decisions than on government's, which reflects my tendency towards separatism, which isn't necessarily good.

and here is where your assessment of lgbt people shines through in a way that perhaps you haven't noticed before. for you, homosexuality is equal to murder and stealing. active listening: is that what you wish to say about homosexuals?

My question was whether or not our moral beliefs should be made into law. Usually, when we make our moral beliefs into law, we focus on the negatives (the thou shalt nots)--murder and stealing being the most obvious that the majority of us agree on. I used these as a common denominator to make the point that we do legislate morality to some degree. But when do we no longer do so? Do we base our laws on what the majority of the country believes? Or do we go the route of "as long as you only hurt yourself!". This would mean that prostitution and drug use should be fine. Back to your point, no, I wasn't comparing homosexuality to murder and stealing: those were things that I listed as being almost universally opposed (unlike homosexuality). You and I agree on the wrongness of murder, gossip, adultery, abuse..., and we would also agree on the rightness of many other things, but we do not agree on the rightness/wrongness of homosexuality. So, do we only legislate what we all agree on?

are you asexual? when you're 98, will you be neither heterosexual or homosexual simply because physical intimacy is either less important or less frequent? I mention that I am a "Gay" child of God because homosexuality is the minority. and I do believe that I am created in the image of God.

I'm trying to think whether I see sexuality as part of God's image--I guess it depends on how you see sexuality. If you see the steriotypical traits that seem manly or womanly, then we could see both male and female characteristics in God (biblically speaking): God is jealous, strong, Father but has mother-like traits, loving, compassionate, passionate. But I really don't sees these as sexual, but rather as examples of a strong and diverse character. And my understanding of being created in the image of God is that we are created to be like God, namely in character (it certainly isn't a physical likeness).

Does grace allow us to withhold blessings from those we deem as "other"?

By blessings, you mean the right to marriage, for instance? If this is a question about legal rights, then I won't represent the conservative group very well, as my comments earlier indicate I'm still thinking on this and (for now) lean towards focusing on the church and not on government.

Zerbie

01-31-2007, 11:29 PM

Blossom,

Dunno about other posters here, but I'm less interested in you as a spokesperson for a group than in what it is that drew you here, individually. Many people hold views that are complex, multi-faceted, so you are in not in a minority if yours are multi-faceted.

Sounds like perhaps they are in flux though?

keltic63

02-01-2007, 12:04 AM

By blessings, you mean the right to marriage, for instance? If this is a question about legal rights, then I won't represent the conservative group very well, as my comments earlier indicate I'm still thinking on this and (for now) lean towards focusing on the church and not on government.

that could certainly be part of what I mean by blessings. but what about honoring my type of relationship by granting me access to my partner if he's in the emergency room, or hospitalized? how about showing positive images of gay relationships in the media? how about a society that encourages monogamous coupling of gay and lesbians? how about letting me feel that I can hold my partner's hand in public without fear of physical violence against us?

and as far as legal rights are concerned, why wouldn't the restriction of legal marriage by certain religious groups be considered something as less than graceful?

all in all, Blossom, your response to my questions are worthy of our great politicians. You've asked if dialogue is possible. I've engaged, and it seems that in this one post you've managed to talk a lot without saying much at all. Your answer appears to me, at least, a non-answer.

so, a little more active listening:

are you here to help the poor, pitiful, misguided homosexuals?
if not? what is the dialogue you want to have?

you have or have not made a decision about civil (legal) marriage of same-sex couples? should I assume your opinion is that churches could then decide whom they marry, much as they do now?

does lack of sex drive, or even opportunity for intimacy eliminate orientation?

do we legislate what we all agree on? I doubt it, but I also see that cutting the other way: why legislate against same-sex marriage when a small, vocal, segment of the population is against it?

what kind of dialogue are you looking for, blossom?

Blossom

02-01-2007, 01:53 AM

that could certainly be part of what I mean by blessings. but what about honoring my type of relationship by granting me access to my partner if he's in the emergency room, or hospitalized?

That seems right to me that your relationship should be honored. Are partners still denied access?

how about showing positive images of gay relationships in the media?

I see tons more positive images than I did 5 years ago. Ellen went from having her show canceled because she came out, to having a really great talk show, hosting major awards shows, and doing commercials. She's a great representative for gay people. Does she display her romantic relationship?--no, but everyone knows she is gay and knows she is in a relationship. That's a huge step. Plus, a lot of T.V. shows have gay people portrayed in positive ways. Actually, I would think that this is the best way to change people's minds. Media is rapidly changing our culture, and from what I can see, it is going the direction you want it to go.

how about a society that encourages monogamous coupling of gay and lesbians? how about letting me feel that I can hold my partner's hand in public without fear of physical violence against us?

Our culture is changing, although it must seem very slowly to you. But it is changing. But some people are violent--despite laws that are meant to protect the innocent and despite attempts to educate people against violence, I'm not sure what will take away all possibility of violence. All factors together should help--punishment for violence, education, positive roles in the media of gay people, and time (for culture to change), as well as the Church's role in teaching each member to truly love each person and to never resort to violence.

and as far as legal rights are concerned, why wouldn't the restriction of legal marriage by certain religious groups be considered something as less than graceful?

Grace does not require the Church to condone and/or support what it does not agree with.

all in all, Blossom, your response to my questions are worthy of our great politicians. You've asked if dialogue is possible. I've engaged, and it seems that in this one post you've managed to talk a lot without saying much at all...
are you here to help the poor, pitiful, misguided homosexuals?
if not? what is the dialogue you want to have?

I haven't debated on the right or wrong of homosexuality for a while. I'm not here to convince you that you are wrong. But I am not here to change my mind, either. I believe there is still room for dialogue, even if it is not aimed at changing one another.

you have or have not made a decision about civil (legal) marriage of same-sex couples? should I assume your opinion is that churches could then decide whom they marry, much as they do now?

Yes, churches retain the right to choose whom they will marry.

does lack of sex drive, or even opportunity for intimacy eliminate orientation?

No. My point was that sex drive may lessen so that it does not seem as foundational to who one is. And, again, in my opinion, it is not THE foundation, although it is a large part of who we are.

do we legislate what we all agree on? I doubt it, but I also see that cutting the other way: why legislate against same-sex marriage when a small, vocal, segment of the population is against it?

Although I do not assume that the majority is always right, it does seem to be the fair way to make many decisions (democracy and all). From what I see, the majority of Americans do not support same-sex marriage. That may be shifting to some degree, but we still have a huge population that does not support it. This isn't the point that I would personally stand on to deny gay marriage, but I was trying to answer your question.

what kind of dialogue are you looking for, blossom?

Again, I'm not trying to change your mind, and you aren't going to change my mind on the majors. I thought it was enough to dialogue without trying to change one another. What kind of dialogue are you looking for?

novaseeker

02-01-2007, 06:58 AM

It's true that generally speaking in a democratic republic the will of the majority should be respected. Generally. The exception, of course, is when it comes to fundamental rights, rights which the majority cannot decide to take away through the democratic process. That's why the issues around marriage are viewed as "rights" (in fact, the Supreme Court ruled many decades ago that the right to marry a partner of one's choosing was a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment in the case of Loving v. Virginia -- a case concerning the so-called miscegenation laws -- which were themselves supported by a majority of the populations in the Southern states -- but which stands clearly for the proposition that marriage is a fundamental right).

It's because of precedents like Loving that we can be sure that this issue of who is allowed to marry whom is a very "live" one in terms of the constitution, and this is well known to the opponents of gay marriage and of course precisely why some of the anti folks in the last Congress wanted to pass a federal constitutional amendment that would do an end-run around the logical followthrough of putting together the logic of Loving with 2003's Lawrence v. Texas.

So to be honest there's a now fairly old and settled precedent out there that says that marriage is a fundamental right that is subject to only the most narrow restrictions placed on it by the democratic majority. And there is the recent Lawrence precedent that 'relationships' and 'intimacy' with a partner of one's choosing cannot be criminalized by a majority that is hostile to the sexual practices in question because this interferes with the fundamental right of everyone to form relationships with whom they choose (this was the basis of the holding in Lawrence). Justice Scalia's scathing dissent in Lawrence lamented that the case -- while not dealing with marriage -- nevertheless paved the way for marital rights for gay people, and he was absolutely right that this follows from the logic of the ruling in Lawrence. For if gay people cannot be prohibited from forming relationships and consummating these relationships sexually because they have a fundamental right to relationships with people of their choosing, and if marriage itself is a well-recognized fundamental right -- it's more or less the logical conclusion that marriage (or something "marriage-like" --- I can see the Court deciding that the word is not a constitutional issue) is something that, as a fundamental right tied together with the fundamental right to relationships recognized in Lawrence, cannot be withheld from people on the basis of the sex of their chosen partner. Justice Scalia is right to be worried, because this is what the precedent leads to logically.

So while I agree that generally democratic majorities are to be respected, when it comes to matters of fundamental rights, these really aren't subject to a popular vote, and that's why the courts exist, on the constitutional level. There are some things that the democratic majority can't take away from people, and as I mentioned in my note above, the jurisprudential trend is towards more rights, more freedoms, more liberty for all Americans over time.

Daniel

02-01-2007, 07:14 AM

Again, I'm not trying to change your mind, and you aren't going to change my mind on the majors. I thought it was enough to dialogue without trying to change one another. What kind of dialogue are you looking for?

“People don’t get along because they fear each other. People fear each other because they don’t know each other. They don’t know each other because they have not properly communicated with each other.”

– Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

“It isn’t a mistake to have strong views. The mistake is to have nothing else.”

– Anthony Weston, A Rulebook for Arguments (Hackett)

keltic63

02-01-2007, 07:33 AM

Again, I'm not trying to change your mind, and you aren't going to change my mind on the majors. I thought it was enough to dialogue without trying to change one another. What kind of dialogue are you looking for?

I'm here to learn about, particpate in, the pursuit of Freedom for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from religious and political oppression through the practice of relentless nonviolent resistance.

with you, Blossom, I'm interested in a dialogue that helps me understand your motives, your reasons for engaging in conversation yet not saying much (as noted in my earlier posts) and why you return for dialogue about a topic which you admit you refuse to change your stance. What is it that brings you back to us for dialogue then?

so while you support the church's right to marry whom they please (as I do) do you also support legalizing same-sex marriage?

what point would you personally stand on to fight against legalizing same-sex marriage?

Zerbie

02-01-2007, 12:36 PM

Blossom

A while back you asked if partners are still denied access to visitation in hospitals. Yes. They are.

In Arizona, the hospitals have a sign to the effect of "family members only" (this may only be in the ER, I don't recall specifically) - anyway, since same sex parters are not "family" b/c they lack marital status, they cannot visit each other.

Blossom

02-01-2007, 05:41 PM

I'm here to learn about, particpate in, the pursuit of Freedom for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from religious and political oppression through the practice of relentless nonviolent resistance.

I meant, what type of conversation do you hope to have with someone who does not agree with you on these stances.

with you, Blossom, I'm interested in a dialogue that helps me understand your motives, your reasons for engaging in conversation yet not saying much (as noted in my earlier posts) and why you return for dialogue about a topic which you admit you refuse to change your stance. What is it that brings you back to us for dialogue then?

I'm trying to think of what you perceive me to not be saying. On issues, that I don't have a firm stance, I'm not quick to put out ideas--I'm still thinking. If there is a question that I haven't answered, please ask it in a different way.

so while you support the church's right to marry whom they please (as I do) do you also support legalizing same-sex marriage?

I do not believe that any church should perform gay marriages, as I believe it is contrary to foundational beliefs. However, there are other Christians and whole denominations that disagree with me on this. They have the power to make their own decisions. As for the second part of your question, I do not support the legalizing of same-sex marriage, but probably wouldn't have a problem with civil unions. I see marriage as a religious rite and would prefer to keep it within the church, although this obviously does not happen. But back to legalizing gay marriage, although I do not support it, I don't think I would put my energy into standing against it.

what point would you personally stand on to fight against legalizing same-sex marriage?

As I just mentioned, although I do not support same-sex marriage, it isn't something that I am (currently) passionate about stopping.

Blossom

02-01-2007, 08:59 PM

Blossom. you don't support same-sex marriage because you're not passionate about it. Fair enough. whatcha wanna talk about? Best way to find out of its possible to have a dialogue among people who don't agree is ... to try it. What is it that we don't agree about (other than same-sex marriage about which you are not passionate)

quick note--I'm not sure that you got my point. I don't actively campaign against homosexual marriage because I think there are more important things to focus on. The reason I don't support same-sex marriage is because of core beliefs, not because of an absence or presence of passion. I can see where you got that, though.

Zerbie

02-02-2007, 01:00 AM

Okay I'm totally confused.

Blossom - you want a dialogue. You don't want to talk about the things you HAVEN'T made up your mind about. You've told us the things you HAVE got your mind made up about that we disagree with. We've told you why we disagree and you asked again if we are willing to have a dialogue with you. Obviously, here we all are, typing away. If it's not a dialogue, it's still *some*thing.

Um. . .well. . .is this the dialogue you were after? Is there something more you wanted to find out from this group of people? Something more you want to share with us?

I'm not sure what the question or problem is. What's the guiding thesis of this discussion?

If you want to talk about other things, come join us on the General Chat section and talk with us about random other subjects.

In fact - I have a request - there's a thread going on General Chat called "Why are you here at Soulforce" that a bunch of us have weighed in on. Maybe you could post your answer over there.

Blossom

02-02-2007, 10:23 AM

Not sure what's going on here, I'd have to go back through to trace the thoughts. Simply stated, I think we've found nice opportunities to discuss different things. When I feel that I have something to add, I do. When I'm not sure where I stand on an issue, I either make the comment that I'm still thinking through it or I don't speak to the issue at all. When asked questions, I answer as honestly as I can, and again, if I don't have an answer, I may simply answer by saying which way I lean. I don't feel a need to have a firmly set answer on everything, although I do on a lot of points.

I've found quite a few areas of discussion that seem to illustrate our different points of view; often, these don't hit precisely on homosexuality, but on ways of doing theology (which then leads us in our interpretation of Scripture). For me, this type of discussion is fine, and may indeed bear more fruit that cutting straight to the most heated issue. If others don't think I'm offering enough, then that's fine.

Daniel

02-02-2007, 11:41 AM

Blossom

02-02-2007, 01:19 PM

Blossom- What is going on here, in case you didn't catch Keltcs post, is our commitment and dedication to nonviolent resistence as regards religious oppression, specifically, as it is expressed in views that limit the interpretation of scripture in regard to GLBTQ persons. You are more than welcome to entertain the notion that additional discussion concerning theological matters may yet 'bear more fruit', but I think you will find such discussions will only lead back to that which you want to avoid.

It's O.K. if conversations go back to that--this is a site which promotes GLBT rights. But I don't think that starting there will work. Every time I have interacted in a discussion specifically on homosexuality, I find that we really need to talk about the other issues which form our thoughts on God, sin, and sexuality.

And speaking of avoiding things, it begs the question: Blossom- are you sure you're not a lesbian? Have you actually looked at what's under your I-don't-think-of-myself-as-male-or female-as-far-as-God-is-concerned stance?

You haven't understood my posts, Daniel. I am definitely female and heterosexual, although I try to be careful about stereotypes, as not everyone fits into a 1950s view of men and women. My point, again, was that my sexuality is not the most basic foundation of who I am. I see that foundation as being God's love for me. Everything else (as important as those things may be) comes second. And no, there is absolutely no question of my sexual orientation. I am heterosexual.

Though I expect you to deny it, from all that you've written, and not written on these pages, this reader will always wonder- if only to explain your presence- which you hardly seem to understand yourself.

Not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying I don't understand why I'm here? Although I've tried to express this, I recognize that my goals have probably changed to some degree. Life is flexible, people change, and that's a good thing.

It seems this has become worthy of a Jerry Seinfeld show--a discussion thread about nothing...er, a discussion thread about discussion. But, looking back, I see several points of real conversation that were interesting to me.

Tdogg expressed sadness regarding many church's refusal to marry gay people, but accepted their right to choose.

And Zerbie suggested that many on this board would agree with this, believing that although the churches that deny homosexual marriage are “wrong”, it is still their right to make that choice.

The question was raised and on the verge of discussion: What does it mean to show grace to others? Is it accepting and supporting their beliefs or is it more about showing grace in the way we interact with others, even when we disagree.

Novaseeker made some great points on why law is made and why homosexual marriage is fought against: I didn’t agree with every point, but appreciate his thoughts.

Keltic, among a number of points made and questions asked, heard me as saying that homosexuality is equal to murder and stealing. I’ve heard this comment made a number of times elsewhere. I attempted an answer to that, although maybe it wasn’t clear enough. But this is an important question, as it seems to be a common perception. Some conservatives probably do see homosexuality as equal with murder, others do not. It’s a bit hard to answer, in part, because of the doctrine of sin, which has some variance depending on who you ask. "Is all sin equal?” is a huge question that plays into what keltic heard me as saying. We didn’t finish the conversation (I don’t think), but it was an important one.

Also raised: How much is our sexuality a part of us? Is it foundational? Is it the foundation of who we are?

Additionally, the question was discussed: How can gay couples can express their relationships with signs of affection without being victimized by violent responses.

Daniel

02-02-2007, 04:26 PM

It's O.K. if conversations go back to that--this is a site which promotes GLBT rights. But I don't think that starting there will work. Every time I have interacted in a discussion specifically on homosexuality, I find that we really need to talk about the other issues which form our thoughts on God, sin, and sexuality.

Really? To what end Blossom? Discussions which seek to place, according to your priesty whim, pebble upon pebble of logical and correct biblical interpretation leading to the grandest discussion of them all, the wrongess of homosexuality?

You may choose to remain behind the high wall of your 'foundational' beliefs, but I will not participate in discussions, the only possible aim of which would be to erect a wall within myself, the one I tore down long ago.

However, I will do everything possible to show to you that the beliefs you hold, and not the person holding them, are not worthy of whom you call Lord: God's blessing for me as a gay man and my relationship with my beloved is not up for debate.

I wish you much peace.

suzer1013

02-02-2007, 04:54 PM

You may choose to remain behind the high wall of your 'foundational' beliefs, but I will not participate in discussions, the only possible aim of which would be to erect a wall within myself, the one I tore down long ago.

This was an interesting image to me. It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that Blossom has removed a brick from that wall to look through and try to see and understand what's on the other side. I, too, have had to break down some walls, and in the process built some back up -- with bricks made out of stereotypes about "conservatives." Blossom's offerings here (some of which I have disagreed with and been hurt by -- especially those of a few months ago), as well and Cathy's and some others, have helped me realize I need to remove a brick or two and peek out to understand the human beings I've put behind that wall. We may not always agree, but I do think our discussions can be fruitful when handled with politeness, respect and grace. Both here and on other sites I read and take part in, I've found there are some "conservative" voices who are willing to meet in the middle somewhere, which is something I had heretofore never seen.

We try and we sometimes fail, as we all have human frailties. I am trying to admit my own, and allow others to have theirs, in the hopes that eventually we will all work together for peace and justice. (This does not mean I think we need to beat to death the same old subjects -- many of us are rather worn out from that, just that I think there is of course room for dialogue in many areas.)

Just my thoughts, having read all this....

Susan

P.S. Hi, Blossom! Didn't mean to talk about you in the third person without giving you a shout! :wave:

tdogg

02-02-2007, 10:15 PM

One of the big problems I see with attempting to dialogue with others who oppose my views on sexuality and equality is that they have no interest in really dialoguing. They aren't interested in understanding who I am, how I got here and where I'm going. They are only interested in clocking me over the head with their opinions, their story and their issues and stance. That is not dialoguing.

If someone is genuinely wanting to dialogue with me, they will need to be genuine, and that means listening to me (really listening with their minds and hearts as well as their ears). They are willing to read articles, books, blogs, whatever it takes to understand me. They are compassionate without being forceful with their own opinion/view. They have done their own research instead of relying on their religious icons and idols (humans in this case) to tell them what to believe and why. They are willing to contemplate what they learn before making rash decisions - either to continue with their current view or change it. To really make up their own minds - not let the preacher of the day make it up for them.

Oh, and they will answer questions I put to them honestly, genuinely, the same as I answer their questions. Very important - if you want someone to spill their guts to you, you must be willing to spill some of your own to them. That builds mutual trust and fosters effective and compassionate dialogue. And if you really want to understand, you might step into my shoes for a few seconds, imagine yourself in the situation I may be talking about and then seeing if you can feel a little bit of what I'm feeling. Then, we can really have a great talk. Dialogue isn't a one-way street.

For Blossom, some things are you are interested in:

God - I believe in God, a Higher Power, a loving and compassionate Creator. I do not necessarily believe God is a He, or even a She, but my beliefs lean towards God is everything and all things, and infinite being that is so outside the box our human minds cannot fathom the totality. I believe in a loving God. I have an extreme difficulty wrapping my head and heart around what I've been taught since a very small child - that God is judgmental, wrathful, violent and if I don't accept "His" "offering" as my savior He will surely toss me into the flaming pit of hell. Oh, by the way, it's a free choice and no one is forcing me to choose the offering...hmmmm, but my only other alternative is to burn for all eternity in the flaming pit of hell??? But it's totally a choice... I just can't begin to imagine how I'm supposed to be greatful and thankful for that kind of salvation. Wow.

By the way I do believe Jesus is God in human form. I believe his presence changed and still changes the way we are to form our views - in love, compassion and concern for all creations. In my experience, I feel that many if not most of the people I know who consider themselves Christians do not bother to understand what Jesus came to teach.

Sin - ok, this is an interesting one. What is sin? Who gets to say? Who gets to choose? Who gets to judge? Who gets to condemn? I say NO ONE. God alone will decide and I believe we received common sense and a conscience to help us figure that out. And if we don't, it's often called mental illness which is an underlying cause of violent crime and rarely gets the proper consideration or treatment. We have brains and hearts and spirits - most of us are perfectly capable of determining what is right and what is wrong and we probably do a pretty good job of it. And defending, judging, punishing for thoughts, feelings, attitudes, actions which others may consider sin - well, for me, it's pretty much between 'my' GOD and myself. Unless of course I break a law, then you have to throw the justice system in there as well.

SEXUALITY - Wow, there's so many places I could go with this one! ;) :D Sorry, my mind just keeps on drifting there...:cool: I'll try to remain under control... :lol:

Seriously, my sexuality - if you must call my sexual orientation SEXUAL at all - is a huge part of me. We were created with sexuality, with sexual urges (some more than others). To deny that this is a significant part of us isn't fair to our physique or psyche. My so called sexual orientation is GAY (lesbian) and I'm pretty happy with that. It is important to me - it's not my #1 foundation, but it's right up at the top. I've been attracted to women for almost as long as I've been alive, my ability to hide that and push it far back in my being doesn't mean it hasn't been there. I can't explain it, it's just who I am. For those who might have a problem with it, I'm going to make an excellent guess that they haven't done any of the things I've discussed in the first 3 paragraphs of this post. I don't believe my creator gave me sexual attraction and urges for women, and then expects me to ignore them. How cruel would that be? That's like making a huge batch of cookies for your 5 year old, their all time favorite, putting them in the middle of the living room floor (in a bowl of course) and then insisting that the 5 year old eat NONE. Hmmm, not going to happen folks. Would be a cruel gesture.

Ok, long post, but hopefully I answered some of your inquiries to your satisfaction Blossom. Now, going back to the beginning of my post, I'm curious as to why some folks believe my marrying the love of my life (another woman) is a strike against family values and would destroy marriage in this county?

tdogg

02-02-2007, 10:19 PM

The main reason so many people in this country are against same sex marriage (civil union, whatever you want to call it) is because they sit in their sterile homes and live their sterile lives and listen to sterile people tell them it will destroy marriage as we know it, it will destroy family values, it's against everything this country was built on, blah blah blah. Sadly they don't bother to find out for themselves that the hype is only hype and there is no truth in it. None at all.

If people used their own brains, there would be no question that GLBTs would have all the equality they could take.

Reminds me of a couple of quotes from Albert Einstein:

He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice.

Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts.

Blossom

02-02-2007, 11:46 PM

Really? To what end Blossom? Discussions which seek to place, according to your priesty whim, pebble upon pebble of logical and correct biblical interpretation leading to the grandest discussion of them all, the wrongess of homosexuality?

You may choose to remain behind the high wall of your 'foundational' beliefs, but I will not participate in discussions, the only possible aim of which would be to erect a wall within myself, the one I tore down long ago.

However, I will do everything possible to show to you that the beliefs you hold, and not the person holding them, are not worthy of whom you call Lord: God's blessing for me as a gay man and my relationship with my beloved is not up for debate.

Yikes, Daniel...do you realize that you, above all people, cause me to want to build up that wall? Everytime you assume the worst of me, every time you accuse me, I wonder "what's the point".

You say that you will not participate in any discussion which addresses issues that I believe are foundational to the issue which obviously divides us, but you have no problem promising to "do everything possible to show" me that I am wrong. You do realize, don't you, that until you work for a common understanding and respect, you will never prove anything to anyone.

Blossom

02-03-2007, 12:17 AM

[QUOTE=tdogg;19440]One of the big problems I see with attempting to dialogue with others who oppose my views on sexuality and equality is that they have no interest in really dialoguing. They aren't interested in understanding who I am, how I got here and where I'm going. They are only interested in clocking me over the head with their opinions, their story and their issues and stance. That is not dialoguing.

Hi tdogg, if I didn't have the tendency to be so darn private, I would ask who lives in my city (which would involve sharing that info!) and invite them to go out for dinner. I've felt repeatedly that this is almost necessary for this real type of dialogue. It would afford more time to be open about life and values, and to share each person's story

If someone is genuinely wanting to dialogue with me, they will need to be genuine, and that means listening to me (really listening with their minds and hearts as well as their ears). They are willing to read articles, books, blogs, whatever it takes to understand me. They are compassionate without being forceful with their own opinion/view.

For what it's worth, I've sensed a bit of a change in how I view addressing homosexuality and the starkly different beliefs regarding it. Thanks to some here who are quite open, I've been able to learn a bit and to understand a little more.

God - I believe in God, a Higher Power, a loving and compassionate Creator. I do not necessarily believe God is a He, or even a She, but my beliefs lean towards God is everything and all things, and infinite being that is so outside the box our human minds cannot fathom the totality. I believe in a loving God. I have an extreme difficulty wrapping my head and heart around what I've been taught since a very small child - that God is judgmental, wrathful, violent and if I don't accept "His" "offering" as my savior He will surely toss me into the flaming pit of hell. Oh, by the way, it's a free choice and no one is forcing me to choose the offering...hmmmm, but my only other alternative is to burn for all eternity in the flaming pit of hell??? But it's totally a choice... I just can't begin to imagine how I'm supposed to be greatful and thankful for that kind of salvation. Wow.[QUOTE]

Just some quick responses to this (I won't try to respond to all three points, as they are all huge!)
I don't believe that God is male or female, either. In fact, no Christian should. The reason that I choose to call God "Father" is because it is a biblical reference and because Jesus called God "Father". To call God "Mother" gets tricky because other religions actually have believed that one or more of their gods were female. In the O.T., we even find that some of God's people got confused, as well. The focus of saying "Father" is not to view God as a sexual male, but to focus on relationship. God is our loving Father/Parent.

I believe God to be loving, as well. That is who God is. I'm not sure what I would think, though, of a God who sits idly by as people hurt one another. My view of God is that God always works to change hearts, and many people are changed. But when people refuse to respond to God's grace and they continue to live a life of selfishness and of rebellion against their Maker and Savior, what is to become of them? I wish I could remember who said this, but I've heard the point made that people choose hell for themselves: to choose a temporal life without recognizing and worshipping God leads to an eternity without God. So, is hell (there are different understandings of hell, by the way)--is hell a punishment by God or a decision we make? Actually, what would happen if all people who have rebelled against the love of God and who have hurt or ignored their neighbor, were sent to a remote place with no law, no source of good, and without God's ever-present love and grace...what would you call that but hell?

I suppose the real divide on our views of salvation stems from the question "do we need a savior?" How broken is the human race? Even the most devout people I have known have been keenly aware of their tendency to pride and selfishness (in fact, they are more aware of this state than most people). Well meaning people through the centuries have not been able to make the earth a truly safe place to live. Even our country, with all its freedoms, is still full of people who are selfish, thoughtless, unfaithful, murderers, abusers, and so on. If we don't need a savior, what do we need?

Zerbie

02-03-2007, 12:32 AM

[QUOTE=tdogg;19440]
Hi tdogg, if I didn't have the tendency to be so darn private, I would ask who lives in my city (which would involve sharing that info!) and invite them to go out for dinner. I've felt repeatedly that this is almost necessary for this real type of dialogue. each person's story

More than almost - it does. To really connect from such diverging views and experiences, face to face personal contact really can't be replaced by the internet. We try, but it's just not going to be the same.

For what it's worth, I've sensed a bit of a change in how I view addressing homosexuality and the starkly different beliefs regarding it. Thanks to some here who are quite open, I've been able to learn a bit and to understand a little more.

Well, that sounds like a good thing. Open to sharing what that change is?

[U][. But when people refuse to respond to God's grace and they continue to live a life of selfishness and of rebellion against their Maker and Savior, what is to become of them? .[/COLOR]

Blossom, are you aware that the line above implies that gay people by definition live lives of selfishness and rebellion? Do you mean to imply this? My sense is that's precisely what you mean. Assuming so, can you look back at what you've said and see how incredibly offensive it is? And why?

Zerbie

02-03-2007, 12:37 AM

. Well meaning people through the centuries have not been able to make the earth a truly safe place to live. Even our country, with all its freedoms, is still full of people who are selfish, thoughtless, unfaithful, murderers, abusers, and so on. If we don't need a savior, what do we need?[/COLOR]

My opinion: we need for ALL of us to become like Him (whether we know Him by the name of Jesus, or by some other name.) Not one, but *every*one.

Blossom

02-03-2007, 12:41 AM

[QUOTE=Blossom;19452]

Blossom, are you aware that the line above implies that gay people by definition live lives of selfishness and rebellion? Do you mean to imply this? My sense is that's precisely what you mean. Assuming so, can you look back at what you've said and see how incredibly offensive it is? And why?

Zerbie, no, this is not what I was implying. Thank you for asking. I was thinking there in very general terms. I know homosexual people who earnestly love God. I don't know what to do about our strong disagreement, but I will not dare say that they do not love God or that they do not seek his grace. I had never thought of the term of selfishness as referring to homosexuals, but more as something that I believe every person struggles with/against: especially me. Rebellion--it's a strong word. It's hard to use strong words. I've been rebellious against God (although most people around me would not know--not all sin is on the outside). My theology is that everyone has been rebellious against God. As we respond to God's grace, and allow God to illumine those aspects of our lives that are not pleasing to him, we have the opportunity to either choose to obey or to rebel in that area.
BTW, I added a bit more to that last post, although it may not deal with the question you raised.

Zerbie

02-03-2007, 12:47 AM

[QUOTE=Zerbie;19455]

Zerbie, no, this is not what I was implying. Thank you for asking. I was thinking there in very general terms. I know homosexual people who earnestly love God. I don't know what to do about our strong disagreement, but I will not dare say that they do not love God or that they do not seek his grace. I had never thought of the term of selfishness as referring to homosexuals, but more as something that I believe every person struggles with/against: especially me. Rebellion--it's a strong word. It's hard to use strong words. I've been rebellious against God (although most people around me would not know--not all sin is on the outside). My theology is that everyone has been rebellious against God. As we respond to God's grace, and allow God to illumine those aspects of our lives that are not pleasing to him, we have the opportunity to either choose to obey or to rebel in that area.
BTW, I added a bit more to that last post, although it may not deal with the question you raised.

Okay - if you did not mean that implication, then a heads-up: those words are hurled against gay people constantly. The accusation of "selfishness' and "rebellion" has been casually made explicit time after time by "christian" individuals. If it's not what you meant, then you need to be aware of the backdrop against which you speak, and how some gay folk will interpret your words as personal offense.

Caught the addition to your post already, and responded to it above.

Daniel

02-03-2007, 01:21 AM

Yikes, Daniel...do you realize that you, above all people, cause me to want to build up that wall? Everytime you assume the worst of me, every time you accuse me, I wonder "what's the point".

You say that you will not participate in any discussion which address issues that I believe are foundational to the issue which obviously divides us, but you have no problem promising to "do everything possible to show" me that I am wrong. You do realize, don't you, that until you work for a common understanding and respect, you will never prove anything to anyone.

Well....this is a nice tactic if there ever was one! Sorry my dear, I will not bite that worm. Just because I'm not playing by your script doesn't mean I do not have the highest regard for you. You mistake my passion for ideas and thoughts with a disregard for your person.

As I have pointed out, and will point out again, this is not about YOU the person, this is about the misguided thoughts you hold dear and are loath to let go. They accuse you, not I. For they are thoughts of fear and death and would condemn me and all my brothers and sisters to everlasting hell. And that which condemns can never offer love.

The matter is as simple as this: I wish you could rejoice in the happiness and joy I experience when I wake up and see my beloved next to me. And if what you say is true, you experience the same with your beloved. I rejoice in your love and hope and long for the day you will be able to rejoice in mine- for in doing so- you will be twice blessed.

That is the place where we can meet and join. And to that end, I offer you the utmost joy and blessing.

How does one begin to see meet in such a place? One means is this:

Let Miracles Replace all grievences.

Perhaps it is not clear to you that each decision that you make is one between a grievance and a miracle. Each grievance stands like a dark shield of hate before the miracle it would conceal. And as you raise it up before your eyes, you will not see the miracle beyond. Yet all the while it waits for you in light, but you behold your grievances instead.

from A Course in Miracles pp. 137

Of course, the snippet of gnosis above, while undountedly being far beyond the walls of your current belief system, could be viewed as being in keeping with that which is expressed in the Golden Rule, the only difference being that the quote I offer points out the pychological dynamic one goes through in order to love one another, which, from this proint of view, means giving up that which is fearful.

As is said: Seeing is believing.