Feedback needed - please

[andrewlittle]

Interesting state of affairs.

I received an email from the author of the "confession" who stated that the communication I originally received was in error. I was told that he may have inadvertently sent the original draft to the chair of Presbyterian Rainbow, not the final. The offending language was in the original, while the affirming language was in the final, he stated.

I won't make judgments ... but I will recite some interesting date issues.

The original version, which was the good one, was read at the presbytery meeting on Feb 2.

The copy I received in the alert, which was changed, was titled "Albany Confession 2008 Final 2(7(08.rtf"

The copy I just received, which is the one that is supposed to be the final version that was read on Feb 2, is titled ""Albany Confession 2008 Final 2 12 08.rtf". It also contains a typo, oddly enough in the section in question.

Who am I to know? But, at least, the original version is the one that is back in play - for now - I think.

[Gregory_de_Bois]

Originally Posted by BrianB

The use of the phrase "different lifestyles" makes me wonder if these allies truly understand that sexual orientation is not a choice. To have such wording in an official church document would be off-putting at best and downright offensive at worst. A person might wonder why the wording was changed from "sexual orientation and gender identity" to "different lifestyles". Was it changed to placate some of the more conservative members of the Presbytery? This wording would have a chilling effect toward the glbt community.

Amen! Being gay is not a "lifestyle"; it is part of our identities, nay our very essences. Not only that but using the term "different lifestyles" opens the door to too many things. Drunkenness is a lifestyle, and it is by no means similar to being gay, nor is it a "gift from God". Basically it makes the wrong point.

[paul]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

Interesting state of affairs.

I received an email from the author of the "confession" who stated that the communication I originally received was in error. I was told that he may have inadvertently sent the original draft to the chair of Presbyterian Rainbow, not the final. The offending language was in the original, while the affirming language was in the final, he stated.

I won't make judgments ... but I will recite some interesting date issues.

The original version, which was the good one, was read at the presbytery meeting on Feb 2.

The copy I received in the alert, which was changed, was titled "Albany Confession 2008 Final 2(7(08.rtf"

The copy I just received, which is the one that is supposed to be the final version that was read on Feb 2, is titled ""Albany Confession 2008 Final 2 12 08.rtf". It also contains a typo, oddly enough in the section in question.

Who am I to know? But, at least, the original version is the one that is back in play - for now - I think.

Andy,

"Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks..." eh? I love politics .

Nothing like a controversial issue to bring out a persons inner feelings and thoughts. We see in people the struggle to please people vs. figuring out what is right. I think there are all types of people involved in this. Some are our ardent supporters and will see things as many here have expressed. Some will land on the opposite side of the fence. Then there are the fence sitters, who are often not undecided in their hearts just in their words. They'll be made evident by the response "hey, these LBGT people are really ungrateful. Look at all we're trying to do for them and all they can do is whine."

The wording change, no matter when it took place, could represent ignorance or an attempt to fence sit on a controversial subject, or maybe both depending on the number of people involved. Either way, I'm guessing the wording will bring out peoples true feelings. Look at the effect it had here. I hope the people of your church will be as open about their thoughts and feelings as we have been. I think it's the hidden stuff that ends up being the most dangerous.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by paul

Andy,

"Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks..." eh? I love politics .


I agree....

Nothing like a controversial issue to bring out a persons inner feelings and thoughts. We see in people the struggle to please people vs. figuring out what is right.

I think it's the hidden stuff that ends up being the most dangerous.

Two salient points which are spot-on. It's what we try to keep hidden that bites us in the ass later on.

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

I received an email from the author of the "confession" who stated that the communication I originally received was in error. I was told that he may have inadvertently sent the original draft to the chair of Presbyterian Rainbow, not the final. The offending language was in the original, while the affirming language was in the final, he stated.

'Cover' or not, it's the right thing to do: what's that biblical verse about the one who says 'no no no, but, in the end, does the right thing anyway?' Blessed are they, right? Blessed may 'he' be.

I won't make judgments ... but I will recite some interesting date issues.

The original version, which was the good one, was read at the presbytery meeting on Feb 2.

The copy I received in the alert, which was changed, was titled "Albany Confession 2008 Final 2(7(08.rtf"

The copy I just received, which is the one that is supposed to be the final version that was read on Feb 2, is titled ""Albany Confession 2008 Final 2 12 08.rtf". It also contains a typo, oddly enough in the section in question.

Who am I to know? But, at least, the original version is the one that is back in play - for now - I think.

Take it from me- who's had to act as editor: typo's are a dead give-a-way that something's up- or was up- or has been ignored. That said the author could have gotten his versions confused and sent out the wrong doc: these things do and have happened. I've done it myself- more than once! And anyone who reads my posts will note how I edit virtually all of them for spelling etc. Mistakes are made. What's important is that - for now at least- this huge faux pas has been corrected- even thought the dates of the docs are confusing.

All the flack here? It just show that words really do matter. And I'm tickled that the affirming version is now back in play.

Way to go Andy!

[Vanessa White]

I am so glad for the "error", if that is indeed, what it was. However, I am cautiously optimistic that the newest format, the inclusive language, will remain that way. I feel so guarded at times when these things happen, even though I know they happen and can be honest mistakes at times. If is was not an error, but a way to cover an error in judgment, perhaps, my hope is that is will give pause to those who had less inclusive ideas about the language to know that it affects many people, and that there are those that ARE paying attention.

Thanks for the update, Andrew.

[tymejumper]

Originally Posted by BrianB

The use of the phrase "different lifestyles" makes me wonder if these allies truly understand that sexual orientation is not a choice. To have such wording in an official church document would be off-putting at best and downright offensive at worst. A person might wonder why the wording was changed from "sexual orientation and gender identity" to "different lifestyles". Was it changed to placate some of the more conservative members of the Presbytery? This wording would have a chilling effect toward the glbt community.

I would love to know whoes idea it was to change things. I have just had my love for my soulmate moved down in par to living a selected lifestyle, such as 'adventurous' life, the 'good' life the 'religious' life or the 'white supremisist' life. The problem here we have a lot of ignorance going on. They obviously need a bit of education starting with the fact that a 'lifestyle' is a choice one engages in upon reaching adulthood, and not one that you are born into. You can be born rich, but not live the rich lifestyle until you are an adult and you have the means to follow the rich lifestyle.

It is a pattern of behavior that is chosen and fits into a certain criterion. Gay and lesbian love does not fit into a specific and certain criterion, because if it did, all of our stories would be the same and have the same identifiers in them. They do not, so therefore we can't be classified.

How very sad they are seeking to minimize love on this basis, to keep the peace in the church and by closing their doors to gay individuals.

[mdhesswriter]

These two positions concerning the nature of wording lie behind the use of Aristotelian logic. This is logic of (linguistic) terms, which express (mental) concepts, which represent (real) essences, or the nature of things. Many modern religionests are suspicious and skeptical of the venerable and commonsense notion of things having real essences or natures and of our ability to know them. Aristotelian logic assumes the existence of essences and are ability to know them, for its basic units are terms, which express concepts, which express essences. But modern symbolic laungage does not assume what religionests call metaphysical realism (that essences are real), but implicitly assumes instead metaphysical nominalism (that essences are names, human labels), since its basic units are not terms but propositions. Then it relates these propositions in argumentative structures just as a computer can do: if p, then q; p; therefore q.

The human mind is indeed a computer--we do compute, after all--but it is much more than that. We can also "see", or understand. Behind the use of Aristotelian logic is our hope that all our arguing will begin and end with seeing and insight. Thus, we usually begin by defining terms and end by trying to bring the listener to the point of seeing objective reality as it is.

I do not believe reason should usurp the primacy of faith, hope and love. I agree with classical Christian orthodoxy as expressed in medieval formulas like (fides quaerens intellectum), faith seeking understanding and (credo ut intelligam), I believe in order that I may understand. That is to say that when faith comes first, understanding follows, and aided by faith's tutelage. But I also agree with the classical position's contention that many of the things God has revealed to us to be believed, such as His own existence and some of His attributes, can be proved by human reason.

However, we must not naively identify objective rationality with subjective rationality. Truth is objective, but people usually are not. We are obviously living in a fallen world, not a perfect world, where people's exercise of reason is expressed in various forms of irrationality. An argument that is in itself perfectly rational and valid will often fall on ears deafened by prejudice, passion, ignorance, misunderstanding, imcomprehension or ideology.

The last of these is especially dangerous today. People seem to choose what to believe not by looking at the evidence but by looking at ideological labels, like "straight" or "homosexual", or by asking which group of people they want to be associated with, or with vague feelings and associations evoked by an idea within their consciousness, rather than by looking at the idea itself and the reality it points to outside their consciousness.

We need not and should not employ any of these substitutes for reason in order to maake contact with or be relevant to those who are doing so. We make contact and relevance not by changing rationality into irrationality but changing irrationality into rationality. That is what education is. That is the goal of this post.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by mdhesswriter

These two positions concerning the nature of wording lie behind the use of Aristotelian logic.

This was an intro to a topic I've had no exposure to. I am now so curious as to your educational and professional background!


. An argument that is in itself perfectly rational and valid will often fall on ears deafened by prejudice, passion, ignorance, misunderstanding, imcomprehension or ideology.

The last of these is especially dangerous today.

Definitely. Have you any theories as to how or why rigid ideology seems to have such a dominant position in our society today? It's my impression that this phenomenon is relatively new, perhaps the past decade or two? I'm young enough that I have no good basis for comparing the present to a generation ago, except by the vaguest of early memories.



People seem to choose what to believe not by looking at the evidence but by looking at ideological labels, like "straight" or "homosexual", or by asking which group of people they want to be associated with,

Hmmm, well I freely admit to that one. I do consider very strongly in my choices what group of people my choice will associate me with. If I see a lot of angry, negative, violent people on one "side" of an issue, and gentle, caring, positive people on the other, guess how that sways me?

or with vague feelings and associations evoked by an idea within their consciousness, rather than by looking at the idea itself and the reality it points to outside their consciousness.

To play devil's advocate, how are we supposed to perceive a reality that lies outside our consciousness?

I think I could agree with you about the importance of what you're holding up here, but the statement is abstract enough that I don't know if I've understood you. I would like to relate it to an example to get a better idea of what you mean, and how a reality outside our consciousness can influence our belief. Maybe this kind of conversation has its basis in philosophy or logic classes, neither of which I have ever had.



We need not and should not employ any of these substitutes for reason in order to maake contact with or be relevant to those who are doing so.

Ah, gotcha. Understood.

However, I DO take into account the kind of company I keep in any situation, and I do not think that's a consideration that should ever be dispensed with. I wonder if you and I actually agree, but I'm perceiving your point differently than you meant it to read. ?

We make contact and relevance not by changing rationality into irrationality but changing irrationality into rationality. That is what education is. That is the goal of this post.

I SO want to know if you are from academia, and what field? Would you mind sharing?

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by mdhesswriter

The last of these is especially dangerous today. People seem to choose what to believe not by looking at the evidence but by looking at ideological labels, like "straight" or "homosexual", or by asking which group of people they want to be associated with, or with vague feelings and associations evoked by an idea within their consciousness, rather than by looking at the idea itself and the reality it points to outside their consciousness.

Oh....I'm playing here somewhat, but the Buddhist in me wants to point out that, from a certain perspective, one might say that everything is consciousness: that ideas and consciousness are inseparable. That said, what I hear you saying is that we are not trained to be self-aware, either of our thoughts, impulses and motivations. We drift along, being pulled and repelled by the tide around us, which, in its shallowest form, is the stuff of Entertainment Tonight.

And like Zerbie, I'm curious: retired professor, right? Or autodidact extraordinaire?

[BrianB]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

I SO want to know if you are from academia, and what field? Would you mind sharing?

Having been engaged to a philosophy professor at one time; I believe this person is also a philosophy professor. The deductive logic is a dead give-away. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by BrianB

Having been engaged to a philosophy professor at one time; I believe this person is also a philosophy professor. The deductive logic is a dead give-away. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

That's my (premature?) guess, based on the one post above. But, I don't think I've ever even MET a philosophy prof, so it's a real blind guess from my end.

[mdhesswriter]

I was once a seminary professor of theolgy. Because I was gay I was ousted by the Catholic Church.

[mdhesswriter]

Sometimes my memory gets me in trouble. I had to search my library to see if I might have remembered something I had read previously. I could not find this intro, but with a photographic memory it is very well possible that I may have borrowed something from it as it seems that I remember doing a reseach project based on this subject matter about three years ago.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by mdhesswriter

Sometimes my memory gets me in trouble. I had to search my library to see if I might have remembered something I had read previously. I could not find this intro, but with a photographic memory it is very well possible that I may have borrowed something from it as it seems that I remember doing a reseach project based on this subject matter about three years ago.

Thanks.

You mentioned a lot of topics - which one is the one you remember doing research on??

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by mdhesswriter

I was once a seminary professor of theolgy. Because I was gay I was ousted by the Catholic Church.

Their loss.