 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/4/2010 2:42 PM (GMT -6) |   | Listening to the news break on a Christian station, SRN News mentioned the controversy Greg's facing after having been invited to speak at the Univerisity of Rhode Island.
You go, Greg! | | Back to Top | | |
 |
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 4/4/2010 6:08 PM (GMT -6) | | What did they say?
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 4/4/2010 7:54 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 4/5/2010 2:55 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Greg said: "I assured them that the message I will deliver will be predicated on our shared humanity, not my particular theology." However, thinking students and faculty will ask, "What ultimately grounds this shared humanitarian message?" Somewhere along the noetic structure this always raises its head.
Also, Greg said, "“So how would you respond to gays and advocates for gays at the University of Rhode Island who are concerned about you coming?” one reporter asked. “I’d tell them that, however grieved they are by evangelicals who campaign against homosexuals, I am probably more so. And I’d confess, along with the apostle Paul, that I am the worst of sinners” (1 Tim. 1:16-16)." So does that mean that if I am opposed to gays being married legally but think they have a civil right to live together and share benefits I would be in the same category as those self-righteous judgmental evangelicals who are tree trunks stuck in their eyes?
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/5/2010 4:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Greg: I’d tell them that, however grieved they are by evangelicals who campaign against homosexuals, I am probably more so.
Tom: This is where I think Greg is less clear than he could be. What's GREG mean here by "campaign against homosexuals"? Well, if it's what homosexuals and others are "grieved" about, then I'd guess Greg means the belief that homosexuality is a form of misrelation. It's the fact that most evangelicals (I'm guessing most) believe that homosexuality is a privation of God's intention for creation that first and foremostly grieves homosexuals.
But I have it on good authority (i.e., Greg himself) that Greg AGREES that homosexuality is a form of misrelation (i.e., not God's intention for human sexuality). So what GREG probably has in mind in his answer is how ugly, unloving, and judgmental evangelicals who campaign against homosexuality are and not just the belief that homosexuality is a form of misrelation. That's where the miscommunication might be happening, Jeff. Think so?
I can (with Greg) be grieved over how many/most evangelicals express their beliefs in such unloving and judgmental ways, but I don't grieve the BELIEF that homosexuality is a failure of God's intentions for human sexuality, nor can Greg. Unfortunately I don't think the journalist Greg is talking to is that discriminating. What I fear this journalist (and most readers who don't know Greg) actually hear Greg saying is, "Yeah, I'm more grieved than homosexuals are that so many evangelicals think homosexuality isn't God's intention for human sexuality. That's so grievous a thing to believe!" That would placate the journalist and others who object to Greg's speaking at the U, but only at the expense of clarity. So the journalist might have been misled, because Greg AGREES with those evangelicals (whose BEHAVIOR he grieves) that homosexuality is (to boil it down) a privation of God's intention for human sexuality.
There's no logos for human homosexuality, in other words. Would you agree, D? But HOW we relate to all forms of creaturely privation is the question here, and that's what Greg grieves; it's just not all that the journalist is after with his question.
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 4/5/2010 6:13:49 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/5/2010 5:20 PM (GMT -6) | | | TOM: So what GREG probably has in mind in his answer is how ugly, unloving, and judgmental evangelicals who campaign against homosexuality are and not just the belief that homosexuality is a form of misrelation. That's where the miscommunication might be happening, Jeff. Think so?
JEFF: Yep, that's exactly what I think. Greg is in the difficult position of answering those who want to make a mockery out of Christianity by juxtaposing it with political correctness. There's almost no way to answer the question in a way that they can't spin to their advantage. By succeeding in that respect, Greg seemed to have spoken in a way where he over-generalized in other respects.
I get the difficulty of the situation. But I think he would have been better off to just say what he WAS going to address rather than get in a discussion over what he WASN'T going to address. Short answers to the latter can't do justice to those topics. But it's very difficult to think on your feet strategically that way when you're dealing with people whose goal it is to manipulate public opinion with less than the whole truth rather than inform.
It takes the most savvy of us to do that well. I know I couldn't do well at it. Hind sight is 20-20. But I'm not good in being in non-stop strategy mode with people like that. Christ's dealings with the Pharisees are great examples of just how wise you have to be to profitably address such public opinion manipulators.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 4/5/2010 5:23:47 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 4/5/2010 6:23 PM (GMT -6) | | | Here's what I'm thinking. Greg thinks homosexuality is a misrelation. Cool. Greg is not against evangelicals views of homosexual misrelation. Evangelicals and Greg agree on this. Cool. Greg is against the campaign by evangelicals to be judgmental of homosexuals. Cool.
My question is this: Does my position fit into Greg's definition of being in a campaign or being judgmental against homosexuals? I take it that (even my view which does not sit well with many evangelicals because it allows for homosexuals to live together as it is a form of friendship [healthy or unhealthy as I see it] and that is already covered under the Constitution as a civil right for those kinds of relationships nor does not sit well with more "liberal" types ie, Greg, because it doesn't allow for the legalization of marriage) any view that doesn't agree with an agenda for full tolerance (meaning viewing homosexuality as positive and allowing for the legalization of same-sex marriages) of homosexuality is not going to bode well regardless.
To categorize my view in with judgmental evangelicals would mean that I have tree trunks sticking out of my eyes??? For those evangelicals who are judging, while some of it is nasty and downright mean? Cool. I'm with Greg on that. But my problem is that Greg should not put all those who oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage in with that crowd. The problem it seems is that those who are a part of that nasty self-righteous crowd RIGHTLY oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage. And in part, simply because they are oppose to it, they are seen as nasty and self-righteous regardless. And that's the thing. It wasn't THEM who wanted to bring these sweeping changes on society unjustly. It was many homosexuals and those who sympathize with many of them that are trying to force a definition of what a marriage is on the rest of society. Should that be handled and opposed gracefully and lovingly and professionally? Yes. But firmly non-the-less.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/5/2010 6:42 PM (GMT -6) | | | Brandon: To categorize my view in with judgmental evangelicals would mean that I have tree trunks sticking out of my eyes??? To categorize my view in with judgmental evangelicals would mean that I have tree trunks sticking out of my eyes???
Jeff: I think his view of the State being power-over might be the issue here. But that basically means all of Christendom past and present is WAY OFF in their understanding of the State. Even if he's right about that, he's got a long, uphill fight to fight. Over-generalized statements, etc, aren't gonna win that fight for him. In a practical sense (as opposed to a logical/factual sense), I can identify with him. The problem is, he's in the position of needing to provide a rationale for his practical approach.
Here's where I see him over-generalizing. It's partly due to bad exegesis in my opinion. He says we aren't to judge because it implies we have a trunk in our eye. But the verse can't seem to mean that if indeed we are expected to be perfect as our Father in heaven is. Moreover, it would imply that we can't exercise church discipline even though Christ commanded it. Thus, Greg's view seems to prove too much.
The verse seems to merely be saying we are not to judge others in a condescendingly critical manner for doing that which we, ourselves, are guilty of. This would seem to be because the sheer hypocrisy of it indicates the trunk is what is obscuring our objectivity--otherwise, we wouldn't dare to be so shameless as to hypocritically judge those who will therefore rightly despise our criticism.
But allowing our views of right-relating to inform us in our political approach does not seem to be what Christ is talking about at all. Because Paul could be for governmental deterrence to persecution EVEN THOUGH he did it himself. IOW, we are to promote what God desires for the role of government even if it means we, ourselves, will end up being deterred.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 4/5/2010 7:09:47 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/5/2010 7:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
There's no logos for human homosexuality, in other words. Would you agree, D?
Yup. And I think that it really is actually easy to show...from an explicitly trinitarian Christian perspective.
Ask: Which of these more allows for the fullest expresion of 1) intertrinarian relations [intimate self-giving, self-receiving, self-transcendence, etc] and 2) relationship of the Uncreated and Created in Christ [Hint: Marriage as Revelation of Ageless Mystery] : homosexuality or heterosexuality?
Well, talk about ALL the potential relationships of the penis to mouth, penis to anus, and penis to vagina...and see what you come up with?
This is NOT trying to be gross or nuthin'. Seriously. Which combination has MORE OPPORTUNITY to reflect the nature of God in human existence in various dimensions?
I'd say "penis to vagina" myself. [...And they shall become one flesh.]
Really. Just that simple.
Now, does this mean that God doesn't love each human being with unconditional love? HAYELL, NO!!
Does this mean that God thinks that heterosexual sinners are "better" than homosexual sinners? HAYELL, NO!!
Does this mean that "evangelicals" should treat homosexual sinners with anything less than the unconditional love and respect that God gives all persons? HAYELL, NO!
Does any of this mean that I can't articulate what I've just said above to a homosexual sinner, who is a sinner like me? HAYELL, NO!
So...
Yeah.
Post Edited (One Love) : 4/5/2010 7:27:08 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 4/5/2010 8:17 PM (GMT -6) | |  Yep!
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 4/5/2010 8:56 PM (GMT -6) | | By the way though D. As I see it, justice, in this situation, means that "I live and let live" here to the extent I'm saying. It will guard against outlawing every sin. Justice will ensure that non-Christians have human rights as well and guard against trappling over them. I see what you are saying on a PERSONAL level, but it doesn't seem to address the public justice question. Still I agree with it.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 4/5/2010 9:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Tommy, what do you think of say the image dei? We're (humanity) made in God's likeness both male and female. This would seem to give it an even more grounded reason other than what D put up in terms of what reflects better the nature of God better in our various relationships. The physical that D points out is simply one dimension. Male and female would go a lot deep than that.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:05 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|