From: John W Burgeson (jwburgeson@juno.com)
Date: Mon Aug 11 2003 - 11:02:50 EDT
I had written: "...not all of us, of course -- the
www.godhatesfags.com folks will always be a part of our society...
Rich posted, in part: "This is the most ridiculous, false, hateful and
incendiary remark that has come out of these dialogs and I'm glad I
didn't make it. I haven't assumed you are a practicing member of
Nambla... ."
Excuse me. I made a claim that the yahoos of the world would always be
part of it. The web site above is a pointer to one particularly vicious
example of this. I do not see where this claim is either "ridiculous. or
easily argued against. After all, there are still "Christian " sites and
organizations preaching the superiority of the "white race." And ask any
of our Christian brethren who happen to have a different skin color if
all racial discrimination has been done away with.
Nor is the claim hateful, for I make it in sorrow. Incendiary? Possibly.
I have no knowledge of an organization called Nambla. You wrote: "the
remark above is tantamount to my assuming your membership and
participation,... ." Perhaps you'd like to explain why you came to this
(false) conclusion.
In a later post, Rich observed: "The vote was 65 to 48. The 48 who voted
against the postmodern stream are suffering. Isn't that obvious?"
In one sense, perhaps. The same observation can be made of those persons
140 years ago who saw their cherished belief that slavery was
God-ordained voted against. Or those preachers who believed (sincerely)
that the Jim Crow laws of the American South were God-ordained. But I can
come closer to home. My father-in-law fought hard against the ordination
of women in the Presbyterian church, and, to an extant, "suffered" when
the votes went against him. Ironically, his daughter now has her MDiv
degree and is one test away from being eligible for PCUSA ordination!
I can see an argument that says these 48 are "suffering" in the same way.
Rich posted part of a news article which talks about this:
"This is best because those of you who have reached a
further point of clarity can continue to do what you think
is right in your area," said Bishop Gethin Hughes of the
Diocese of San Diego. "For many of us who are still
struggling," he said, there will be more time for sorting
through the issues and coming to some answer together."
I do not equate "struggle" with "suffering," but perhaps...
"... a day marked by messages of
protest by those upset with the approval of Bishop-elect
Robinson to lead the Diocese of New Hampshire."
I do not equate "protests" with suffering either. But the article does:
"Some of the protests were small, others more dramatic. A
dozen people wore ashes on their foreheads, as a sign of
penance and mourning. A few wore black armbands. Some seats
on the floors of the two decision-making bodies - the House
of Deputies and the smaller House of Bishops - stayed empty
all day."
"A few blocks away, about 300 opponents of approving
Bishop-elect Robinson, some 20 bishops among them, prayed
together in a worship service at Westminster Presbyterian
Church. In the pews, several people wept. Some spoke of the
decision as a death."
Here there does appear suffering. It is the suffering of sincere folks
who wish to deny other sincere folks their right to hold a different
opinion on a very difficult (in 2003 anyway) issue.
"I feel betrayed," said Dorothy Spaulding, 74, a church
member from Virginia. Mrs. Spaulding said she did not know
whether she would go to church this Sunday or, if she did,
whether she would put anything on the collection plate.
"We have a lot of gays in our parish," she said, "and most
of them are nice people. They are still living in sin."
Ms Spaulding, of course, "knows" the answer. And since she has certainty
in this, I agree that she is suffering.
Compare, however, the extent and depth of her suffering with a person who
is rejected by his or her Christian brethren, or told he or she is
"living in sin," when such is not the case. I think there is no
comparison.
"We've been dealt a grave blow," Bishop Robert W. Duncan of
the Pittsburgh Diocese told the somber congregants gathered
at the Westminster church. "How do we go forward and forth?
I want to suggest to you, you already know the answer. It's
one word, five letters. Jesus."
I agree, of course, with Bishop Duncan on this.
"We have violated our own constitution, so I am doing what
I was called in my own heart to do," the Rev. David H.
Roseberry of Plano, Tex., said ... ."
I agree that Rev. Roseberry is suffering, much in the same way as above.
And he must do what his heart calls him to do.
"The Rev. Canon Ephraim Radner, a deputy from Colorado, also
left. "It is with profound sorrow and trembling
reluctance," he told the House of Deputies, ... ."
I agree also that Rev. Radnor is suffering.
The issue remains the same. Either God's will is that no persons ever
form same-gender domestic intimate relationships, or God's will does not
prohibit such relationships. 100 years from now we will all know (for
sure) which of these is correct. In the meantime, we have to (each of us)
either take a position on the issue or continue to fence straddle. I
fence straddled for too may years. It gets uncomfortable. <G>
On 8/7 Rich observed: "The thread on homosexuality is continuing because
the liberals don't argue, they pontificate. The tradionalists want
argument, rational scientific argument."
I hope the arguments I have on my web site are not seen as
"pontification." <G>
I understand your arguments to be both rational and scientific. I reject
them because I, for one, simply do not find them persuasive. George
Murphy has done a good job, IMHO, of pointing out how they fail.
John Burgeson (Burgy)
www.burgy.50megs.com
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 11 2003 - 11:45:12 EDT