Honestly there is so much media bias, probably to get more viewership and clicks on a controversial article, it's really mind boggling how it was permitted to get this far. I mean I've seen articles titled "Homosexuality gene found" interpreting research that hasn't even been concluded or controlled for (like this one: http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/10443/20141118/homosexuality-genetic-strongest-evidence.htm)
If you have an academic background it makes you want to pull your hair out.
If I find a better source I'll share it, but it's also important to do self research on top of what is presented, especially if you are an academic or have an education on the interpretation of epidemiological and sociological research.
You can't talk about the Coptic experience of being Church without first being a Copt.
You can't talk about black liberation and history without being a black person who has experienced oppression and re-write the history written by white men.
You can't talk about feminist theology without being a woman who has experienced growing up in a patriarchal church and seeks an inclusive role in the Church.
In a similar way, you can't talk about LGBT identity, morality, spirituality, theology, or any kind of issues, without being an LGBT person first.
I think it's important to let the LGBT people speak about their own experiences of being LGBT and find ways of integrating their lives with whatever faith they choose. It's not for anyone else to decide what their identity is, what sins they think about, and what struggles they have to endure. Because it's not a subjective experience to many who are not LGBT, it can't be talked about objectively by those same people.
Forgive me. I cannot in anyway agree to the comparisons you made. I do not want to cause offense, as I still appreciate and am open to listening to your struggles. But being black or being a woman is a far different story than being lgbt. There is no predisposition to race and being a woman (biologically). LGBT is not a set in stone issue. It is a predisposition. Yes, there is a genetic component, but it is not the same form of genetics as you would expect from race or biological gender. It is not right to say you can choose to be gay. But it is also not right to say you cannot choose to act on your predisposition.
I was just having another online discussion with a Finnish Orthodox gay man who has been married for 40 years to his partner. The relationship is no longer sexual and he accepts the Church's teachings, and as a pastoral approach, the priest is working with him on this. I appreciate the fact that there is a clear acknowledgement that he is not out to change the church's teachings, but for having an open and honest discourse on the struggle within the Church context.
The important thing is that the faith you choose also dictates the ideal moral you strive to accomplish in the end. I think many people worry about this idea that in some cases lgbt want to change the moral teachings of the Church, and this needs to be highlighted as well as we listen to the lgbt community which exists in the church.
I understand what you are saying in that we cannot fully understand the struggles a person goes through unless we are in their shoes and are going through the exact same thing. Also, it is not for us to judge, but that is for the Lord. Indeed, we have to remove the plank out of our own eye before we remove the speck in our brother's eye.
However, we must be clear that no matter how much the human race tries to make its own moral code, it cannot without the use of a moral compass, and for us, it is the Word of God. Because I am not the judge, and neither or you, the best we can both do is look at the Word of God.
Everyone has a sinful struggle that they face. Even with all the wisdom Solomon had, he was still the biggest fool for breaking God's commandment and having 700+ wives and 300+ concubines who led him astray in the faith of God. One can say that he struggled BIG TIME with lust, just as most of the human race does today. As much as many men would love to do as Solomon did, as much as many men would love to satisfy their lust, they simply cannot because of the commandment of the Word of God.
It is easier said than done, but with everyone's struggle against sin we must put God in front of us to experience the reward of the satisfying love that does not cease, as opposed to the dying love that our sinful nature looks for.
Does an oncologist need to have cancer to talk about cancer? No. Do only Copts know Coptic Christianity? No. There are many non-Copts who know more about the Coptic tradition than Copts do. Am I, as a man who sees the oppression of women, not allowed to sympathize, rally and support feminism if it conforms to my beliefs? Am I, as a man who sees the absurdity of certain feminists, not allowed to criticize, disagree, and speak against feminism if it defies my beliefs? Of course I can. Or are only female feminists allowed to criticize, disagree and speak against feminism? That's absurd. Then I, as a heterosexual, am most surely allowed to partake in the experience, culture and ramifications of homosexuality because, like all sin, it effects all of us. The experiences of black liberation effected everyone including whites. A quater of the 250,000 people who marched with Martin Luther King Jr in 1963 were white. We know plenty of stories of German Catholics helping Jews in Nazi Germany. If they had the mentality that I can't even discuss Black oppression or Jewish sufferings, then history would have been completely different for America, German and the world.
History is not written by white oppressors, or heterosexual oppressors, or any one oppressive group. The mantra of the victim will not convince anyone. History is written by everyone who speaks, rallies, and acts on their convictions.
The LGBT community does not have a monopoly on homosexual "morality, spirituality, theology, or any kinds of issues". These are all issues effecting every human. Gay theology is only a subset of theology which the Church has all authority to teach, exhort, and direct all mankind.
"You can't talk about black liberation and history without being a black person who has experienced oppression and re-write the history written by white men.
You can't talk about feminist theology without being a woman who has experienced growing up in a patriarchal church and seeks an inclusive role in the Church.
In a similar way, you can't talk about LGBT identity, morality, spirituality, theology, or any kind of issues, without being an LGBT person first. "
Simmer dude. Chill on that analogy so hard. Thats like saying the only way to write history is to have lived it. Or the only way to treat cancer is to have a tumor. Or the only way to heal depression is to have it. If you only left opinions on a matter to those who are experiencing the matter, you likely wouldn't get very far, since theres a clear bias.
If you really think we should begin discussing philosophy and phenomenology as it pertains to the topic at hand, go ahead and be specific in your thesis. Otherwise, you are simply diverting or ignoring the points already made to promote some sort of bias.
And you need to be a little more substantial than coming in, making a statement, and then walking out like a goof saying y'all need some Phenomenology.
It's not for anyone else to decide what their identity is, what sins they think about, and what struggles they have to endure. Because it's not a subjective experience to many who are not LGBT, it can't be talked about objectively by those same people.
if you could expand on your statement. To whom does the zenith of authority belong in telling people "what sins they ought to think about"? If you say Christ, do you believe Christ's church is His voice on Earth?
Comments
Forgive me. I cannot in anyway agree to the comparisons you made. I do not want to cause offense, as I still appreciate and am open to listening to your struggles. But being black or being a woman is a far different story than being lgbt. There is no predisposition to race and being a woman (biologically). LGBT is not a set in stone issue. It is a predisposition. Yes, there is a genetic component, but it is not the same form of genetics as you would expect from race or biological gender. It is not right to say you can choose to be gay. But it is also not right to say you cannot choose to act on your predisposition.
I was just having another online discussion with a Finnish Orthodox gay man who has been married for 40 years to his partner. The relationship is no longer sexual and he accepts the Church's teachings, and as a pastoral approach, the priest is working with him on this. I appreciate the fact that there is a clear acknowledgement that he is not out to change the church's teachings, but for having an open and honest discourse on the struggle within the Church context.
The important thing is that the faith you choose also dictates the ideal moral you strive to accomplish in the end. I think many people worry about this idea that in some cases lgbt want to change the moral teachings of the Church, and this needs to be highlighted as well as we listen to the lgbt community which exists in the church.