(no subject)

[mari4212]

I'm currently ignoring the fireworks, but I can still hear the city's display going off from my house. If it's this loud here, I'm really glad I'm not any closer.

Thomas has been successfully dropped off at Procter, our diocese's church camp. He gets to go from yelling at teenagers to being one of the teens to get yelled at. Plus, he gets better food at Proctor. The bishop comes once a week to meet with the current group, but the kitchen staff never knows which day he'll come. Therefore, every meal has to be bishop-ready. On average, it's about on par with a really good home-cooked meal most days.

It's at times like these that I really miss going to Procter. It was such a wonderful place and environment. Sadly, I'm now too old to go as a camper, and I've always missed, or had other things happening, when it was time to apply to be a counselor. Sigh.

On the other hand, we tried another meal that Thomas wouldn't touch tonight. Crab bisque, and it was excellent. We didn't even have leftovers! Well, except for Sara's bowl-ful. She was just exhausted tonight and fell asleep in her soup.

I've been doing some more writing, as I guess you can tell from the stories I've posted below. I've got one other HP story I'm working on right now, and two Doctor Who fics, one a continuation of the Reinette story, and the other the next chapter of the Atlantis crossover. I have a feeling certain people are going to be very upset with the turn the Atlantis crossover is taking, and to be honest, I did try to write it the other way, but it didn't work. It didn't want to go the simple happy ending, it wanted to take the long way through.

And the Episcopal church is back to threating a schism over the latest General Convention. On the one hand, I'm well aware that this is a really controversial issue for a lot of people, and that there is a fundamental difference in worldviews going on. One side deeply believes that homosexual behavior is a sin, and that to act to accept it is to turn away from what God tells us. The other side believes just as strongly that homosexual behavior is not a sin, and to act to exclude people because of their sexual orientation is also turning away from what God tells us to do, because we have the example of Jesus accepting the marginalized in his society. If you've read my journal long enough, you should know where I stand on this issue.

On the other hand, I keep looking back at our history, and thinking. The Episcopal Church was the one mainline Prodestant denomination existant at that time to not schism over the issue of slavery. How can opinions about sexual orientation be that much more important than slavery? Really people, priorities here.

And on that note, I really need to get an icon for my religious rants. If only so that people can see which entries to skip in a hurry.

Comments

[spiralstairs.livejournal.com]

I zone out. Where do you stand?

[mari4212.livejournal.com]

On the more liberal side. I don't believe in condemning people for acting on their sexual orientation, as long as it is a loving, consensual relationship between two adults.

Besides, in the entire Bible there are about seven verses about homosexual behavior, and all of them are dealing with expressions of said behavior which we today would consider abusive. I don't think that works as a justification for condemning all homosexuals as sinners.

[patagonian.livejournal.com]

The Episcopal Church was the one mainline Prodestant denomination existant at that time to not schism over the issue of slavery. How can opinions about sexual orientation be that much more important than slavery? Really people, priorities here.

That's a really interesting way of framing the issue. I don't think I can respond intelligently at this moment, so I won't ;)

History

[glacierscout.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, the Episcopal church was the only protestant church not to break up over slavery because it didn't take a stand on slavery. Most other denominations split into northern and southern branches, except for catholics, who weren't allowed to split. We stayed together more out of cowardice than out of our common bonds.

[alphamatrix.livejournal.com]

I guess a lot of this debate would be affected by whether or not you see the bible as *the* word of god, unchangable and fixed, or as a set of stories and guidelines, affected by the times they were written in, and who wrote them...

Re: History

[alphamatrix.livejournal.com]

Cowardice - what were they afraid of? (I'm from the other side of the world, and haven't gone past the surface of thing like the American Civil Rights movement - yet.)

Are there generally big differences between the northern and southern branches of religions?

[mari4212.livejournal.com]

Well, the thing is, even the most fundamentalist literalists don't obey most of the prohibitions of the bible. We don't segregate women who are going through their period anymore, or declare them to be ritually unclea. We don't obey the dietary restrictions, we don't think that a woman is the property of her husband and her father anymore. We certainly don't believe that a father has the right to kill his daughter if she disobeys him. And there are hundreds of verses about slavery. So it's not like we don't already ignore parts of the bible when we disagree with the morality or relevance of that passage.

And of course, I am coming from the perspective that the bible is the work of humans, and thus it is affected by human concerns and biases.

[ljmckay.livejournal.com]

If I may (and I'm totally just presenting my point of view, not trying to say which is right or wrong), the injunctions no longer obeyed by even literalists are found in the Old Testament. They are laws of the Old Covenant, meant to keep God's people pure and different from their pagan neighbors. We believe that Jesus' death ushered in the New Covenant, making such laws unnecessary -- along with animal sacrifice, etc.

But I don't want to turn this into any kind of argument. :)

[mari4212.livejournal.com]

A valid point.

My reply, of course, would be that that then eliminates four of the seven verses which reference to homosexual behavior. What we have left is Paul. One, he made up a word (he does so on many occasions) which he uses in this passage, and there's no exact translation for it. Various translations have rendered it as deviant, pervert, pedophile, effeminant, and so forth. The other is that he was reacting to a very abusive scenario (very much older man with a young boy who was apprenticed to him, the sex served as payment for teaching) which Nero had then taken to new extremes. It's not exactly our current understanding of homosexuality.

Re: History

[mari4212.livejournal.com]

This was in the 1860s, right before the American Civil War. Abolitionists in the Northern states, whose economies were driven by mechanization and large factories, wanted to end slavery in the South. The South, whose economy depended on large plantations and slavery, objected. Prodestant churches which had congregations in both areas faced a huge ideological split. Southern Christians pointed to long passages in the Bible which they said supported slavery. Northern Christians, argued theat many of those passages could be interpreted in the exact opposite way. I believe it was Paul's letter to Philemon. especially, which was grounds for the heated debate. Slaveowners pointed out that Paul sent the slave back to Philemon, abolitionists pointed out that while the slave was sent back, Philemon was told to free him and embrace him as a brother in Christ.

Re: History

[mari4212.livejournal.com]

The Episcopal church at the time saw the divisions in other Prodestant churches, and forbore to make a stance either way.

As for divisions between northern and southern churches, it's not really as prevalent. The tensions tend to be between liberals and conservatives, rather than on geographical areas.

[ljmckay.livejournal.com]

Sure, you're absolutely right. Honestly, I need to study the subject far more before I can say anything. :D

Re: History

[patagonian.livejournal.com]

We stayed together more out of cowardice than out of our common bonds.

Somehow that doesn't surprise me, but I must say that I find it disappointing. Thanks for the info!

[elvisvf101.livejournal.com]

I'm not as well read on this as I could be, but also to interject:

These types of relationships (Older Men, Younger Boys) were also a staple of Greek Society. If my understanding is correct, there was some glorification of this type of relationship among the Greek Elite. The nature of the relationship was that the younger boy was for the pleasure of the older man. In fact, the younger boy was not supposed to enjoy the sex, and it was also more for the older man's enjoyment. The highest goal a young boy could achieve was to be stoic whilst the older man took him. I don't know how this ended up translating into Roman Society, but it could be that Paul was referring to this practice as well.

Minor correction

[glacierscout.livejournal.com]

mari4212 has conflated two different types of abusive homosexuality in her response, but her main point is still accurate. In Greek society, male homosexuality was between an older citizen and a younger one, and was a way of socializing the younger citizen into public life. The typical pattern was for a teenaged boy to be given over as the passive party, to a slightly older one, who taught him society's values, sponsored him into society, and acted as a mentor. Once the younger man could grow a beard, he parted company with his mentor, and in turmn served as a mentor for a younger boy. Finally, once his education was complete and he was financially secure, he would marry. The homosexual relationships lasted longer in militaristic societies like Sparta and Thebes, where lovers fought alongside each other. Since the homosexual relationship was a way of fostering societal bonds, Greeks rejected homosexual activity with slaves. Greeks also despised female homosexuality as contrary to social order.

Roman homosexuality (and sexuality in general) was all about power and gratification. A citizen could have his way with a freedman or a slave, and a freedman could have his way with a slave only. Refusing a citizen's sexual advances by a freeman was punishable by law. A slave who resisted his or her master could be summarily executed by that master, with no need to involve the courts. Taboos among Roman citizens included same sex relations with an equal, or being the passive partner in a relationship with a "lesser". There was no such thing as rape in Roman law, unless it would be a freeman or a slave sexually assaulting someone of a higher rank. In that case, the crime was sedition, not rape, and crucifiction was the penalty.

Both types of homosexual activity were condemned by early Christians. Neither has the slightest relevance to the modern understanding of mutual homosexual relationships.

[mari4212.livejournal.com]

*cuddles* It's been a topic of discussion in my church for the past three years, and then I had a class in Paul's letters, so I tend to gush arguements at the drop of a hat.

Re: Minor correction

[mari4212.livejournal.com]

Actually, I was referring to when Nero got interested in the Greek system, and took it to excess by taking a young boy along with him on his travels and flaunting that relationship beyond what was considered acceptable behavior, not the Roman version, although that was definitely something Paul was reacting to as well.

Re: Minor correction

[elvisvf101.livejournal.com]

Yeah, what he said (like I said, I only have the general gist of the current debate down).

Any recommendations on where people can go to see both sides laid out?