I'd have liked to hear more from Milbank. The more I read, and the more I hear him speak, the more I become convinced that he's one of the world's foremost thinkers. By far the senior personality on that particular panel and the only one with the erudition and intellect, not only to understand the real nature of the problem, but the enormity of - precisely - what is at stake.
Did the university outsource the editing of this to a 'marriage equality' group? The reaction of the chairman around the 16min mark seems to suggest John Millbank had a lot to say but we don't get to see it.
That's the problem. Your parents didn't matter enough to you and you didn't matter enough to your parents. You could take 10 males and train them that same sex relations is normal and healthy and at least 9 would retain that taught lifestyle. It's no different than how historically orhtodox countries have embrace heterosexual fornication in the modern age and encourage it. Thus you see more of it.
How can you have a 20 minute panel discussion about Christianity and gay marriage and never mention the words "sin", "God" or any of the relevant biblical commandments and laws clearly forbidding homosexuality? Are any of these people even Christians then, and if not, what business do they have discussing Christianity?
Marriage didn't just become a sacrament in the Middle Ages, although it did become fully "matrimonial" at that time, and the sacramental theology we are used to frame it in matured. Our theology of marriage took on its present general contours in the 12th and 13th centuries, but the know-it-all woman is simply wrong in her assertion.
"Serial cultural capitulation" runs contrary to the admonition by Paul of Tarsus to disciples/believers of The Way "... and do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." Too many of the panelists seem to confuse "change" with "progress".
"On what grounds it's legitimate to oppose a person who finds himself or herself attracted to persons of the same sex and who wants to express that sexuality through an aspiration to conform to the Christian ideal of a love that transcends the law and expresses itself through life-long monogamous commitment, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, till death do us part in the context of a same-sex rather than a heterosexual relationship?" Well, if one aims to transcend "the law", as mrs Beattie remarks, it logically follows that the person in question is aiming for something that is - by its definition - not legitimate. Opposition is therefore fully legitimate; it is even necessary. Within Christianity, same-sex unions are illegitimate, regardless of the monogamous commitment intended. But they are not only illegitimate; they are the result and the acceptance of a repetitive, unrepented sinful action, i.e. homosexuality. Christians ought to warn people for such actions that are contrary to God's order, and therefore they cannot condone same-sex marriage. Not opposing it would leave sin unchecked, the sinner unwitting of his sin, unlikely to repent and salvation would remain unattainable.
The panel above except one of them is the very reason western and European society is a dying race...and lives in great pain in the midst of affluence.
Milbank making the only good points here. Beattie coming out with utter nonsense. First the incarnation means our sexuality is a vitally important part of who we are as humans, but the next minute her opponents are too obsessed with sex and it doesn’t matter in church. And then she goes on to be extremely reductive and vulgar about the materiality and physicality of sexual intercourse! Which is it Tina? Are bodies important and holy and vital to what it means to be human or not?!
I hope the man who is responsible/head of the oasis schools and the woman who is really confused about life in general is proud of his views towards such deceptive ideas that help destroy humanity. Animals know better.
As a gay person I don’t really find the editing particularly partial. I find they allow plenty of time for everybody to speak. I like millbank a lot, but one of his flaws is his overly aggressive character. He is clearly interrupting the other panelists while well into their commentary (not right at the beginning), which is un-Christian and ungentlemanly, considering he does it to a woman most notably. He is not entitled to a filibuster just because he feels he has more to say, or wishes to win an argument.
What the hell is John Milbank talking about? There has been marriage equality in the Netherlands since 2001. Since then dozens of other jurisdictions have done so. Has any jurisdiction even suggested that parents would need to adopt children born into the marriage? NO. On the contrary, marriage equality has eliminated the need for a non-birthing Lesbian partner to adopt the child born into their marriage. So, please, John MIlbank, stop lying, and stop name-dropping Foucault and Agamben to justify your bigotry.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Roc Steady (feat. Flo Milli) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HozPPyqW0dY/mqdefault.jpg)
I'd have liked to hear more from Milbank. The more I read, and the more I hear him speak, the more I become convinced that he's one of the world's foremost thinkers. By far the senior personality on that particular panel and the only one with the erudition and intellect, not only to understand the real nature of the problem, but the enormity of - precisely - what is at stake.
He just said people that can't have children are unnatural and shouldn't be allowed to marry or have sex!
@@shonagraham2752 no he didnt
The others don't seem to have a clue what John is talking about..
ken170647 and you can tell he’s getting impatient when the others are speaking
Agree. John Milbank have good points and they don't understand or don't care of what he is saing.
Milbank on point here.
Did the university outsource the editing of this to a 'marriage equality' group? The reaction of the chairman around the 16min mark seems to suggest John Millbank had a lot to say but we don't get to see it.
Only because they don't give Milbank a chance to defend himself.
heterosexual religious folks' opinions matter very little in my life.
That's the problem. Your parents didn't matter enough to you and you didn't matter enough to your parents. You could take 10 males and train them that same sex relations is normal and healthy and at least 9 would retain that taught lifestyle.
It's no different than how historically orhtodox countries have embrace heterosexual fornication in the modern age and encourage it. Thus you see more of it.
How can you have a 20 minute panel discussion about Christianity and gay marriage and never mention the words "sin", "God" or any of the relevant biblical commandments and laws clearly forbidding homosexuality? Are any of these people even Christians then, and if not, what business do they have discussing Christianity?
How do you feel about usury?
Marriage didn't just become a sacrament in the Middle Ages, although it did become fully "matrimonial" at that time, and the sacramental theology we are used to frame it in matured. Our theology of marriage took on its present general contours in the 12th and 13th centuries, but the know-it-all woman is simply wrong in her assertion.
"Serial cultural capitulation" runs contrary to the admonition by Paul of Tarsus to disciples/believers of The Way "... and do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." Too many of the panelists seem to confuse "change" with "progress".
I love John Millbank.
"On what grounds it's legitimate to oppose a person who finds himself or herself attracted to persons of the same sex and who wants to express that sexuality through an aspiration to conform to the Christian ideal of a love that transcends the law and expresses itself through life-long monogamous commitment, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, till death do us part in the context of a same-sex rather than a heterosexual relationship?"
Well, if one aims to transcend "the law", as mrs Beattie remarks, it logically follows that the person in question is aiming for something that is - by its definition - not legitimate. Opposition is therefore fully legitimate; it is even necessary.
Within Christianity, same-sex unions are illegitimate, regardless of the monogamous commitment intended. But they are not only illegitimate; they are the result and the acceptance of a repetitive, unrepented sinful action, i.e. homosexuality. Christians ought to warn people for such actions that are contrary to God's order, and therefore they cannot condone same-sex marriage. Not opposing it would leave sin unchecked, the sinner unwitting of his sin, unlikely to repent and salvation would remain unattainable.
How do you feel about usury?
The panel above except one of them is the very reason western and European society is a dying race...and lives in great pain in the midst of affluence.
Master of deception works is here.
Milbank making the only good points here. Beattie coming out with utter nonsense. First the incarnation means our sexuality is a vitally important part of who we are as humans, but the next minute her opponents are too obsessed with sex and it doesn’t matter in church. And then she goes on to be extremely reductive and vulgar about the materiality and physicality of sexual intercourse! Which is it Tina? Are bodies important and holy and vital to what it means to be human or not?!
Inclusion is not marriage agreement.
I hope the man who is responsible/head of the oasis schools and the woman who is really confused about life in general is proud of his views towards such deceptive ideas that help destroy humanity. Animals know better.
Tb h this shouldnt have to be discussed. It really shoudlnt. It’s marriage. Gender shouldn’t really matter.
beattie does smoke millbank on the issue of the Christian mystics.
Which mystics was Beattie alluding to? I'm not familiar with mystics enough to know.
Each and every one of Milbank's objections makes no sense whatever. Would have liked to see someone put him on the spot here.
As a gay person I don’t really find the editing particularly partial. I find they allow plenty of time for everybody to speak. I like millbank a lot, but one of his flaws is his overly aggressive character. He is clearly interrupting the other panelists while well into their commentary (not right at the beginning), which is un-Christian and ungentlemanly, considering he does it to a woman most notably. He is not entitled to a filibuster just because he feels he has more to say, or wishes to win an argument.
I can agree to that, but feel that's a personal flaw on his part, not inhis Arguments. till,it oes hinde the other views being expressed.
Do you think a spear was produced to go into a spear?
:D
What the hell is John Milbank talking about? There has been marriage equality in the Netherlands since 2001. Since then dozens of other jurisdictions have done so. Has any jurisdiction even suggested that parents would need to adopt children born into the marriage? NO. On the contrary, marriage equality has eliminated the need for a non-birthing Lesbian partner to adopt the child born into their marriage. So, please, John MIlbank, stop lying, and stop name-dropping Foucault and Agamben to justify your bigotry.
7 years later Netherlands is still a toilet. Of course it was a toilet the 7 years before that too.
❤️💛💚💙💜