tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post4294682606682860685..comments2024-03-23T18:50:32.902-04:00Comments on Telling Secrets: The Bible tells me soElizabeth Kaetonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06787552280232329081noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-6649963077249603832008-01-23T07:58:00.000-05:002008-01-23T07:58:00.000-05:00I'm not able to understand, Firinel.But, I don't f...I'm not able to understand, Firinel.<BR/><BR/>But, I don't feel comfortable pushing you to explain this to me.<BR/><BR/>It must be something very personal, and I'm a stranger to you.<BR/><BR/>God bless!Gracehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018475588969974790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-65083621671014357352008-01-23T00:06:00.000-05:002008-01-23T00:06:00.000-05:00You mentioned that you are gay. I'm assuming that ...<I>You mentioned that you are gay. I'm assuming that you are a man, and yet one of the members of your triad is a woman. I don't understand. How can this be fair and egalitarian to this woman?</I><BR/><BR/>I've not said I'm gay, I'm queer - the two are not analogous. I've also not disclosed my sex, so it wouldn't be fair to make an assumption about that.Aurorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03664952421311308976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-80468847586329882552008-01-22T15:09:00.000-05:002008-01-22T15:09:00.000-05:00Hi, Dan,I would consider a life-long committment t...Hi, Dan,<BR/><BR/>I would consider a life-long committment to be synonomous with marriage. But, if the committment is just for today, or until our feelings happen to change, or as long as things seem to be working out, then is seems to me that the relationship is just conditional, not a real committment in the sense of marriage.<BR/><BR/>Firinel, I don't want to just cause offense here. I'm struggling with whether I should keep pushing on with this. But, here goes...If you feel my question is offensive or over the top, please don't answer it. I'll understand.<BR/><BR/>You mentioned that you are gay. I'm assuming that you are a man, and yet one of the members of your triad is a woman. I don't understand. How can this be fair and egalitarian to this woman?<BR/><BR/>Maybe I'll let this alone now.<BR/><BR/>God's peace to you, Firinel.<BR/><BR/>Grace.Gracehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018475588969974790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-49689349262172318842008-01-21T15:57:00.000-05:002008-01-21T15:57:00.000-05:00Fascinating discussion. I'm dealing with some of t...Fascinating discussion. I'm dealing with some of the same issues in my series on sexuality. Just a few quick comments:<BR/><BR/>Polygamy is not explicitly ruled out by the Jewish Law. It was licit until the 10th Century AD, and only disallowed then because of pressure from the Gentile circumstances in which most Jews had to live. The Torah regulates it, but it is not forbidden. <BR/><BR/>Did Jesus forbid it? No. Did Paul? Only, apparently, for clergy (if that's what "one woman's man" means in the Pastorals; and if Paul wrote the Pastorals -- another question entirely.<BR/><BR/>But Roman law did forbid polygamy, so even by that time it was becoming a tension point in societies operating under Roman rule. <BR/><BR/>Porneia is a very interesting word. The best evidence is that it means "harlotry" not some general "sexual immorality" -- which means it could mean whatever you think it means! Most of the biblical uses are figurative and refer to idolatry. In all other uses it is most simply read as "prostitution" -- and that reading will cover all of the other uses of the word. It also was not strictly against the Law, except in certain circumstances and for certain people.<BR/><BR/>It's really important to keep two things in mind: the Law was asymmetrical regarding the sexual liberties of men and women -- a man could have sex outside of marriage as long as the additional partner was not a man or a married woman; a woman could have sex if she wasn't married and was eligible to be a prostitute. She could also be a wife or an additional wife. She could, if unmarried, have a lesbian relationship without fear of punishment.<BR/><BR/>Jesus does address the imbalance on the adultery law and holds men can be guilty if they have an affair outside of their marriage. This is a change from the Law. (This reading involves the reading "wife" for "woman" -- there is only one word in the Greek, which makes it problematical. If he meant, "If a man looks at a _wife_ with lust he has committed adultery with her in his heart..." Then this would not be an advance; the teaching on divorce, however, does seem to suggest that a man who divorces and remarries has committed adultery -- so that's where the teaching comes in.<BR/><BR/>Interesting stuff, and thanks Elizabeth, for starting off an interesting conversation! All the best on the finishing up of the Work.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-28696700437904436772008-01-21T15:46:00.000-05:002008-01-21T15:46:00.000-05:00Two thoughts:1) Actually you'll find that the word...Two thoughts:<BR/><BR/>1) Actually you'll find that the word translated as "fornication" is most often used in Scripture in a spiritual context rather than a physical context. It was used to condemn the Israelites when they started to worship other gods or incorporate pagan practises in their worship of YHWH. <BR/><BR/>I agree that it is a vague word but seemed to mean a form of infidelity - having an intimate relationship with someone you won't make a unique commitment with. <BR/><BR/>2) It was accepted ancient Jewish practise that betrothal was gained through sexual intercourse. (Mishnah, tractate Kiddushim 1:1)<BR/>So sexual intercourse outside of marriage isn't condemned if the intent was to get married. This halacha was in place in Christ's time and has to be taken into account when evaluating Christ's statements.<BR/><BR/>I think you can build a strong case that sex without commitment is condemned in scripture, but it seems to be stretch to say that sex outside of the sacrament of marriage necessarily is.toujoursdanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08106158181662408311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-11351442147907949372008-01-20T20:11:00.000-05:002008-01-20T20:11:00.000-05:00I don't know if you are a Christian believer, but ...<I>I don't know if you are a Christian believer, but if you are, maybe this is something that you need to continue to walk out, and to seek for God's will.</I><BR/><BR/>I am (a believer), and no, it's really very much not something I need to give any more examination to. I'm precisely not the sort of person who lives an unexamined life, I've known I wasn't monogamous about as long as I knew I wasn't straight, and it's something which I am in absolute peace with. I think saying that is about as insulting as if you'd asked Red Elizabeth Kaeton to continueously re-examine her choice in partners.<BR/><BR/><I>Do you feel that having two husbands is enhancing your witness for the Lord.</I><BR/><BR/>Absolutely. Emphatically.<BR/><BR/><I>I know that you are more than welcome to hang out with folks in the church, and talk, and share more about this together.</I><BR/><BR/>The reason I posed my question to Rev Elizabeth Kaeton wasn't because I'm not at peace with how it affects my relationship with the Lord, but how it affects my relationship with the church as a whole, and with other Christians. Quite honestly, I've not felt very welcome at churches for things far 'less' than my orientation or relationship style - in fact, I was asked to leave a church when I was 14 as I was "clearly damned to hell, and I might have enough decency not to bring my peers with me". So it's very much not true that I'm welcome at church.<BR/><BR/>And I think that Rev Elizabeth Kaeton has already explained how "Love the sinner, Hate the sin" makes queer people feel a little less-than-entirely-welcome, too. So even where churches aren't directly asking me to leave, it's certainly not a warm welcome I'm feeling.<BR/><BR/>Somehow I feel called to Christ despite all of my negative experiences with his followers, though. :)Aurorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03664952421311308976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-24058158350681837222008-01-20T15:47:00.000-05:002008-01-20T15:47:00.000-05:00Well, Firanel,As far as I can tell, Jesus is speak...Well, Firanel,<BR/><BR/>As far as I can tell, Jesus is speaking of two people committing to each other, becoming one flesh. It doesn't seem to me that his is affirming polyamory.<BR/><BR/>I don't know if you are a Christian believer, but if you are, maybe this is something that you need to continue to walk out, and to seek for God's will.<BR/><BR/>Do you feel that having two husbands is enhancing your witness for the Lord.<BR/><BR/>I know that you are more than welcome to hang out with folks in the church, and talk, and share more about this together.<BR/><BR/>God bless!Gracehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018475588969974790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-41088329229595134532008-01-19T22:02:00.000-05:002008-01-19T22:02:00.000-05:00Here's the Scripture from Jesus that I had in mind...<I>Here's the Scripture from Jesus that I had in mind. Jesus shares as recorded in Mk.<BR/><BR/>"But at the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one seperate. Mk. 10:6-9.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't see how this supports monogamy only. It doesn't say that a third person should not ever also join, or cannot, join that union. It says a third person should not separate it. No one is doing that.Aurorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03664952421311308976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-42795244607110126912008-01-19T21:56:00.000-05:002008-01-19T21:56:00.000-05:00Hi, Firinel,Here's the Scripture from Jesus that I...Hi, Firinel,<BR/><BR/>Here's the Scripture from Jesus that I had in mind. Jesus shares as recorded in Mk.<BR/><BR/>"But at the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one seperate. Mk. 10:6-9.<BR/><BR/>Allen, I really think that by looking at the overall witness of Scripture, just looking at the Scripture in context, sexual immorality does also refer to sex outside of marriage. (life-long committment)<BR/><BR/>In 1Cor., Paul talks about fleeing sexual immorality. He goes on to counsel folks that if they are not able to be chaste in singleness, then they should certainly marry rather than to burn with passion.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I feel pretty strongly about the whole issue. I've seen so many, particularly young people, really harmed by casual, uncommitted sexual relationships. <BR/><BR/>Ditto, for the practice of just living together, to see how things might work out, kind of like a "test run," minus the real accountability and life committment.<BR/><BR/>I have to be honest,and say that it would be over my dead body that I would have had my kids, gay or straight, in a youth group, or church situation where the youth pastor is not able to encourage the young people, or to affirm the practice of chastity before marriage.<BR/><BR/>They would be out of that situation yesterday. I realize this might offend some folks here, but, hey, I"m being honest.Gracehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018475588969974790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-58698905994468436652008-01-19T11:32:00.000-05:002008-01-19T11:32:00.000-05:00Firnel and Allen,I posted this long response, and ...Firnel and Allen,<BR/><BR/>I posted this long response, and I don't think it went through. Ughh!! I hate when this happens. But, just on the off chance it may have, I'll wait and see if my comment shows up after moderation.<BR/><BR/>If not, I'll still be back to talk if you are still around tommorrow, or late tonight.Gracehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018475588969974790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-17836436019637714522008-01-19T11:17:00.000-05:002008-01-19T11:17:00.000-05:00I know that when people think of multiple partners...I know that when people think of multiple partners, the idea they often conjure up is not a feminist friendly one, usually involving one male and multiple wives.<BR/><BR/>Obviously I can't speak for other polyamorous people, but our particular triad is M-F-M, and we're all very egalitarian. Others' groupings will clearly differ, and they may not inherently be so balanced. Pretty much like not all monogamous partners have equal footing in a relationship, either, even if there are those of us who find that preferable/ideal.Aurorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03664952421311308976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-10269814353360284732008-01-18T23:32:00.000-05:002008-01-18T23:32:00.000-05:00Rev. Elizabeth, {Shall we be saying "Rev Dr." soo...Rev. Elizabeth, <BR/><BR/>{Shall we be saying "Rev Dr." soon?<BR/>}<BR/><BR/>This has been interesting reading. I am not sold on the ideal nature of monogamy. For me, yup, I am a one woman guy married to a one guy woman. But, I think we need to learn as we change, and we have changed.<BR/><BR/>In a world where women were married at 14 and dead by childbirth fever at 17 (if they were lucky) and men lived at best to about 40, maybe a single set of standards could apply, I don't know. I do know that we live, and love, into our late 80's, many of us. And that matters.<BR/><BR/>I think God's standards, throughout the Bible are honesty, equity, justice and love. I am not convinced that monogamy is necessary to meet them. Jesus did not to my knowledge explicitly specify one and only one spouse at a time. His condemnation of divorce did not imply that there was one and only one wife. We have no idea who or how the wedding in Cana involved. <BR/><BR/>So, I am at least open to the idea of multiple person families <I>IF</I> the conventions, laws and such can assure equitable treatment, be based on love and affirm each member. I don't see that much, certainly plural Islamic marriages are not a good model and LDS fundamentalists in S. Utah are less good. But I at least can conceive that there may be something out there we need to learn.<BR/><BR/>FWIW<BR/>jimBJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-61144440619303187592008-01-18T22:18:00.000-05:002008-01-18T22:18:00.000-05:00Grace,Elizabeth's original question was not about ...Grace,<BR/><BR/>Elizabeth's original question was not about what our standards should be but rather whether the prohibition of sex outside of marriage is rooted in scripture. My point is that it is presupposed in scripture, not rooted in scripture. Your appeal to tradition and reason only tend to support my point. One other word -- when one speaks of sexual immorality, one is assuming that the term is understood by the hearers (or readers.) That is, the concept already exists in the culture. <BR/><BR/>I'm not prepared to rule out any form of sexual expression on a priori grounds. I think the standard should be mutuality -- to rule out exploitative and abusive situations. (Even the solitary "vice" can be exploitative.) But then, I'm a radical.Allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04082981127553205332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-10010159200942961572008-01-18T22:01:00.000-05:002008-01-18T22:01:00.000-05:00Bill, do you have a citation for the passage in Le...Bill, do you have a citation for the passage in Leviticus about stoning an unmarried woman who has intercourse? I'm not convinced it's there.<BR/><BR/>While I understand Elizabeth's point about standards, I think the standard of lifelong marriage of a man and a woman as stated especially in the words of Jesus and in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 is specifically about marriage and says nothing about instances where there is no marriage.Allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04082981127553205332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-840893262303570262008-01-18T21:18:00.000-05:002008-01-18T21:18:00.000-05:00Grace,It would be great if you could tell me HOW J...Grace,<BR/><BR/>It would be great if you could tell me HOW Jesus affirmed monogamy.<BR/><BR/><I>And, realistically speaking, I can't imagine dealing long-term with committment issues, conflicts around respective children, etc. relating to two or three partners. I think it's hard enough working out matters with one.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't see how I ought to be limited by your imagination. Realistically, I've had no extra issues dealing with commitment, conflict around children or any other matter with two partners than I did with one, and I don't really understand this line of thinking. <BR/><BR/>1) It's a straw man argument. Your raising a problem that wasn't originally an issue. The issue is if it is scripturally condemned.<BR/><BR/>2) Your coming at it thinking like someone who is monogamous. <BR/><BR/>Look at it this way: Someone who is accustomed to living on their own may experience some need to adjust when they move into the city and take on a housemate. Or when they move into a house shared by multiple college students they will need to adjust to living with three other people. You can say "but living with three other people is difficult! you have to figure out things like who's responsible for sweeping the floor, or doing the dishes, or who buys the grocceries, what if someone eats someone else's tortillas?"<BR/><BR/>And there may be some people for whom that sort of communal living is a poor fit for. There may be others for whom that really works, and they're much happier with the fuller household, and all of those "realities" that can be sited really aren't issues to them, the positives far out weight the negatives.<BR/><BR/>So, no one's saying having housemates is inherently better, or worse, than living on your own. It's just different. I mean, one way or the other may be better, or worse, for an individual, but that's really not a valid judgement value in the general sense.<BR/><BR/>3) <I>As a Christian, I think sexual intimacy goes far beyond the physical, and has also spiritual depth, a way to show love, committment, bonding. In marriage, the two literally become one flesh. The physical mirrors intimacy and connection on other deep levels. (Is it really possible to equally sustain all this over a lifetime with multiple partners at the sametime.)</I><BR/><BR/>I absolutely agree with you, Grace, as I've pointed out before, that there is more to a marriage than physical intimacy. I believe I'm capable of sustaining that sort of connection with multiple partners at the same time, for a lifetime. Now, I don't know for sure, since I only have one lifetime, and I'm currently in the middle of it (if all things go to plan, and Lord, what with modern life-expectancies) but I can say that I have that connection to more than one now, and have done for *cough* more than a few years.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Rev. Elizabeth Kaeton, I thank you for your replies so far, and I'm looking forward to hearing what more you've to say about it when you get a break from your paper. Hopefully it doesn't require too much bourbon and ice cream. ;)Aurorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03664952421311308976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-79154885189747527692008-01-18T19:41:00.000-05:002008-01-18T19:41:00.000-05:00Well, I must add my two cents. I definitely feel t...Well, I must add my two cents. I definitely feel that Jesus affirmed monogamy.<BR/><BR/> And, realistically speaking, I can't imagine dealing long-term with committment issues, conflicts around respective children, etc. relating to two or three partners. I think it's hard enough working out matters with one.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I think we need to take direction relating to marriage, and chastity issues not just from Scripture, but also from tradition, and experience.(reason) It's important to see the larger picture.<BR/><BR/>I've counseled my young sons that I think it's a good guideline to consider their physical intimacy with a young woman to match their real level of caring, committment, and accountability in the relationship.<BR/><BR/>As a Christian, I think sexual intimacy goes far beyond the physical, and has also spiritual depth, a way to show love, committment, bonding. In marriage, the two literally become one flesh. The physical mirrors intimacy and connection on other deep levels. (Is it really possible to equally sustain all this over a lifetime with multiple partners at the sametime.)<BR/><BR/>If Scripture teaches us to flee sexual immorality, I think there's a good reason for it, both physically and spiritually. <BR/><BR/>But, I see no reason why gay and lesbian people should not experience this same intimacy and connectedness in committed, monogamous relationships. How are they any different?<BR/><BR/>There is this relatively new website which looks awesome to me, and addresses some of these issues, and deals with the "clobber verses" in Scripture with detail from an orthodox,evangelical perspective.<BR/><BR/>Check it out!! Just google "Inclusive Orthodoxy."<BR/><BR/>Hey, I could go on, but don't want to get "preachy." :)Gracehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018475588969974790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-87428636798700175412008-01-18T14:17:00.000-05:002008-01-18T14:17:00.000-05:00There is something in Leviticus about if the women...There is something in Leviticus about if the women has intercourse and isn't married you gotta take her out to the gates and stone here. On the other hand, if you talk back to your father or mother you also get stoned and if you wear clothing made from two different materials, ditto. Having said that you can take all of Leviticus and toss it into the dung heap.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05623709712119761741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-50495333892106249442008-01-18T09:48:00.000-05:002008-01-18T09:48:00.000-05:00Firinel - thanks for your thoughtful post. (Note ...Firinel - thanks for your thoughtful post. (Note to neo-Puritan Trolls - See? This is what I mean. Think creatively and ask imaginative questions that don't judge.)<BR/><BR/>I, too, have been thinking a great deal about your questions and I think I have an answer. It has to do with my understanding of the nature of church and the nature of Jesus and my role as priest. <BR/><BR/>More later. For now, thank you. I need to hear your voice and I suspect you need to hear mine. Let's keep at this. My hope is that your truth and mine will lead us to 'the truth." <BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, I am holding this conversation. I will not allow anyone to come into my cyberspace living room and dump their crap anonymously.<BR/><BR/>And, no body gets kicked out of the church because they don't have 'the truth'. Nobody. Even Trolls and Bigots and other scoundrels and sinners like me.Elizabeth Kaetonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06787552280232329081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-43704369386194317762008-01-18T09:36:00.000-05:002008-01-18T09:36:00.000-05:00Firinel - Fair enough, but since I'm working on my...<I>Firinel - Fair enough, but since I'm working on my paper, why don't you tell me why you think Jesus would condone polyamory - queer or not? What does he teach, what values does he hold as central to the enterprise of being human, that would lead to a Christian ethic broad enough to embrace polyamory.</I><BR/><BR/>I've been thinking about this for awhile, as I was caught off guard by your question. I honestly think the onus is on you for explaining to me why Jesus would condemn it. I've agreed with your points that there are no scriptural basis for 'no sex outside of marriage'.<BR/><BR/>I don't even necessarily feels this applies to me, since I very much feel that in a very real way I am married to both of my partners. I may not have a state-sanctioned marriage with both of them, but as you point out, a state sanctioned marriage is not equally available to everyone. And I think we're all clear that a piece of paper from the government doesn't magically make a union a 'marriage', there's much more to it than that.<BR/><BR/>But, even following that line of thinking, you've already said that scripturally, not such a great basis for no sex outside of marriage.<BR/><BR/>So, perhaps people who make the argument that homosexuality (and bisexuality, amongst other orientations which don't require a binary thinking of gender) is all right, but all *gestures* <I>that</I> other stuff, oh no certainly don't mean that too, don't have an understanding of what polyamoury is? Or they come to try to understand it with such a strong bias that it makes seeing it difficult.<BR/><BR/>I think a lot of people have a difficult time understanding that everything they feel about their "one and only", I'm capable of feeling for more than one. It's like life-long faithful monogamy, only I've two beloveds (this is how poly works for me, ymmv).<BR/><BR/>I don't judge people who aren't wired like this - I think diversity is a pretty nifty thing - but I do feel like my capacity to deeply love more than one person is a God-given gift. It doesn't feel unnatural to me, it's not something I had to learn to deal with or overcome. It's the way I work, and I've never found scriptural evidence that this was bad.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure that the Jesus model is one of life-long faithful monogamy anyway. I mean if we think about it, a marriage is more than sex. Where is evidence of that? <BR/><BR/>Jesus loved more than one person. We assume he didn't have sex with them, but well 1) we can't assume because he didn't that means doing so would be bad, and 2) marriages/committed relationships don't require sex to be valid. Traditional heterosexual relationships frequently, for a variety of reasons, go through periods of celibacy, and rarely do people call the validity of that union into question because of that.<BR/><BR/>I hope that I've not upset you/crossed your boundaries for this blog, since I'm new and aren't familiar with the people who you're calling trolls.Aurorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03664952421311308976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-91176113378476874712008-01-18T08:10:00.000-05:002008-01-18T08:10:00.000-05:00Piski - First, if you want to address me formally,...Piski - First, if you want to address me formally, it's "REV" Kaeton. When I know you better, it could be REV ELIZABETH. When you are my friend, you can call me ELIZABETH. If you're going to post here, you must be respectful. I see your posts on SFiF. I know you're not.<BR/><BR/>Second, read a bit more carefully before you post. This essay clearly begins by referencing a previous post on HTS/LTS. Go read it.<BR/><BR/>You don't have to agree with it. I said there that that is a hurtful phrase. If you know that something is hurtful to someone and you insist on using it, saying, "Well, it works for me," I think you have just permanently soiled your baptismal certificate with your own fecal matter..<BR/><BR/>Third, I will post people who have something to say - something contrary to the opinion of the author - as long as it's intelligent and new. <BR/><BR/>I don't agree with firnel, for example, but I find his/her position challenging enough to respond with another essay for clarification. Thanks again, Firinel. (I think ;~)<BR/><BR/>Here's the thing that is most annoying about you neo-Puritan trolls: you have nothing original to say. You either quote scripture, or pat each other on the back, saying, "Yeah, what he said." <BR/><BR/>When you do try and get a wee bit creative all you can think to do is to turn words upside down and stand them on their head and then poke fun at them. That's not creative. That's not even clever. That's what boys do in the sixth grade and bullies on the elementary school playground.<BR/><BR/>So, you have been warned, Piskie. You boys can certainly come over here and lurk. You can even venture a post with an opinion. But, you can not be hurtful or hateful or - even worse - dull. <BR/><BR/>Try to post something intelligent. Something creative - a new way to look at an old discussion. <BR/><BR/>That may be a stretch for you, Piskie, but I'm willing to be surprised. <BR/><BR/>Last day of my work, kiddo's. Just 5 more pages to write and bibliography and an appendix to construct. <BR/><BR/>I can see the light at the end of the tunnel, and it's not another train coming the other way.<BR/><BR/>Woo hoo!Elizabeth Kaetonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06787552280232329081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-77165958433952910832008-01-17T23:57:00.000-05:002008-01-17T23:57:00.000-05:00Thanks, Allen, for the clarification on fornicatio...Thanks, Allen, for the clarification on fornication. Excellent point to learn and try to remember to use in RL conversations on this topic.<BR/><BR/>To Ms. Kaeton -- Wow. I guess I may end up being banned by you because I think there's a lot in what just about everyone here has said that's worth reading -- and that's coming from someone who suspects she's fairly far to the left of you. Are you just looking for "yes posters" or for your particular flavor of the ideologically pure? You're quite right, it is your blog, you hold the deed to the land and legally you can throw off anyone who isn't like you, but what does that say about you?<BR/><BR/>I agree with Cynic about "Hate the sin, love the sinner." It is indeed what Jesus modeled for us. The incorrectness comes in its application -- when someone else thinks they have the right to identify for me what my sin is. And I'm afraid Pilgrim has a point. Why should your relationship and my possible future relationship be viewed as acceptable, but the loving committed consensual relationships of a friend of mine be considered beyond the pale? I think you may have come to a bend in the path and think you've reached the end. Well, no, there's more road to travel.just another piskiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11114240498737481553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-70115171073971512742008-01-17T21:16:00.000-05:002008-01-17T21:16:00.000-05:00Well, I'm on break again and I shouldn't have come...Well, I'm on break again and I shouldn't have come over here. It's was only a matter of time before Pilgrim and Cynic wandered over for some of what the orthodox call 'fresh hell.' It's the stuff they love to hate.<BR/><BR/>I don't have time to address this completely, but I said STANDARDS, not COMMUNITY standards. Very, very different, Pilgrim. <BR/><BR/>You two are obviously having a great time parsing out my words the way you do scripture. I don't buy it when you do it to sacred texts and I'm sure not buying it when you do it to mine.<BR/><BR/>OKAY - here's the deal. Orthodox, conservatives and evangelicals, you can read but you may not post. You can try, but I'm going to hit 'reject' every time. This is your only warning.<BR/><BR/>This is not a conversation I want to have with you. Go back to your own places of enjoyment and have whatever fun you like to have. You'll not be having it here.<BR/><BR/>Yeah, yeah, yeah. Inclusiveness, blah, blah, blah. <BR/><BR/>I'm not saying I don't want you in the church. I'm not saying I don't want you on my blog. I'm saying this is not a conversation I want to have with you. This conversation. This one right here. Right now. <BR/><BR/>I already know what you're going to say - as you both have so amply proven. <BR/><BR/>There's no point in it, so run along. Nothing here for you to see - or say. If you want, you can listen to what the Queers have to say about Jesus, but I'll not be giving you any voice or vote.<BR/><BR/>And to the rest of you: I have asked that you not feed the trolls. Here's a second request: PLEASE DO NOT TEASE THE TROLLS. <BR/><BR/>Do not engage them in this particular discussion because they can not answer you. I'll just get their junk mail, and you know how annoyed I get when I'm busy and have to do more things than I want to. Thanks, lovelies. <BR/><BR/>If this begins to sink any lower, I'll just remove the posts from Cynic and Pilgrim and anything you respond to them. <BR/><BR/>That's what the Elves do over at T19. I've even seen Ms. Highdeheyhighdeho do it when the discussion is not going the way she wants it. "Off Topic" she declares as she hits delete.<BR/><BR/>If she can do it, so can I. Sauce for the gander and all that.<BR/><BR/>Okay, everybody clear?<BR/><BR/>Okay, back to work for me.Elizabeth Kaetonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06787552280232329081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-52117875345335533262008-01-17T19:30:00.000-05:002008-01-17T19:30:00.000-05:00So why do lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgende...So why do lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered people get to reap the benefits of "inclusiveness" while firinel <BR/>and his friends and lovers are left out in the cold? <BR/><BR/>It's no better in TEC than anywhere else in the US: one group breaks open the door to acceptance, only to turn around <BR/>and slam it shut before the next group in line can get through: "We're Irish Americans and we've earned acceptance, <BR/>and this will be a great country as long as those Poles stay out." "We Afro-Americans fought long and hard for our civil <BR/>rights, so keep those wetbacks south of the border." "We are the Episcopalians and we welcome you, as long as <BR/>you are not orthodox or polyamorous."<BR/><BR/>You cannot point to any passages in the Bible that condemn group sex, except you point to the ones right next <BR/>to them that condemn same sex relationships. <BR/><BR/>And if you are going to uphold community standards, I should not have to remind you that "community standards" <BR/>once kept women disenfranchised, out of taverns and out of the priesthood, and "community standards" still do, <BR/>in many places, keep lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered persons on the margins of life in these United States.<BR/><BR/>I was going to bring along a petard for you to hoist yourself on, but it looks as if your own is going to work just fine.<BR/><BR/>And BTW, I am one of those orthodox evangelicals, so perhaps you didn't know what I was going to say after all.The Pilgrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05428024520808633981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-79486875992015416852008-01-17T18:26:00.000-05:002008-01-17T18:26:00.000-05:00I will agree that, depending on your translation, ...<I> I will agree that, depending on your translation, you can find biblical support for a position of 'the sinful state' of LGBT people...</I><BR/><BR/>Really? Where? In find no evidence in scripture about a 'sinful state', regarding sexual orientation. I think you're putting words in orthodox mouths. <BR/><BR/><I> Where does Jesus say anything about either homosexuality or sex (any kind of sex) outside of marriage? </I><BR/><BR/>Jesus didn't say a lot of things. You can't come to an understanding of Christian morality based on what Jesus didn't say. Would you have us make a list of things he <I>did</I> say, then suggest that everything not listed is okay? <BR/><BR/><I> I am absolutely not in support of polygamy, polyandry, promiscuity, serial monogamy... </I><BR/><BR/>Why not? What's wrong with polyandry between consenting adults? There's nothing against it in scripture, is there? Polygamy certainly enjoys tacit support in scripture, so who are we to prevent three people who love each other from marrying?<BR/><BR/>If you're against polygamy, how do you propose the church should respond to polygamists? The only possible answer would be that Christian churches should be welcoming, loving, supportive, but disapproving of the act of polygamy -- but, wouldn't that be "HateTheSinLoveTheSinnerville"?<BR/><BR/>What's wrong with "hate the sin but love the sinner", anyway? It's come in pretty handy for me over the years when I've sinned. My church loved me to bits and embraced me unequivocally, but nonetheless urged me to put an end to my wrong behavior. Which is exactly what I needed.Cyclical Cynichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14418313827725900823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29373297.post-31220424964411147002008-01-17T18:23:00.000-05:002008-01-17T18:23:00.000-05:00Okay, I'm sneaking over here when I should be at m...Okay, I'm sneaking over here when I should be at my writing, but this discussion is more than I could have ever asked for or imagined. <BR/><BR/>I really, really want to be here with y'all rather than working on Table of Contents, Appendix and Bibliography - but, OBTW, those landmarks mean that there's light at the end of this godforsaken academic tunnel. I'm going to post my dedication tomorrow, so you'll get a flavor for what I'm doing.<BR/><BR/>So - I just want to say this. I'm talking STANDARDS not RULES. Big difference, my lovelies. <BR/><BR/>I think the Jesus standard is life long, faithful monogamy. Rules? Well, they're a horse of an entirely different color. <BR/><BR/>I'm also a priest. Cut me some slack. My job is to hold up standards for community behavior - not to be a 'bedroom robocop.' <BR/><BR/>More later, my darlings.<BR/><BR/>This succka is almost mine. I'm about to wrestle it to the ground and make it cry, "Uncle."Elizabeth Kaetonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06787552280232329081noreply@blogger.com