tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post5985746019411059708..comments2023-10-25T08:44:46.963-07:00Comments on Two Friars and A Fool: Responding to Rev. Tom Hobson, PhDAric Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15241157655075444268noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-69908726571169605782010-12-06T16:03:11.213-08:002010-12-06T16:03:11.213-08:00What's worse Alan, is that neither one seems t...What's worse Alan, is that neither one seems to express very much knowledge of real relationships whether gay or straight. They seem bent on reducing relationships into what part goes into what. They deserve our ridicule.Kattiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313727490126385824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-92135662070397987932010-12-06T08:02:58.070-08:002010-12-06T08:02:58.070-08:00"I find it interesting that Rev. Hobson conti..."I find it interesting that Rev. Hobson continues to refer to "the passive partner" in a sexual encounter."<br /><br />I find it interesting that Rev. Hobson and other presumably straight guys pretend to be such authorities on the dynamics of gay male relationships.<br /><br />But then, they're not thinking about relationships. They're clearly thinking only of sex, which is interesting in and of itself. But even in that case, their argument is foiled by their own lack of imagination. (Though clearly they are spending much time imagining something, which is also interesting in and of itself.)<br /><br />In other words, folks like Hobson and Gagnon, etc. don't really know what's going on at all and are pretending an expertise they do not really have on either gay male relationships and gay male sex.<br /><br />(Note their complete ignorance about lesbians. Or perhaps they simply don't care about lesbians.)<br /><br />....<br /><br />Of course, I could be wrong, and perhaps Rev. Hobson would like to claim an expertise in matters of gay relationships and gay sex that goes beyond his particular PhD?Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-43175363780246625702010-12-03T07:52:57.231-08:002010-12-03T07:52:57.231-08:00I think that before any conversation about sexuali...I think that before any conversation about sexuality in the Bible, we should all read the Song of Songs, Hobson's opinion of it notwithstanding. I have never learned anything valuable about love from a list of rules, and I think poetry is an appropriate venue for theological instruction.Douglas Underhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02215736448645573566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-13927477220726365852010-12-03T07:36:06.534-08:002010-12-03T07:36:06.534-08:00I find it interesting that Rev. Hobson continues t...I find it interesting that Rev. Hobson continues to refer to "the passive partner" in a sexual encounter. I wonder what his understanding of healthy sexual relationship is. As I understand it, a Passive-Active sexual pairing is the exception, not the rule, and could possibly be indicative of a need for marriage counseling. If Passive-Active sexual relationships really are the Biblical norm and the rule for our lives, then I guess Christian women need to learn how to be door mats, and Christian men need to learn how to be satisfied by that. Yuck!Kattiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313727490126385824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-25054748717787742872010-12-02T07:56:18.470-08:002010-12-02T07:56:18.470-08:00"The OT death penalties are signals that the ..."The OT death penalties are signals that the laws to which they are attached are serious moral issues with God. Jesus has taken away the death penalty from the incorrigible teenager,"<br /><br />And how about homosexuality?<br /><br />Clearly using Rev. Hobson's reasoning, the death penalty for homosexuality (never mentioned in the 10 Commandments) must still be reasonable.<br /><br />There is simply no way to decide that only HALF of Leviticus 20:13 is still law today.<br /><br />Talk about picking and choosing.<br /><br />Rev Hobson wrote, "Imagine if this debate were about the right to smoke reefers around the table of the Lord, and that the same 33 years of effort was being put into defending that right."<br /><br />Again, he cannot argue the point so he makes a ridiculous analogy that even a child could see is stupid. Seriously, this is what he counts as reasonable argumentation? Pathetic.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-15883003952855081532010-12-02T06:12:00.144-08:002010-12-02T06:12:00.144-08:00Actually, they are very important to a religious d...Actually, they are very important to a religious debate - nothing about religion exists in a vacuum, and science informs religion all the time, even for those who might wish it did not. Take, for example, pro-life arguments made on the basis of when a fetus's nervous system develops, enabling it to feel pain.<br /><br />What you said is what I found in my very limited digging around, prepping for this whole thing - lots of social-scientific professionals saying conversion/reparative therapy was bunk at best, and demonstratively harmful in some cases.Douglas Underhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02215736448645573566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-16674342328513680022010-12-02T01:17:05.121-08:002010-12-02T01:17:05.121-08:00Speaking of the APA:
Figured I should toss in a p...Speaking of the APA:<br /><br />Figured I should toss in a psychologist's point of view, seeing as APA was brought in a bit.<br /><br />Members of the APA have indeed theorized that acts of pedophilia are not intrinsically harmful, but the social context around them (i.e. wigged out parents) render them harmful. That said, I haven't seen any arguments that adults having sex with children isn't harmful. Any arguments are related to the derivation of the harmfulness, not its existence.<br /><br />As long as I'm here, I wanted to toss in the fact that the APA has issued a clear statement (backed by a very long reference section) stating that there is no substantive evidence for the efficacy of "reparative therapy," and that there is a great deal of evidence that it causes psychological harm. I know that there are studies out there 'demonstrating' their efficacy, but on the occasions when I've sat down and read through them, their methodologies have been flawed to a degree that I have to believe any sane psychologist would consider both unethical and frankly pathetic.<br /><br />Not that either of those points is terribly important to a religious debate, but I can resist tossing a word in.roseblackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17613008288045782730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-4815643839014340102010-12-01T15:44:14.754-08:002010-12-01T15:44:14.754-08:00With Rev. Hobson's permission, his reply via e...With Rev. Hobson's permission, his reply via email:<br /><br />Here is my brief response (it is far from comprehensive):<br /> <br />The only case where to‘ebah is used to preserve Israel’s uniqueness is for the kosher food laws, which is explicitly not an abomination to God, but for “you” (Israel). All the other uses are to identify what turns God’s stomach, not cultural issues. Check the Hebrew text – to‘ebah is not used for cutting of hair or wearing mixed fabric.<br /> <br />The reason I mentioned the passive partner is to refute the notion that the Bible is only condemning abusive, exploitative behavior. The passive partner is not abusing or exploiting anyone, but is rather the victim. But the Bible does not exempt the victim. I never said that love, consent, and commitment are irrelevant to sexuality (far from it!) – that is twisting my words, intentionally or not. My point was that both Testaments rule out sex outside of heterosexual marriage, regardless of whether it is abusive or loving.<br /> <br />I know that no one else (other than Donald Wold) has argued that aselgeia was Jesus’ veiled term for homosexual behavior and similar behavior that was shocking to all first-century Jews. I am the first one to publish the evidence, in Filologia Neotestamentaria 21 (2008): 65-74 ( if you can’t find F.N. at your local drugstore, the article is also posted at http://www.presbycoalition.org/10%20Hobson%20FILOLOGIA-XXI-HOBSON-04.pdf).<br /> <br />How can someone say that Paul disagrees with “the two [man and woman] shall become one flesh”? That’s Paul’s big argument in 1 Corinthians 6, where he is blasting heterosexual fornicators. Yes, he says in the next chapter it would be ideal if nobody needed sex, but to live without it, he says, is a gift from God. The only alternative, he says (same chapter), is marriage – by which he means man and woman.<br /> <br />I have written a chapter on the NT sin lists in my forthcoming book. (BTW, there is only 1 “fruits of the Spirit” list, although there are shorter lists of virtues.) These lists are not cherry-picking, nor are they contradictory. A number of the sins listed are reaffirmations of laws punished by death in the NT. For the sake of agreement, let’s allow the Jesus of John 8 (even if he is apocryphal, although I believe he is historical) to take the death penalty off the table as an option for us. The OT death penalties are signals that the laws to which they are attached are serious moral issues with God. Jesus has taken away the death penalty from the incorrigible teenager, but “Honor your father and mother” is still timeless and universal.<br /> <br />Jesus never said the rich young ruler was righteous (??). It does say Jesus “loved” him, but then he lets him walk away – the paradigm for what y’all call exclusivism. The rich young ruler excluded himself. And Jesus does not declare Zacchaeus to be saved until after he announces that he is walking away from his abusive lifestyle.<br /> <br />It’s interesting how the words of Jesus are called a “screed” (you say this to your Lord?), while Song of Solomon is converted from love poetry to a teaching document.<br /> <br />Some of us do oppose fornication to the same degree that we do same-sex intimacy, and the reason we do not say more about substance abuse or domestic violence is that neither of these is being advocated as a good gift from God. Imagine if this debate were about the right to smoke reefers around the table of the Lord, and that the same 33 years of effort was being put into defending that right.Douglas Underhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02215736448645573566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-66973993394713650162010-12-01T15:32:27.770-08:002010-12-01T15:32:27.770-08:00You are to be commended for publishing this exchan...You are to be commended for publishing this exchange, and for maintaining such a civil tone.Christine Kooinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-49714706226598706032010-12-01T09:16:16.900-08:002010-12-01T09:16:16.900-08:00First I would like to extend my thanks to Rev. Hob...First I would like to extend my thanks to Rev. Hobson for engaging in this discussion. I think faithful engagement with those who disagree with you honor our christian fore-bearers and exactly what the world needs from the church.<br /><br />To my fellow friars: Very well reasoned and faithfully presented guys! I'm continually impressed by the manner in which you conduct yourselves and the vigor with which you stand by your convictions.Nick Larsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03265851893310000081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-15999983133782909062010-12-01T08:15:10.797-08:002010-12-01T08:15:10.797-08:00Thanks for the comments, Alan. We're trying, ...Thanks for the comments, Alan. We're trying, though this can be a really frustrating process sometimes, to be charitable to those who disagree with us while not feeling we have to be charitable toward their arguments themselves. <br /><br />With any luck, our arguments will stand on their own merits. I have yet to encounter an anti-inclusion argument and think "Oh, no, that one's really convincing." I think these can all be readily dismantled - though I understand that this is in part because I do not share many of the preconceptions of the anti-inclusion crowd.Douglas Underhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02215736448645573566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-87738786790500310772010-12-01T07:42:09.723-08:002010-12-01T07:42:09.723-08:004) (BTW, you're also too kind to allow him to ...4) (BTW, you're also too kind to allow him to continue to get away with arguing about pedophilia instead of homosexuality. If he wants to argue about the unnaturalness of homosexuality then he should argue about the unnaturalness of homosexuality, not simply make his continued incorrect and hateful implications that homosexuality and pedophilia are equivalent, so that he can just interchange one when arguing against the other.)<br /><br />5) Love to see the citation for that 70% "success" rate, and what constitutes success, and who they studied. Just out of curiosity, since I've never been in a seminary PhD program, just a chemistry one, but do seminaries teach students to critically analyze published reports of research, or are you taught to just swallow anything you're fed if it happens to coincide with you're prior biases? I'm not sure where Rev. Hobson got his degree, but perhaps he should get his money back. Because I'd wager if we get a citation on the 70% we'll see exactly what Rev. Hobson is doing.<br /><br />6) Why is it when we use the issue of women's ordination as an analogy for LGBT ordination, anti-gay folks say it's an incorrect analogy. Then they go on to use the Kenyon case about the ordination of women as an analogy. Just curious. (BTW, there is no requirement to ordain women or anyone else for that matter. If you vote "No" during an ordination examination no one interrogates you about your reasons.)<br /><br />TH wrote: "The people who practice bullying do not care what we in the church think about homosexuality or the use of violence,"<br /><br />This is demonstrably false. Many examples exist of bullying in which the perpetrators specifically reference "what God says about homosexuality."<br /><br />Anyway, well done. Your responses are thorough, thoughtful, and far kinder than necessary while showing the vacuousness of the arguments presented by Rev. Hobson. The fact that you respond so well gives me hope that all of our seminaries aren't such low quality as whatever diploma mill Dr. Hobson received his degree.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-50419335562291926682010-12-01T07:35:57.839-08:002010-12-01T07:35:57.839-08:00Wow, you all have gone above and beyond in answeri...Wow, you all have gone above and beyond in answering all this. And I commend you for being far kinder in your replies than I would have been.<br /><br />1) You wrote: "A theological or ethical system where love, consent, commitment, intent and context don't matter at all is incoherent at best."<br /><br />Um. Yeah. Frankly I couldn't even believe someone would have written what he wrote in the first place. Hard to follow anything else he says after that, frankly. I think you've been really kind here by calling that incoherent at best.<br /><br />2) By the way, the "obvious" reading of the "sin of sodom" is so non-obvious that such a reading didn't occur to anyone for several hundred years. My understanding is that the hypothesis that equates the sin of sodom with homosexuality didn't appear until something like 600 AD. It cannot be found in the Bible.<br /><br />3) TH wrote: "The Bible’s central teaching is stated three times, in the Torah, by Jesus, and by Paul: “The two [man and woman] shall become one flesh.”<br /><br />This is not the Bible's central teaching. It isn't even the Bible's central teaching on marriage, but it most certainly is NOT the Bible's *central* teaching, which is about the creation, fall, and redemption of human beings. Anyone who thinks that the Bible's central teaching is about marriage and not about Jesus has elevated marriage to an idol. I would say that anyone who thinks that the Bible's central teaching is a marriage handbook should not be a Minister. Again, you are kinder to this guy than he deserves, in my opinion.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.com