John Ryan

I attend a Catholic Church in the next town over from me. The Catholic Church feels like home for me. I grew up attending Catholic Mass, so the liturgy and tradition is special to me. I moved away from religion at the age of sixteen, becoming an atheist agnostic, until I recently regained a belief in God. I disagree with much of Vatican/Magisterium since I am a progressive. Yet, I am not very concerned with the ontological validity of the religious propositions spoken in the liturgy. I believe the purpose of liturgy is to create a thin place, where we can feel the Sacred flow through us. And I am not sure any other service could do arouse quite the same emotions and bring me to that thin place than the Catholic Mass.

 

I have considered trying the Episcopalian Mass, as it is very similar to the Catholic Mass. If specific beliefs of the Church you attend are very important to you as a progressive, I recommend the Episcopalian Church.

John,

 

I must say I'm not convinced by the Christus Victor model, though I have more sympathy for it. Penal Substitution imposes a God of fury and blood-thirst, a view which caused real psychological harm to me as a teenager. Christus Victor seems to focus too much on personified evil for me to really 'get it', however, I'm open to being persuaded, and I'll check out the link.

 

Thanks for the replies!

 

Phil

I lack a belief in the ontological reality of a Devil, or personified evil. So, I view the personification of evil in a metaphorical sense with Christus Victor.

I am an ardent supporter of the Christus Victor model of atonement. Satisfaction theory and penal substitution remove the good news from the gospel. God becomes the enemy of humankind, since it is His judgement that poses the greatest existential threat to the human experience. Rather than being the One we should be afraid of, God and Jesus are liberators in the Christus Victor model. Sin is understood as chains which bond us to the evil of this world, and through Christ we are freed from being a slave to evil.

 

I highly recommend reading Derek Flood's Penal Substitution vs. Christus Victor. It is the best primer to Christus Victor I have come across. I am not going to lie, it is lengthy, but honestly it is so worth it.

I do love Dan Savage. The man is a God-send.

 

John, hope you don't mind my asking about your avatar / signature-- how does “Jennifer’s Body” as a porno/ horror film affirm homosexuality? wouldn’t there be a better choice, one that treats the subject with respect and tenderness? (I do like the U2 lyrics :-)

I would have to criticize your assertion that Jennifer's Body is a horror porn. The camera always cuts away for the gory death scenes, so it is pretty light horror; it is a dark comedy after all. Let me ask you if you have ever seen the film in its entirety, since it is actually has a very deep and intellectually stimulating plot? Then again, if you are not specifically looking for the hidden message in the plot, I can see how you could miss it completely. I would just like to know if you have seen it so that I know if I have to walk you through the plot line or not. I can talk all day about the film, since it is one of my favorites, and I am actually in the process of working on a cultural studies journal article about the feminist Christian themes underpinning the film.

The construct of masculine and feminine traits is merely a human construction. What was considered masculine thousands of years ago, is considered feminine today. Thus if they are ever employed as a metaphor for the Sacred, we should always remember they are our lens to view God, not any aspect of God, Himself/Herself/Itself.

What defines a heavenly end versus a hellish end is the human choice to embrace God; our Creator or reject Him.

The Soviet Union was virulently anti-gay, and virulently anti-religion at the same time.

I wasn't referencing Kinsey. My sense of spectrum is based on my personal observations of friends and acquaintances. Sometimes their lives are lived out of wholeness and sometimes out of brokenness. Individuals who don't care about the gender of skin, Individuals who don't care about the gender of relationship. For others gender/sexual identity is defining. I don't believe everyone has the freedom to move back and forward. So I think it is innate for some people. Most gay's I have met told me that they knew early in life. I met a couple individuals whose gender/sexual identity didn't seem to be out of wholeness.

 

Could I have been gay? Probably not although I went on a few dates with gay men. I have been thinking of women as partners for a long time. The gender of their skin is important to me.

 

Clearly, there is identity associated with homosexuality, as with most things human. But, if you are suggesting there is no basic biological difference between straight and gay, I think this is wrong. Are you suggesting that all men feel an equal attraction to other men and women?

I am pretty positive I never said that all men feel an equal attraction to both genders/sexes. Queer theory says nothing of the kind. It is difficult to grasp the concept without a background in Derridan deconstruction and social constructionism, since queer theory is really just Derridan poststructuralism applied to sexuality. I would not deny that boys and girls (at a young age) often have an innate attraction to one sex over the other. However, I would deny that the concept of "homosexuality" is merely a synonym for "innate attraction to the same-sex".

There is a spectrum I think. some friends have told of the moment when they had clarity of their orientation and I have seen the fluidity of sexual identities, - not in youthful adventures but in a series of commitments - that John mentioned in his discussion of queer theory. Skin or relationship is neither female or male. And some of us know that our orientation is singular and innate.

 

Not allowing oneself to know and reveal one's identity can mean slow death. My father walked this path.

Well, queer theory criticizes the spectrum developed by Kinsey of homosexuality on one side and heterosexuality on the other. It is not that it necessarily denies that we might have innate desires towards on "sex/gender". Rather, it doubts that the sexual categories we create reflect our innate essence. In the view of queer theory, sexual categories are seen as adopted identities. For instance, in our American cultural-linguistic framework, we have this idea of "coming out," but in Ancient Greece, the idea of a homosexual identity was absent. There was no concept of "homosexuality" to "come out" about.

I think even reducing Satan to the tempter gets God off the hook and is not consistent with a monotheistic universe. Even as metaphor I think it distracts us from practices which bring us into God's presence.

I like the metaphor of the Devil very much. Sometimes when you are tempted to do bad things, it feels as if there is this other presence compelling you. I find its corollary in the phrase "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." We often intellectually want to do what is right, but our id (to use Freudian terminology) keeps gnawing at us, and whispering into our ears.

I can not except the idea of Lucifer (or Satan) as the Great Evil many fundamentalists portray him as. He is a "temptor" for sure, but the claim, "The Devil made me do it," is a bit of a cop-out.

I read the passages about the Devil and devils metaphorically. I love the quote from The Duchess of Padua, written by Oscar Wilde, which reads: "We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell."

If we do possess FREE WILL where is the “Sin?” If we don’t possess FREE WILL how can we be held responsible for anything?

If you view sin in the general paradigm of bondage, and not just as "bad things you have done," then the problem disappears.

I do like your image of the cup being poured back into God. How did you arrive at that view? Do we necessarily "die into God?" Or do we find that beyond the veil that seperates the finite world from eternity there is only one reality without limit or border that is God?

The image of the river is taken from the Tao Te Ching, and "die into God" is a phrase Marcus Borg likes to use. See Borg's Agnostic About the Afterlife.

The problem with the heaven/hell dynamic is that it assumes we are omniscient in this life. And I mean this quite literally. It assumes that the choices we make are wholly our own and not the result of the social structures in which we grow up. It necessarily purports that I, who grew up in a white, middle-class New Jersey home, is the same as someone who grows up in a poor Iraqi family. The denial of all influence from the social structure is required to believe in the Hell you purport. For if we do not know the truth (i.e. are not omniscient) in this life, then it is almost certain that we would choose to embrace the love of God upon death and realizing the truth. It is only possible for us to say that those who reject God in this life, would reject Him in the next life, with any certainty if we are omniscient.

 

I am not being comical here. I literal mean it omniscience on the part of men and women is necessary for your assertions to be true. I personally do not believe the soul survives death. When this mortal body perishes, our soul/spirit will return into the oneness of God. We are like cups of water drawn from the river, which is the Sacred. When we die, our cup is poured back into the river. We die into God.

I did mean "innate same-sex attraction." What "extended" concept do you mean?

Well, our society's construction of homosexuality is very much linked with the idea of it as a life-style. There is an idea of what a homosexual man is, beyond purely same-sex attraction. For example, the idea that a homosexual male is an invert is still wildly popular. When people pejoratively say something/someone is acting "gay," it does not simply mean they are acting as if they are attracted to the same-sex. That makes absolutely no sense. The strength of Derridan deconstruction is that it reveals to you the hidden ideological content of words we imagine not to be ideological. It is also the idea that homosexuality becomes a social identity. Coming out of the closet is perceived in our culture as the assertion or revelation of a hidden identity, which makes us who were are.

 

I align myself predominantly with the tradition of queer theory in studies of sexuality. What it essentially argues is that sexuality is fluid, multi-faceted and regulatory. Hetero, homo and bisexuality are human-created categories which fail to adequately reflect reality. They are useful, but the danger lies in believing that they truly reflect our core identities, and not merely an identity we adopt through the socialization process.

I always thought this was a reference to the Greek practice of an older mentor 'teaching' young boys about sex (by having sex with them) before they were married.

That is one of the popular progressive interpretations.

 

I have no reason to think that there were no homosexual men in ancient Greece and Israel although probably not acknowledged as a natural orientation. I also have no reason not to think that same-sex relations were disapproved of in those societies. This is not a hang-up limited to Jews and Christians.

 

But, that was then and this is now.

There cannot be "homosexuals" before the linguistic category existed. If you mean "innate same-sex attraction" by the word "homosexuality," then I would agree. However, the construct of homosexuality extends beyond mere innate attraction.

I found one instance in a word search of the NIV; 1 Tim 10, "for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine."

 

The Early Christian Reader translates this as "sodomites" then has a footnote that says, "or male homosexuals, the Gk word used here is found only here and 1 Cor. 6:10 in our literature; it is also used in Polycarp To the Philipeans 5:3."

 

I would not have chosen this word as the concept of sexual orientation didn't exist at that time. However, I think a reasonable argument in an idiomatic translation could be made as this was condemning same-sex practices (not orientation). Whether they should have been banned is another issue altogether (I think not).

I am still not comfortable with translating it as condemnation of "same-sex acts," however. There is much evidence to suggest the word is in reference to an economic-sexual sin, such as sleeping with young prostitute boys.

 

Is 'homosexual' used in The Voice translation?

I have no idea. Only snippets are available at this time, if I am not mistaken.

John,

 

I am not clear on your point. The idea of sexual orientation is a modern concept. Are you saying that this translation uses the word "homosexual?" And, if so, in what context?

 

George

First of all, let me apologize for not realizing Greek text turns into gibberish on the forums. Secondly, I insinuated that classic translations, such as the NIV, err when they translate "arsenokoites" as "homosexuals."

I like to use different translations as they allow me to look at texts in different ways I'm curious about this and might have to download.

I can see some traditional & fundy churches having a field day with it!

Well, I think it is relatively easy to discern the bias in a translation such as this, whereas the bias in other classic translations is better obscured. Most people are not well versed enough to realize that "αρσενοκοιτης" translated as "homosexuals" is highly improper. Anybody with a background in Queer Theory or Michel Foucault understands that "sexuality" and "homosexuality" are modernist-linguistic constructs that arose out of the rising movement of psychology and advances in medicine. Yet, if you have never read these philosophical-sociology works teasing out the ideological construction of hetero/homosexuality, the bias in choosing "homosexuals" as English equivalent of the original Greek will remain hidden.

White, Male, Marxist, writer, thinker, gentle.

John,

 

It's like Obama's energy policy. It takes efforts by both liberals and conservatives. Not one or the other and not by demonizing the other.

 

Dutch

I just do not see any effort on the part of conservatives. The Republican base has become radicalized, and all hope is lost. Politics majors are usually very cynical. We have studied this stuff backwards and forwards, and we realize how impossible it all is.

The Arizona law does narrow the methods and opportunities for self chosen action. John Kerry in a faith based speech in 2004? said the achieving fewer abortions was something liberals and conservatives could agree on as a goal. So we have this on going conversation. I am in favor a setting a limit based on viability - healthy viability - of the fetus.

 

My other suggestion is that if someones opposes abortion then step up to the delivery room and take responsibility for raising the child. Make them a wanted child and take them home. When there is no need for a Foster Child Care System then lets talk about abortions.

 

Dutch

1. If social conservatives actually cared about dead fetuses they would do everything in their power to teach safe-sex education to young and old alike; instead of bellowing holier-than-thou sermons about how pre-marital sex is immoral to gratify their own egos.
   
2. If social conservatives actually cared about babies, they would support the welfare state instead of the Nietzschean-Social Darwinistic system touted by libertarians and Austrian economists.
   

The study guide for "Heart of Christianity" is by Borg and Scorer

Who is Scorer? I have never heard of him/her before?

I, too, loved Borg's "Heart of Christianity" and there is a companion study guide for personal or group use. Very helpful.

I will have to track that down. I am thinking about picking up Borg's Speaking Christian, first, since I heard he tackles the language about hell in the Bible, and I am very interested on his opinions on that matter.

I loved Marcus J. Borg's The Heart of Christianity. It is very accessible to people without a strong background in theology, and yet does not sacrifice the significance of its words in explaining big concepts to laypersons.