"Homophobia kills", says Anglican campaigner

Good to hear someone in the cloth talking some sense on this issue - could do with a few more up north!

It's reassuring to read Canon Giles Goddard's sermon. It gives me faith that there are those in positions of influence who work to stem the flow of hate and intolerance on issues such as this, so it doesn't get polarised into partisan religious vs secular- like some twisted version of American politics- where no-one will agree with anyone on the other side as a point of principle.

It's important to make it clear there are plenty of people who are religious, moderate, tolerant and don't hold views- that from there very inception- lead to the death of David Kato and the refusal of those in attendance to bury him

Of course, Canon Goddard is right, but it might be worth bearing in mind that those who are accused (rightly or wrongly) of homophobia are not to be considered 'fair game' for violent and abusive actions, as is the case here.

Certain gay people may feel that they are walking on the moral high ground, but there is no evil as great as that which is motivated by a certain kind of 'righteous indignation and self-justification'. Christ's way was and is rather different.

Yes, you're right LSV.

"homophobia kills and any church that preaches intolerance is contributing to the very real and deadly consequences of homophobia".

This is of course true; but churches simply by considering the practice of homosexuality as a sin are contributing to the problem. Many extremist preachers do bang on about how the fires of hell await homosexuals, but many others who object to homosexuality contribute to homophobia by choosing to say nothing on the subject.

Here is a disturbing story. Some people have been charged with stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12309666

LSV

The couple who owned the bed and breakfast were found to have broken the law.

Where did gay people who phoned the bed and breakfast to book a room break the law?

On the subject of extreme actions,there doesn't seem to have been much coverage of the Islamic extremist conference held at a London Ibis Hotel Jan 18th, who advocate the killing of Gays to keep society *pure*. The Conservatives don't seem as keen to keep the Islamist extremists out of the UK as the last Govt

RJB,

You are talking to LSV, do actually expect a rational response,

Maybe LSV would like to stand up for biblical teaching like Stephen Green does .

Dave
Its not that I want to pick a fight with LSV, but I was just irritated by his post about gay people inundating this couple with requests to stay at their bed and breakfast. So what?

Let's make a list of what christians have done over the years, the real evil that they have perpetrated down the centuries. Their nastiness and wickedness is unparalleled.

Im sorry but I think LSV has a point. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's not going to make anything better by harrassing them. The law has been applied and the gay couple vindicated.Hounding them to their graves is no different than the killing of David Kato. Humans are too extreme when armed with 'righteous indignation and self-justification' as LSV points out. It's a human failing and can be seen in any community ,in any part of the world. Mob Justice doesn't sit well with me. Shows our roots in the Jungle as this David Attenborough, Planet Earth clip shows https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7XuXi3mqYM

Ryan

Woe woe woe! "Hounding them to their graves" and taking action within the law against prejudice are two very different things.

RJB:

'"Hounding them to their graves" and taking action within the law against prejudice are two very different things.'

Not necessarily. One can harass, potentially quite severely and injustly, and yet be entirely within the law. Segregation and the state persecution of ethnic minorities is the large-scale example.

Less grandly, though, I would raise issue with the suggestion that you're taking action "against prejudice". In what way is the prejudice itself challenged by the action you're suggesting? You're just making things inconvenient for the people who hold that prejudice. Perhaps that just reinforces it.

If you're gonna fight prejudice, fight prejudice directly. The Denial of Service is a tool used to shut down projects, and only works when what you're fighting against is a person or collective. If what people are aiming at is homophobia, rather than simply those that are currently homophobes, they would be wise to choose their weaponry more carefully.

Today's interview with Peter Tatchell on the death of David Kato was very revealing (20th minute).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00xsmt3/Sunday_Sequence_30_01_2011

Much of the anti-gay persecution is in fact carried out by clerics of the Church of Uganda, which is part of the global Anglican Communion. Rowan Williams says that sexual minorities in Uganda are subject to persecution and intimidation (something he condemns), but he refuses to condemn the persecution carried out by members of his own Anglican Communion!

At David Kato's funeral the pastor presiding denounced gays and mourners were attacked by Christians.

Now why do some of the responses to my perfectly legitimate comment not surprise me?

So a couple 'break the law' (on a controversial basis, by the way, hence the fact that the case is going to appeal, and also by the fact they are not facing criminal proceedings) and this means that they lose their rights to live free of abuse and harassment from that group of people who feel 'offended'. And because some other 'Christians' have done evil things throughout history, that justifies the abuse (threats and bad language over the phone certainly constitute 'abuse'), according to the logic of some people. What sort of fascistic logic is that?

There are times when I have felt a certain respect for one particular contributor on this blog, when reading his words of concern for the poor etc, and I rather hope that his performance on this thread is just an unfortunate 'one off'. If it is not, then I am struggling to understand quite how he can justify the verbal abuse of this couple, especially considering the husband has been critically ill, having had open heart surgery. But, as I said, there is no mercilessness as great as that which is motivated by 'righteous indignation'. This reminds me of the attitude of Inspector Javert in Hugo's novel 'Les Miserables': once someone has broken the law (in no matter how small a way) they are 'fair game' to be hounded to their death, and have forfeited all right to be treated with respect and compassion. Appalling.

(And to think that I wasn't trying to justify the original offence of turning away the gay couple! Judging by the attitudes displayed here, I am sorely tempted to revisit my original opinion about this case.)

I think we have to have this debate entirely outside of any of the doctrines of the Organised Religions because, in my personal opinion,while some religions disparage homosexuality because there is no proof whatsoever that any religious doctrine or any book has divine origins. So whatever the Bible or what any religious cleric thinks is completely irrelevant to the debate, particularly since the Bible was provably massively changed by the early Catholic Church. In my view the Organised Religions have far worse standards of morality and ethics than the non religious and why should we decide issues on the basis of this second best morality.

LSV

We're having a discussion here. I am not asking for your respect.

There are few so self righteous as the religiously self righteous - or so vicious. That is my experience. Sure, people who have been wronged react badly at times. Religious people have behaved shockingly... for no reason at all!

I may not have agreed with the violent actions of the French Resistance against the Nazis, but I can understand it. They were acting against violence and genocide.

I could give a list of similar examples here.

The gay community have reacted against a perceived injustice against them and people like them.

Throughout the ages, religious people have maimed, tortured and killed others - with absolutely no provocation whatsoever - not trying to protect themselves or their property or their rights. For no other reason than to impose their beliefs on others who did not wish to accept those beliefs, they have committed all kinds of carnage on their brothers and sisters.

I cannot think of any time the gay community acted so wickedly (and for no reason at all.) I am extremely sorry for the circumstances of this couple in the bed and breakfast.

However, the Christian community have no right to criticise the gay community in terms of cruelty perpetrated on others. I thought I should point that out to you, LSV.

A couple of responses to the Canon's sermon:

* The brutal killing of another human being cannot be condoned by any Christian worthy of the name.

* The issue of the acceptance of homosexuality - which has torn the Anglican Communion asunder - has become an 'absurd stalemate' because some anglicans insist on defying the clear teaching of Scripture on the subject, whilst ridiculing those holding to the Christian position according to the Bible. (Apparently it is 'homophobic' to hold and express this view, which - until recent times - has been the traditional teaching of the Anglican church.)

Bible-believing Christians do not want to see homosexuals killed, we want to see them find both forgiveness and a changed lifestyle by personal repentance and faith in Christ - the way every other type of sinner must come. Church Membership can only be considered and have meaning when this necessary experience of conversion has taken place.
(See eg. Acts 3v19; 2 Corinthians 5v17)

This is an excellent sermon, just what the primates need to hear, and a timely rebuke to Rowan Williams. It has been absolutely characteristic of his primacy that in any area where he might actually have some influence he signally fails to provide anything approaching leadership, a failure which utterly robs any of his other, sometimes commendable, pronouncements of even the slightest degree of moral authority. I have no love or respect for Ratzinger but Roman Catholics who despair of his leadership at least can take comfort that they could have fared yet worse: they could have been saddled with the pathless labyrinth which is Williams.

I have, however, slightly to take issue with RJB: the evil which Christianity has perpetrated over the centuries is not unparalleled. I have noted often on the blog both Christians and atheists claim moral superiority each for their own position; the reality, and the tragedy for the mission of Christ, is that really there is no difference between the history of so-called Christian governments, those of other religions, and those of avowed secularist philosophies. When it comes to states the problem is neither religion nor its absence in the power structures, the problem is in the nature of humanity.

I have no sympathy for the position of the Christian guest-house owners but I have considerable sympathy for them following the way they have been treated by gay activists following their defeat. Those who have sought to make bookings have chosen to attempt to persecute those with whom they disagree. They have the law on their side but so, for years, had the homophobes

Dave (8) provides a link to a story about the founder of Christian Voice which is essential reading material. Stephen Green's former wife says:

‘But the beating was the last straw. It ­convinced me I had to divorce him.’

@LSV, RJB, Ryan and Parrhosis

From where I'm standing you're all sort of right.

Newlach, no surprises there I'm afraid. I have long been interested in the little by-ways of the human heart. Those who aren't of too delicate a disposition might find it interesting (if horrifying) to Google "Christian Domestic Discipline". The evils of literalist readings of the Bible afflict far more than just homosexuals.

@Newlcach

Whoa, I missed that. I think for the first, and probably the last time, I have to say, "Daily Mail, I salute you."

"That these relationships are undoubtedly blessed and hallowed in the sight of God."

Really? Where is the scriptural proof for this assertion.

Thanks Ian.

Here we go again. Right, lads, get then Bibles out and start shooting again!

Ian - you don't need scripture to know that - u just need love in your heart, the absence of which leads to all crimes of humanity and more.

23. At 02:04am on 31 Jan 2011, Ian Hall wrote:
"That these relationships are undoubtedly blessed and hallowed in the sight of God."

Really? Where is the scriptural proof for this assertion.

*********************************************************
Dear Ian,
I'm kind of wondering about that,too. If one wishes to distance oneself from a religion or denomination & its sacred texts, it's a free country.But as long as one represents themself as a cleric of that denomination, you might expect a basis on scripture for statements such as this.

How about this as a basis. Not once does Jesus condemn Homosexuals.
In the Gospels, Jesus is portrayed sending out a message of Love & Tolerance.

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Jesus is additionally quoted as saying:

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."

"By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."

You can quote Jewish Leviticus or Disciple Paul, but Id rather put the emphasis of my Christianity in the words of Christ, rather than mortals such as Paul or those in Babylonian exile 500 yrs before Christ who wrote Leviticus- vast chunks of which Christianity already ignores

Dave (@ 8) / newlach (@ 19) / grokesx (@ 22) -

For some reason, I have the phrase 'ad hominem' rattling around in my brain.

Can't think why...

Perhaps I ought to go and have a session with the resident 'logic supervisor' (you know who you are!) and he might be able to treat this ailment, from his considerable store of wackily named 'logical fallacy' medicines!

27. At 6:20pm on 31 Jan 2011, Ryan_ wrote:
How about this as a basis. Not once does Jesus condemn Homosexuals.
In the Gospels, Jesus is portrayed sending out a message of Love & Tolerance.

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Jesus is additionally quoted as saying:

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."

"By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."

You can quote Jewish Leviticus or Disciple Paul, but Id rather put the emphasis of my Christianity in the words of Christ, rather than mortals such as Paul or those in Babylonian exile 500 yrs before Christ who wrote Leviticus- vast chunks of which Christianity already ignores


******************************************************************
Dear Ryan,
Thank you. I think those are wonderful quotes that show the most important part of our Faith.Without love we are nothing.St. Paul would agree with that.
But I'm still searching scripture for a basis for the original quote.
Christ neither condemned the woman caught in adultery but he commanded her to sin no more.Love forgives but not necessarily condones.

Congrats mscracker

I've been on this site about 3 years now. This must be about the fifth or sixth time this same argument has come round.

On each occasion, the 'Christian' arguing against acceptance of homosexuals has brought up the passage of the woman caught in adultery (because there is nothing actually on homosexuality from Jesus' mouth), and on each occasion they - like you - have emphasized the very small last sentence of that passage, "Go and sin no more."

You, mscracker, like your friends before you, are guilty of a gross corruption of that gospel passage. You have taken a few words and completely taken them out of context. That gospel is not about the sin of the adulteress, it is about the utter hypocrisy and heartlessness of the Pharisees who would condemn her to death.

Jesus' condemnation is not for her, but for the religious zealots who would murder the poor woman.

Notice your rhetoric, "Jesus COMMANDED her.." He did no such thing. That is your projection on to Jesus. He must have been some sort of heartless bully if he starts shouting at a woman who has just escaped being brutally murdered by the skin of her teeth. He invited her, in love and compassion, to consider whether what she had done was really how she wanted to live. Yes, and thats my projection on to Jesus, but I would argue, more close to the truth than yours.

Why do you people insist on being so harsh? Why cant you just love your neighbour, as Jesus asked you to, and stop attacking others? Jesus doesnt need you to be his apologist. Just lead your life as best you can and leave everyone else alone.

mscracker


RJB will already know this; I'm a conservative, evangelical and reformed Christian, but I'm afraid that with regard to the story you highlight, that of the woman caught in adultery, RJB is correct.

Whether we like it or not, the life of Jesus was a red rag to the bull of Phariseeism, and we conservatives are closer to them than we like to think.

Another projection:

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” (and as she looked into his eyes she began to imagine it was possible)

If we can't trust grace, we don't have anything. Nothing.

RJB (@ 30) -

We may have had a disagreement earlier, but I am totally with you on this one.

I also get sick of hearing 'Go and sin no more' constantly emphasised.

The worst interpretation I ever heard of this passage was from a certain well-known evangelist, who was preaching in Belfast. (I wasn't there, but I watched it on the so-called 'God Channel' - a misnomer if ever there was one!). Somehow this man managed to turn this incident of great compassion into a typically menacing hellfire sermon directed against his longsuffering and harried congregation.

His approach was this. Jesus said to the Pharisees "He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone." His emphasis was not on the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, but on the phrase "he who is without sin among you", implying, of course, that none of them were. This then led on to "all have sinned", which then leads on to "all deserve to go to hell", which then leads on to "what are you all going to do about it", and if you don't do it right away then.... (well, you probably get the picture).

So we started with an incident revealing the love of Christ and we end up (as the message is worked through the evangelical sausage machine, with said evangelist's voice progressively becoming more strident, angry and intimidating) with a 'Christ' who is far from anything that any sane person would associate with the word 'love'.

I must confess that it took me a while to calm down after watching that performance!

"Not once does Jesus condemn Homosexuals." (Ryan at 27)

But he does condemn sexual relationships outside the bond of marriage, which he understood as being between one man and one woman. Also he does quote with approval the writings of Moses (including the law,the great and second commandment texts you quote are Christ's summary of the heart and spirit of the law).Thirdly the texts you quote do not deal directly with the homosexuality issue. Finally I don't accept your argument concerning relative scripture authority, ie accept the good bits from Jesus and discard the uncomfortable bits from Paul and Moses. Scripture claims for itself divine authority, inspiration and inerrancy (nothing in the recorded sayings of Jesus suggest he rejected that).

Nonetheless thank you Ryan for attempting to properly address the query I raised. But I feel the query I raised still stands. Just where is the scriptural proof for the statement "That these relationships are undoubtedly blessed and hallowed in the sight of God."

There are no sinners: only human beings making choices in separation to and in ignorance of their true nature: love. The former ladles the person with guilt that cripples the heart - the latter allows for compassionate understanding and empowerment to make new choices from love.

30. At 8:57pm on 31 Jan 2011, romejellybeen wrote:
Congrats mscracker

I've been on this site about 3 years now. This must be about the fifth or sixth time this same argument has come round.


*******************************************************************
Well, I appreciate I'm not the only person this has occurred to & there are others with like thoughts.Thank you.
You are correct that in using the word "commanded" I'm projecting, but it's really a result of how I would feel if the Lord spoke to me in such circumstances.I rather accept the seriousness of Christ's words to the woman caught in adultery & I tend to think of directions from the Son of God as commands from a superior, so to speak.

Ian - God is love, CHrist is love - love does not condemn however much u might like it too and no matter how many times it says it in the bible - love will never condemn people. Because it never condemns people it doesn't even need to forgive - the latter is human. Divine love, loves - all of the time, without exception - gay, straight, bisexual, all races, all creeds, all people of all faiths and none, across the globe in all walks of life - no matter what people have done or said, love, loves them all, God loves them all equally. It is our own lack of love for self and other that allows evil to be manifested - evil like the condemnation of another based on their sexuality.

mscracker

Now we are getting somewhere.

Gerry Hughes SJ once described unrepentent people as being "driven by God" and truly repentent people as being "drawn to God." Maybe you need to stop seeing God as a superior with a long beard and a short temper, barking out orders, and start seeing him more as someone who is extending a gentle invitation to you.

"Go away and sin no more."

Two Sundays ago, I had to do a Confession Service for twenty five young teenagers before Sunday Mass. I had an Order of Service which was supposed to help the youngsters reflect on their sins - When did I disobeye my parents? My teachers? Did I bully anyone at school? Etc..

Tired of this never ending guilt trip we impose on our children, minutes before the Service started, I ripped up the Order of Service and threw it in the bin. I asked the kids to close their eyes for a minute and to think of the nicest thing they have ever said or done for another person in their lives. (I was taking the risk of just winging it.)

After a while I asked a young girl if she's like to tell us what her's was. She said, "I saved my little brother's life!" I glanced at her mother to check out this story. The mother nodded her head. I asked the girl if she would like to tell eveyone what happened. She described how her young brother had gone unconscious while swimming in the lake. She had seen him, dived in, brought him ashore where he was resucitated and rushed to hospital. Needless to say, I and every other person in the Church was gobsmacked.

I moved on to the rest of the kids and these were some of their answers.

- I saw a chinese boy in my class being bullied. I stopped it and became his friend.
- I saw an old man fall and cut his head. I phoned an ambulance and sat with him til it arrived.
- My mum was very ill so I cooked dinner for her every day.
- I helped an old man who was a cripple to get across a busy road.

Each story moved me to the core and I began to see before me this beautiful group of young people who we only ever ask to tell us what they have done wrong.

The atmosphere at Mass that day was incredible.

Later I described what had happened to a woman who is actually a reflexologist. She told me - and I'm sure this aint scientific, but has a truth in it - that energy levels in people at various emotional states have been calibrated. Those who are experiencing guilt, calibrate at 30. (Shame is the worst, calibrating at 20!)

Those who have done something good for others calibrate at 150, and those who are able to verbalise it, calibrate at 200.

Conclusion - the Catholic Church (and I'm sure its not the only one) has been operating for centuries with people whose energy levels have been at 20 or 30, such has been the emphasis on guilt and shame. (I thought you'd like that, Eunice!!)

And lastly, while I am still on my pulpit, one of the most beautiful and poignant things I ever read, by Carl Jung.

https://paceebene.org/blog/jarrod-mckenna/quotes-inspire-awe-action-carl-jung

@LSV #28

I wouldn't go with ad hominem, since the person being attacked isn't involved in the argument at all. More like red herring, a specific case of the ignoratio elenchi (I said before it casts a wide net).

Hennyway, we happily commit logical fallacies on here all the time. But there is only one of us who happily commits an entertaining variety having claimed further education in philosophy and going under the moniker "logic without vanity".

And he really hates being pulled up on it. You gotta admit, it's going to bring out the troll in the best of us.

It is RJB, we humans often lash out at others traits we fear in ourselves. When we project that fear we become unconscious of our own cruelty in the situation- like a pair of eyes suspended in the ether just looking out and reacting, as if the one judging is invisible to judgement

Modded? Huh? Going to bed.

Just taking the expletive deleted out of LSV. Love him really.

RJB - great to hear you winging it and ceasing the guilt tripping! Inspirational - I hope more follow ur style and I'm sure it was inspirational to all who heard it that day and would inspire more of the same.
Re the energy levels - I've come across that work - I think he uses a form of kinesiology to get these so called levels. I don't agree with the technique or level scenario but I do agree that guilt and shame (and all emotions like anger etc) are harm-full to the human body in more ways than people realise. Medical science is beginning to uncover this and I'm sure it will continue to do so. For so long medicine has looked outside the human person for answers to illness and disease - and most of the answers actually lie within the human person. So yes you are right that the Catholic church and other churches have been harm-full to people's health and wellbeing much more than they realise. You can feel the harm it does - all that talk of sin, not being good enough etc - contracting the heart, filling it with guilt - a heart attack waiting to happen! Thanks for your post - I did enjoy it!

ps - like the jung link too - def agree it is the enemy within that causes the trouble - the more accepting we are of ourselves warts and all the more accepting we are of others.....love self, love others - latter follows on from former. Too many people think it is the other way round - but you can't give what you don't have.

Eunice
Just one point. Anger doesnt calibrate with the lowly guilt and shame. Anger calibrates at over 300!! And given the level of anger in my own church at the moment, I can only see this as a good thing.

Just read your Post 38 RJB ( rather dopey tonight - had only seen post 39 ) really was wonderful to read that. On the subject of energy, it's an area that interests me , if our bodies function through the transmission of electrical signals & everything has an energy signature, then so must certain types of illness and certain mood states. And as you say, there was a palpable difference in the atmosphere that day. It's something we can all relate to, we pick on energy in a room and remember some event where the atmosphere felt *electric* (in a good way) or ominous & uncomfortable

grokesx (@ 43) -

"Just taking the expletive deleted out of LSV."

Quite what I said in my post 32 that provoked you to take the e.d. out of me, is something I can't guess. And to think that I didn't work in the words 'evolution', 'naturalism' or even (and this took considerable self-control) the phrase 'self refuting'!

Peter said:

RJB will already know this; I'm a conservative, evangelical and reformed Christian, but I'm afraid that with regard to the story you highlight, that of the woman caught in adultery, RJB is correct.

Whether we like it or not, the life of Jesus was a red rag to the bull of Phariseeism, and we conservatives are closer to them than we like to think.

Since I'm also a conservative, evangelical and reformed Christian perhaps I could offer a qualification to this.

Conservatives often are close to religious pride but given our theology we ought not to be; we are beggars all.

I've also seen the women caught in adultery used many times in debating this topic; often in the sense that Christians are being hypocritical, judgmental busy-bodies. Christian's can be hypocritical, judgemental busy-bodies, but this isn't really the application of John 8:1-11. (Although, as many will know, there is a longstanding textual debate about whether 7:53-8:11 should be included in John's gospel).

The Pharisees catch this woman committing adultery, they are witnesses to the crime. It is suggestive that only the woman is brought to Christ, we can only speculate on the whereabouts of the man. It's also worth noting that both parties were to be put to death (stoning was mandated in the case of engaged virgins on both parties but no method was mandated in the case of married women).

Christ in his reply to Pharisees says 'Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her', this is a reference to Deuteronomy 13:9, 17:7. The first people to fire the stones must be the witnesses and they must also not have been involved in the crime itself. Their hypocrisy is not that they being sinners were quick to condemn someone who has committed adultery but that in some sense they too are guilty of this sin. But when they [the Pharisees] heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him.

RJB - i'm not saying anger is the same as guilt and shame and as I said I dont agree with the levels as such. However, anger is very toxic to the human body and no amount of saying good things come out of being angry will change that effect on the body! Just the way it is....

Ryan: you are correct re illness and disease. Everything is energy and illness and disease are energetic before they are manifest in matter. Emotions are harming to the body cos they are not our true state and they result over years in illness and disease. The body never lies - it experiences all that we experience, it reveals all our choices. As u say - we all feel /pick up on energy all the time - we can't not - but we often are unaware of exactly what we are feeling. Hence the importance of becoming reacquainted with what one is FEELING rather than thinking in any situation.

Andrew

Another aspect to that particular gospel passage is the fact that by their law, the Pharisees could write up a writ of dismissal enabling them to get rid of one wife and take on another.

Jesus actually specifically points the hypocrisy of this out in another place. They are as guilty in God's eyes as an adulterer. A little piece of parchment legalising their adultery doesnt quite cut it with Jesus.

This kinda brings us back to the gay community innundating the couple at the bed and breakfast with bookings in an attempt to shut them down. As I pointed out, no law was broken, but there seemed to be general agreement on here that what the gay community did in this case, was immoral, cruel and wrong.

Ryan and Eunice

The book is called 'Power versus Force' by Dr David Hawkings. Here are the calibrations:

Shame - 20
Guilt - 30
Apathy - 50
Grief - 75
Fear - 100
Desire - 125
Anger - 150
Pride - 175
Courage - 200
Neutrality - 250
Willingness - 310
Acceptance - 350
Reason - 400
Love - 500
Joy - 540
Peace - 600
Enlightenment - 700 and higher.

RJB,

"...and start seeing him more as someone who is extending a gentle invitation to you."

That invitation being "Come, love me.... OR BURN IN HELL FOREVER AND EVER!"

;-)

37. At 10:35pm on 31 Jan 2011, romejellybeen wrote:
mscracker

Now we are getting somewhere.

Gerry Hughes SJ once described unrepentent people as being "driven by God" and truly repentent people as being "drawn to God." Maybe you need to stop seeing God as a superior with a long beard and a short temper, barking out orders, and start seeing him more as someone who is extending a gentle invitation to you.

******************************************************
Thank you. I think many of us live out our days unaware of God's infinite love & forgiveness.It's easy to err on either side:presumption or Jansenism. However on the presumptive side, we tend to ignore that God is a God of both love & justice.And that error seems to pervade mainline churches today, just as Jansenism did in earlier times.The key is balance, which is easier said than done.
One of the characteristics of sociopaths is a lack of empathy for others, and no shame or guilt regarding their actions.Shame & guilt may rank low on the "energy/power" scale listed above but they may be useful qualities to have when one transgresses.We could use other more politically correct terminology, but I think shame/guilt/contrition/remorse-based on real transgressions, not scrupulosity-is our conscience speaking to us.
My taking seriously the words of Christ as a "commandment" does not signify I believe he spoke harshly.Except in a few instances, I would perceive Christ's words to be gentle.But "Go & sin no more" does refer to sin, and in this case, sexual sin and to me, Christ is uttering more than a gentle invitation to that poor woman.

Lol Natman

The Pharisees believed in that type of terrorist God, some on here do, many Catholics do, many Evangelicals, as do the intellectualy challenged and many vulnerable people. And of course it is in the interests of those who run our society and steal our money, to keep that absurd notion alive. (Control.)

Read the story of the Prodigal Son and its clear that, whether God exists or not, the God that Jesus believed in is no tyrant.

The trouble on here is we can never have a decent discussion on the nature of God coz for some he is non-existant and for others he's a God of wrath. There's no middle ground therefore no discussion is possible.

Thanks, mscracker

It has been my experience that those religious people who see God as judgemental and exacting, tend to be very judgemental and exacting, even harsh, themselves. Well, they are acting with the approval of their own consciences, arent they?

I would refer you to the same scripture passage as I gave Natman, the Prodigal Son. Dont forget, Jesus provides this parable for the Pharisees, those who have a very harsh image of God - and they are teaching it to others and enforcing it where they can.

The Prodigal son is painted by Jesus as being a right, you know what, breaking every moral code, drunkenness, debauchery, deserting his family, stealing from them, Godless, working with pigs and worst of all, eating like pigs. He then goes back to his father for the most selfish of reasons, not because he sees that he has been behaving attrociously.

His father does NOT point out his sin. He goes out to meet and greet him and kisses him. Even throws a big party for him.

If any conservative evangelical/catholic/christian took this teaching of Jesus in any way to heart, it would be the last day of their lives that they would ever take it upon themselves to point out the sin of others or to paint God as a tyrant.

Actually, it is what Jung was saying above. We are not the friends of those we condemn, we are their oppressors.

I also think that we may have very different notions of Justice, divine or otherwise.

@romejellybeen:
Thanks, I actually agree with much you say & I believe there is a "middle ground" between a total denial of God's existance & the belief in God as only an Old Testament God of Wrath.He's much more than that.
My experience has also been that those who are most exacting with others can be equally harsh on themselves.
God bless!

RJB Said:

The trouble on here is we can never have a decent discussion on the nature of God coz for some he is non-existant and for others he's a God of wrath. There's no middle ground therefore no discussion is possible.

I'm not sure how a 'God of love' - I'm presuming this is what you mean - can be a middle way between no god at all and a god of wrath.

RJB 56 - spot on.
thanks for the reminder re the book - I read it a number of years ago and thought it was ok back then but not now re the methodology. I would agree however, as mentioned that all emotions are toxic and harming to the body as they are not of our true nature of love, joy, harmony and stillness.

Andrew

Perhaps, (and I’m speaking generally here) part of the problem is that we evangelicals are forever associated with the wrath bit: we’re hardly renowned for failing to point out that God gets angry, and usually a selective kind of anger at that. (Apparently He isn’t angry at a £820,000 church house!)

RJB has said a number of things in recent comments which we simply shouldn’t be disagreeing with: his reference to the Prodigal Son (or Prodigal God to use Tim Keller’s title) and his comments about the Pharisees among them.

Back in #49 you wrote, “Conservatives often are close to religious pride but given our theology we ought not to be...” I agree, but unfortunately we very often are. Talk of grace with an accompanying religious pride is an odd thing, is it not?

Personally I’ve got to the stage that whatever I think of another’s life, I’ve enough trouble of my own to be going on with, and pointing out the ‘sin’ of another is often simply a way of avoiding my own. Of course, that would make me a Pharisee. Apart from that, mum always told me pointing was rude, and I'm only now getting round to listening to her!

It is generally accepted that CS Lewis in overhearing a debate about Christianity’s unique contribution to world religions said, “Oh, that’s easy. It’s grace.”

That we have to have that kind of debate at all seems to me to indicate that we Christians have got something very wrong somewhere along the line.

Andrew

Okay, lets get to the point. Which of the following words best sums up your image of God?

Vengeful.
Just.
Loving.
Exacting.
Forgiving.
Omniscient.

Just choose one of them, the one which you think is God's greatest attribute.

Peter

I still remember your kind words to me two years ago. Now that my circumstances have changed, dont think that I have forgotten.

You are no conservative! Anyway, thank you....

Natman (@ 53) -

That invitation being "Come, love me.... OR BURN IN HELL FOREVER AND EVER!"

I cannot help sympathising with this comment.

However, let us consider the following hypothesis. I am well aware that you will regard what I am about to write as a flight of fancy, hence my use of the word 'hypothesis'. Nothing that I can say will (I suspect) convince you that this 'theory' is true, so let's just consider this as an idea, and nothing more.

Let us suppose (just for the sake of argument, you understand) that God actually exists. And let us also surmise that this God is a God of love, who loves every single human being he (or if you prefer, 'she') has created. Let us also understand that this 'love' can be either accepted or rejected.

In this 'hypothetical' scenario, let us suppose that when every person dies they enter into the presence of this 'God of love', who loves each one of them forever. This God does not do anything to torture anyone. He simply exists as a God of love.

OK. Let's carry on with this little exercise. (Feel free to sigh and mutter under your breath at having to put up with such a 'fairy story', if that's how you want to see it. No problem.)

Now the big question is this: if this 'hypothesis' were true, then would the experience of every human being be a pleasant one in the presence of this 'God of love' (remember God is not trying to do anything to hurt anyone)? I would suggest no.

What if there are some people for whom the 'love' of God is actually torment? What if this 'love' induces a crippling sense of shame in some people? What if there are some people who are so proud that they feel deeply uncomfortable in the presence of such humility? What if there are people who have hated the idea of mercy during their lives, who are now consumed with a tormented hatred of the mercy of God?

In other words, my 'hypothesis' suggests to me that 'the love of God' could actually be 'hell' for some people. Nothing to do with God being a sadist.

To round off this little story (and I hope you've enjoyed it), let me also hypothesise that the people who are probably most likely to hate the love of God are some of those who think they are the guardians of God's truth (a theory which seems to be supported by the evidence of the gospels). It may also very well be the case (and some fellow 'hypothesisers' may chastise me for this idea) that a great many of those people, who did not openly identify with this God during their lives, may be the ones eventually most receptive to his love (or should I use the word 'grace').

Religious hogwash? Wishful thinking? Sentimental drivel?

Well, whatever... But at least you're aware that not all of us are breathing fire and brimstone...

LSV,

'twas a good analogy and I admire your efforts to portray the situation in another light. I fully accept that not all believers in judeo-christian deities are fire and brimstone adherants who take great delight in informing others that their eternity is doomed to be naught be suffering.

However, I studied the bible for a good 15 years in my past, and it's fairly clear what it says about what happens to those who don't do as they're told and worship god to the exclusion of all else, genuine love or not.

I can't remember who said it, but one quote has always stuck in my head.

"If you christians really believed in what you say, and your hell really does exist, then you'd spend every waking hour trying to convince people not to go there."

LSV,

An interesting construct and one where being altruistically good would allow greatest affinity with the deity.There are a couple of problems with it, not about the relatively benign nature of the deity but more to do with organised religion and human nature.

In the construct there is no support for belief or faith, it is not required to have believed in life to find yourself in the afterlife as one who can feel justified in being there, surprised, but justified. Now I don't see this as a problem for atheists or indeed people of other faiths (it actually answers the questions about people never alerted to the deity in the first place) but I do see it as a problem for organised religion as the underpinning of their power is belief and their role in bringing people to god. They become superfluous as what is required is simply for people to be good to each other for the right reasons. For those who do believe they have that comfort factor through their lives those that don't rely on other things so no change there.

The second issue is human nature. The construct relies on people who have had the greatest divergent life from the example of the deity actually recognising it or caring about it. I could see many die hard religious people having the brass neck to stick to their righteousness throughout eternity and convince themselves that they are still in the posse of the main man. I could also see many people who have conned the poor and vulnerable throughout their lives simply not giving a toss or having the mental maturity to react to the mental dichotomy.

So I think your construct has legs in the main because most people have the capacity to recognise their failings so they will feel that they have not behaved as they might and see this perfect being as a mirror for their failings. This feeling of 'torment' might, as you suggest, increase with distance from the example but there will be a point were that will hit a brick wall and beyond it they will either not care or front it out the way they did through life.

It does beg the question though what do we all do for eternity? and why we have to wait until judgement day to go there, or do we - I am never sure?

Interesting stuff though, and I don't mean that in any negative way.

Natman: **However, I studied the bible for a good 15 years in my past, and it's fairly clear what it says about what happens to those who don't do as they're told and worship god to the exclusion of all else, genuine love or not.**

How about the bible being erroneous and hence not a true reflection of God? So rather than ditch the bible and find the truth about God, you ditch God? Which is very common and I did it myself as many others have...that is part of the harm of organised religion as it stands today - the lies it tells turn people off and away from God - when IMO there is nothing to be turned off by when God is known.

Dave: there is no judgement day as such.....a life reflection whereby you get to see/understand your life so if any judgement it is your own. To my understanding we are all on a return journey to God (to love) and that can be a path of wisdom of woe. It takes many many lives due to our own ignorance and choices - so you get to come back many many times!! SO plenty to keep you busy..... :-) The more evolved people become then they come back to help humanity ....as in the great teachers etc that have existed throughout the ages.

In the originally Anglican context of this debate I think it is worth directing people who may not have read it to Bishop Spong's Manifestowhich can be read here.

As far as I am concerned Spong says it all - here is an Anglican bishop who is not afraid to say of both the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury that neither they nor their offices are to be respected when the incumbents compromise with evil. Bishop Spong is clear that both current prelates make such compromise.

It is interesting to think of Bishop John in the context of the present debate and particularly in the light of some very interesting comments from RJB and PeterM. I don't know if either of you have read any of his work but I heartily recommend it - Jesus for the non-religious might be a good place to start.

I was really moved and encouraged by the account of your confession office, RJB. It precisely illustrates how the church needs to renew the structure and content of its services, especially those prepared specifically for young people. This is a major concern for Spong too; he is deeply concerned at the picture our liturgies paint of what it means to be human and how, so often, they undermine or neglect what is good and noble in mankind. It is great to see you practically remodelling the negative paradigms Christianity has so often and so falsely preferred.

Spong would like to reshape radically the whole embodiment of the gospel that we encounter in the context of the gathering together of Christians for the enjoyment of fellowship in the church. I find these ideas extremely tempting and whole-heartedly endorse them in the context of ministry with young people. I also find them endlessly intriguing - what would a liturgy thus informed look like and feel like? I have, however, reservations linked to one of PeterM's comments. Spong (and he is an absolute hero of mine) seems to envisage almost a sort of modern muscular Christianity, a faith for the strong and the emotionally secure, a faith, I suspect, which he envisages making the Christian strong and secure.

PeterM notes that Lewis saw grace as Christianity's unique contribution to world religion. I agree. It is the notion of grace more than any other which binds me to the Christian gospel. It is very very easy to bid the weak be strong but it is likely to be as counter-productive in its effects as the notion is insensitive and impractical in its construction.

The error of historical Christianity has been that it has felt the inculcation of guilt is likely to make one more receptive to the offer of grace. This is an error of monumental proportions and is indicative of an intention to control and exploit rather than a desire to serve and heal.

We live, however, in a world which has no need of Christianity to induce feelings of worthlessness, guilt, and despair. We live in a world where parents undermine their own children, where husbands break the self-esteem of their wives, where poverty and oppression crush the spirits of millions. For some people and in some situations there is self-help: there is a path to recovery of a sense of one's own value and a road to finding a place in the world. For many people such aspirations are so far beyond the horizon of their hopelessness that the only possibility of salvation is through grace - an unmerited and unearned external intervention which draws them to a place the attainment of which is utterly beyond their own capability. This is the gentle invitation to the lost and hungry soul of which you speak - it is an invitation which transcends the perceived resources of an individual and relieves him of the burden of action; it is a call to surrender when surrender may be the last and only thing that a person can still manage, and it is the assurance of nurture and support in an all- and ever-loving embrace.

It is important that we bury the guilt-trips but it is equally important for the Christian that we do not shy from offering Jesus, without price and without reserve, in all those places where guilt is most at home.

I should resist but I'm not very good at that... Where does healthy dose of voddy and Redbull leave you on the old kineseythingummy?

Eunice,

I 'ditched' god because I started getting a decent education in how the universe works and realised, in incremental steps, that gods were both illogical and then unnecessary, before realising that all supernatural claims are as intanglible and invisible as the concepts they endorse. The foundations upon which my childish faith were built turned out to be supported by typical religious rhetoric and misinformation and soon got washed away (It took about a year, from first real doubts to total atheism).

I'm grateful to my upbringing for giving me such a strong insight into the mindset of a believer (myself and the church to which I belonged), but ultimately I couldn't reconcile a belief in the supernatural with the evidences and reasoning presented. The errors and contradictions in the bible were only a small part of my atheistic change, most of it was based on just the fundamental wrongness in supernatural belief.

If it turns out I'm wrong, as someone one said in a debate "I'd rather burn in hell than worship a meglomaniacal tyrant"

Natman - # 64

I don't know if it's the source of your memory or not but General Booth, founder of the Salvation Army, said something very similar in an effort to jolt armchair Victorian Christians out of their complacency.

Peter

If we're condemning a judgemental spirit (cf. Matt 7:1-6), fine. I can agree with that as long as we don't lose sight of the possible irony.

But there seems to be a couple of other ideas floating around this thread, and I find these less agreeable.

1) In no circumstance, under no condition, are we to judge or point out the sin of another.
2) An objective statement of what is and what is not sin is equivalent to judging or pointing out the sin of another.

I don't find any compelling reason to accept either of these propositions.

On the wrath stuff; there is no gospel without wrath, it's either on the sinner or on Christ. As the Belgic Confession puts it; We believe that God-- who is perfectly merciful and also very just-- sent his Son to assume the nature in which the disobedience had been committed, in order to bear in it the punishment of sin by his most bitter passion and death. So God made known his justice toward his Son, who was charged with our sin, and he poured out his goodness and mercy on us, who are guilty and worthy of damnation, giving to us his Son to die, by a most perfect love, and raising him to life for our justification, in order that by him we might have immortality and eternal life. Article 20 - The justice and mercy of God in Christ

RJB

I don't have to make the choice, that's the point.

'God is a Spirit, in and of himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, every where present, almighty, knowing all things, most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth'
Westminster Larger Catechism Q7.

Difference is Andrew, when I see Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy in the thread "when religion conflicts with rights"- I don't see sin or people to judge or anything remotely in need of incurring Gods wrath or your wrath. In the picture ,I see 2 people who gently care for each other and the inate dignity of love between 2 people.That the first feelings you have is to ignore that, to share no empathy or feel any happiness for that love, but instead think of them in terms of sin, judgement and wrath is saddening. There's enough pain & wrath made by man in the world, if that's where your motivation lies- in applying an extra dollop of it...well what can I say, I guess you are who you are. Love is incredibily hard to find. It should be celebrated/cherished whenever it can. You seem to think it's easy to love oneself and to love another. You must have a very superficial notion of love

Natman: thanks for your post. Alot of it resonates with me as I had a somewhat similar journey - although gave up on the idea of God at a young age. By the way - there is no worship of a megalomaniac tyrant required - that is all BS. Worship is not required either.

Andrew - I despair when I read such posts re the wrath of God. It's just so not true - there is not an ounce of wrath in God or the Christ - it's impossible. Wrath is a human projection.
That a God of infinite boundless love is portrayed as wrathful is in fact perpetuating evil - as it keeps people form truly knowing God. I hope one day you come to realise the harm you are doing to yourself and others by believing and perpetuating such lies.

Ryan

Difference is Andrew, when I see Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy in the thread "when religion conflicts with rights"- I don't see sin or people to judge or anything remotely in need of incurring Gods wrath or your wrath.

Point me to one word where I said anything about Martyn Hall or Steven Preddy.

In the picture ,I see 2 people who gently care for each other and the inate dignity of love between 2 people.That the first feelings you have is to ignore that, to share no empathy or feel any happiness for that love, but instead think of them in terms of sin, judgement and wrath is saddening.

Again, where did I say what I thought of when looking at their picture? How do you know what my first feelings were?

Eunice

With respect, I don't even know how you claim to know these things.

For better or worse my faith is rooted in the God who speaks in Scripture. If that should prove to be false then, well, I couldn't be a Christian. For me it's Christianity or quits.

Anger in itself is not an evil. What is evil is misguided, misdirected and unjust anger.

The 'God of wrath' theology promoted by some sections of the Christian church usually falls into the 'unjust anger' category. Their God truly is a tyrant if he is angry with people on the basis of factors over which they have absolutely no control whatsoever.

In my view, a sure indication of 'moral sanity' is how one understands and applies the word 'deserve'. A morally insane person can see no connection between 'deserved punishment' and 'moral responsibility'. Such a person has no comprehension of the concept of 'mitigating circumstances' and 'diminished responsibility'. It seems to me that there are, unfortunately, a great many religious people who are 'morally insane' according to this definition. These include those who claim that every single member of the human race 'deserves' to go to hell on the basis of the sin of Adam and its unavoidable outworking through that mysterious construct called 'original sin'.

This kind of thinking reminds me of George Orwell's novel '1984'. The hero, Winston Smith, tries to think for himself, and his independence of mind is eventually detected by the regime. He is imprisoned and tortured, in order to break his mind and will. If Big Brother says that 2+2=5, then Winston Smith is required to believe it. If you say something for long enough and keep reinforcing an idea through centuries of strident preaching (and, furthermore, violently suppress any questioning of that idea), then eventually many people will come to just 'accept' it. Those who dare to question this idea will then be accused of being divisive, rebellious and even 'unloving'.

So I believe that God is angry at the existence of evil, but let us not confuse this kind of anger with the nonsense frequently promoted from some pulpits.

The thread title says it all Andrew. Are you saying you don't judge it as a sin.That it doesn't incur your wrath. That the people who killed David Kato were not spurred on by belief it was a sin & carrying out God's will. That any guilt they may have had might be assuaged by their belief that God is on their side. That in a more *civilised* country we wouldn't kill gays like Martyn & Steven, but disallow them from having the same human rights and treatment heterosexual couples expect.To feel you can hold your loved one's hand in public. To gently peck them on the cheek in public. To go on holiday and reasonably expect to be able to share the same room together. This couple are effectively married & would call it a marriage if society allowed it.Who knows, they might even have a blessing from someone in religious authority. Maybe you would disallow them even that blessing

Andrew: I know you don't me and you are free to disagree with me of course.
Jesus said the "kingdom of God is inside you" and for me this can also be said " the kingdom of love is inside you' . Listening to the voice of love within oneself is infinitely more fruitful than listening to words in a book in my experience - albeit there are wisdom teachings that help and which are also based on this voice of love expressed through man.

LSV - where evil is that which separates you from who you really are then anger is definitely evil. I accept this is not the common understanding of evil - but when you realise that all of man's evil acts are manifested because he lives in separation to his true nature - then it is possible to see that the real evil is that which caused the separation in the first place. Evil exists and is real because we perpetuate it by living in separation to our true nature. COnsider this - if all men lived in accordance with their true nature - there would be no evil and hence it doesn't really exist other than by our own doing. So why would God be angry at something that whilst it is real in our world, is fed by us and if we stopped feeding it, it wouldn't exist - and there would be only love. God has love and compassion for us in our ignorance and unawareness, not anger - cos we are doing this to ourselves. Perhaps a hard one to swallow .....but c'est la vie.

Ryan

The thread title says it all Andrew.

The thread title doesn't say it at all Ryan. I'll ask again, where did I say anything about Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy?

Are you saying you don't judge it as a sin. That it doesn't incur your wrath.

Saying homosexuality is a sin and looking on people in 'judgement' are not the same thing.

And no, it doesn't incur 'my wrath', not in the least bit.

That the people who killed David Kato were not spurred on by belief it was a sin & carrying out God's will. That any guilt they may have had might be assuaged by their belief that God is on their side.

You're not talking to the people who killed David Kato, you're talking to me.

This couple are effectively married & would call it a marriage if society allowed it.

Since marriage is by definition between one man and one woman, whatever else it might be, it is not marriage.

As it happens I tend to favour the depoliticising of marriage as a civil institution; in such circumstances they can call their relationship whatever they want, just don't expect me to agree with them if they call it marriage. Perhaps you would expect it?

Did jesus even touch on marriage? I thought he wanted us all to live in commune together. Tell me where Jesus says love and marriage are between a man and a woman.
I brought up Martyn & Steven to stem your reeling off of facts and biblical theory.These are real people. Real people affected by real prejudice. You might feel your biblically inspired prejudices are safe in your hands but pollinated across an entire society they lead to people treated as second class citizens and at worst, put to death. It was only last week a teenage girl in London (public school educated) was sent to prison for the killing of a man in Trafalgar Sq. She singled him out purely on his sexuality. Is that what it boils down to. Singling people out for their sexuality and feeling safe that we have the weight of some *consensus of thought* to back us up.
I can understand why your scared. The world is a scary place. You feel safer never thinking outside of Conservative thought. You're happy to surrender all responsability to the Conservative consensus and leave it at that. It wouldn't matter what age you were born in. You're an enforcer of whatever prevailing doctrine is being served to the people at the time.
Perhaps in another age when we're so overpopulated in ourselves you'll be enforcing the prevailing conservative thought of homosexuality is needed. Maybe some other thing will be picked out of the Good Book for being a sin of the age, and that will be the thing people get attacked for

Dave (@ 65) -

"In the construct there is no support for belief or faith, it is not required to have believed in life to find yourself in the afterlife as one who can feel justified in being there, surprised, but justified. Now I don't see this as a problem for atheists or indeed people of other faiths (it actually answers the questions about people never alerted to the deity in the first place) but I do see it as a problem for organised religion as the underpinning of their power is belief and their role in bringing people to god."

Good point. I must admit that I am not really much of a fan of organised religion, and I tend to have a view of faith which is not completely dependent on strict adherence to a particular set of doctrines (even though I regard the doctrines I accept to be very important). The criticism that the Christian view of God's judgment is based on condemning 'thought crimes' is a valid one, and I take that criticism very seriously. Some forms of Christianity look to me like gnosticism (a certain type of 'knowledge' is a necessary condition for salvation), and this was regarded as a heresy in the New Testament period.

It's getting late now, so I might revisit this topic in the next day or two.

79. At 10:56pm on 02 Feb 2011, Ryan_ wrote:
"Did jesus even touch on marriage? I thought he wanted us all to live in commune together. Tell me where Jesus says love and marriage are between a man and a woman"
Is it a rhetorical question or would you really want the chapters & verses?

Be careful what you ask for Ryan.......:-)

lol , was rather a dopey thing to type- although it does raise questions for me. I read the Matthew bit and how Jesus is relating back to Genesis,but this exerpt in Genesis stood out for me

"Then the rib which the lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
And Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man."

Apart from reminding me a little of Bill & Ted, to go along with the analogy, man & woman are from the same *man*. I understand the importance of marriage as a symbol of love before God, but alot of the reasons the heterosexuality is stressed so often is the " go forth and multiply " bit. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who make a committment to each other before God who can't have children. There right to marry is no more or no less legitimate than a same sex couple to me.
Although im projecting here a bit, but I think the love, respect and treatment of those who enter into a bond together was a prime concern to Jesus. That some entered marriage like acquiring a piece of property , or a trophy, or perhaps little more than a maid and cook. Maybe, just maybe if he saw a same sex couple who were together in a committment of love and equality, he would turn around to the heterosexuals who approached their union together in the other way and say, why can't you aspire to be more like them

Isnt it funny in this debate that we miss the irony that us macho Christian men love another man.

:)

I see a lot of pain and hurt and anger here, and I dont find it hard to understand it.

Like peterm2 I see my own weaknesses and realise I am in no position to judge anyone else.

But I will continue further without singling anyone out for judgement.

According to the NT good news we are *all* undone before a holy God.

That means *me*.

We are all sinners who can never make ourselves acceptable to God.

That goes for all us nice respectable straight sinners just as much as the nice respectable homosexual ones.

But according to the book of acts, Christ has cleared the way back to God for us through the cross.

This does not mean a way back into nice respectable middle class church where it would be heresy to suggest you still struggle with sin, fail and mess up etc.

It does mean a way back to the Christ who "saved" the woman caught in adultery in every sense of the word... that is the God I'm talkin about.

A Christ who is familiar with our brokenness and not squeamish about it, but rolls his sleeves up with us to help us through, even when respectable Christians might turn their backs.

The Christ who taught his imperfect followers to forgive 70x7 times.

The Christ who taught that a man could be justfied before God by standing outside of church and begging for mercy and forgiveness in the street.

The Christ who brushes past sexual labels to see the motive and the heart, the hurts and pain...


The nice respectable hymn "amazing grace" was written by a former human trafficker who used to rape his female victims.

He knew God's grace, his unmerited favour and pardon.

In my understanding, that means a friend who understands you better than anyone else ever could, including the very worst about you, and still chose to give his all for you, because that was/is his nature.

I dont think we can try yourself into a better person in God's eyes, but I do think God can grow a better person inside us (Christ) when we make room for him.


To think that the heavens and earth could pass away, and yet this friend will still be holding you securely by the hand... that's very special when there is nothing and nobody else in this world that you can really depend on with 100% certainty.


OT

OT,

The problem is that what you have said is all nonsense, I am not a sinner because sin is something you religious people have invented.

Believe what you like but don't expect me to pay respect to it.

OT: We are all sinners who can never make ourselves acceptable to God.

To my understanding this is a lie and pure evil.....that may sound strong but by that I mean it helps to keep people from truly knowing God, keeps them feeling bad about themselves and not realising the true beauty and love that they already are without doing anything, going anywhere or saying anything. It helps to keep people from knowing who they really are, keeps them stuck in ways of living that do not serve them and just bring mores suffering upon them, it is because of lies like this that people are empty of love/contracted/separated from God and in that state evil can work through them to manifest evil acts - so the real evil is what caused the emptiness in the first place and it is misbeliefs and clap trap like this that is that real evil.

Dave, Eunice

I had started a reply, but it was turning into a theological treatise and I'm guessing you don't need one (actually, I don't need one either!).

So I'll just say this: whatever or however we understand the word sinner (and there's an explosive negativity about the word), the people Jesus loved to be with were the people who were pointed at by others (and they were usually religious believers) and who these others called 'sinners'.

PM2 - my point is that in this day and age there are understandings that render the use of the word sinner redundant. For most people the word sinner is loaded with negativity, of not being good enough, heaping guilt upon people and saying that everyone is a sinner does not detract from that. I agree Jesus supported the vilified and downtrodden in society - calling them sinners is not particularly helpful and indeed often just compounds the problem. I have previously on here offered an alternative explanation of the meaning of the word sinner that is less loaded but it is not the usual understanding. The original Greek word hamartia means to 'miss the mark' ....and for me this means to miss the mark when we do not express with love - an altogether gentler understanding given that none of us express with love in every moment. That is just part of the human condition.

For me, every human being is not a sinner but a Son of God just like Jesus. Every human being IS love. It is the aeons of teachings and preachings that we are sinners that have kept people ignorant of this fact and resulted in all the evil. It is the separation from our true being, our essence of love that results in all of man's suffering. Hence, for me any teachings that perpetuate that separation and keep man away from his true nature are perpetuating evil and calling people sinners is high on the list. Feel the difference for yourself between being called a sinner and knowing that you are love - the former contracts the heart and the latter expands it. Jesus knew who people were (love) irrespective of what they had done and that those most vilified and downtrodden were those through their experiences had been led far away from the truth of who they are - and JEsus helped to reconnect them back to their essence, to know that they were loved, lovable and in fact love - just like him. For me, it is time to ditch the outmoded language and understandings that do nothing but harm to people and keep them ignorant of their true nature and start helping people to awaken to their true nature of love - no matter what their past experiences or choices or behaviours have been. As I said elsewhere - there are no sinners - just human beings making choices in separation to their true nature of love.

peterm2,

My comment to OT was not really based on theology it was more to do with the arrogance and patronising nature of OT's post. He seems to have a view that he can label me in a derogatory way based on his beliefs and that his beliefs trump mine (or lack of them). Sin is a concept of religion, I am not religious and reject the concept of sin although I recognise the derogatory nature of the label.

"We are all sinners..." No we are not !! You might believe yourself to be but that is your own business.

I have no problem with OT calling himself a sinner, he can call himself whatever he desires, but I object to him calling me one. It is the belief that his religion is universal and I am somehow in it even when I might believe something diametrically opposed to it or nothing at all. It is an insidious attempt to subjugate my right to self determination.

It is this superiority complex which makes it so difficult for some people to actually see just how damaging religiously inspired homophobia is or indeed that it even exists. They believe they are right and have the god given right to point fingers and judge. Fortunately many christians have moved beyond that level of arrogance and don't feel the same need to denigrate their fellow humans or to place limitations on their lives. The hierarchy has not moved as quickly (and in fact seems to be moving in the opposite direction in some cases)

perterm2 this was just a clarification of my point to OT, it is in no way a reflection on what you said. I understand that there are theological differences at work and I also see that in some way many christians have become the Pharisees that their christ railed against. It's all kind of academic to me, interesting from a debating stance, but not really of importance to the debate on religiously inspired homophobia and the damage it does. It's the derogatory statements and finger pointing which are the real villains of the piece.

On the subject of 'sin', let's not be victims of phonetics. It has become an unfortunate word, and it is often stripped of any sense of seriousness: "Oooh, I mustn't be sinful and eat that extra chocolate eclair, as I'll put on weight" or "What a sinner I am for getting a bit tipsy at the party". The word 'sinful' seems to be synonymous with 'naughty' - perhaps even 'sociable', 'likeable' and 'streetwise'!

Let's get this straight: the 'sin' that God condemns is rightly called 'evil'. God does not pick at people's weaknesses, but addresses the real issues. That is the clear message of the ministry of Jesus in the gospels.

It really does irk me when a certain section of the Christian Church (often identified by the word 'evangelical') fails to distinguish between 'evil', on the one hand, and 'human weakness', on the other. Both phenomena are placed in the same category called 'sin'. To say that a five year old child who has just told a fib is as evil ('sinful') in the sight of God as, for example, Pol Pot or Idi Amin (I won't break Godwin's Law by mentioning the usual suspect) is a total travesty of the character of God. There are those who use the term 'totally depraved' to describe such a child (the 'T' of the Calvinist acronym TULIP).

I rather like the following analogy concerning the idea of 'missing the mark'. Two people are involved in an archery competition. The first one tries his darndest to hit the bull, but, despite his best efforts, he 'misses the mark', perhaps only slightly. The second person, however, wilfully and arrogantly turns his back on the target and deliberately shoots his arrows in the opposite direction, blatantly refusing to even try to hit the target, never mind the bull. As far as I am concerned, there is a vast conceptual difference between these two archers. Both archers have 'missed the mark', but how the former can be placed in the same moral category as the latter, is quite beyond me. The former deserves nothing but encouragement and compassion, the latter rebuke and censure.

Dave

I have long been of the opinion that the evangelical church has yet to grasp that there are many who do not share it’s worldview. Even those in our community who would never dream of setting out to offend have yet to realize that our theological talk, however gracious and articulate, means nothing to those who do not share our outlook. Unfortunately we still seem to be operating on the basis that the ‘world out there’ (in other words ordinary everyday people who happen to not want to be religious) understand what *we* mean when we speak about our faith and share our view as the default way of understanding the world.

You comments in #89 outline this problem very well and also flag up the accompanying “superiority complex” which can accompany this misplaced outlook which the Christian church has.

This failure to grasp that many are now living quite happily in a post-christian world has led to many interesting developments in the evangelical church, important to us, but utterly irrelevant (which is a delightful irony to those who will be familiar with contemporary evangelical speak) to anyone else. You may be amused to know that in our churches we have embarked on many ventures to attract in the “unchurched” (yes, embarrassingly that is a real word!) We have changed the style of our services, some churches serve coffee, some have tinkered with the music, yet others have installed comfy seats, sound systems and multi media presentations. I know, I can tell you’re impressed! :-)

Of course what has been overlooked in all of this is that it is not our relevance we have lost, it is our credibility.

More importantly, however, there are those, like you, who have been the victim of “derogatory statements and finger pointing”, and for that I unreservedly apologise.

Very good analogy LSV - can be used to address many issues on how people engage in society & their effects on it. Personally i just don't think homosexuality is one of those issues.

No-one should try their hardest to act counter to their sexual orientation. If they're Gay or Straight- that's who they are. We wouldn't expect straight people to live their lives forced to feel guilt , shame and self-loathing for loving people of the opposite sex . Life is hard enough without having to fight yourself. If people find happiness with someone of the same sex,so be it. It's a basic human right to love and be loved .If there's ever a sin related to this topic, it's to cloak part of the population in an aura of sin for being true to who they are and their sexuality. There are enough straight people in the world to procreate. What is needed is a rise in education and living standards so many of the children born are not born into poverty. It's ridiculous how many children even in Northern Ireland spend their formative years living in poverty, raised by their peer group & the streets rather than conscientious parents equipped with the financial and emotional support needed. An incredibible amount of planning &resources are needed to raise kids.
I wonder how many straight people put in half the time and effort thinking about their sexuality and worrying about the effects of it as Gay people do

"Rebuke and censure", LSV?

What about grace? I've never thought of that as something I deserved! And believe me, I've fired many arrows in the opposite direction! In fact, I've fired many an arrow at God.

Eunice - belief in claptrap like reincarnation is, too, a source of colossal evil fuelling suffering and injustice in whole societies and blighting countless individual lives.

I can see absolutely no evidence whatsoever for your contention that the natural state of human being is one of 'firey' love - all I have observed suggests that, in the well-adjusted individual, natural selfishness is tempered with a degree of altruism. This is as good as your average human gets. The temper of altruism is stronger in some and weaker in others, those in whom it is weaker (often the result of circumstance) are less likely to integrate successfully in society and less likely to perceive their lives as fulfilling. Many such people will experience a sense of isolation, feelings of guilt, a perception of worthlessness, debilitating hopelessness. You advocate, as the way forward from this nadir, a journey of what you might call self-discovery and I would call self-reinvention. This will work for some people and I do not knock it. What I find utterly reprehensible is your arrogant conviction that it is the truth and that other approaches are wrong in principle and evil in practice. This conviction and it's expression marks you, in my opinion, one of the leading fundamentalists on the blog. (Btw - I'm a liberal fundamentalist myself).

I see Christianity's approach which proffers unmerited grace to one beyond self-help as being one which will reach at least some of those your notions cannot reach. It works. Sometimes it works when nothing else does. Genuine Christianity does not inculcate guilt but it ministers to it. The mission of Christ is to touch the untouchables. True Christians will be in the places where the perception of sin abounds.

Can't really say reicarnation is claptrap Parrhasios. Plenty of Buddhists and other faiths hold the view very highly. I would say a significant number of people who call themselves *Christian* also hold a smattering of beliefs from other religions that resonate personally with them. Just because it doesn't resonate with you doesn't make it clap trap. Neither does it make it dangerous. Alot of beliefs viewed sensibly can be helpful to the human spirit. It's extremism and reckless disregard for others that can turn even the most loving and forgiving beliefs- like belief in Jesus- and turn it into somthing twisted. Just like those Westboro Baptists who call themselves *Christian*

Peter

This may be asking too much for a blog comment but how, given what you have said in #91, do you think Christians should talk about their faith with unbelievers?

For instance, is it simply a matter of setting a larger scene (as Paul did with the Greeks at Mars Hill)?

Or do you think it's not so much that Christianity is misunderstood - though it often is - but that the content itself is objectionable. LSV has brought up original sin and total depravity (definitely misunderstood) , is there a point these things become palatable?

The interesting thing about the Christian faith is that it is very difficult to talk about one part without bringing in many others. It has been said Christ addressed himself to sinners, there is a whole lot of unpacking in this statement which might count as scene setting but in the unpacking along with love, mercy, forgiveness, hope there will come a lot of the other stuff as well, not least original sin, total inability, universal guilt and judgement.

Ryan,

I'd say reincarnation is claptrap, just as I'd that about any other supernatural claims and I don't really care if a lot of people hold the view highly. The worthiness of an idea isn't established by the number of people who believe in it, else astrology would, by your definition, not be claptrap.

And it clearly is.

Really Ryan - why not? I was responding to Eunice who used the term (of a subset of Christian beliefs) in conjunction with evil and I thought both the terminology and the combination equally applicable to her own notions.

So far as I am concerned the idea of reincarnation is nonsense - the fact that it is widely-held nonsense does not lessen in any way its spurious character. The results of belief in soul transmigration are manifested in the colossal institutional injustice of Indian society: evil on an unparalleled scale. It is obviously therefore dangerous just as all deeply held convictions are potentially dangerous.

LSV,

Perhaps instead of rebuke and censure the correct response would be to ask why and try and understand why someone would do something that you find unintelligible.

You have actually sidled up to the issue peterm2 and I are discussing, you believe someone should be trying to hit the mark (or acting in a way which fits with your worldview) and if they don't you get into finger pointing (rebuke and censure). Maybe they just have a different worldview and maybe they could contribute to your knowledge, but you will never know and you will have insulted them.

peterm2,

Thanks for the insight, I could not help but think "Oh no ! not the comfy chair". As for the derogatory statements and finger pointing it is difficult to see how to address it. We can't stop people making denigrating comments, nor should we (we won't know where they are if we do) and I would rather work toward a place where they accepted it was wrong voluntarily but just ignoring it and the harm they cause is not an option either. There are christians, gay and straight, working to try and change things from within but they tend to get even worse treatment. Their struggle along with people who espouse views like yours is both important and necessary.

Oh and please don't feel the need to apologise for the acts of others, I don't believe in blame by association (or a homogeneous notion of christianity) any more than I believe in sin, but I do appreciate the thought.

Natman, I respect & understand the choices & feelings you have towards any form of theistic belief. I don't take issue with people applying different beliefs as a salve for their soul & a coping mechanism for life. Religion to me is private contemplation and I don't expect it or demand it to be reflected in Society. The only purpose collective worship serves (for me) is cultural.
Parrhasios, Im sorry I know you were expressing how terribly the concept is misused in many cultures- as you point out in India to underpin the aparteid caste system. You're right, it's massively open to abuse in the wrong hands, but it still (for me) holds a private resonance. I have to admit Im not sure how comfortable I am with that either,but it's a belief I had when I was young before I had any experience or understanding of Church or religion. ( I didn't really go to Church until I was about 10 and that was just because a friend of mine belonged to the Church Choir and I liked to sing :p) My beliefs were very much along the lines of - we live each life to experience different things to make us well rounded souls.Perhaps to overcome an obstacle or learn something. That we have key guides and teachers that are destined to enter our lives to help us and perhaps some that are so closely bonded to us we know them through several lifetimes. I guess these were my pre-christian beliefs. I can only do my best to understand other's viewpoints and hope that I can diffuse any upset caused by those who hold collective beliefs where the reassuring nature of a collective consensus cultivates intolerant presumptions or allows evil to take place