Jump to content

Religious Liberty does not excuse rudness, hatefulness, or bullying


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

No, I think I was unclear, and I apologize--I went off a bit in the wrong direction in that post early on. I was trying to say misgendering isn't necessarily arbitrary--it comes from a real difficulty to understand something these people (the mis-genderers if you will) cannot fathom on any level. For example, I have one name--Simon. Some people have two names--Jonathan and Jon, let's say. And Jon might hate to be called Jonathan. I totally get that. But the understanding of gender identity is something I can't understand--it's the privilege issue, I suppose. Many people have a notion of privilege and try to never understand the vastly different experiences of others. Maybe I'm not making a sound argument in any case.

Well if someone tells you they are a woman and their name is (insert their name) then I don't see what is so difficult to understand. 

I dont kow if it's an age thing because I'm only 23 and I personally have quite a few close friends, a couple of which I met when we were teenagers who are trans and it's never been difficult for me to understand, never. In terms of someones identity and their pronouns when ive been told or I know about them that's it then. Theyre a man, they're a woman - they're non binary that's it. I don't need to think "oh but this" "oh but that" because I don't know anyone else's body and mind more than they know their own and outside of not believing or not understanding it and the danger in that, it's simply arrogant for some people to assume they know better about someone else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact Im aware I might be an individual case but even though I'm not really part of any lgbtq social community and never have been more of my good friends my age are gay, bi, or trans than cis and straight.  It's just worked out that way, the people my age I connect with the most are usually under the queer umbrella in one way or another. So it's just never been something I've had to puzzle over in fact apart from considering my trans friends safety and similar I don't think about it at all because it's not like my cis gender friends I think oh WOW (insert name) is a woman isn't she....she's like...a GIRL she's a girl for all these reasons....I just don't so why would I do that with my trans friends 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Theda Baratheon said:

Well if someone tells you they are a woman and their name is (insert their name) then I don't see what is so difficult to understand. 

I dont kow if it's an age thing because I'm only 23 and I personally have quite a few close friends, a couple of which I met when we were teenagers who are trans and it's never been difficult for me to understand, never. In terms of someones identity and their pronouns when ive been told or I know about them that's it then. Theyre a man, they're a woman - they're non binary that's it. I don't need to think "oh but this" "oh but that" because I don't know anyone else's body and mind more than they know their own and outside of not believing or not understanding it and the danger in that, it's simply arrogant for some people to assume they know better about someone else. 

 

Well, I think that's the point, isn't it? For many of us who are older, we have been brought up on norms where if we see someone we assign a gender. You're talking 40+ years of conditioning for people. So when someone who appears physically a woman, but identifies as male, and does not say that preference--you get someone like me who bumbles through it.

For others, the paradigm shift is much more radical. Keep in mind, I am not saying the social norms older generations were conditioned into are right, I am just saying--a lot of issues have to be overcome to change their views. Just as you don't understand their view, they do not understand yours. To many people, the idea of gender being separable from sex is difficult to parse because people have not considered them as separate their entire life. I think we don't need to belittle those people, but instead help them. That's all we can do. Some seem unchangeable, and maybe they are, but the majority of people are changeable. Hell, my own mother, who has historically been rigid and closed minded to EVERYTHING, has forced herself to change because she is a medical provider on a campus. I feel like if she can begin to accept this, despite her rigid Christian morality, then anyone can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Theda Baratheon said:

Well if someone tells you they are a woman and their name is (insert their name) then I don't see what is so difficult to understand. 

I dont kow if it's an age thing because I'm only 23 and I personally have quite a few close friends, a couple of which I met when we were teenagers who are trans and it's never been difficult for me to understand, never. In terms of someones identity and their pronouns when ive been told or I know about them that's it then. Theyre a man, they're a woman - they're non binary that's it. I don't need to think "oh but this" "oh but that" because I don't know anyone else's body and mind more than they know their own and outside of not believing or not understanding it and the danger in that, it's simply arrogant for some people to assume they know better about someone else. 

But if you believe we are all god's creations and god made us as man or woman, then a transsexual doesn't fit into that world view. God made you one way and you are choosing to deny that fact and be something other then god has intended. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a load of bollocks. It's claiming to know God's plan to say that God didn't make us trans intentionally, when idea they did fits well within the world view of such religious people. Which doesn't mean they don't believe it, but I'd wager a good amount of the most hateful do think their God created us this way and did it to mark us as awful sinners to be punished by the virtuous. 

Simon - since you indicated you're open to learning I just wanted to say that language like "trans people feel they are the other gender" can imply that we're wrong. I don't feel like a woman, I am a woman. It's hard because awareness of this fact is driven by feeling but there is an underlying fact there. I think the big hurdle for those who are merely ignorant and don't understand (as opposed to those above who actively hate) is the belief that they should be able to understand. If you've never experienced the dissonance of trying to live as a gender you aren't, you almost certainly have never experienced any of the things that let you know. I always try to come to with analogies that feel like they fall short but... How do you describe the wind to someone that has never experienced even the slightest breeze - just utter stilness even when they move? It's this invisible thing that pushes into your face and body? It would make no sense to them, and this doesn't either. The lack of commonly understood language around this stuff doesn't help either. The key is to accept without needing to understand how we can know.

But to someone that believes I'm this way because God wanted to flag me as a wicked soul for punishment? They don't think they need to understand, they don't want to understand. Misgendering me etc is simply righteous to that perspective, to indulge my desires would be to go against God's. That's the extreme end, but is anyone going to argue that the likes of WBC aren't this hateful in their faith? And there are an awful lot along a spectrum between this and the merely ignorant. I certainly don't see a realisation that they're being rude would make the tiniest difference to many of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, karaddin said:

That's a load of bollocks. It's claiming to know God's plan to say that God didn't make us trans intentionally, when idea they did fits well within the world view of such religious people. Which doesn't mean they don't believe it, but I'd wager a good amount of the most hateful do think their God created us this way and did it to mark us as awful sinners to be punished by the virtuous. 

Simon - since you indicated you're open to learning I just wanted to say that language like "trans people feel they are the other gender" can imply that we're wrong. I don't feel like a woman, I am a woman. It's hard because awareness of this fact is driven by feeling but there is an underlying fact there. I think the big hurdle for those who are merely ignorant and don't understand (as opposed to those above who actively hate) is the belief that they should be able to understand. If you've never experienced the dissonance of trying to live as a gender you aren't, you almost certainly have never experienced any of the things that let you know. I always try to come to with analogies that feel like they fall short but... How do you describe the wind to someone that has never experienced even the slightest breeze - just utter stilness even when they move? It's this invisible thing that pushes into your face and body? It would make no sense to them, and this doesn't either. The lack of commonly understood language around this stuff doesn't help either. The key is to accept without needing to understand how we can know.

But to someone that believes I'm this way because God wanted to flag me as a wicked soul for punishment? They don't think they need to understand, they don't want to understand. Misgendering me etc is simply righteous to that perspective, to indulge my desires would be to go against God's. That's the extreme end, but is anyone going to argue that the likes of WBC aren't this hateful in their faith? And there are an awful lot along a spectrum between this and the merely ignorant. I certainly don't see a realisation that they're being rude would make the tiniest difference to many of them.

 

Yeah, I didn't mean to come off as saying that--and this is what I mean, I feel like I stumble through this conversation like a blundering fool, but I appreciate you taking the time. I can't say I know anything about anyone, but I absolutely believe transgender to be a truth--not a falsity--so I apologize for coming off that way. I think what you've said above though captures it perfectly--how could I ever understand the experience? All I can do is be understanding (besides, aside from MY bumbling, I don't get why people are up in arms about this on the other side). I like what you said, "The key is to accept without needing to understand how we can know." I believe this too, and again, I'm sorry if my hedging made that unclear. My biggest fear is the pain/danger/fear I could cause to someone in your position through my ignorance. I would only ever want to be accepting, so again, I appreciate the help.

I don't understand the resistance to creating commonly understood language. I was listening to a podcast today--Joe Rogan, who I can't stand, but he had Jordan Peterson on--and Jordan Peterson is a tenured professor at the University of Toronto. He has been on a rampage about gender pronouns and fights against the notion of gender neutral pronouns. He blames academics, he blames Marxists, he blames postmodernists like Derrida and Foucault--and most frustratingly he mixes Marxism and Postmodernism as if its all the same thing. He says Postmodernism is an evil thing pushing ideology that, ultimately, says, "If you work with a white male, then you are working with evil." Which is nonsense. I bring this up, because I feel like he validates exactly the kind of post Scot reacted to and then started this thread. What is the big issue with language? 

Your second point is what really gets me--the idea that God flagged souls in a specific way for punishment. If God knows all, then He/She/They would know everything we do anyway, and we wouldn't really have free will, which makes this whole issue of hell problematic. In fact, why would an all-knowing, all-loving being punish anyone infinitely inferior to it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see their vision of God as even mildly living. It's a cruel and vengeful entity, not a loving one.

And Simon just to be clear - I never thought you meant to imply it, was just explaining how even tiny quirks of language can undermine us even when there is no intent. Thanks for taking it as I intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, karaddin said:

I can't see their vision of God as even mildly living. It's a cruel and vengeful entity, not a loving one.

And Simon just to be clear - I never thought you meant to imply it, was just explaining how even tiny quirks of language can undermine us even when there is no intent. Thanks for taking it as I intended.

 

Ah, I see that now. You're right about language--it can be so unclear and dividing--and dangerous. Of course, I've been reading Foucault's Language and Power so my mind's kind of consumed with that whole idea right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, karaddin said:

I can't see their vision of God as even mildly living. It's a cruel and vengeful entity, not a loving one.

And Simon just to be clear - I never thought you meant to imply it, was just explaining how even tiny quirks of language can undermine us even when there is no intent. Thanks for taking it as I intended.

Yes I absolutely agree with this the Christian God as written is a horrible monster if he is real well the world is a dark and miserable place.

I do have a question for @Ser Scot A Ellison though, I think it's admirable that you are against the bullying of trans and LGBTQ people, however, as an Eastern Orthodox how do you square that with the beliefs of your church? Your church believes that gay people are sinners that they offend God, that God does not want people to be gay or trans. You seem to not believe that? So my question is do you agree with your church on this? and if not why not? Do you personally believe God views being gay as a sin? And if not why not? Because from my reading of the bible it's pretty clear on that topic.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Darzin said:

Yes I absolutely agree with this the Christian God as written is a horrible monster if he is real well the world is a dark and miserable place.

I do have a question for @Ser Scot A Ellison though, I think it's admirable that you are against the bullying of trans and LGBTQ people, however, as an Eastern Orthodox how do you square that with the beliefs of your church? Your church believes that gay people are sinners that they offend God, that God does not want people to be gay or trans. You seem to not believe that? So my question is do you agree with your church on this? and if not why not? Do you personally believe God views being gay as a sin? And if not why not? Because from my reading of the bible it's pretty clear on that topic.  

No.  My church has a subtle difference.  It believes that the act of homosexual sex is sinful not that being homosexual is sinful.  That means that there is nothing inherently sinful under existing understanding about being homosexual.  Sin is committed when the homosexual sex is engaged in.  

To go further into my personal belief on this issue I think Christian hostility toward homosexuality comes from the belief that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore not of God.  I think that belief is in error and that there is nothing unnatural about homosexuality and as such it is of God.  The evidence seems pretty clear that homosexuality is not a personal choice but is innate to the people who are homosexual.

As for the Bible's take on homosexuality.  The Bible was written by people thousands of years ago attempting to understand things that went way over their heads.  It is not to be taken perfectly literally and it is not without error.  Take a look at Jeremiah 31:26 for direct proof of an error in text of the Bible:

http://biblehub.com/jeremiah/31-26.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

As for the Bible's take on homosexuality.  The Bible was written by people thousands of years ago attempting to understand things that went way over their heads.  

I think it was a bit more basic than that.  When your numbers are few, your survival depends on increasing those numbers.  Sex, for any purpose than procreation, was frowned upon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 @Ser Scot A Ellison Paul explicitly condemns homosexuality and says that men who have sex with men, will not inherit the kingdom of God. 1st Corinthians 6:9-11 Now I understand Eastern Orthodoxy does not come from a sola scriptora tradition. Never the less if you are willing to disregard Paul's specific instructions and teachings in this case, do you follow him in others? Do you think his works should be cannon?  Perhaps we shouldn't take the bible literally, but  even without sola scriptura church law and doctrine has held homosexuality, or at least the act of having sex with a member of the same sex, immoral for more then a thousand years and every single current and past patriarch opposes homosexuality. So you have scripture, tradition and current leadership all in agreement about this.

  Now let's turn to your argument about it being natural and therefore permitted if we look at the old testament laws we can see many things which were natural and still prohibited, pork and shellfish are naturally occurring and yet God prohibited the Jews from partaking in such delicious treats  as bacon. So if there is already a precedent for prohibiting natural things that do no harm surely this can't be a disqualifying factor. It's true that these were rescinded  (Acts 15:29) But if you look at the passage that rescinded them the law prohibiting "sexual immorality," were left intact. As per the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and per Paul this includes homosexuality. Now not being from a sola scriptora tradition it's possible the passage is an error, but if it is then the old testament laws are still in force and you will have to  give up pork and mixed fibers and homosexuality will still be prohibited. As this comes from the old testament law naturalness cannot be seen as a qualifying factor. Furthermore per acts this council was guided by the Holy Spirit, if the the spirit guided them to remove the laws about pork, why did it not guide them to remove the prohibition about "sexual immorality" which is explicitly left intact? 

  Finally I would like to turn your attention to how the Orthodox Church is behaving in the world today. In America it might not have much influence but in the former Soviet Union it has quite a bit, and while some of it is positive when it comes to LBTQ rights it's basically all negative. In Georgia (country not state) Orthodox priests led a mob to attack a gay rights parade. In Russia an increase in religiosity has led to less acceptance of homosexuality and many priests are preaching in favor of the governments new anti-homosexuality laws. Now I can guess that you might say "well that's a few bad apples," and the church is a flawed human institution, both of those points are true and I don't dispute them, but and this is I feel the whole crux of the matter, I can name hundreds of organizations who do not have any leaders whipping up anti-gay mobs, and hundreds more who would immediately terminate anyone who even breathed a word of doing such a thing, and I personally know people who are working right now to counteract the actions of those priests in Georgia and spread love acceptance and tolerance. How is it that secular organizations with no affirming belief in God and no scriptures to guide them, according to your own moral code, can get morality right better than God's own church?

  If the teachings of the bible cannot be trusted, and the doctrines and traditions of the church cannot be trusted, and the teachings of church leadership cannot be trusted, and the beliefs of church membership cannot be trusted, and the actions and practices of the church in the world cannot be trusted, then what good is the church? Why should anyone take moral instruction from an institution, that is according to your own moral code, failing in a major area on every possible level?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Darzin said:

 @Ser Scot A Ellison Paul explicitly condemns homosexuality and says that men who have sex with men, will not inherit the kingdom of God. 1st Corinthians 6:9-11 Now I understand Eastern Orthodoxy does not come from a sola scriptora tradition. Never the less if you are willing to disregard Paul's specific instructions and teachings in this case, do you follow him in others? Do you think his works should be cannon?  Perhaps we shouldn't take the bible literally, but  even without sola scriptura church law and doctrine has held homosexuality, or at least the act of having sex with a member of the same sex, immoral for more then a thousand years and every single current and past patriarch opposes homosexuality. So you have scripture, tradition and current leadership all in agreement about this.

  Now let's turn to your argument about it being natural and therefore permitted if we look at the old testament laws we can see many things which were natural and still prohibited, pork and shellfish are naturally occurring and yet God prohibited the Jews from partaking in such delicious treats  as bacon. So if there is already a precedent for prohibiting natural things that do no harm surely this can't be a disqualifying factor. It's true that these were rescinded  (Acts 15:29) But if you look at the passage that rescinded them the law prohibiting "sexual immorality," were left intact. As per the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and per Paul this includes homosexuality. Now not being from a sola scriptora tradition it's possible the passage is an error, but if it is then the old testament laws are still in force and you will have to  give up pork and mixed fibers and homosexuality will still be prohibited. As this comes from the old testament law naturalness cannot be seen as a qualifying factor. Furthermore per acts this council was guided by the Holy Spirit, if the the spirit guided them to remove the laws about pork, why did it not guide them to remove the prohibition about "sexual immorality" which is explicitly left intact? 

  Finally I would like to turn your attention to how the Orthodox Church is behaving in the world today. In America it might not have much influence but in the former Soviet Union it has quite a bit, and while some of it is positive when it comes to LBTQ rights it's basically all negative. In Georgia (country not state) Orthodox priests led a mob to attack a gay rights parade. In Russia an increase in religiosity has led to less acceptance of homosexuality and many priests are preaching in favor of the governments new anti-homosexuality laws. Now I can guess that you might say "well that's a few bad apples," and the church is a flawed human institution, both of those points are true and I don't dispute them, but and this is I feel the whole crux of the matter, I can name hundreds of organizations who do not have any leaders whipping up anti-gay mobs, and hundreds more who would immediately terminate anyone who even breathed a word of doing such a thing, and I personally know people who are working right now to counteract the actions of those priests in Georgia and spread love acceptance and tolerance. How is it that secular organizations with no affirming belief in God and no scriptures to guide them, according to your own moral code, can get morality right better than God's own church?

  If the teachings of the bible cannot be trusted, and the doctrines and traditions of the church cannot be trusted, and the teachings of church leadership cannot be trusted, and the beliefs of church membership cannot be trusted, and the actions and practices of the church in the world cannot be trusted, then what good is the church? Why should anyone take moral instruction from an institution, that is according to your own moral code, failing in a major area on every possible level?
 

Darzin,

Are you trying to convince me to stop going to my church which is not Russian or Georgian and has never led mobs to attack homosexuals?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  My church has a subtle difference.  It believes that the act of homosexual sex is sinful not that being homosexual is sinful.  That means that there is nothing inherently sinful under existing understanding about being homosexual.  Sin is committed when the homosexual sex is engaged in.  

To go further into my personal belief on this issue I think Christian hostility toward homosexuality comes from the belief that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore not of God.  I think that belief is in error and that there is nothing unnatural about homosexuality and as such it is of God.  The evidence seems pretty clear that homosexuality is not a personal choice but is innate to the people who are homosexual.

As for the Bible's take on homosexuality.  The Bible was written by people thousands of years ago attempting to understand things that went way over their heads.  It is not to be taken perfectly literally and it is not without error.  Take a look at Jeremiah 31:26 for direct proof of an error in text of the Bible:

http://biblehub.com/jeremiah/31-26.htm

That's really a distinction without meaning though. A relationship need not be physical or intimate, it's true, but viewing homosexual activity as sinful is really indissociable from seeing homosexuality itself as sinful. The activity doesn't exist in a vacuum, it is closely associated with one's sexual orientation.

I'm fudging what I want to say here, sorry. But you are a lawyer, so for a much more eloquent explanation see the UK case of Bull and Bull v Hall and Preddy. Lady Hale explains this lack of distinction far better than I ever could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

That's really a distinction without meaning though. A relationship need not be physical or intimate, it's true, but viewing homosexual activity as sinful is really no different to finding homosexuality itself sinful. It's telling people to deny their physical urges because to act on them would be wrong, in effect saying that what they are thinking is sinful.

I'm fudging what I want to say here, sorry. But you are a lawyer, so for a much more eloquent explanation see the UK case of Bull and Bull v Hall and Preddy. Lady Hale explains this lack of distinction far better than I ever could.

I agree.  Which is why another reason why I disagree with my church about Homosexuality.  But... then masturbation is considered sinful as well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Darzin,

Are you trying to convince me to stop going to my church?

I'm trying to convince you that based on the a priori assumptions of Eastern Orthodoxy the church is right and your wrong on the issue of homosexuality. I'm trying to convince you that if Eastern Orthodoxy is the true faith then homosexuality is a sin and your morality doesn't line up with God's. I think the exception you made is a bit of a cop out, if we can't rely on scripture or tradition to know God's will how can we know it?  And guess I'm asking you, to justify a bit why you go to your church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Darzin said:

I'm trying to convince you that based on the a priori assumptions of Eastern Orthodoxy the church is right and your wrong on the issue of homosexuality. I'm trying to convince you that if Eastern Orthodoxy is the true faith then homosexuality is a sin and your morality doesn't line up with God's. I think the exception you made is a bit of a cop out, if we can't rely on scripture or tradition to know God's will how can we know it?  And guess I'm asking you, to justify a bit why you go to your church.

Darzin,

Okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Darzin,

Okay.

To break it down a little clearer I don't think the natural unnatural argument is valid because the law doesn’t come from that it comes from Leviticus which bans natural things which cause no harm. The old law is repealed but the prohibitions on sexual immorality remain. Acts 15:29 Paul who was at that conference later defines  sexual immorality as including male homosexual relations 1st Corinthians 6:9-11. Therefore the law banning sexual immorality has nothing to do with naturalness as the authority for the ban comes from the Old Testament laws and not from Paul.

I understand the Orthodox Church is not sola scriptura, but when the laity, scripture tradition and leadership agree I think it’s hard to hold the opposite view without falling into relativism.

I personally don’t think homosexual relations are immoral, but I don’t see how they can be justified in a world where Orthodox Christianity is true. As someone who is an Orthodox believer I wonder what you think of my chain of logic above?

Hope that helps explain what I’m getting at.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Darzin said:

To break it down a little clearer I don't think the natural unnatural argument is valid because the law doesn’t come from that it comes from Leviticus which bans natural things which cause no harm. The old law is repealed but the prohibitions on sexual immorality remain. Acts 15:29 Paul who was at that conference later defines  sexual immorality as including male homosexual relations 1st Corinthians 6:9-11. Therefore the law banning sexual immorality has nothing to do with naturalness as the authority for the ban comes from the Old Testament laws and not from Paul.

I understand the Orthodox Church is not sola scriptura, but when the laity, scripture tradition and leadership agree I think it’s hard to hold the opposite view without falling into relativism.

I personally don’t think homosexual relations are immoral, but I don’t see how they can be justified in a world where Orthodox Christianity is true. As someone who is an Orthodox believer I wonder what you think of my chain of logic above?

Hope that helps explain what I’m getting at.  :)

Okay. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Darzin said:

 @Ser Scot A Ellison Paul explicitly condemns homosexuality and says that men who have sex with men, will not inherit the kingdom of God. 1st Corinthians 6:9-11

I know this is not "at" me, but things are a bit less simplistic than that in regard to this verse.

It's hard to interpret exactly what Paul meant in that verse by the Greek word that he uses since his use of it is the very earliest instance of it appearing in writing. He may literally have invented it. By linking that word (arsenokoites) with the word "malakoi" he may have been referring to male prostitutes (especially those part of temple cult) and their customers, not all "men who have sex with men.". But, as the conclusion of the linked article shows, no one really knows and the meaning is ambiguous:

http://stopbibleabuse.org/biblical-references/paul/arsenokoites.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...