Comments on: No moratorium on the Holy Spirit, and a different kind of fasting

By: The Birdwoman

The Birdwoman — Sun, 06 Mar 2005 11:25:59 +0000

Well, Hugo, you tackled this issue a lot more maturely than I did! But that’s only to be expected given our many differences. ;-)

I have nothing civil to say to bigots who oppose same-sex relationships (btw, when you say “gays and lesbians” let’s not forget those of us who swing both ways). I’m an atheist. The Bible holds very little weight with me. I am, however, a staunch supporter of individual freedom and human rights. The fact that some bigots use the Bible as an excuse to pick-and-choose their moral pronouncements sickens me. There seem to be so many things said in the Bible that these people conveniently ignore, while at the same time using their “faithful” adherence to the Bible as an excuse for bigotry and discrimination against LGBT folks and women. When they start protesting the eating of shellfish and lobbying scientists to reclassify bats as species of birds, then I might be persuaded to treat their evil views as worthy of discussion. They’re not just bigots, they are hypocrites of the worst kind.

By: titusonenine

titusonenine — Sat, 05 Mar 2005 23:36:38 +0000

Huge Schwyzer on the Primates Meeting

“One thing is clear. At All Saints, we have no intention of changing in order to try and placate our conservative brothers and sisters around the world. “We will not allow a moratorium on the movement of the Holy Spirit”, Susan said yesterday from…

By: NancyP

NancyP — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:37:16 +0000

Stephen, you persist in misunderstanding me. My point is that much of Christian pop culture uses homosexuality to avoid addressing issues of real relevance to their own lives. Homosexuality is portrayed as a uniquely serious threat, rather than one of many threats. Most of the audience for this tactic is heterosexual, ie, homosexuality is not a temptation for them at all, not a sin they should be placing much emphasis on. It makes as much sense for these people to be carrying on about homosexuality to the exclusion of most other topics as it does for me to carry on about the sin of drunkenness when I simply don’t like to drink much and hate getting drunk. I can claim no credit for living a sober life - it is no effort for me whatsoever. Greed (based in insecurity, not love of lavish living) and timidity are my besetting sins.

Stephen, you are talking like a canon lawyer. This might be useful if you are a professional clergyperson who needs to advise people, but less relevant for many layfolk (see above). I am talking like an observer of pop culture and politics.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 02:09:22 +0000

NancyP:

My request (admittedly strident) was to allow that individuals who do not see homosexuality as a biblically valid way of expressing sexuallity may believe this premise from convication not laziness. Apparently, you are unwilling to grant this.

I suggest that you consider that your beliefs impact what you see — as mine do, as all of ours do. None are granted perfect sight; all will see what they want to see to support their own sense of self-righteousness.

Before you continue to rail against the moral blindness of “those on the religious right” consider how very much you sound like the Pharisees of old — “Thank God I’m not like them.” At the very least, try to smile at the irony, or don’t, I suppose. But save the nonsense about how blind “they” are; it’s tendentious at best.

Stephen

By: NancyP

NancyP — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:41:57 +0000

I am pointing to the millions of Americans who claimed that “moral values” were the main motivator for their vote. Yet many of these, perhaps most non-minority “moral values” voters, are perfectly happy to see Bush and Republican governors cut back on health care, heat, housing, and education for the poor, just so they can continue to have low taxes and afford that new car every 3 to 4 years. I can’t know the private thoughts of everyone in the blogosphere, but I don’t think it too controversial to contend that it is more popular politically to pass a law against same-sex marriage and civil unions than it is to pass a law exempting the very poor from paying income tax. Some conservative Southern state, probably Alabama, home of Roy Moore’s rock (the controversial public display of 10 commandments in the state courthouse), was urged by its conservative Gov. to exempt people making less than about $5,000.00 a year from state income tax, on the grounds of Christian charity, but that referendum failed with the same set of voters that idolize Moore and his own idolatrous antics with the 10 Commandments statue. So before you get all huffy, Stephen, take a look around you. Notice what the popular radio preacher James Dobson goes on about - homosexuality is one of his main topics, if not THE main topic. I have heard 20 to 50 times more on homosexuality than on duty to the poor from the popular nationally syndicated radio preachers. Those preachers stay on the air because people listen and donate - if a message about caring for the poor were popular, the radio preachers would be doing more of it. I am not saying that all Christians ignore the poor in their own communities or elsewhere in order to get a feel-good moment by condemning “those evil gays”, but lots do.

By: Hugo

Hugo — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:02:55 +0000

Stephen, you wrote:

“maybe we can get into one of those online pissing matches that is more masturbatory than instructive.”

Now, there’s an interesting mix of images for my little brain.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:56:03 +0000

“I think people focus on uncommon sexual practices of other people because it is a lot less scary to do so than to focus on the fact that they are enjoying all sorts of luxuries while other people are homeless, and that the Bible has more to say about care for the poor than about male-male or female-female sex.”

Really, Nancy, this is just an insipid, gratuitous and self-congratulatory slap-down. Let me try it in kind and maybe we can get into one of those online pissing matches that is more maturabatory than instructive.

Thsoe who promote same-sex unions are clearly unable to promote any sort of discipline in their own lives and therefore are unwilling to suggest that other follow Biblical strictures around sexuality — all they can pomote is a cheap grace ’cause it keeps them from looking at their own sin. Lord knows they couldn’t be motivated by a sincere belief that affirmation of homosexuality is a just end for Christians.

Is it possible that those who believe that homosexuality is not a bibical understanding of sexuality do so with motives that are not more (or less) pure than anyone else who engages in this debate?

Stephen

By: Hugo

Hugo — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:50:36 +0000

Which is why we are calling it Fast Relief in all of our publicity. The techniques are inspired by World Vision, but the name and the branding will be distinct.

By: obadiahslope

obadiahslope — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:39:30 +0000

nancy,
a fair point. But I think Hugo should try and put a respectable difference between his ERD event and the Worldvision one.

By: NancyP

NancyP — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:07:45 +0000

WorldVision didn’t invent the concept of fasting and donating the money saved to the poor. That has been around for a very long time, and is done by Jews and Muslims as well as by Christians as a routine part of religious duty.