Open Thread

I have always questioned the value of using census data to determine how religious the people of the UK are.

In Austria the number of Catholics is calculated by those who pay a Church tax, and official figures reveal that 87,393 people left the Catholic Church in 2010 (attributable to sex abuse scandals).

https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5js2www4gOwrbFSQEwZcDnl7wlXwA?docId=CNG.63c2e3ec1d1e7d417530b8161f3f12d0.101

What would the figures be for the UK if they were tax related!

Census's (censusus? censusii?) dealing with religious alignment in NI are particularly askewed due to to ongoing tribal nature of the place i.e. people with no belief at all happily tick Protestant or Catholic to keep the numbers up, so to speak. The tax question is a good and valid one, and there would probably be a sharp decline in various religious affiliations were such a thing introduced!

I can't really see why religion should be a question at all on the census. Religious beliefs are important to the person who holds them, and can effect their political and vocational view, but policy and/or spending shouldn't be dictated by what people believe, else we'd either be beholden to every crackpot out there or ignoring valid minority viewpoints because only the majority is worthy of being considered.

Actually, religious viewpoint is of vital importance to public policy; it is simply that that which could broadly be deemed 'culturally Christian' is so deeply imbued into the mindesets of modern westerners that few even question it, and those that do are often labelled crackpots, notwithstanding the fact that they are at least the intellectually consistant (and accordingly, the more honest) ones. The American philosopher, cultural critic and avowed Christian David Bentley Hart has written a fascinating extended essay on the topic entitled 'Atheist Delusions' where he takes the position (and one which I completely support) that our entire public life is so indebted to Christianity that it has become wallpaper, we simply don't notice it anymore. Yet it would behove us to make the attempt because whatever 'enlightened' outlook we may have today is a product of two thousand years of Christian conditioning, not any supposed genetic predisposition or natural seclection, as the evolutionary based New Atheist movement would have us believe. Take away that (at least culturally) Christian outlook, and there is no guarantee that our 'enlightenment' would last.

Casur1
Thanks for the link to Atheist Delusions
Checkmate Atheists!

Oh yes, treat it like a board game. How about it's the extreme on both sides ( who are not that dissimilar) that pit one side against the other, when most people are moderates and don't wish to be so partisan

Casur (and paul james)

And I suppose that Christian ideals just popped out of no where and have no basis in any existing mindset?

Christianity is the most obvious cultural influence because the church has been so insidious in integrating itself into every aspect of society. You're not taking into account the massive cultural influences of the Norse/Viking settlers, Roman colonists and their Celtic and Briton forebears. Not to mention the recent Asian influences (not Christian in the slightest).

Perhaps David Bentley Hart should rename his essay 'The Christian Delusion' instead.

Simple fact is that the vast majority of the population of this country, whilst professing a 'religion' on the census form, don't allow it to effect their daily lives one iota.

Casur1, that's committing the mistake of assuming that what brought us where we are is what is necessarily best for us. One could announce an intention to tear down your temples and rebuild them again in three days; would you condemn them for threatening the stability of the status quo?

Hart's book - although written by an openly Christian man - is not about the truth or otherwise of Christianity per se; it is about the effect that Christianity has had on the west, and whether you are Christian, atheist, Jew or none of the above, I would urge you to take the time to read it. If nothing else, as a prose stylist and essayist, he's one of the best I've ever read. As to the different influences that have been infused into the west, certainly there were many, but all of them have been subsumed into and 'gentled' by Christianity. Hart would argue that what is changed now is that the withdrawl or - more accurately - expulsion of Christianity from the public forum leaves a vaccuum which is open to anything, and we may not like what fills it. As to PaulR's comment, I'm not sure what it is you are arguing for here. If you believe that Christianity is not a good thing, then by all means argue for this, but what is it you want as an alternative?

@Theophane

The other thread is closed for some reason, so I'll post here and hope for the best.

There is nothing spurious about a comparison between Ireland and the UK. If the UK took the path of making child sacrifice a criminal offence, women, in their thousands if you insist, would still have an opportunity to go abroad to get their children destroyed.

Look, the article you quoted contrasted maternal mortality rates in the UK and Ireland, saying that the lower figure in Ireland, where abortion is illegal served as evidence against the argument that maternal deaths tend to be lower where abortion is legal. The fact that abortion in Ireland is illegal, but nevertheless pretty available by travelling to the UK, makes this a strikingly poor argument. The article then compounds the error by using India - where abortion is legal, but unavailable for vast swathes of the population except in unsafe circumstances - as another bad example.

This is exactly the point i was making, and the situation foreseen by Pope Paul VI in 'Humanae Vitae'. The idea that it will improve is a [lucrative] fairy story, whether it comes from Chile, China or Chesterfield

Except that when you actually look at what is happening, rather than relying on the prescience of a bloke in a frock. (People will have lots of sex - how did he work that one out, in 1968, if you please?) In Western Europe, where education and availability of contraception is highest, the abortion rate is the lowest in the world.

But judging by what you write on here, you aren't interested in any of this, you don’t seem to care if legalising abortion makes it safer for women, whether illegality has any effect on the numbers carried out or whether contraception has any effect, either.

You are interested, though, in throwing out phrases like “pro death”, “child sacrifice” and “getting children destroyed”. And you definitely seem very concerned, as many a theist is, with other people's sex lives – what they do, why they do it and who they do it with.

The thing is, not everyone shares the Catholic view of sex as a sacred gift within the confines of marriage and always open to the opportunity of new life. Of those who do, few manage to live out the view in their lives. And no matter how puerile and gallery pleasing this seems, the Catholic Priesthood illustrates how unreal the expectations produced are.

To those looking at these questions without the tint of Catholic teachings the world looks very different to how you see it and it doesn't seem to me that Catholic answers begin to address the questions at issue, at the same time throwing out a whole host of problems of their own.

In 1968 when Pose Paul VI reaffirmed the traditional Catholic view of marriage, contraception etc, the world's population stood at 3.6 billion. It's now approaching double that, putting severe stress on our ability to manage the planet's resources, certainly in the medium term. Catholic teaching on this issue makes no sense.

Now it could be argued that the biggest factor in bringing population levels down is combating poverty and improving the status and educational opportunities of women. Is the record of Catholicism a good one in this regard? I'd say it would be rather better if the hierarchy had more people like RJB in it and fewer Ratzo groupies like you and McC.

Quite predicable rubbish from the representative of the Presbyterian Church this morning about the inequities of extending shop opening hours on Sundays: it seems that it is all right for clerics to work on Sundays but it is wrong for everyone else!

People should have the right to earn more money on a Sunday if they want, and shoppers should have the right to go about their business at more suitable hours. Many people prefer working Sundays and getting another day off.

Well said Grokesx, the Catholic Church definitely needs more Romejellybeens and brianmcclintons. The Church would be better equipped at dealing with a whole host of problematic issues, including those it inflicts on itself. It would certainly be able to engage with the public in a more meaningful way

It was interesting that on this morning's programme the Catholic campaigner, Austen Ivereigh, agreed that the late Pope John Paul II resisted moves to deal with paedophile priests - "unquestionably true", he said. This "blind spot" in his record, however, does not in the view of Ivereigh undermine his claim to holiness!

More details about Father Marciel many crimes and perversions can be found here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2010/05/father_maciel_a_life_devoid_of.html

Great to hear the interview with James McConnell. Is the guy on a ego trip or what!!! The split was everyone's fault but his. Funny he did not mention the promises he had made, or the dates he had given, as to when he would retire. I wonder why. Come on Jim, acknowledge it was your fault.

Four matters which this years 'person of the year' is currently involved in.

He will beatify JPII - the supporter of Maciel - on May 1st this year. The services of a 'devil's advocate' were not required thus the evil Maciel and JPII's protection of him, will not be considered. Neither will the decades of abuse be a problem. Nor will his abandonment of the people of Latin America in exchange for US support against The Soviet Union. (The beatification does require one miracle which was provided by Sr Simon-Pierre who apparently had Parkinson's disease but doesnt any longer. She said it was him wot dunnit.)

Secondly, Maciel's Legionaires of Christ will not be disbanded. (Nothing to do with the fact that they are worth billions.) The order, built on the 'charism' of their founder, Maciel, is to continue.

Thirdly, the Pope will welcome another 'order', the ultra fanatical Neo-Catechumenate, to Rome on Monday, ignoring the complaints of the Japanese Bishop's Conference that they have caused widespread division and confusion amongst Japanese Catholics. He is to upgrade their status in the Church. This lot are worth a few bob too, as it happens.

Fourthly, Archbishop Braz de Aviz has been appointed by Benny as the new Vatican head of religious life and will be responsible for the ongoing 'visitation' and investigation into the female religious orders in the United States. The Archbishop has a. never been to America and b. doesnt speak English.

The mystic and spiritual writer Thomas Merton once stated that there comes a point where the hierarchy no longer deserve to be listened to. I think we reached that point long ago.

This is practical query for William or the moderators:

I usually prepare my comments in an Open Office document with features like italics and bold letters but when I copy and paste these here the formatting disappears. Other contributors do not seem to have the problem. I am also using Google Chrome as my web browser. I would like advice how to get around this problem. Thanks.

@ Michael

Not a grumpy moderator, but you need to use HTML tags for links, bold and italics. Some other tags I have tried work in preview, but not in the finished post.

#16

Michael in Dublin,

A link to this was left by a contributor to the PM blog. I hope you find it helpful.

As an enemy of the state, all states, I would encourage people to give creative and interesting answers to any census questions asked rather than necessarily accurate ones. My religious affiliation has been different in every census I have ever completed; my house is extraordinarily elastic; and my household has, at various times, included not only a wife but a concubine and even, once, a couple of catamites.

Frustrate government data acquisition attempts whenever you can! You know it makes sense.

Parrhasios

Yours is excellent advice!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Grokesx;

"...the article you quoted contrasted maternal mortality rates in the UK and Ireland, saying that the lower figure in Ireland, where abortion is illegal served as evidence against the argument that maternal deaths tend to be lower where abortion is legal. The fact that abortion in Ireland is illegal, but nevertheless pretty available by travelling to the UK, makes this a strikingly poor argument."

You accept that there is an "argument that maternal deaths tend to be lower where abortion is legal." So why look beyond Ireland to investigate this? Wherever you go, as i stated quite clearly, there are likely to be women who go abroad for the "procedure". In other words, if the UK government came to its senses and outlawed abortion (just as it outlaws the killing of newborn babies), some women would probably go abroad, but there would certainly be a fall in the abortion rate (Poland has blazed a trail in this respect), and the evidence suggests that there would actually be a significant DECREASE in the maternal mortality rate. So it's just another specious pro-death argument.

"In Western Europe, where education and availability of contraception is highest, the abortion rate is the lowest in the world."

What makes you think the level of education is higher in Western Europe than anywhere else? But about the abortion rate; well, on a positive note, i hear the number of abortions in Germany is falling - parents are generously welcoming more children into the world. But i'd be interested to know how you imagine that Western Europe's abortion rate is lower than, say, the Philippines.

No doubt many have seen this before, but i would urge people to consider it again. There follow the reported words of Protestant Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, murdered by the nazis at the end of WWII, in answer to the question "Why did the Churches do nothing?";

"First they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me!"

Instead of "Jews" and "communists", think "unborn children", the "terminally ill", the "profoundly disabled". The pro-life cause is in fact a matter of enlightened self-interest.

Theophane,

This is what would happen more often if you had your way and made abortion illegal. Keep it legal, keep it inspected. That way the minimum amount of harm is done.

Like someone else posted on the previous thread, I'm pro-choice, but anti-abortion. It's a necessary evil and your anti-choice crusade of black and white Ban It Now! crusade would do more harm than good.

How can it be 'enlightened self-interest' when the mother would die or the baby was so badly disabled it'd get a few weeks of pain to call life?

Theophane,

At last you understand why we homosexuals have to stand up against the Bulls. If we stay silent the bigots win.

Still doesn't make it right Dave.

Newthornley,

Actually it does.

@theophane,

Can I ask, what are you doing about the two homosexuals about to be stoned to death in Iran?.

Newthornley- Do you agree that God made us? Do you,like some, believe we are made in his image? Are you also aware Males have G spots ? Homosexuality is part of the human experience for some. Humanity wouldn't function without diversity. That many can't accept another person simply because they are so nosey to care what other people do in their own bedroom is pathetic. Another point - 2 men or 2 women should be able to hold hands and show affection in public in the same way heterosexuals can. That it offends some says more about them than those expressing their affection

Homosexuality is one of the results of mans rebellion towards God as recorded in Genesis 3.

The ideal one man and one women enjoying sexual union within the marriage structure.

The human body has been made to reflect this and anything apart from this is perversion.

It is opposed to God's ideal for mankind.

Sorry Ryan...but what you call diversity is sin.

You are gravely mistaken if you happen to think otherwise.


There is still one thing I will like to clarify...and that is that we are all sinners (including myself).


I am not merely trying to highlight homosexuality above all other sin...but at the end of the day it is still sin no matter what way to justify it.


It's not me you are offending but God.

I don't agree, I think we are built and designed for it- it's not a sin. Otherwise we wouldn't have been created with the erogenous zone. Sexuality has extremes on both sides and most people are somewhere in the middle.
There are those who are born to be homosexual and they have a right to live thier lives with dignity, and to love who they are designed to love, just like those at the other end of the spectrum who are completely heterosexual.
That people feel this issue continually speaks to them is simply because most people are in the middle of the spectrum and feel threatened by homosexuality, that it sabotages their urges in a direction they do not wish to feel. This is perhaps why such and such a quote from the Bible is brought up with more regularity than perhaps these ones..

"People who have flat noses, or blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)"


"If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it's inhabitants... even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)"

"Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)"


Interesting how humans offend God through written texts isn't it.

Reminds me of an article I read last nite..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-12248091


I think whatever period of Christian history you look back to, people weren't any different from today. They just lived with their double standards and hid thier private lives under a veneer of respectability and conformity. This is why we are continually bombarded with news of ultra conservative religious folk taking part in practices they've preached vitriole about. This goes for all highly religious parts of the world. I wonder how many people are aware of this in ultra conservative islamic Afghanistan

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11217772

Then , of course nearer to home , you have the issues of abuse in the Catholic Church

This is what happens when people hold religious views contrary to how they are naturally made - they just explode. I think Id rather prefer to live in a society where homsexuality is accepted and gays can marry and are treated with dignity , rather than people trying to hide who they are and have all this pain and abuse in its place

Newthornley: God is not offended by homosexuals - it is you that is offended so stop projecting it onto God. God loves all people equally - he loves homosexuals the same as you and all christians, hindus, muslims, atheists, agnostics etc. So it is not Ryan that is gravely mistaken but yourself! God is love, he does not judge, he does not condemn and he does not call you or anyone else a sinner. These are all man-made misunderstandings and misinterpretations. We are made in God's image - we too are love - that we do not live according to that brings consequences for us not out of punishmnent or displeasing God but due to cause and effect, choice and consequence.

We are made in God's image - we too are love - that we do not live according to that brings consequences for us not out of punishmnent or displeasing God but due to cause and effect, choice and consequence.

Why take the God's image and God is love stuff but not the rest?

Ryan...it has never been proven that man is born with a homosexual gene...sorry you are wrong.

But the 'effects' of man'rebellion towards God has been proven...if you take a good look across our world you will see it's true...homosexuality is only one aspect of it.

Essentially, Gods love is displayed in the sacrifice of his Son, Jesus, for our sins...it is an 'agape' love.

It is not this kind of luvvy duvvy love that everyone would like it to be.



People also seem to think that the nature of God's love is the same as mankinds but it is not.


I wonder if i could ask you do something Ryan...You obviously have a Bible...please have a look for the word 'grace'.

Find out what it means and what it applies to... then come back to me with your thoughts.


Eunice...we are all sinners....God 'is' offended by sin and God judges sin.

To suggest anything else is totally false...it is lies.


You are suggesting something that is contrary to what the Bible teaches.


I would not be surprised if you were to come back say that your thinking has actually come from another source.


If it has...throw it away quickly....I beg you to.

Newthornley. I said that males are designed with an erogenous zone and that humanity encompasses a spectrum of sexuality. Jesus was sacrificed because of peoples lack of tolerance towards those who are different. If people had been more tolerant of him , he would not have been sacrificed. So what have we learnt. To be more tolerant? To not kill or scapegoat people who are different? Is this not the effects of mans rebellion against God?

We are designed the way we are designed and there are reasons why some people are homosexual and others aren't.Some are born that way and some people are products of environment.There is no easy clear cut answer.

It also beggars belief why you take it on yourself to speak on Gods behalf . You are only speaking on your behalf.

Interestingly Grace comes the Greek, charis. Which meant "to rejoice" It later came to signify "favour", "goodwill" and "lovingkindness" — especially as granted by a superior to an inferior.In the NT the aspect of it being "granted" is more pronounced- like being pardoned. I think humans can only be pardoned for our stupidity and murdering aggression rather than 2 adults consensually expressing love towards each other- considering humans (as God made us) are naturally designed to enjoy this expression of love and mutual intimacy

It's quite laughable how the followers of the bible pick and choose which parts are relevant. It sure does promote intolerance and hatred, as evidenced by the instructions to kill spewed out from the bible hither and thither. I suppose one of the reasons why science and religion have been adversarial so often is that science has shown that much of what the bible calls unnatural is exactly the opposite i.e homosexuality. The bible is quite specific too: kill gays, kill blasphemers, kill adulterers, kill non-believers, kill children who misbehave, kill him, kill her, kill them; kill is the operative word (strangely-or perhaps not-I don't recall child molesters mentioned amongst those condemned). Thou shalt not kill, apart from...
I'm sure I gave cheek back to my parents when a child, and I certainly fall into the category of non-beliver, so does that mark me for death from the saved? People are different, but unfortunately people like Newthornley show exactly how religion/s can poison minds.

Ryan and Evolve...you have absolutely no idea about what your talking about and it is obvious that you have absolutely no understanding of what the Bible is about either.

What's clear to me Newthornley is that you have absolutely no understanding of it either. You either take it literally in its entirety and adhere to its every law and utterance or you treat it metaphorically.
All I can say is your interpretation adheres to your tolerance levels and the way you've been raised- like everyone else in this world- you are limited by your prejudice, fear and perspective.

You seem to wish to deny that our bodies have erogenous zones , that as a Christian you are somehow exempt from Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created him"

It's clear that many Christians have to learn tolerance and inclusiveness. That being a devout Christian is not a badge of self righteous exclusion and an excuse for prejudice- as practiced by devout Christians in the Deep South against non-whites or closer to home- Catholics & Protestants using it as a basis for tribal hatred. We have alot to learn and one small step is to not scapegoat a soft target such as gay people

I want to pick up on a few points Ryan made:

Jesus was sacrificed because of peoples lack of tolerance towards those who are different. If people had been more tolerant of him , he would not have been sacrificed.

I'd be interested to see how you would establish this from Scripture. It seems to me to be a rather generous and self-serving piece of theological fluffery.

So what have we learnt. To be more tolerant? To not kill or scapegoat people who are different? Is this not the effects of mans rebellion against God?

Who said anything about 'scapegoating' people who are different?

We are designed the way we are designed and there are reasons why some people are homosexual and others aren't.

Why people are homosexual is irrelevant.

It also beggars belief why you take it on yourself to speak on Gods behalf . You are only speaking on your behalf.

Evidently you don't feel obliged to follow your own advice.

What's clear to me Newthornley is that you have absolutely no understanding of it either. You either take it literally in its entirety and adhere to its every law and utterance or you treat it metaphorically.

This is a false dichotomy.

The Bible is made up of numerous genres; history, poetry, wisdom literature, prophecy, letters etc. Different genres are interpreted in different ways, different authors have different styles, use different literary devices. Often a literal interpretation is demanded, sometimes metaphorical.

You seem to wish to deny that our bodies have erogenous zones , that as a Christian you are somehow exempt from Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created him"

Whether the presence of 'erogenous zones' - something itself contestable - allows the inferences you want to draw is something you need to demonstrate - I have to admit, I'm not at all clear what these are.

Andrew: what do you mean by 'not the rest'? If you mean that God judges and condemns and that we are sinners - is based on my understanding and experience of the human person, the human condition, God and love.

Newthornley: I agree with Ryan re Jesus was killed by those who did not recognise who he was and was not sacrificed to save people from their sins. What you call sins I call making choices in separation to one's true nature of love. All of our choices have consequences for our lives - due to the laws of cause and effect - there is no escape from that other than to save oneself and start living by making choices based on one's true nature. Easier to say than do I hasten to add!

I do agree with you that the love of God is not the same as human emotional love - but the love of God is within each person and so all can come to know this and live from there.

God is not offended by sin and does not judge sin - you are regurgitating words you have been told or read rather than from direct experience of God. There are many sources of wisdom - the bible does have wisdom but it is not infallible and it also contains that which is erroneous/false. Discernment of sources of wisdom reveals a unifying wisdom of the heart - based on love that is unconditional. Unconditional love cannot be unconditional and judge and condemn - not possible. Not only is it not possible from a logic point of view it is also my experience - the sad reality is that many people are so unaware of just how much they are loved and how unloving they are towards themselves - something that I have certainly experienced and continue to unfold with.

Andrew I speak on my own behalf, with my views- That you feel you want to twist language is your right of course- just as I said Newthornley can only speak for his own views,not on God's behalf. There are plenty of Christians with more liberal views and Im sure plenty who are more conservative who are all equally sure they know what God is and what God isn't. I at least hold on to the element of doubt when it comes to God. But if I feel someone is causing pain and upset to another I will not act contrary to my feelings because some book tells me to be cruel.

Many people who grow up with a less orthodox style of Christianity are given the sense that Jesus was tolerant and inclusive and that Christianity should therefore be a loving religion- Perhaps it comes as quite a shock when you find out people kill , exclude , Scapegoat and use Christianity as the basis for all that- you may wish to feel your memory needs refreshed on such things, but I won't insult your intelligence by reeling off a list- It tends to start with people saying a particular view or lifestyle is *abusing and insulting God*

BTW just love your dissecting style- doesn't it just give the impression your tearing someones argument apart- I wonder if you feel that you're making the world a better , more peaceful, inclusive place while you do it. But since your point of view maintains the staus quo of conservative Christian thought- many would interpret that as upholding the cruel and murderous intolerance that are the cornerstones of religious extremism and mob brutality. Yes, I feel Conservative Christianity is extreme

"Theological fluffery*- I disagree- to think that human beings - if they'd been more tolerant wouldn't have sacrificed Jesus. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

False Dichotomy- another wonderful choice of words, you are quite the wordsmith- So Leviticus is written as a code to live by, but not many Christians take it literally- if you were to pick and choose what you deem metaphorical or not, you have to agree that leviticus isn't asking the reader to view it as such

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

Amazing how much these literal interpretations have in common with ultra Conservative Islamic countries that take their Holy Book literally. Remember the Saudi problems with servant mistreatment

But hey, you're entitled to your views. It's one reason why religion is fading so fast out of public life and society in the West.


Oh re erogenous zones, I'm sure your GP can explain the erogenous zones and where they are

Newthornley @34,

Although I don't think Ryan ever mentioned it, you said

Ryan...it has never been proven that man is born with a homosexual gene...sorry you are wrong.

Correct, and is has never been proven there is not a genetic component, the jury is out and the human Genome has a lot of study left in it. If you are going to make scientific statements the least you could do is be honest to the current state of scientific study (I mean real scientific study not scientific study given the religious filter).

But the 'effects' of man'rebellion towards God has been proven...if you take a good look across our world you will see it's true...homosexuality is only one aspect of it.

Irrelevant to everyone except those following your brand of religion although there are many people of a religious persuasion who take the same line as Ryan. You are also on a fine line to being insulting by inferring that homosexuality is in some way responsible for man's problems. You are a quick hop and skip from the Westboro Baptists there.

The rest of the post needs no response from me as it is also irrelevant to me.

I note your earlier use of the word perversion, I would just like to assure you that love and sexual attraction between two people of the same gender is quite normal - especially for homosexuals - believe me I am speaking from experience. There is a lot of it about. As far as I know it is not mentioned anywhere in your bible.

As for same gender sexual activity (whether carried out by homosexuals or heterosexuals) there are very few sexual acts which are exclusive to same sex couples so I fail to see how they can be described as perversions as acts in themselves unless you think everything but the missionary position is a perversion which would be very puritanical (and I am not even sure where such a view would come from). It is true that your book has some tenuous statements about your god not being keen on same gender sex but I just put that down to bigotry and prejudice of the writers much as is evident to-day in some people, don't pay too much attention those bigots are all over the place.

Ryan, I sincerely doubt Newthornley is getting your point about erogenous Zones and G Spots. Perhaps some learnings in Biology and some understanding of sexual practices (heterosexual as well as homosexual) might help him. I think this blog is too constrained to allow me to comment (although I have seen some pastors feel quite at liberty to comment quite explicitly and seemingly from a position of knowledge).

Andrew
Many people do use certain groups as scapegoats or completely rail against them in the way Melanie Philips did in the Daily Mail today where she completely misrepresented a whole string of things to have an all out attack on the gay community and attempted to stir up feelings against us. Par for the course for the Daily Mail.

On the subject of erogenous zones, you believe the presence of erogenous zones is contestable, could you be more explicit ?. Are you saying that the presence of all erogenous zones is contestable or just some specific ones. I don't want you to get in trouble with the mods so not too explicit lol.

I have no argument with either you or newthornly over interpretations of your religion because it is just that, your religion. My issue is when false claims are made about me and when people use their beliefs to denigrate me or attempt to curtail my rights as a fully equal member of society with all the privileges and responsibilities that entails.

To me that means equal access to all civil structures including marriage.

Eunice

Perhaps I wasn't clear; you used the 'image of God' language from Genesis and 'God is love' from 1st John. So I'm not sure why you think these are parts of the bible are worth quoting but not judgement, condemnation and wrath.

Ryan

Many people who grow up with a less orthodox style of Christianity are given the sense that Jesus was tolerant and inclusive and that Christianity should therefore be a loving religion

This begs the question as to what love is, what should be loved, who should be loved, why they should be loved.

BTW just love your dissecting style- doesn't it just give the impression your tearing someones argument apart- I wonder if you feel that you're making the world a better , more peaceful, inclusive place while you do it.

I wonder if you feel you're making the world a better, more peaceful, inclusive place with such inane comments.

But since your point of view maintains the staus quo of conservative Christian thought- many would interpret that as upholding the cruel and murderous intolerance that are the cornerstones of religious extremism and mob brutality. Yes, I feel Conservative Christianity is extreme

Many would, but many would also have to back up their many assertions with many arguments.

"Theological fluffery*- I disagree- to think that human beings - if they'd been more tolerant wouldn't have sacrificed Jesus. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Actually if we weren't sinners then Christ wouldn't have been crucified; that's according to the bible of course.

False Dichotomy- another wonderful choice of words, you are quite the wordsmith- So Leviticus is written as a code to live by, but not many Christians take it literally- if you were to pick and choose what you deem metaphorical or not, you have to agree that leviticus isn't asking the reader to view it as such

You say Leviticus is written as a code to live by; did you get this idea from reading and understanding Scripture as whole or from a preformed caricature of what the bible is and so what Leviticus must mean today?

Perhaps you'd be better trying to understand how Christian traditions understand Israel and the levitical law code in the new covenant.

Take Chapter 19 Section 3 & 4 of the Westminster Confession, as one example:

[3] Beside this law [the ten commandments], commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All of which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament [4] To them also, as a body politic, he gave them sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obligating any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require

I'll tell you not every Christian agrees with this, even those that adhere to the WCF disagree over phrases like 'general equity', but your simplistic literal/metaphorical rubric fails to take account of Christian reflection on these subjects.

What you'd seemingly rather do is throw ink and repeat meaningless words like 'tolerance' and 'inclusiveness' as if these things are a given - they're not, not even close.

Who can't appropriate adjectives like tolerant and inclusive? But presumably there are things which shouldn't be tolerated and things which should be excluded. So what are the grounds for toleration and inclusivity?

A distinction should also be maintained between moral and legal arguments; arguing that homosexuality is immoral - incidentally there are lots of immoral things - does not de facto mean that it should be illegal.

But hey, you're entitled to your views. It's one reason why religion is fading so fast out of public life and society in the West.

Whether or not my views or religion is fading fast out of 'public life and society in the West' misses the point; these things are not decided by head count.

Oh re erogenous zones, I'm sure your GP can explain the erogenous zones and where they are

I'd prefer you to tell me, and why they are significant with respect to homosexuality.

Hi Dave

Ryan wants to make a connection between erogenous zones and homosexuality in particular and sexuality in general, i'm interested in how he makes this connection.

Dave

Also, I should have said that I don't doubt there are places on the human body - although precisely where is often variable - sensitive to stimuli. Rather in calling all such places 'erogenous zones', and thus perhaps a purposiveful role in sexual stimulation seems to me to be assuming too much.

This is secondary though to what I said in the previous post.

Well humans seem determined to learn things the hard way- that he had to die for our sins - he was crucified by intolerant people
Humans will continue to make small, painful, excruciating steps when we could make our lives alot easier- but I guess hell would freeze over before you ever thought you could be part of the problem. I think your ego and your religion are too well entwined to ever question your beliefs.
Interesting thatt you think making a legitimate comment about Leviticus is somehow inane. Simply because you feel certain unpalatable bits have been explained away. You simply use the Bible. Anything can be twisted and changed to serve your views. This has happened for centuries, so there's realy no point wasting my time on you. Let's hope life will teach you to question some of your more arrogant assertions

Sensitive to stimuli- I wonder why lol- shame you're too prudish to even use the word erogenous

Andrew,

Erogenous zones are those which not only are sensitive to stimuli but also form part of sexual arousal and pleasure. I think Ryan may be alluding to some erogenous zones which would seem to have no other purpose but to make male to male penetrative sex enjoyable. I understand what he is saying and when you add that the male G Spot is generally accepted as the prostrate again some conclusions may be drawn. Sexual arousal is a combination of many things though, stimulation of erogenous zones is but one.

I am not sure I would draw a strong conclusion that homosexuality is justified simply on the basis or erogenous zones but rather there is nothing to justify saying that we have not any physical support for acts which are characterised as same sex. The important point is that there is nothing contra indicative from the location of erogenous zones to support a view that same gender sex is either a perversion or unnatural (or indeed that similar practises by heterosexuals are either).

I have heard several pastors (from their deep understanding of biology and medicine) telling us that the body is not designed for this and that, but both the placement of erogenous zones and the male G spot seem to run contrary to that.

Also unless they have actually tried it, I hardly think they are in much of a position (if you will pardon the pun) to comment on just how we men seem to fit together so well. I would not dream of making such comments on how differing sex couples fit or do not, I simply don't have the experience.

Ryan and Evolve...you have absolutely no idea about what your talking about and it is obvious that you have absolutely no understanding of what the Bible is about either.

Newthornley, it is blatantly obvious that you are one of those people who hasn't the intellectual capacity to study anything in the bible rationally and will believe word for word what is written. No questions, just blind belief. Very sad and pretty scary, even to some other believers I imagine. People have the right to believe whatever they want, but you are clearly the type who would push your belief system on everyone else, no matter what.
Contrary to your offhand decree about my biblical cluelessness, I come from a very strong christian background and have very clear ideas of what the bible is about. It's just that I realised that the evidence against the overarching supernatural elements is overwhelming, and reason prevails for me. Every time. Nowhere, in any of these blogs, has one shred of evidence been offered to back up a single theistic claim. Science isn't perfect, but it acknowledges that fact and continuously moves forward, creading understanding along the way. The wheels move freely, if sometimes slowly. Religion sits clamped with the handbrake firmly locked on. In your case, there are no wheels at all.
You're saying homosexuality is a sin; are you saying it's a lifestyle choice? I am not attracted to men in any way shape or form and certainly couldn't force myself to be, so I fail to see how anyone can believe that sexual orientation is a personal choice. It's natural inclination; you're either one way or the other (or both, to be fair). There can be no doubt that the gay community has had to deal with a lot of prejudice, and I would go as far as to say that most of that prejudice comes from the so called 'good' book and it's ancient incitement to murder, irrespective of Andrew's genuine attempts to remove the influence of the words of leviticus on the modern christian.

Ryan

Humans will continue to make small, painful, excruciating steps when we could make our lives alot easier- but I guess hell would freeze over before you ever thought you could be part of the problem. I think your ego and your religion are too well entwined to ever question your beliefs.

I think your ego and clichés are too well entwined for you to ever speak intelligibly.

Interesting thatt you think making a legitimate comment about Leviticus is somehow inane.

I didn't say your comment about Leviticus was inane; pay attention.

Incidentally, if you want to know why I quote posts and then comment, this is a case in point.

Simply because you feel certain unpalatable bits have been explained away.

I didn't say I find them unpalatable nor did I 'explain them away'. If you want to say that Christians are obligated by the civil and ceremonial law, in the same sense, as given to Israel that requires something more than quoting texts from Leviticus.

You come to the bible with preconceptions about what it is and how it should be understood and then you criticise Christians based on what you understand they ought to believe. Maybe you should spend more time reading what Christians of different traditions actually believe.

Anything can be twisted and changed to serve your views. This has happened for centuries, so there's realy no point wasting my time on you.

Yes, rather than deal with what I have said just throw the arms up.

Let's hope life will teach you to question some of your more arrogant assertions

Let's hope you find yourself a mirror.

Sensitive to stimuli- I wonder why lol- shame you're too prudish to even use the word erogenous

I've used the word erogenous several times in the previous posts, do you practice ineptitude or does it come naturally?

You want to make a connection between erogenous zones and homosexuality, so make it.

No. There is nothing I could ever say to you to even open your mind even slightly, Yuu just dig in harder. I know when to not waste my time on a lost cause.

If you're so interested in erogenous zones and sexuality why don't you explore your own body or find someone to explore it for you. I think it's best don't you? Nothing Im going to say to you is going to be any better than finding out for yourself ;) x

No. There is nothing I could ever say to you to even open your mind even slightly, Yuu just dig in harder. I know when to not waste my time on a lost cause.

I've been asking you to defend what you have claimed re Christianity and biblical interpretation, and the significance of erogenous zones as justification for homosexuality.

Rather than address the criticisms and questions I have asked on these you have deployed the ejector seat.

Although I do agree, you're arguments are a lost cause and spending any more time on them is wasteful for both of us - I see that now.

Goodness Andrew- I gave you an opportunity to prove it yourself by exploring your body- I know you enjoy the cut and thrust of argument and to be fair- your gushings are very eloquent- even if the basis for them isn't. But be a good chap and try and open your mind to the possibility the Bible isn't infallible and many of Westerns Societies greatest leaps have come from approaching the texts in a gentler , metaphorical way. And as I said earlier, the best way to answer your own questions is to go ahead and experience it yourself

Otherwise maybe we just have to accept that we take our interpretations of the Bible very much in the spirit that we've been raised and agree to disagree.Yours coming across to me as the coarser,more literal, less tolerant, less inclusive interpretation. I wonder if you feel because you hold a consensus of opinion with other conservative Christians that somehow legitimises your feelings, when a few hundred years ago , if you were made to stand up alone to your peers in that age , you may be seen as a liberal and depending on what country , perhaps a heretic and burned. It's interesting that tolerance and inclusiveness isn't a reward for being devout in conservative Christianity.Throughout Christian history it's been the Conservative devout vs Conservative devout that have ripped each other apart- and it hasn't been for a lack of interpretating the Bible literally or taking it seriously

Andrew: For me the bible contains wisdom and folly, truth and untruth. In my search I have come across many sources of wisdom and this combined with my experiences informs my knowing of God. As such it is very clear to me that there is a huge amount of stuff that is 'out there' in the world in religion and teachings of one kind or another that is completely erroneous about God. You may say that is just my opinion or my wish or my belief - but for me it is much more than that. The God that most traditional christian religion portrays is not the God of my experience. My experience of God is a God of pure love - totally accepting of all no matter where they are at, absolutely no condemnation or judgment of any kind of anybody. You/others may find that hard to believe or accept because u have been indoctrinated to believe otherwise - but everyone can come to know and experience the God that is unconditional love if they so choose.

Ryan

But be a good chap and try and open your mind to the possibility the Bible isn't infallible

Since we haven't been discussing biblical infallibility this is besides the point.

So far I haven't been bothered with whether or not Christian claims regarding homosexuality are true. I have been addressing this 'literal/metaphorical' rubric which you seem to insist on.

Don't get me wrong, you can interpret the bible how you like, and equally I can disagree with that interpretation, but what you can't do is repeat dog eared retorts to Christians about Levitical law when it is manifestly obvious that you haven't the slightest clue of how Christians have understood Israel's - and it's laws - relationship to the New Testament.

I gave you one example, from the Westminster Confession, of a threefold division of the law, which you claimed was an attempt to explain away the unpalatable bits. That's as maybe but if this threefold division can be justified from Scripture is irrelevant. It is an example of how a particular Christian tradition - although the threefold division existed long before the Westminster Assembly - understood Israel's laws in the New Testament.

All this to say that quoting Leviticus or Deuteronomy in an attempt to embarrass a Christian as inconsistent - Look! Leviticus says man shouldn't lie with man but it also says you shouldn't mix fabrics - you who says homosexuality is wrong, do you wear two different fabrics? - is puerile.

On final observation; disagreeing with someone or something is not intolerant. Employing the language, running in meadows, picking wild flowers, and speaking in hushed tones before you attempt to cudgel someone who believes that homosexuality is wrong, is not tolerance.

You can believe what you want, that's your choice. But it would be a choice based on personal ignorance to make that decision without exploring your own body first and using the opportunity to find out whether or not you're designed to respond to the stimuli of gay sex and if you do indeed believe we are made in Gods image. Perhaps when you understand your body by experiencing your erogenous zones in the way homosexual sex is conducted it might make you angry at God for designing the human body to respond that way- but that's just how it's designed- and who knows what Gods reasons are.

Perhaps it's just as important for human beings to love and be intimate with members of the same sex as the opposite. Perhaps in more tolerant times it oils the cogs of society. Allowing men to be gentler with each other and to understand each other better, rather than compete against each other aggressively which might stunt the creativity and the fragile stability of rich, diverse, harmonious cultures.

I guess maybe in your lifetime you might find out for yourself and enter into a personal dialogue with God about how your body responds rather than relying on a 3rd party to relay it to you in the form of ancient text- Perhaps trusting your own experiences is better than relying on theory.

Many gay people live their lives with dignity and show respect for others which deserves reciprocated. Our bodies may be designed for the sexual act , but if you can accept sexuality as a spectrum, for someone to come out as Gay isn't a step that is taken lightly. For many it's made alot harder if the society you live in is antagonistic towards it. That people in Iran and other countries risk getting locked up and killed because of who they are & how they feel is a crime against humanity. That religion is used as the basis for this is depressing.

In a religious context, it's no different from the intolerance of one religious group toward the other. The intolerance Catholic societies showed towards Protestants by rounding them up and killing them & vice versa or the intolerance in Islamic countries between Sunni , shia, sufi, Kharijite etc

I can't emphasize enough that we have to be actively tolerant of each other and not persecute someone for being different. At least suspend belief or accept it's not up to us to decide or legislate against. That if there is a God then he will relate to us as individual souls

Ryan_

When you say actively tolerant, I understand what you mean, but I disagree, what is required for society to operate with equality and dare I say it, parity of esteem, is acceptance. I do not mean that people like Andrew or newthornley or mcc or theophane or Iris have to accept that what I am is right or wrong, I do not care what they believe or think, what is required is that they accept, without prejudice, that I have the right to be an equal member of society, be free from denigrating comments and treated with the same respect and dignity as they expect for themselves.

People of religion seem quite free with words like abomination, perversion, intrinsically evil, disordered etc when they describe me. That is not acceptance, dignity or respect. It's not even tolerance (never mind actually defensible as truth with evidence). It is rude, mean spirited and damaging to a significant proportion of our society. A part of society they shun when it comes to help and support.

If they want to me to start characterising them all as mentally deranged schizo's I can, if they want me to oppose every religious freedom with cries of delusion and mental instability I can, I mean how many have heard voices in their heads?. If they want me to equate their brainwashing of children with child abuse and bestiality I can do that too. This is after all what they accuse aggressive secularists of doing and maybe that will be the only way to to make them realise that religion is personal and the rest of us are not fodder to be argued over.

Not sure where it will get us.

The phrase "Some people are gay, get over it" springs to mind. We have been here for as long as anyone knows, we are not going anywhere (we cannot be converted any more than they, or anyone else, could be converted to homosexuality). Maybe its time to stop all these lies about lifestyles and choosing to be gay, the people creating these lies know they are lies, maybe the people propagating them have never actually checked to see if they are true but they should. They need to ask themselves at what point they chose to be straight.

The best thing they can do is accept it and move on.

They could stop telling lies about homosexuality or stop winding up Africans and lying to them. ( They tell Africans that as we cannot procreate we are invading Africa to recruit children, how sick a lie is that). They could recognise the damage they do by ostracising a section of the community and stop their incessant opposition to it. They could recognise that there are people who have committed suicide because they teach everyone, gay and straight, how much of an abomination it is from birth. They could recognise that they give justification for gay people to be abused and beaten up, and even killed, on the street.

They won't though because historically they have lost out on slavery, are losing on misogyny and the disabled are allowed to the alter. Fornicators and adulterers laugh at them with impunity and for all the screaming and shouting, contraception and abortion are available when required.

Homosexuals is where all their attention is fixed in a vain attempt to create some sort of societal enemy for their god to have his wrath against. It could also be they are too proud to admit they may be wrong and can't lose face.

Maybe if they cared as little for what I believe and do as I care for what they believe and do we would be in a more equitable society.

One last thing, I heard today the Whitewell Church/Catholic Church argument going on, do these churches not realise that whatever soul we have is ours, not theirs, and that we are not animals to be fought over as if some hustler (and they appear that way) is on the prowl. I found the whole thing very sad from both sides as neither has any respect for the wishes,hopes, beliefs or aspirations of the people, they just want souls for their particular god, or money in their coffers, or numbers to lie about a consensus - very sad.

Andrew,

One question for you,

I understand this 3 way split you have with regards to the Levitican law, whether I agree or not is irrelevant, but it begs the question if the sin is as valid today as it was then, how did the punishment get watered down it is in the same sentence which you seem to think applies.

If it is not watered down then why are homosexuals not called on by the church to be stoned as they are in Iran or hung as they want in Uganda (supported by the UK Christian Voice mouthpiece Stephen Green). Is that not what your bible says.

If not and there has been a watering down of the punishment why do I have to hear it from preachers in the street and protesters at pride parades, you cannot have it both ways, as I have said before on this blog I have had the "man lies with man will be put to death and his blood will be upon him" meted out on my back with a drunken boot. (well he tried bless him, he missed a lot of the time coz he was so drunk).

So my question in short is

If the sin applies why does the punishment not, and if the punishment has been removed why does it still get quoted, or can I assume it is just because preachers like shouting about death and damnation - it scares the punters and keeps them in line - not.

Andrew, the bible states that homosexuality is wrong; it states a lot of things are wrong and even suggests (or explicitly orders) various repercussions for those who act in certain ways. You can try to explain Levitican law away all you want, but that actually suggests it is easy for believers to pick and choose what they want to follow from their holy book. The bible preaches intolerance and even hatred in certain areas. I understand your defence of what you hold dear, but to many it looks like all you are doing is defying the alleged laws of the god you follow.

In a different thread during discussions with your good self I mentioned Jesus's words from the bible which suggests that ALL the laws stand as they were written and must be followed; the "I have come not to abolish but to fulfill" passage from Matthew. Of course, you responded with a typical lash out at my supposed ignorance but it was a legitimate point and has relevance here. Please explain to those of us obviously dwarfed by your impressive knowledge why the laws of leviticus have no bearing if even your apparant saviour seems to say they have. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that half the statements are quite nasty whilst the other half are downright silly...

Dave: any crime against humanity, of man against man for whatever reason - is evil and does not come from God. It is impossible. That many use God for their reasons does not in fact mean it comes from God. It comes from the bastardisation of teachings, from people's own lack of self-acceptance and self hatred that is projected onto others be they gay or different race or whatever. The more one is able to accept oneself warts and all, the more one accepts others from all walks of life - so all the people who don't accept you - don't accept themselves and they have to do the latter in order to do the former. The real 'enemy' they have is themselves.
That a 'Christian' should be calling for gay people to be hung or any sort of punishment, name-calling, abuse etc as you mention - is an oxymoron. To be Christ is to embody the love and light of God - and no-one who does that would do any of the things mentioned above - totally impossible. It only shows up how far removed they are from the Christ.

There is what God is, what CHrist is - and that is love with total acceptance of all and then there are the mis-interpretations, the bastardisations, the false teachings, the indoctrination and the absolute pure evil that people then portray as the word of God that is so far removed from it - unfortunately it is usually the latter that people get to experience esp in NI and hence get turned off and turned away from ever knowing the former of what God really is. I feel it is important to make that distinction.

Eunice, I understand what you're saying about Jesus as complete love and total acceptance, but the same point I made to Andrew stands against that; Jesus's words claiming all the laws (leviticus included) must be obeyed and that he had arrived to fulfil not aboilsh. Another passage (from Matthew again) I recall stands at odds with the picture of Jesus the love-bringer. Excuse my attempt at exact recollection of the verse:

"“Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace on earth! I bring a sword against you if you love your family more than me, and then you are unworthy of me"

It is verses like this that seem contradictory to the supposed message of the bible and the NT in particular. There are many more, but how can some be seen as valid and others laid aside as and when convenient? I don't say this from an argumental point of view but as a genuine point of interest.

Eunice,

I get what you say, but my issue is not the loving or hating nature of god nor is it has one interpretation of scripture more credibility than another. My issue is where these beliefs impact on my life. My way of arguing is to expose the lies made up to bolster religious beliefs and to counter the 'sacred right of interference' of irrelevant ideas into my life.

E-Volve is debating the internal hypocrisy evident in these scriptures and the variable interpretations which is a different (and very important discussion especially for believers and of academic interest to non believers) The outcome of those discussions still should not impact on my life. I do however feel for my friends who are gay and of faith, these issues are deeply relevant and conflicting for them.

The outcome of those discussions still should not impact on my life.

I agree, but unfortunately many people of faith want their pov to impact directly on your life. I believe if recognising the total daftness of the contradictions and hypocrisy in the bible can enable even one person to step away from the evil confidence in intolerance gifted to them via biblical interpretation, then it's a worthwhile debate here. The views of Andrew etc are based on their beliefs, and they need to understand that the life they lead and the book they follow should not have any impact on your life or mine. The supreme position of 'right' held by people of faith must be challenged, particularly when they attempt to condemn or destroy.

E-Volve,
I completely agree with you and in no way was I wishing to undermine the discourse you are having. I was merely pointing out that there were two discussions going on here. The debate you are engaged in is important to me as well because if I cannot persuade these folk from interfering and being rude on a basis of live and let live and mutual respect for our respective rights then I too will have to engage in a debate to undermine their stories and their beliefs so they lose their religious justifications for their actions and prejudices. Separately to my own (perhaps selfish) motives I also have concerns about them spreading their beliefs hence I too would wish to curtail their access to children etc. If they wish to brainwash children, then it should only be their own and not everyone else's. Maybe I should engage more in both debates?

Dave, well said sir. I think our points are linked and we're coming from the same place. These debates can be both illuminating and deeply disturbing ala newthornley but I welcome them all the same.

Euince

You/others may find that hard to believe or accept because u have been indoctrinated to believe otherwise - but everyone can come to know and experience the God that is unconditional love if they so choose.

Golly-gosh, why don't I just say you find what I believe hard to accept because you have been indoctrinated, would that balance the account?


Ryan

You can believe what you want, that's your choice. But it would be a choice based on personal ignorance to make that decision without exploring your own body first and using the opportunity to find out whether or not you're designed to respond to the stimuli of gay sex and if you do indeed believe we are made in Gods image. Perhaps when you understand your body by experiencing your erogenous zones in the way homosexual sex is conducted it might make you angry at God for designing the human body to respond that way- but that's just how it's designed- and who knows what Gods reasons are.

Perhaps you should try stimulating the erogenous zone between your two ears with some rational massage.

Dave

I understand this 3 way split you have with regards to the Levitican law, whether I agree or not is irrelevant, but it begs the question if the sin is as valid today as it was then, how did the punishment get watered down it is in the same sentence which you seem to think applies.

For now I'm not saying I agree with the threefold division I am giving it as an example of how many Christians have understood the law as given to Israel and it's significance in the New Testament. And I give it as an example to show that opponents of the Christian view of homosexuality are not interacting with Christianity intelligently when they quote certain verses from Leviticus.

The short answer to your question is that the punishment for homosexuality - sin - hasn't been watered down; it's still death.

A slightly longer answer - picking up the threefold distinction in the WCF as an example - is that the punishment for homosexuality in Old Testament Israel was a civil law of that state, which, as the Westminster Confession says, has since expired and so the judicial law-code with it. The expiration of the judicial is not the expiration of the sin, which is a consequence of the moral law. This does not mean, that the civil law given to Israel is irrelevant as far as justice goes, it just means we are not obligated by it in the same sense as Israel was.

The relationship between the Old and New Testaments is not a simple issue, not least regarding the issue of law. I don't want to give the impression that it is, or that everyone is in agreement; they aren't.

It's also worth pointing out that Leviticus isn't the only place the bible condemns homosexuality - so it is hardly inappropriate to quote Leviticus 18:22 for this purpose.

E-volve

Andrew, the bible states that homosexuality is wrong; it states a lot of things are wrong and even suggests (or explicitly orders) various repercussions for those who act in certain ways.

I sure know the bible states homosexuality is wrong - and I'm happy to agree with it.

To whom does it recommend various 'repercussions for those who act in certain ways'?

You can try to explain Levitican law away all you want, but that actually suggests it is easy for believers to pick and choose what they want to follow from their holy book.

Of course that I am trying to explain away the 'Levitican law' is just a question begging assertion. It is also overlooks what I have been saying, Christians understand the Old Testament through the New so to quote Leviticus on mixed fabrics and shellfish as a counter argument to a Christian quoting Leviticus on homosexuality fails to engage with why a Christian thinks they can quote Leviticus on homosexuality without being obligated to throw their coat in the skip.

Perhaps after Ryan's finished massaging his brain, if you ask him nicely he might do the same for you.

I mentioned Jesus's words from the bible which suggests that ALL the laws stand as they were written and must be followed; the "I have come not to abolish but to fulfill" passage from Matthew

No, that's what you say it means. There are alternatives, one is that the whole law still applies but it doesn't necessarily apply in the same sense since the coming of Christ. For instance John Frame writes:

'In one sense, no law of God is ever set aside or abrogated (Matt. 5:17-20). But there are some laws that, because of events in redemptive history, we come to observe, in our new covenant age, in very different ways from what God asked of the old covenant Israelites. The commands to worship God by sacrifice, for example, continue to be normative but we now worship by the sacrifice of Christ...What I mean is that such laws are no longer to be literally obeyed.' The Doctrine of the Christian Life pg210n.

Another - known as New Covenant Theology - is that the Old Testament laws were fulfilled in the death of Christ, at which point a new law - the law of Christ - was instituted.

Both of these views obviously do not rely on Matthew 5 only , they try to look at the bible as a whole and understand what it teaches. Some books like the epistle to the Hebrews have lots to say about the relationship between the Old Covenant and the New.

The basic point is that the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New, there are continuities and discontinuities. There are differences between Christians what this fulfilment means but all are agreed that much of the Old Testament does not apply to a Christian in same sense it applied to the Israelites.

Please explain to those of us obviously dwarfed by your impressive knowledge why the laws of leviticus have no bearing if even your apparant saviour seems to say they have.

Since that is not the argument I have been making I'll pass on the request.

Evolve - this is where discernment comes in - I don't accept all that is in the bible as true, I don't accept all that is said about Jesus as true - I feel what resonates with me as truth and is consonant with the God of love that I know. My experiences and understandings based on wisdom teachings inform my knowing/my views such that many of my views are contrary to what is taught in traditional christianity - yet they are totally based on love. I would point out that some of the understandings re love are very different to what is commonly held in the human experience of love and is not the 'warm fuzzies' that Helio keeps saying. Most human love is emotional and based on the unmet needs we have within ourselves - rather than the true fiery love that we are in essence, that is ever present, that loves all unconditionally irrespective of the story (that does not mean that abuse/evil etc is tolerated of course).
So I leave aside those that I know are not consistent with love and I affirm those that I know are consistent with love. For me this is evolving - and it changes the more aware I become re the true nature of love and what is loving - and that changes the more self-loving I become and feel the harm that not being self loving does to my body.

Dave: I agree - all these lies should be exposed - they are very harming indeed. Hopefully your friends of faith can feel that those are lies also and ignore the false teachings and come to know for themselves that God loves them deeply, always has and always will.
Re impact on your life - I agree that these lies etc are very harming where they cause one man to feel he has dominion over another in a way that is abusive, rude, denigrating, hateful, harmfull of any kind. The fact is we all impact each other every day all of the time - whether we are religious or not and whether we are aware of it or not. Bottom line is we are either harming or healing each other all of the time in a broad sense. IMV it is by each of us taking responsiblity for all that we say, think and do and endeavouring to come from love of self and each other that that impact will be healing rather than harming.

Andrew: I accept what you believe is true for you and I accept you - but I do not accept those beliefs as being true for me. I rejected religion at a young age and had nothing to do with God/religion/spiritual stuff for many years - so I have not been indoctrinated as I rejected everything. In my subsequent search I have not been indoctrinated because I do not just accept things at face value or because a book says so or a person says so - it has to resonate with me as truth and to feel consonant with the wisdom of love. If I come across a teacher that resonates with me as being wise, more informed/evolved I will listen and accept more openly what he or she has to say - but ultimately its still down to me and my choices to accept or reject what I hear. I am not bound.

I think if anything Andrew your attitude needs a massage, then you can start exploring that body of yours. Most extended families have a gay member, whether closeted or open. I hope you treat them well ;)

Anyway, you carry on with your pick n mix Christianity. You can dress it up anyway you want. You're the product of a coarse and waring society and nothing in your manner would indicate you could raise future generations any differently

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Anyway, you carry on with your pick n mix Christianity. You can dress it up anyway you want. You're the product of a coarse and waring society and nothing in your manner would indicate you could raise future generations any differently

I'm happy to leave it here; you have singularly failed to engage with what I have said (#40) criticising your earlier comments and since. Instead you've resorted to nebulous warbling nothing to do with it.

Oh well.

Andrew, you're starting to rival old LSV when it comes to misdirection, non-answers and non-engagement. You use as many fine words as possible to say pretty much nothing, which is a talent so I salute you sir. Of course, you just resort to the usual condecending attacks, but hey that's fine with me; your methods are a bit obvious and actually not that effective. The fact is your 'points' and the reasons behind your beliefs on the issue of homosexuality have nothing to back them up and actually offer further proof to the athiest contention that followers of the bible simply make it up as they go along, discarding whatever they feel like and reading certian things as they want to read them. Nothing you have written so much as even dents that assertion, despite your lyrical if misguided posts.
As for the ancient laws and JC's words you say:
"No, that's what you say it means. There are alternatives, one is that the whole law still applies but it doesn't necessarily apply in the same sense since the coming of Christ."
What a load of convenient nonsense! Yet more evidence of trying to put a square peg in a round hole and feebly explaining away the laws which you should be apparantly following. The fact that you can so casually throw out certain viewpoints on the bible followed by various areas of christianity only serves to bring about an 'oh come ON, wise up' reaction. Looking at your words and realising that you can't look rationally at this whole area for discussion makes me wonder if you're the type to eat yellow snow. Here's a tip: don't.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Andrew, you're starting to rival old LSV when it comes to misdirection, non-answers and non-engagement.

E-volve, you're starting to rival old Ryan when it comes to misdirection, non-answers and non-engagement.

The fact is your 'points' and the reasons behind your beliefs on the issue of homosexuality have nothing to back them up and actually offer further proof to the athiest contention that followers of the bible simply make it up as they go along, discarding whatever they feel like and reading certian things as they want to read them.

If you check back on this thread I don't think you'll find me trying to defend my views on homosexuality. I have said I believe it to be wrong, but I don't recall trying to defend that proposition in any detail. This was never my purpose.

As for picking and choosing from the bible, well that's just another way of saying 'Hey Christian! You say man shouldn't lie with man then how come you're wearing a shirt and a jacket, and didn't I see you last week eating pork?' You have yet to establish that Christians are being inconsistent by quoting Leviticus on homosexuality whilst chewing on some bacon and by the same token you have yet to establish the picking and choosing.

You can only do this by refuting different Christian positions on the OT in the NT. Yet they are either ignored or they are dismissed without argument.

As for the ancient laws and JC's words you say:"No, that's what you say it means. There are alternatives, one is that the whole law still applies but it doesn't necessarily apply in the same sense since the coming of Christ." What a load of convenient nonsense!

You have simply assumed your view of Matthew 5:17-20, and now, in a moment of what I can only assume is evolutionary regression, you're beating your chest about it. But you don't get to make your understanding the default position, it is something you have to argue for. Quoting Matthew 5v17 and going see, see! SEE!, that just won't cut it.

I'm not going to take the time to go through all the issues that arise from law and fulfilment but I want to make some observations that undermine your reading of the text.

1) D.A. Carson in his commentary on Matthew notes that the word fulfil (pleroo) is used 16 times in Matthew and every time it refers to the prophetic fulfilment of the Old Testament; given this , the best interpretation of Matt 5:17 is that the entirety of the Old Testament - 'the law and prophets' - points to Christ and so finds it's completion in Him.

2) If this is true then in v18 when Christ says that 'until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished' ESV must be taken in the same sense i.e. Prophetic fulfilment.

3) In v19 there is a switch from the prophetic fulfilment in v17-18 to obeying the law but, as Carson also points out, the nature of this obedience is altered by the fulfilment of the law and the prophets which Christ claims of himself.

4) This gives good grounding for asking how did Christ fulfil Old Testament law, and one way suggested previously is the sacrificial laws of the Old Testament find their fulfilment in the sacrifice of Christ for our sins; we are no longer to obey the sacrificial laws of the Old Testament by slaughtering livestock etc we are to look to the sacrifice of Christ for the remission of sins (cf. Hebrews 8 & 9) .

5) From 5:22-48 Christ goes on to repudiate the Pharisaic corruption of the Mosaic law and establishes the Mosaic law itself against this corruption. This seems clear from v20 which contrasts the righteousness of the Pharisees' with the righteousness of the Kingdom of God.

6) In these verses there is both confirmation and fulfilment; yes, we are to obey the law but how we are to obey the law is intimately connected to Christ who is its fulfilment both legally and prophetically. So that Vern Poythress can write:

Thus Matt. 5:17-19 asserts in a sweeping and direct fashion what the rest of Matthew illustrates in detail: Jesus in his person and his ministry brings to realization and fulfillment the whole warp and woof of Old Testament revelation, including the revelation of the law. The whole law points to him and its purposes find their realization in him. All the commandments of the law are binding on Christians (7:19), but the way in which they are binding is determined by the authority of Christ and the fulfillment that takes place in his work. In the Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses Chapter 17 pg 268 (This book can be found online for free here - the removed post quoted a larger section)

One example to finish off is the dietary laws of the Old Testament where a division was made between clean and unclean foods. In Matthew 15:10-20 and in Mark 7:14-23 particularly, Christ intimates that we are no longer to literally observe this distinction - all foods are clean - and it is more explicitly stated in Acts, Colossians and 1st Timothy. But we are still to observe the distinction between clean and unclean as it was symbolically intended, in the sense that we should abstain from sin.

Yet more evidence of trying to put a square peg in a round hole and feebly explaining away the laws which you should be apparantly following.

Of course the conclusion that I should be obeying them as you suggest only follows if I am obligated to.

Looking at your words and realising that you can't look rationally at this whole area for discussion makes me wonder if you're the type to eat yellow snow. Here's a tip: don't.

Hmm, are you sure? I wonder what the syllogism would look like...

P1 Snow mixed with urine is yellow
P2 This snow is yellow
C Therefore the snow is mixed with urine

Does the conclusion follow? How about this...

P1Some snow is yellow because it has urine in it
P2 Don't eat [ingest] urine
C Therefore don't eat yellow snow

I'm just wondering because in December, during the coldsnap I got some snow from out back and made a banana flavoured snow cone, as memory serves it was yellow.

Looking at your words and realising you can't even look rationally at this eating yellow snow business I'm left wondering if you're the type that wears t-shirts saying 'been there and got the t-shirt' without having actually been there and got the t-shirt. Here's a tip: don't.

Andrew

This debate comes around often on here, so I'll throw my tuppence worth in - again.

You'll find absolutely nothing about homosexuality from the mouth of Jesus. You will however, find page after page after page where Jesus slaughters those religious people who - in their selfrighteousness - point an accusing finger at the perceived sin of others, while ignoring there own.

This is a man who loved prostitutes, lepers, the outcast, the poor, the sinner and, if his story is to be believed, there is every reason to assume that he would have loved homosexuals too purely on the basis that they are attacked and condemned by the Pharisees of today.

If Bible thumpers could only make a slight shift in there view point from crying "stop sinning!" to what I believe Jesus was saying, "Dont do things which will cause you harm or which will harm others, dont exploit others, dont act selfishly, dont be cruel or unkind to others - or to yourself, dont do things which will bring misery to yourself or others", then all of this nonsense about identifying sins, listing them and grading them in terms of seriousness, would cease. Pharisees would then see PEOPLE (people with names) instead of SINNERS and we'd all be a lot happier - especially the Pharisees.

Well said Romejellybeen. You're reply contrasted with Andrew shows the difference between those who *try* to be good using theory and those who express the natural love, gentleness and empathy we all have instilled- if it's cultivated.
God forbid I was ever marooned on an Island with a bunch of people, but one things for sure- I'd feel safer with people who think and feel like Romejellybeen than the religiously conservative or fundamentalist

You're right Ryan, we'd probably eat you. Although after having finished our meal we'd be awfully sorry about it, what with all the cultivated love, gentleness and empathy we would have just consumed.

Oh Andrea you are a hoot. You're like a dog with a bone. I wish you'd leave my bone alone. You say clean /unclean food laws are *symbolic*. Where exactly does it say it is symbolic?
It seems like you're just being carried along with a consensus of interpretation. The majority of Jews and Muslims follow their consensus of interpretation and still adhere to clean/unclean food laws.
I think we have to agree that we hold each others views in very, very low esteem and leave it at that

OYou say clean /unclean food laws are *symbolic*. Where exactly does it say it is symbolic?

No that's not what I said.

The requirement to literally observe the dietary laws was removed, did you even bother to check the verses I cited? They now function as didactic symbols of a Christian's duty to remain clean from sinfulness, for although the literal observance of the cleanliness laws (of which the dietary laws are a part) is no longer required the New Testament still employs the clean/unclean rubric.

The majority of Jews and Muslims follow their consensus of interpretation and still adhere to clean/unclean food laws.

Jews don't accept the New Testament so that is hardly surprising, and Islam has the Koran and the Hadith, so I'm not sure why you think it is significant that orthodox Jews and Muslims observe dietary laws and Christians' do not - Christians have good reasons not to.

E-volve (@ 73) -

"...you're starting to rival old LSV when it comes to misdirection, non-answers and non-engagement."

Do feel free to elaborate on this.

(I can't help harbouring a suspicion that I am being accused of these things, because I draw conclusions that are not to the liking of those who are levelling this charge against me. According to the evidence of this blog, it is clear that in the minds of such people, 'logic' is mysteriously redefined as 'verbiage' or it is relegated to the status of 'merely subjective' and therefore irrelevant - and that by people who claim the name of 'rationalist'!!)

Lol @ "they *now* function as didactic symbols"- Yes to suit consensus opinion and interpretation. How wonderful that you can make it all seem so perfectly clear.

RJB - agreed - tho I'd summarise wot u said with love urself.....love others......(the latter follows on from the former) and then all the things u mention not to do and to do etc would be included in that. :-)

Lol @ "Yes to suit consensus opinion and interpretation. How wonderful that you can make it all seem so perfectly clear." This is just assertion, if you think what I have argued is incorrect don't just assert it, show it!

Andrew,

Everything you have said is assertion, you have no evidence for your assertions, (cue mad max, sorry LSV)

Andrew, where is the evidence for anything you have said, I do not mean about the argument as to the obvious hypocrisy and conflict in your book, I mean any evidence that your religion is in any way true. LSV will try and argue from some daft philosophical position, which was laughed at centuries ago and in reality only he holds to (but at least it gives the rest of us a laugh)

LSV, Accusing you of misdirection is crediting you with too much intelligence, you do not understand logic nor do you understand inference, when I studied these things some other people like you did't pass the exam either, don't take it to heart.

Everything you have said is assertion, you have no evidence for your assertions, (cue mad max, sorry LSV)

Dave

Everything you have said is assertion, you have no evidence for your assertions

Andrew, where is the evidence for anything you have said, I do not mean about the argument as to the obvious hypocrisy and conflict in your book,

If it's obvious then you'll have no trouble showing that. I have made two arguments;

1) When Christians quote Leviticus on homosexuality they are routinely responded to by critics with other verses from Leviticus on food, clothes etc in an attempt to show that the Christian is being inconsistent in calling for obedience to one law and not another. I have argued that since Christians understand the Old Testament through the New, and in ways which they think allows them to quote Leviticus on homosexuality without falling into this inconsistency then the only way to show they are being inconsistent is to refute how they understand the Old Testament in the New. I have provided two opposing examples of this, the threefold division of the law in chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession and latterly, and briefly, New Covenant Theology.

2) Latterly E-volve brought up Matthew 5:17-20. He believes it says that the Old Testament is binding in the New Testament in exactly the same way. I have offered a brief exegesis of these verses (#75) arguing that v17-18 is prophetic fulfilment - the law and the prophets point to Christ and he is their completion - and subsequently his confirmation of the Mosaic law must be understood in the light of that fulfilment. I provided two examples of how Christ has altered how we are to obey the Mosaic law, 1) sacrificial laws and 2) declaring that all foods are clean without renouncing the import of clean/unclean. In the first case I referred you Hebrews 8&9 and in the second to where Jesus declared all foods clean in Matthew and Mark, have you read these citations?

I realise you may have trouble identifying arguments since you're so accustomed to calling the assertions you produce arguments, but these are arguments Dave.

I mean any evidence that your religion is in any way true.

Why would I need to provide evidence that my religion is true for the arguments I have made to be valid?

Try to stay on target.

LSV, Accusing you of misdirection is crediting you with too much intelligence, you do not understand logic nor do you understand inference, when I studied these things some other people like you did't pass the exam either, don't take it to heart.

Was there a floating pass mark?

Andrew, from your post 33 to Eunice "Why take the God's image and God is love stuff but not the rest?" You've spent a significant amount of posts explaining which bits of the Bible no longer conform to the accepted consensus today in Conservative Christian thought. It's ironic thats it's been you who has been deleting bits and telling us which bits are now symbolic.Much of what you level at others doesn't differ from what a Christian a few hundred years ago would have leveled at you - perhaps for being *soft* and *fluffy* and not self-flagulating

There are mystical traditions which have been left by the wayside for the past few hundred years. To quote "We lost the older Tradition of
“praying beyond words” as the entire Western and Eastern Churches became quite preoccupied with words and proving words to be true or false. This is the only period that Protestantism and Evangelicals have ever known."

Im curious, are there any parts of the Bible, outside of the general Conservative consensus, that you treat symbolically or don't adhere to?

You've spent a significant amount of posts explaining which bits of the Bible no longer conform to the accepted consensus today in Conservative Christian thought.

I'm not sure how to take this statement Ryan. Do you think I'm departing from the 'conservative consensus'?

You've been explaining which parts of the Bible you no longer engage with, and how this is advanced by some circles of Conservative Christian thought