|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why is the public discourse of the Church of England dominated by Dead Horses?
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
There is a reason the NEW Testament/Covenant is so called.
Oh, indeed. But this does not mean that there isn't a lot in the Old Testament about an Established Church. It might not mean we should do things that way. But it provides plenty of precedents on how established churches work, that are useful for instruction and reproof.
What it does mean is that the passage in Leviticus you cite is completely and utterly irrelevant.
quote:
The Song of Solomon is pretty enthusiastic, I'd have thought. And Genesis 1/27 and 2/24, and the use Jesus makes of them in Mark 10/Matt 19, are to say the least strong endorsements of straight sex, and can't really be said to encourage gay sex.
The Song of Songs I'll grant - it says that some sex is good. Jesus approved of marriage - no question about that.
quote:
To say that "no one I have ever heard says that Christians must condone adulterous sex" is a silly argument - of course the Bible does not endorse the misuse of God's gift.
And this is completely missing the point of why adultery is wrong. It's a breach of commitment. If the gift giver still has control over how the gift was used it was not a gift in the first place. It was a loan. Which is admittedly a nice thing to do. But gifts come without strings attached.
quote:
Yes, the Bible does include the extremely clear statement that you must love your neighbour as yourself. It occurs, I note, in Leviticus 19; 18. Part of the same book as ch20 v13, "13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.
Lev 20:13 (NIV). By normal standards of interpretation it is unlikely that the two texts are contradictory...
Yes, it occurs in Leviticus. As a Christian who believes in the New Covenant that is not where you should be looking. There are two much more relevant citations of the same rule - Matthew: 22:39 and Mark 12:31 (Also in Matthew 19 and probably other places)
That it also appears in the Old Covenant which you yourself discount is irrelevant. It's one of the pieces also cited by Jesus - making it relevant.
Further, and again assuming the NT is the New Covenant we have (albeit not directly from Jesus)
1 John 4:20 (and the rest of the chapter)
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
If you are genuinely saying that having people put to death is anything to do with loving them then you need help. And that you need to go to a source that you in the same post say is subsidiary shows just how thin your case is.
quote:
The point I was making is that the CofE faces unusual problems over these issues because of its established status, which is why its public discourse is currently dominated by these DH issues.
And my point is that this is nonsense. The CofE has a huge soapbox it could be using. It could be going out and seeking out the injustices in the world to oppose. But last time it did that it came out second best morally to wonga.com.
Instead, as Soror Magna says, they don't have anything better to do. So they are dealing with the issues that come to them.
quote:
For the record I'm quite happy for the state to make provision for same sex marriage for those whose beliefs include that. Forcing my beliefs on others is no part of my Christianity. Being free to believe the Bible rather than the politically correct is part of my Christianity.
You know it's amazing how almost every time people object to political correctness they mean either (a) based on a strawman or (b) they don't want to be a decent human being who treats others with respect. In this post you've cited approvingly the notion we should stone gay people.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
The point I was making is that the CofE faces unusual problems over these issues because of its established status, which is why its public discourse is currently dominated by these DH issues.
And my point is that this is nonsense. The CofE has a huge soapbox it could be using. It could be going out and seeking out the injustices in the world to oppose. But last time it did that it came out second best morally to wonga.com.
Instead, as Soror Magna says, they don't have anything better to do. So they are dealing with the issues that come to them.
IMO the CofE's 'huge moral soapbox' is compromised firstly because it's shackled to the state and the state's agenda may not always be particularly moral, but more importantly because the job of being the nation's church makes 'fence-sitting' inevitable when we live in such a pluralistic, heterogeneous nation as ours is.
A disestablished church would feel much less pressure to keep both conservatives and liberals on board; they would each go their separate ways, leaving the liberals as a much smaller group, but more able to speak with one voice on DH issues. I suppose the fear is that a smaller, disestablished church would have a smaller public 'soapbox', but you can't have your cake and eat it. And in any case the Quakers and Unitarians have had an influence out of proportion to their actual size as institutions.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Not any more they don't.
One would imagine that the prevailing zeitgeist would favour the Quakers and Unitarians, but it doesn't appear to be doing so.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
My understanding is that the Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Jews sought a change in the law to enable to them to perform SSMs in their own places of worship. That being the case, they made a significant contribution to what became huge debate, which did indeed end up with the law being changed. The politicians listened to what they had to say. That sounds like influence to me!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Thanks, Justinian; I'll work on a reply to your points but I'm sure you'll appreciate that it's going to take a while.
As regards 'political correctness' my information is that the concept originated with a guy called Lenin and did not at all result in treating people with respect....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
One would imagine that the prevailing zeitgeist would favour the Quakers and Unitarians, but it doesn't appear to be doing so.
The prevailing zeitgeist favours apathism. That the Churches are mostly for the "Get off my Lawn" brigade, and that believing in God is about on a par with believing in astrology. Except that mainstream astrology isn't generally going to preach bad things.
A Friends' Meeting is where you go to find aging hippies, some of whom might look respectable but they never sold out. Good people. But it's still ageing hippies with weird services. And Unitarians are seen as a half way house for former churchgoers - the religious equivalent of methadone.
I'm honestly surprised that there aren't that many pagan public rituals (and the ones I've been to have been done very badly) and there isn't an offshoot of Gardnerian or Alexandrian Wicca trying to run most of their rites as open and public.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Steve Langton - what we're dealing with is not political correctness though. It is simply about treating people as human beings. Political correctness in any case is a straw man used by the Daily Mail whenever society makes too much progress for their tastes.
Also, Steve, why the focus on people being forced to approve of gay sex? There are many gay people not having sex - gay people are more than their sex lives, just like straight people. So why do you reduce gay people to their sex lives in your post, and not treat them as human beings?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Thanks, Justinian; I'll work on a reply to your points but I'm sure you'll appreciate that it's going to take a while.
As regards 'political correctness' my information is that the concept originated with a guy called Lenin and did not at all result in treating people with respect....
Origins=/= common use.
quote:
The term was adopted in the later 20th century by the New Left, applied with a certain humour to condemn sexist or racist conduct as "not politically correct". By the early 1990s, the term was adopted by US conservatives as a pejorative term for all manner of attempts to promote multiculturalism and identity politics, particularly, attempts to introduce new terms that sought to leave behind discriminatory baggage ostensibly attached to older ones, and conversely, to try to make older ones taboo.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I was surprised to find myself working with two young Pagans recently. They seemed quite serious about their faith. New Ageism in general doesn't seem to get much publicity now, but when I was growing up in the '70s and '80s unusual spiritualities seemed much more in evidence. These days the media's more into New Atheism - and then there's the fascination with extremist Islam, of course.
The problem for the Quakers and the Unitarians, ISTM, is that outsiders openly admire them but don't often join them. Meanwhile, people in general might disapprove of the CofE but occasionally they do get involved with the life of the Church! The humble ordinariness of local CofE congregations might be a selling point on the one hand, but on the other, the CofE clearly doesn't want to share in the fragile and marginalised ordinariness of the smaller, more liberal Nonconformist churches. For that reason it chooses to live with ambiguity and the status quo. Arguments about the DHs ensue. It's a price the Church is apparently willing to pay.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As regards 'political correctness' my information is that the concept originated with a guy called Lenin and did not at all result in treating people with respect....
Generally a guy called Stalin not one called Lenin. But if that's how you are using the term, why stop there? After all, it's only one step further to break Godwin's Law and accuse people of using Nazi-like thought control.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Justinian;
quote:
Generally a guy called Stalin not one called Lenin.
My source was specific that it went back to Lenin, which is why I quoted it as such. I've personally come across enough examples of dodgy and coercive PC stuff to be sure it's not just a right-wing media scare - but you also shouldn't think I overrate it. The concept has had a decidedly corrosive effect on life and attitudes in the same way that dubious health and safety has (often against the wishes of real H&S professionals).
That's a tangent anyway. I'm just about to start on my reply to your earlier post - as mentioned earlier, that's not going to be instant....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Justinian;
A total response to your two earlier posts criticising mine would, I fear, be book-length – seriously!
To keep it manageable I propose to concentrate on the main thread question about why the CofE has got itself so entangled with DH issues, rather than discuss the DH issues as such – for now anyway. I will just register the point that there are a lot of people in many Christian denominations who are not evil or malicious, and do not hate or fear homosexuals, but who simply are not satisfied that gay sex is acceptable conduct for Christians or God’s will for our use of sex. We would not object if you could prove that gay sex is biblically acceptable – but without proof of that we are reluctant to approve it and certainly reluctant to suggest it is OK to others.
We are not likely to be impressed by people who, instead of providing proof on the point, just assail us with rude names like ‘homophobe’, or comments about ‘dark age morality’, or irrationally quote Leviticus against itself as Justinian at least appeared to in his earlier post. We are quite reasonably, I think, concerned not to end up disobeying God ourselves or encouraging others to do so. We do not want to be ‘blown around by every wind of doctrine’ to just follow current fashions; nor do we want to ‘let the world squeeze us into its own mould’ (as JB Phillips paraphrased a text in Romans 12).
by Justinian;
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
There is a reason the NEW Testament/Covenant is so called.
________________________________________
J: Oh, indeed. But this does not mean…. What it does mean is that the passage in Leviticus you cite is completely and utterly irrelevant.
As a general point relevant to a few of your comments – the NEW Covenant does not, of course, simply obliterate the Old. The main portion of the OT which is annulled is the sacrificial rituals which of course were fulfilled and replaced by the sacrifice of Jesus to which they pointed; and even there the OT rituals remain useful in helping us understand Jesus’ sacrifice. Basic moral rules remain, of course, unchanged. Other aspects are variously developed or as it were ‘transposed to a different key’ in the New Covenant. It is necessary to use the brain in this process – and in this case I don’t, for instance, think it makes the Leviticus passage I cited irrelevant, but as I said, I’m not primarily dealing with that issue in this posting.
Much more important for now is the one about established churches (and similar ideas – the idea of a ‘Christian state’ is also to be found quite widely in other denominations, even in nominally ‘free’ churches like the US ‘Southern Baptists’ or Ian Paisley’s ‘Free Presbyterians).
by Justinian;
quote:
J: But this does not mean that there isn't a lot in the Old Testament about an Established Church. It might not mean we should do things that way. But it provides plenty of precedents on how established churches work, that are useful for instruction and reproof.
I find this comment a bit confusing, since I don’t know whether Justinian believes in establishment or belongs to an established church. He at least seems to be suggesting an established church as a legitimate option??
Obviously there’s a lot in the OT about ‘an Established Church’ – in Israel God was working through a state religion similar to that of other nations to prepare the way for the New Covenant through Jesus. But once the New Covenant is, well, established, things change considerably, and, I submit, it is simply not appropriate to set up a ‘Christian state’ in the form of any earthly nation or empire. There is effectively no support for the notion of state churches, a few texts which are ambiguous in the sense that they can fit either answer but don’t themselves contribute to the ‘whether or not’ question, and a massive array of texts which indicate a radically different answer to the question “How should Christians relate to the surrounding world?”
Briefly, among those texts are the one where Jesus on trial before Pilate says his kingdom is not of this world (and if you consider what Pilate would be trying him for, any suggestion of Jesus trying to set up ‘messianic/Christian’ states would have evoked a ‘clearly guilty’ response from Pilate rather than the verdict of innocence that was actually given). The texts about the need to be ‘born again’, clearly said not to be by human will so not possible that a state can legislate it. The texts which describe the Church itself as God’s holy nation, and Peter, for example, using the Greek word for ‘resident aliens’ to describe the place of the church. And there are many more….
Thus the effective establishment of the Church in the Roman Empire was a misstep and disobedient to God’s intentions; and all the various ways since of trying to give the Church a privileged place in the world, rather than it being an alternative to worldly-style kingdoms, have also been basically wrong. Including of course the CofE whose establishment in a single nation is technically quite an extreme form of Christian state, though thank God (and a lot of nonconformists) the original totalitarianism (to a large extent derived from inappropriate application of the OT) has massively softened over the years.
The dynamic of what follows is pretty much inevitable. Combine the idea of a Christian state with an understanding that the Bible rejects homosexuality, and you will get homosexuality made illegal and homosexuals legally persecuted with the church heavily involved therein. This went on for centuries and as we have gradually become a more and more pluralist society, it has become increasingly unacceptable.
As things now stand the CofE does not in practice have the power any longer to keep up that legal position, but it does have what Justinian calls a ‘soapbox’, a public prominence, to state its views, and it has the position of being the state religion with the head of state as its earthly supreme governor. The problem with that is that in effect, if the CofE does not conform to things like SSM, it can be seen as a continuing state discrimination against gay people and very understandably gay people want that abolished – along with similarly ‘Christian-country-minded’ attitudes like that David ‘God sent the floods in judgement on gay marriage’ Silvester, who actually as a Baptist should have known better! The same basic dynamic also applies to issues like women bishops – by the very fact of being a state or established church the CofE is not able to plead that it is expressing a merely private opinion. And that is why the CofE is so embroiled in DH issues in a way that a free church, affecting only its own voluntary membership, need not be.
This is still a long way short of dealing with the point fully. Please don’t go assuming too much of what my full position might be, or assuming that I haven’t thought about issues I haven’t covered directly above.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
We are not likely to be impressed by people who, instead of providing proof on the point, just assail us with rude names like ‘homophobe’, or comments about ‘dark age morality’, or irrationally quote Leviticus against itself as Justinian at least appeared to in his earlier post. We are quite reasonably, I think, concerned not to end up disobeying God ourselves or encouraging others to do so. We do not want to be ‘blown around by every wind of doctrine’ to just follow current fashions; nor do we want to ‘let the world squeeze us into its own mould’ (as JB Phillips paraphrased a text in Romans 12).
You already have let the world squeeze you into its own mould, it's just the mould of 50 or 100 years ago rather than the mould of today when it comes to human sexuality. The spirit of the age is no more or less perilous than the spirit of the previous age. It is not possible to divine from scripture everything that is permitted, only some things that are forbidden. In the absence of any relevant text one can only consider, when the world presents us with a new situation, how to extend the principles we have received to that new situation. I was linked recently to a wonderful sermon that dips into some of this (and it takes a lot for me to sit down and watch an hour of Southern Baptist preaching):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqYvkVqVLFo&feature=player_embedded
I do recommend it if you have the time.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Justinian
For some reason the Quakers and the Unitarians haven't really stepped up to the plate as the country's religious spokesmen for SSM. This is a shame, because they could do it more authentically than the CofE. (Indeed, the conspiracy theorist side of me wonders why these two churches have said almost nothing publicly about SSM, despite having pursued the matter politically behind the scenes....)
I think some leaders in the CofE argued against SSM because they feared it might be imposed on them against their will as the established church, and perhaps they only obtained an exemption as a result of their disagreement. Of course, there are CofE folk who'd very much like their own priest to be free to conduct SSMs. Freeing up CofE structures would presumably enable this to happen, but CofE people seem to talk of 'creeping congregationalism' as a bad thing, not something that should be formalised.
Might be cos the Quakers published most of their major thinking on the subject in the 1960s in "Towards a Quaker view of sex", also It was fairly widely covered in the press when Britain yearly meeting agreed same sex marriage.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The problem for the Quakers and the Unitarians, ISTM, is that outsiders openly admire them but don't often join them.
I think the problem is that the outsiders that openly admire the Quakers and the Unitarians are atheists or non-believers, and the things they admire about those groups have nothing to do with their faith or religious practice. So why would they join them?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by arethosemyfeet;
quote:
You already have let the world squeeze you into its own mould, it's just the mould of 50 or 100 years ago rather than the mould of today when it comes to human sexuality. The spirit of the age is no more or less perilous than the spirit of the previous age. It is not possible to divine from scripture everything that is permitted, only some things that are forbidden. In the absence of any relevant text one can only consider, when the world presents us with a new situation, how to extend the principles we have received to that new situation.
The second half of that I have no problem with in principle - we may slightly differ about the application and our conclusions about what is forbidden.
On the first half, who says I'm stuck in the world of 50 or 100 years ago? May I remind you I also said;
quote:
Please don’t go assuming too much of what my full position might be, or assuming that I haven’t thought about issues I haven’t covered directly above.
As I stated at the beginning, I'm trying here to avoid discussing the DH issue in itself, but rather to discuss the initial question of why the CofE is having so much problem and DH issues are taking up so much of their 'public discourse' - and the church's establishment clearly plays a major role in that situation. Revenons a nos moutons, mate!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Justinian;
We are not likely to be impressed by people who, instead of providing proof on the point, just assail us with rude names like ‘homophobe’, or comments about ‘dark age morality’, or irrationally quote Leviticus against itself as Justinian at least appeared to in his earlier post.
We are quite reasonably, I think, concerned not to end up disobeying God ourselves or encouraging others to do so.
You are also quite literally suggesting killing gay people is what God instructs. You are literally suggesting that many of my friends should be killed if you follow Leviticus 20:13. When you are suggesting my friends should be killed for actions that don't hurt anyone you do not have a leg to stand on when it comes to politeness. In order to be as impolite as you I would quite literally have to say mass executions of Christians were a good thing. (For the record, and stating the obvious, they aren't).
The second point is that if, in the 21st Century, you are openly suggesting that Leviticus 20:13 should be followed, I do not think you are reachable. The idea of executing people for consensual sex being thinkable means that you have silenced your mind to the promptings of love in your heart. The Old Testament is pretty obviously full of fiction - but you are citing it as a near definitive moral guide (second only to the New Testament) - Judaism grapples with this by two books known colloquially as The Commentary, and The Commentary on The Commentary. Taking the OT (or for that matter the NT) uncritically is a failure to Love the Lord Thy God with all thy mind - a clear failure of the first commandment. The parts you cite that involve the death penalty for my friends are a failure of the second.
So. You are suggesting that my friends deserve the death penalty. Clearly your compassion is unreachable. You are suggesting that the commandments in the OT should be followed unless directly contradicted - despite the fact that God is frequently a genocidal monster in the OT. Clearly your conscience is unreachable. And you are claiming that it is irrational that there could be a clash within the same source. Clearly your logic is hard to reach.
So what's left? Two things. The audience and marginalising your agenda because I have no way of reaching it. Making it clear to anyone reading that when you have suggested killing my friends that is (a) horrific, (b) amoral, (c) dangerous, and (d) socially utterly unacceptable. And thereby marginalising you further.
I stopped being concerned about your feelings the second you suggested that my friends be killed. I.e. the second you raised Leviticus 20:13.
quote:
We do not want to be ‘blown around by every wind of doctrine’ to just follow current fashions; nor do we want to ‘let the world squeeze us into its own mould’ (as JB Phillips paraphrased a text in Romans 12).
Is it "Arguments that were used to oppose Abolition?"
Seriously, that's one other place you could look into. Any time you make an argument that could support slavery (which the bible considers almost universally acceptable) it's an argument that was used to support slavery.
There are two basic approaches to reading the bible. That it's a text saying how things should be - and that it's an arrow pointing to a better world. Those claiming a text rather than trying to see what the arrow is pointing at have been on the wrong side of every piece of social progress in the last 250 years. Whether abolition, civil rights, or homophobia. And using almost the same arguments every time.
quote:
As a general point relevant to a few of your comments – the NEW Covenant does not, of course, simply obliterate the Old.
No. But it means it should be critically assessed as a secondary source.
quote:
quote:
J: But this does not mean that there isn't a lot in the Old Testament about an Established Church. It might not mean we should do things that way. But it provides plenty of precedents on how established churches work, that are useful for instruction and reproof.
I find this comment a bit confusing, since I don’t know whether Justinian believes in establishment or belongs to an established church. He at least seems to be suggesting an established church as a legitimate option??
I was simply pointing out that what happened in the OT was about an established church. For my part I think they are a bad idea in general but in specific many can be lived with.
quote:
Thus the effective establishment of the Church in the Roman Empire was a misstep and disobedient to God’s intentions;
Few Churches turn down the lure of power - especially when they should. Christianity as a state church as pictured by Constantine was a really bad idea.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aelred of Rievaulx
Shipmate
# 16860
|
Posted
The Church of England's public discourse is dominated by Dead Horses because it is so comprehensively out of step with the public morals of the nation. There is no publicly defensible position that can maintain that you are an organisation that is "Seeking Justice" or "Sharing Good News" when you have opt outs of the law of the land that make it legal for you to discriminate against women and LGBT people. So all the public discourse of the Church of England in ENGLAND is about the Church having to be defensive or bland or both, a bit like the poor old Bishop of Bath and Wells - who only parroted the party line.
The consequence of all this nonsense is that bishops end up saying that "same-sex marriage is great" (Welby) and then their spin doctors have to come along and say that no, he didn't mean that, what he meant was that it is great that Parliament can pass laws! Or they produce anti-homophobia material for church schools - but it has to include a very tight definition of homophobia that basically means beating someone up, because their guidance has to also defend the Church Schools' right to tell all the kids that gay relationships are second-best and "not ideal". Or they end up sounding like the Bishop of Bathand Wells - homophobic on marriage, and trying to sound inclusive and welcoming to everyone.
It doesn't work. And it is clear to anyone with two eyes in their head that the Church of England is institutionally homophobic and sexist (and racist too, in fact). Once there is a bishop that has the balls (or even ovaries) to acknowledge this, say sorry and start putting right the wrongs, then the public moral discourse of the C of E might stand a chance of making a contribution. Because then other people will start listening again.
But special pleading that makes out that sexism and homophobia are ok if they proceed from "deeply held theological convictions" will not wash with anyone but the homophobic and sexist minorities who want to maintain an "honoured place" in the Church of England.
Discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, sexual orientation, marital status and a raft of other "protected characteristics" has been illegal now for some time in British society. People are used to it. They simply can't believe that the Church of England can behave in a way that in any other sphere of life - including the forces - would be illegal, and get away with it.
Sometimes Welby seems to understand this. And then he forgets. And anyway - he doesn't seem to have the appetite to do anything about it.
My last point is to say that the attitude of a very significant proportion of Anglicans in the pews is vastly different from that of the bishops. A lot of the voices here have described the ghastly attitudes of the East Sussex/Surrey Bible belt. My experience is completely different. Ordinary C of E people are not particularly sexist and homophobic vis a vis the population as a whole. Indeed many are more accepting, precisely because of their own strong moral compasses.
--------------------
In friendship are joined honor and charm, truth and joy, sweetness and good-will, affection and action. And all these take their beginning from Christ, advance through Christ, and are perfected in Christ.
Posts: 136 | From: English Midlands | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Steve Langton - you are being homophobic, therefore it is perfectly accurate to call you a homophobe. Saying that gay people need the death penalty is pretty much the definition of homophobia.
And you haven't responded to my comment on you reducing gay people to their sex lives, which is also deeply homophobic.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
I don't recall the bit where I said gay people should be killed. That would in fact be abhorrent to me and I am not in favour of persecution of gay people. I am in this thread to discuss the problems the CofE has over various DH issues and to make the point that those problems are related to the CofE being established. If you don't want to discuss that with me, fine; but don't go putting words in my mouth.
by Jade Constable;
quote:
And you haven't responded to my comment on you reducing gay people to their sex lives, which is also deeply homophobic.
Response - I wouldn't be so stupid as to reduce anyone to their sex lives. What are you going on about????????
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I don't recall the bit where I said gay people should be killed. That would in fact be abhorrent to me and I am not in favour of persecution of gay people.
Where you said it was right in this post. You simply only cited half the verse - and the verse itself is a direct call to kill gay people. You then doubled down saying it should not be ignored.
quote:
Leviticus 20:13, King James Version
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:13 is a direct call for gay people to be killed and you cited it approvingly despite your claim now that the actions it calls for are abhorrent.
Quick and simple question. Are you prepared to accept that the teaching of the bible on homosexuality in the verse in Leviticus you quoted the opening half of is abhorrent?
And if the bible is teaching that which is abhorrent (and I apologise for my previous screed if it is; I assumed you actually knew the sources you were quoting) will you now reconsider your beliefs?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I don't recall the bit where I said gay people should be killed. That would in fact be abhorrent to me and I am not in favour of persecution of gay people. I am in this thread to discuss the problems the CofE has over various DH issues and to make the point that those problems are related to the CofE being established. If you don't want to discuss that with me, fine; but don't go putting words in my mouth.
by Jade Constable;
quote:
And you haven't responded to my comment on you reducing gay people to their sex lives, which is also deeply homophobic.
Response - I wouldn't be so stupid as to reduce anyone to their sex lives. What are you going on about????????
Only one question mark is necessary, you know.
From your first comment on this thread:
quote:
Hmmm... remind me where the bit is in the Bible that says gay sex is wonderful and Christians have to enthusiastically approve
When you talk about people being forced to celebrate gay sex rather than people having to celebrate gay PEOPLE as full members of the Kingdom, that is reducing gay people to their sex lives. The 'texts of terror' you're quoting are also purely about sex. Your comments so far are about gay sex rather than treating gay people as full human beings. Many gay people are celibate and many bisexual/pansexual/queer people are in relationships with people of the same gender - there's not really any such thing as 'gay sex', just gay people having sex.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Steve Langton - you are being homophobic, therefore it is perfectly accurate to call you a homophobe. Saying that gay people need the death penalty is pretty much the definition of homophobia.
And you haven't responded to my comment on you reducing gay people to their sex lives, which is also deeply homophobic.
hosting
Accusing a poster of being a homophobe is getting personal as per C4. You can describe somebody's views as homophobic as much as you like, but if you want to say that another poster is a homophobe ( or accurately described as one) then that belongs in Hell. Please stick to this distinction, and open a hell thread if you want to use the word homophobe with regard to another poster.
thanks,
Louise.
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't think most of the unchurched population give a damn about the church's opinion of sexuality.
It really depends what you mean by "give a damn" - if you mean it in the sense of valuing what the church thinks and working it into their worldview, you're quite right - unchurched people don't. However, if you mean "give a damn" in the sense of taking notice and filing the information away, unchurched people do. Basically they don't care enough to change how they feel about gay people, but they do care enough to change how they feel about Christians.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Steve Langton - you are being homophobic, therefore it is perfectly accurate to call you a homophobe. Saying that gay people need the death penalty is pretty much the definition of homophobia.
And you haven't responded to my comment on you reducing gay people to their sex lives, which is also deeply homophobic.
hosting
Accusing a poster of being a homophobe is getting personal as per C4. You can describe somebody's views as homophobic as much as you like, but if you want to say that another poster is a homophobe ( or accurately described as one) then that belongs in Hell. Please stick to this distinction, and open a hell thread if you want to use the word homophobe with regard to another poster.
thanks,
Louise.
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
Sorry - didn't realise there was this difference from a hostly POV.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Justinian;
quote:
There is nothing in the bible saying you have to enthusiastically approve of straight sex.
The Song of Solomon is pretty enthusiastic, I'd have thought. Leviticus....ch20 v13, "13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.
The couple in the Song of Solomon are not married so it isn't endorsing conventional morality.
Leviticus also calls (20:9) for children to be put to death if they curse their parents. Show me a teenager who hasn't done so at one time or another.
Biblical morality is something we should all return to (?)
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't think most of the unchurched population give a damn about the church's opinion of sexuality.
It really depends what you mean by "give a damn" - if you mean it in the sense of valuing what the church thinks and working it into their worldview, you're quite right - unchurched people don't. However, if you mean "give a damn" in the sense of taking notice and filing the information away, unchurched people do. Basically they don't care enough to change how they feel about gay people, but they do care enough to change how they feel about Christians.
Damn right.
I find it interesting that the Christians of "traditional" viewpoints on this matter have now changed what they are saying.
Having come to the realisation that the basic argument (acceptance of gays and lesbians etc) is lost, what we now hear is "why are the obsessives making so much fuss about this? No one cares?"
This is:
a) At best a half truth. Yes, it is true that the majority of the population have moved on and that it is only the Church getting its knickers in a knot. But it is pretty undeniable that the Church's inability to accept gays IS a factor in turning people away from the Church.
b) Utterly laughable - as it is the "traditionals" who have been making the biggest fuss in the first place. I find it amusing (and deeply sad) that people who have spent so long hollering about protecting "True Christian Teaching" and threatening division on the matter are now dismissing it all by saying "well - it's not that big a deal, anyway."
I find Spawn's comments to be disingenuous, to say the least.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Apology-cum-explanation; I do suffer Asperger Syndrome and sometimes I busily follow a logical argument and don't realise that what I've said may be capable of an unintended offensive reading in addition to the one I was consciously aware of; I suspect some of that phenomenon has affected what happened earlier. I am a rough arguer at times but rarely intentionally deliberately offensive.
by Justinian;
quote:
will you now reconsider your beliefs?
I see no reason to reconsider my actual beliefs - which I've made a point of saying I haven't gone into detail of in this thread in an attempt to avoid going off on a tangent from the OP about the 'public discourse of the Church of England'. It would be nice if you could reconsider various assumptions you have made about my beliefs.
On the one you mainly complain at I drew your attention to the absurdity of quoting 'love your neighbour as yourself' from Leviticus in a context where, in light of another text only a chapter later, it couldn't possibly mean simplistically what you suggested . Yet you were going on about it as if it were totally disconnected from Leviticus... Whatever either of us says has to come to terms with that biblical data - essentially I asked you how you came to terms with it to end up with your answer. I said nothing about how I personally interpret that situation, and I still haven't, so please stop assuming what my interpretation is.
by Jade Constable;
quote:
When you talk about people being forced to celebrate gay sex rather than people having to celebrate gay PEOPLE as full members of the Kingdom, that is reducing gay people to their sex lives.
Misunderstanding what I said (which was anyway a request for info rather than a statement of my own position), and a bit of a non-sequitur; you're busy having an argument I didn't even know I was involved in.
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Your comments so far are about gay sex rather than treating gay people as full human beings.
My use of the phrase 'gay sex' was deliberate, but not necessarily for the reason you suggest. And if I were discussing, say, theft, and didn't discuss every other possible aspect of the lives of thieves, I wouldn't be treating thieves as full human beings? Or if a person discusses my model railway he's not treating me as a full human being but reducing me to my model railway? No, it just means that in a particular conversation one particularly relevant aspect is being concentrated on. Again you are conducting an argument I wasn't even thinking about.
Gay sex is an action, not a state of mind - the issue is whether that action is moral for anybody, and that's a very big question and without a lot more information on my position you aren't in a good position to comment on my views.
I'm still a great deal more interested here in discussing the implications of the CofE position rather than just flogging the DH of the gay sex issue.
by Justinian;
quote:
I was simply pointing out that what happened in the OT was about an established church. For my part I think they are a bad idea in general but in specific many can be lived with.
OK, the clarification is appreciated. Many established religions in general have to be 'lived with' - indeed that was the problem for the Christians in the Roman Empire and subsequently in many other places. The issue here is that established Christian churches are not to be lived with because once the New Covenant came to fruition, God's people aren't supposed to do things that particular way. The CofE is having a particular problem because it is ignoring/disobeying that teaching.
by leo;
quote:
Biblical morality is something we should all return to (?)
Biblical morality is something all Christians should return to; but with respect for the full development through the course of the Bible and a sense of historical perspective about the early events, where it would be anachronistic to expect things to happen as if Jesus had already come when of course he hadn't. (But I too cringe when I hear Tory politicians and US Religious Right people using that and similar phrases!)
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Plenty of non-established Anglican Churches are managing to tie themselves in knots over gay rights. I see no reason to suppose the CofE's particular knot-tying to have anything to do with establishment. It provides some of the landforms but does not alter the biota found there.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Arethosemyfeet;
people getting tangled up about gay issues is certainly not exclusive to the CofE; but yes, the CofE does have special problems because of its established status. A state church rejecting SSM is not a merely private body, like it or not. That affects perception of what's going on in all kinds of ways.
In fact quite a few other churches involved in the issue have similar ideas of state involvement/privilege, which again means they are seeking to have an effect outside their own membership in terms of laws on the subject - as a particularly bad example, consider that David 'SSM causes floods' Silvester. I'm not totally up to date but I believe the 'Christian country' notion widely held on both 'sides' in NI, has affected the gay rights issue there. But as a full blown established church, the CofE is key to resolving things.
Incidentally, ATMF, I haven't forgotten I'm supposed to be answering an issue about "What when there's a Christian majority in a country?" The gay rights issue demonstrates yet another good reason why the church should even more stay free of government...
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Plenty of non-established Anglican Churches are managing to tie themselves in knots over gay rights. I see no reason to suppose the CofE's particular knot-tying to have anything to do with establishment. It provides some of the landforms but does not alter the biota found there.
Which Anglican churches are you thinking of in particular? I was under the impression that the mainstream and non-established Anglican churches in the USA and Canada were now more liberal about gay rights than the CofE because they'd largely shed their most conservative members. Is this not the case?
It would be interesting to read a comparison of various Anglican churches throughout the world. I expect that their responses to this issue are heavily coloured by their own national religious and sociological contexts.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
On the one you mainly complain at I drew your attention to the absurdity of quoting 'love your neighbour as yourself' from Leviticus
No you didn't - as I pointed out. I was actually referring to the statement made by Jesus of Nazareth in an entirely different testament in Luke 10:27, Matthew 22:38, and Mark 12:31. Oh, and Matthew 19:19, James 2:8, Galatians 5:14 ("For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."), and Romans 13:9.
You, however, chose to ignore that I was quoting Jesus, and that it is all over the New Testament, and instead bring in the Old Testament verse about killing gay people. Entirely ignoring that it was the words of Jesus of Nazareth I was quoting and not Leviticus. Now I have no idea why you consider a single mention in Leviticus to be more important than mentions in most of the Gospels, and in the Epistles.
And I don't know why you consider quoting the words of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded by three of the four gospels to be absurd in a conversation about Christian morality. But that you do is your issue.
quote:
Yet you were going on about it as if it were totally disconnected from Leviticus...
That's because you were in the wrong testament. That I quote Shakespeare doesn't mean that I agree with everything Shakespeare had to say.
quote:
Whatever either of us says has to come to terms with that biblical data
I don't have to come to terms with the biblical data. The bible is a collection of books that have many fictional elements put together by people remembering what human teachers said. But when dealing with a supposed Christian I expect them to reach for Jesus of Nazareth and what Jesus of Nazareth had to say before they reach for the Old Testament verse saying that gay people should be stoned (that you cut off half way through).
I can not think of a single innocent reason that when presented with the words of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, someone would immediately reach for the Old Testament and jump from there to an actually evil verse. The equivalent to me is if I were to say that all the world was a stage from As You Like It, and you were to then quote one of the verses of Titus Andronicus about eating people.
So pray, what were you thinking when you chose to jump from Jesus of Nazareth into an entire different testament, and from a different testament into a different chapter?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Which Anglican churches are you thinking of in particular? I was under the impression that the mainstream and non-established Anglican churches in the USA and Canada were now more liberal about gay rights than the CofE because they'd largely shed their most conservative members. Is this not the case?
I'm not expert on the North American churches, but I think they've had an easier time of it than others. The Scottish Episcopal Church is still tying itself in knots, and making a lot of the same mistakes as the CofE, though with a rather less homophobic tone. I seem to recall some rather tortuous fence sitting from the church in New Zealand, too.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I seem to recall some rather tortuous fence sitting from the church in New Zealand, too.
Still going on!
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
With regards to the "spirit of the age" thing and biblical truth:
It might be illuminating to consider why so much fuss is made over faithful, covenanted relationships between gay people, and so little is made over the issue of usury, and how it contributes to the evils of global inequality. Even the wholly laudable efforts by the churches to "dump the debt" have not really addressed the fundamental issue of this aspect of the zeitgeist.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Justinian;
quote:
No you didn't - as I pointed out. I was actually referring to the statement made by Jesus of Nazareth in an entirely different testament in Luke 10:27, Matthew 22:38, and Mark 12:31. Oh, and Matthew 19:19, James 2:8, Galatians 5:14 ("For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."), and Romans 13:9.
And you think Jesus wasn't very deliberately quoting Leviticus? (Actually in Luke it's a 'lawyer' who quotes both that passage and another OT passage about loving God with all your heart - but Jesus clearly approves). Paul would also be very aware of what he was quoting.
by Justinian;
quote:
And I don't know why you consider quoting the words of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded by three of the four gospels to be absurd in a conversation about Christian morality. But that you do is your issue.
No, the absurdity is not about quoting the words of Jesus; the absurdity - on your part - is ignoring the fact that he is quoting, or dealing with a quote, from Leviticus.
by Justinian;
quote:
the statement made by Jesus of Nazareth in an entirely different testament
But the point is precisely that it's not 'an entirely different testament' - it is in fact a book that Jesus himself regarded as holy Scripture and the Word of God, a Word which prepared for, predicted and validated his mission. And Jesus was quoting from it....
by Justinian;
quote:
The equivalent to me is if I were to say that all the world was a stage from As You Like It, and you were to then quote one of the verses of Titus Andronicus about eating people.
Shakespeare ain't the Bible, his works are a different genre of literature; on top of which Titus Andronicus really is a completely different play to As You Like It and by the nature of the genre no such connection is to be expected, so I wouldn't make an obviously irrelevant response.
I might quite reasonably riposte with a counter-quote from As You Like It itself; it might or might not be an apposite quote depending on many variables like whether it was a quote from the same character. Or I might quote back at you something from another play which was relevant to the As You Like It quote by also comparing the world to a theatre.
Again, your suggested comparison is absurd and raises questions about your ability to understand texts - sorry, but it does.
by Justinian;
quote:
I don't have to come to terms with the biblical data
First, you do have to come to terms with it if you're going to quote it at others. But yes, it's part of my position, believing that adherence to Christianity is voluntary, that if you are not a Christian you don't have to pay it any attention at all. But if you're going to debate the biblical data, use it properly.
by Justinian;
quote:
Now I have no idea why you consider a single mention in Leviticus to be more important than mentions in most of the Gospels, and in the Epistles.
Basically because the references in the Gospels and Epistles are quoting from the Leviticus passage as Holy Scripture, so obviously what they're quoting, and its proper interpretation, are important to understanding the NT references. Do you really have 'no idea' of such a principle?
by Justinian;
quote:
So pray, what were you thinking when you chose to jump from Jesus of Nazareth into an entire different testament, and from a different testament into a different chapter?
First part of that, see above. 'Into a different chapter' because it is genuinely part of the context of the verse Jesus and the NT writers quoted. Paul, by the way, whose use of the text in Galatians you quote, also in Romans says things about homosexuality - and as we're not dealing with a Shakespeare play here, I assume Paul intended consistency in his writings.
OK, you perhaps didn't realise the Leviticus connection when you were chucking a superficial interpretation of Jesus' words at me. But don't complain because I did know it.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Justinian;
quote:
No you didn't - as I pointed out. I was actually referring to the statement made by Jesus of Nazareth in an entirely different testament in Luke 10:27, Matthew 22:38, and Mark 12:31. Oh, and Matthew 19:19, James 2:8, Galatians 5:14 ("For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."), and Romans 13:9.
And you think Jesus wasn't very deliberately quoting Leviticus?
And this has what to do with the price of oil in Nantucket market? As I said, I can quote the works of William Shakespeare without agreeing with everything written in all of his plays.
quote:
But the point is precisely that it's not 'an entirely different testament' - it is in fact a book that Jesus himself regarded as holy Scripture and the Word of God, a Word which prepared for, predicted and validated his mission.
You might want to re-read those prophecies retconned into dealing with Jesus. In general they don't exist. Jesus made quite clear his opinions on ritual murder for purity reasons - getting between the stone throwing mob and the person they were trying to stone and calling them out. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Despite it being a prescribed punishment. He also had his own opinion on e.g. the Sabbath ("The Sabbath was meant for Man, not Man for the Sabbath").
He quoted it approvingly in some places and argued with it or ignored it in others. You, however, seem to think he must have swallowed the entire thing in one gulp just because he agreed with parts of it.
quote:
And Jesus was quoting from it....
And when I talk about "We few, we happy few" do you assume that I'm also in favour of massacring prisoners of war? After all, both those were Henry V.
For that matter I'll quote the bible despite disagreeing with lots of it.
quote:
Shakespeare ain't the Bible, his works are a different genre of literature; on top of which Titus Andronicus really is a completely different play to As You Like It and by the nature of the genre no such connection is to be expected, so I wouldn't make an obviously irrelevant response.
OK. I should have used Richard III and Henry V. That much I will grant. But the Old Testament is largely fiction built to aggrandize the country it comes from, and that frequently contradicts the historical record. This makes it almost the same genre as the Bible. There is continuity between the Shakespeare Histories - and you are taking different chapters.
quote:
First, you do have to come to terms with it if you're going to quote it at others. But yes, it's part of my position, believing that adherence to Christianity is voluntary, that if you are not a Christian you don't have to pay it any attention at all. But if you're going to debate the biblical data, use it properly.
I'm the one who's claiming that Jesus said what he said - and that this doesn't mean that he agrees with everything else when he demonstrably disagreed with some of it. You're crossing testaments, chapters, and genres. And you have the sheer nerve to claim I'm the one not using the bible properly.
quote:
Basically because the references in the Gospels and Epistles are quoting from the Leviticus passage as Holy Scripture, so obviously what they're quoting, and its proper interpretation, are important to understanding the NT references. Do you really have 'no idea' of such a principle?
In order to understand something's context you look at the context. Which starts off with the surrounding verses, not taking a flying leap into a different source. You see how the person quoting understood what they were saying. Then if they were quoting something else you can possibly bring that in as secondary evidence, starting with the section surrounding that. And then you can only move on to a different chapter if you first put it into context with where it stands.
As for the Epistles, you think they were quoting the OT not Jesus?
If you were aiming to put Jesus' words into historical context you missed by an entire chapter. Showing that if that really was the principle you were trying to apply rather than just that you wanted to quote that verse you applied your principle extremely badly.
quote:
Paul, by the way, whose use of the text in Galatians you quote, also in Romans says things about homosexuality - and as we're not dealing with a Shakespeare play here, I assume Paul intended consistency in his writings.
Paul was also writing epistles to specific people at a specific time. And I for one stand with him in condemning the use of underage boys as catamites. And for offering your daughters to be raped (as was the sin of Sodom). As for Porneia, we don't actually know what that means.
quote:
OK, you perhaps didn't realise the Leviticus connection when you were chucking a superficial interpretation of Jesus' words at me. But don't complain because I did know it.
You were fabricating the idea that just because Jesus quoted a single part of Leviticus he must have agreed with absolutely everything there. And then chose to quote from a different chapter of Leviticus about it. You couldn't even hit the right chapter of the source material in order to quote your murderous passage.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Which Anglican churches are you thinking of in particular? I was under the impression that the mainstream and non-established Anglican churches in the USA and Canada were now more liberal about gay rights than the CofE because they'd largely shed their most conservative members. Is this not the case?
I'm not expert on the North American churches, but I think they've had an easier time of it than others. The Scottish Episcopal Church is still tying itself in knots, and making a lot of the same mistakes as the CofE, though with a rather less homophobic tone. I seem to recall some rather tortuous fence sitting from the church in New Zealand, too.
Of course, by 'mistakes' you mean not coming out as pro-SSM, but the leaders of those churches might say that by hogging the fence they've at least prevented their declining denominations from driving away their most conservative (and also some of their most dynamic) members, which would render their churches even more fragile. The North American Episcopalian churches are declining too, but they're much larger institutions, so are in a stronger position for asserting a liberal identity.
Perhaps the experience of the Lutheran churches in Scandinavia might be useful. These churches are more liberal than the British and antipodean Anglican equivalents. The Scandinavian churches have recently been disestablished, but their liberalisation seems to have predated that. This seems to be because the state has been (and remains) much more closely involved with their inner workings than is the case in the Anglican churches, even in the established CofE. An argument could be made by liberal Christians, therefore, that politicians should be more, not less involved in church business....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Justinian;
quote:
And for offering your daughters to be raped (as was the sin of Sodom)
NO, NO, NO! Read the story again. Offering his daughters to be raped was the act of Lot, not of 'Sodom'. And even then (a) he was in a pretty desperate situation overall, and (b)many people (not necessarily me) would argue that this was intended as an attempt at defusing the situation, a kind of 'think about what you're doing' gesture, not an offer he expected to be taken up on. No one is suggesting it was an ideal reaction on his part - I don't think many would have been happy with it even then - but it was NOT, repeat NOT, the 'sin of Sodom'.
The 'sin of Sodom', or at any rate of a very large number of Sodomites, which provoked Lot's desperate offer was that they were threatening to rape his guests. And despite the way some people have used it, this was not a 'gay' situation as understood today; on the contrary this was a case of straight people intending the rape as an act of humiliation. Such things happen even today. It is that 'sin of Sodom' which is heavily condemned elsewhere in the Bible, not Lot's desperate reaction.
You can't even interpret that accurately, all in one context, and you want to be taken seriously in your other protestations...??
Seriously; we are arguing this at the wrong level, because we are clearly, from everything you've said so far, coming at it from very different starting points/ foundations/presuppositions, and therefore ending up in somewhat different positions. To resolve this one we would need to go back to the presuppositions level; and if we do we might well, I think, find that your foundations aren't as sound as you think, and that they're a great deal more morally problematic even for your own position than you think.
That would no doubt be a very interesting argument -but this thread is not the place to be having it . I am in this thread, before you side-tracked me, to make a very different kind of point. I'm not in here representing what happened in Pentateuch times, I'm representing a coherently worked out biblical New Covenant position which is actually likely to help rather than hinder your cause - if only you'd get out of the way and let me put the point.
Be realistic; Christians believing, on the basis of the Bible, that gay sex is inappropriate for Christians, will not be going away any time soon because it's rather difficult to get the biblical texts to read as approval of gay sex let alone SSM.
The crucial little phrase there is 'for Christians'. The problem I'm trying to deal with, and which has played a major role in the persecution of gay people, is that since the 4th Century CE, there have been so-called 'Christian states' in which various forms of established or privileged church have been ignoring the NT teaching on the proper place of Christians in the state and imposing Christianity and its morality on others in an inappropriate and unChristian way.
The CofE, though fortunately no longer as totalitarian as it was founded to be by Henry VIII, was a major player in that intolerance (and also persecuted Christians like me who objected to it); and its continued established status is still a significant problem to issues like gay rights. I'm here on this thread to discuss that point.
I'm no longer prepared to discuss your separate issues with me on this thread - hostly advice on alternatives would be appreciated. I'm trying to discuss more important things and things more likely, actually, to advance gay civil liberties.
PS - but don't reply here - I've just re-read the passage in Romans that I had in mind, I even took the trouble to get out my Greek interlinear and dictionary; and that passage is NOT about 'underage catamites'.
PPS - Far from being an out-dated ogre I was a late-1960s student taking a major interest in civil liberties including gay rights; earlier in the 60s I was staying up later than most children my age to watch TV such as TW3. When 'Life of Brian' came out I wrote and had published a letter to a local paper setting forth the Christian reasons why the film should not be banned. I'm also opposed to blasphemy laws, Sunday observance laws, and many similar things. My whole basic Christian stance is anti-totalitarian and in favour of civil liberties for people I disagree with or who disagree with me.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Steve Langton
This is in response to you looking for hostly advice.
Note Purgatory Guideline 2 (Expect to be disagreed with), Commandment 5 (Don't easily offend, don't be easily offended). Purgatory Guidelines also apply in Dead Horses BTW. It says so in the DH guidelines. Follow the links on this page.
If you don't want to engage with any Shipmate, don't respond to their posts with counter arguments. Justinian is as free to respond to any of your posts as you are to respond to his.
If you see a personality confrontation developing, then note Commandment 4. Call the Shipmate to Hell, or concentrate on the issues, or withdraw from the discussion.
I suspect you may not find this helpful, but IMO Justinian is posting within 10Cs and Dead Horse Guidelines. The ethos of this discussion forum is unrest and disagreement, even serious disagreement, is a normal fact of life for all members here.
Barnabas62
Dead Horses Host
If you
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Barnabas 62;
points noted, and will ponder. I'm not offended and expect disagreement, and I don't think Justinian particularly out of order. I was however hoping that he might take the hint and help move our argument elsewhere so that the thread could stick somewhere near its OP.
under circs may just withdraw from the thread.
Thanks.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The Scandinavian churches have recently been disestablished
Just modifying this to say that the Lutheran churches in Scandinavia each have a different relationship with the state, with Denmark retaining the strongest link, and the process seems to be still evolving in each country. Googling suggests that many of the articles that try to be comprehensive are a little out of date.
Actually, regarding Denmark, I notice that in 2012 the Danish parliament obliged every Lutheran church to make itself available for SSMs:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html
Whether this was a good idea, and something for the British parliament to consider in relation to the CofE, I'll leave for others to judge....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Steve Langton
Be realistic; Christians believing, on the basis of the Bible, that gay sex is inappropriate for Christians, will not be going away any time soon because it's rather difficult to get the biblical texts to read as approval of gay sex let alone
I think you'll be surprised how at how quickly views change. In fact, the biblical evidence one way or another is quite thin, but the real problem here is the last six words of the snip that I have quoted have quoted above. To read blanket disapproval of homosexual sex into the biblical account is to ignore the context in which such acts take place, on a way that would be unthinkable for straight sex. Thus to read the levitical proscriptions as referring to covenanted permant and stable relationships is to ignore the facts that the larger issue of the time was cult prostitution, and thus, idolatry. This theme of idolatry is reflected in the Romans 1 passage. The sexual theme there, (and it's clearly not the stuff with which the vast majority of gay people would identify) is a result of idolatry, not the cause of it, and Paul mentions it as an illustration of the consequences of , rather than the reason for, idolatry.
The truth is that the objections to gay marriage will melt away, as more and more Christians make friends with their gay co-religionists, and realise that they don't have two heads, are not idolaters, but are people just like them who love the Lord, share the housework and argue about leaving the top off the toothpaste.
[ 14. June 2014, 10:17: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I'm still looking for the Christian that follows every command and prohibition in Scripture (even one who follows merely those in the New Testament.) Because I don't believe they exist, the onus remains on those who are opposed to gay relationships to show why this rule is binding when so many others uttered by Jesus and Paul aren't.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The truth is that the objections to gay marriage will melt away, as more and more Christians make friends with their gay co-religionists, and realise that they don't have two heads, are not idolaters, but are people just like them who love the Lord, share the housework and argue about leaving the top off the toothpaste.
Evangelical churches with their clear boundaries and high expectations sometimes create a dynamic and committed environment that draws in people who like the atmosphere but don't really share the theology. In the long run, this ironically makes the churches less evangelical, and hence less appealing overall. It's hard not to see a growing acceptance of diversity in sexual behaviour (straight as well as gay) as part of this process.
So long as this development is presented as a triumph of tolerance and liberation over strictness and restraint there will be some Christian groups that reject it, even if they have to break away from other churches in order to maintain their values. This is basic church-sect theory. But churches that want to maintain or develop a mainstream, normal identity will gradually have to accommodate changing values unless they're willing to be treated as sects.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
More and more evangelical churches are changing their stances. I read an interview with a pastor of a Vineyard Church who believed that mainstream evangelicalism will find an accommodation in the next decade or so. Of course, there will always be outliers because that's the way Protestantism works.
In an interview he said:
quote:
KEN: Well, for me, I asked myself: Why am I willing to make so much space in the church for people who are remarried after divorce—despite the Bible’s very strict teaching against that—and I’m not willing to make space for gay and lesbian people? And I kept asking myself: Why does this particular moral stance of the church about LGBT people cause so much harm?...
KEN: When I started pondering these questions, I realized that this particular stance of the church really is harmful. When a married man in a congregation has an adulterous affair with another woman—and he’s confronted about it—we don’t usually have suicides as a result. But, we do have teenagers committing suicides at higher rates when they are part of congregations that have these exclusionary teachings about homosexuality. Is this really the teaching of Jesus when our exclusion of people is contributing to a rise in suicide?...
KEN: Right. The problem is that so many people in the evangelical community—and in the faith community in general—want to find a way to accept and include gay and lesbian people, but they have serious questions based on their faith tradition. Who wants to go up against 2,000 years of Christian consensus on an issue? But, already, many people do know that our hearts are telling us something else. People are realizing that, even if they don’t fully understand how to think through this issue, there’s a more serious question we’re facing: the do-no-harm test.
The truth is: There are gay young people in all congregations, whatever the congregation teaches about homosexuality. So, we’ve got a dangerous situation here when we condemn and exclude people. Just look at the data on suicide rates. As a pastor, I began to realize: This can’t be the fruit of the Spirit. There’s something wrong here.
Interview with Ken Wilson
[ 14. June 2014, 14:13: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
More and more evangelical churches are changing their stances.
That's the point I was making. They will change their stance, as they have on others things. Gradually, this will make them less evangelical and more mainstream. Other newer groups will eventually take their place as the standard-bearers of evangelicalism.
This is interesting:
quote:
When a married man in a congregation has an adulterous affair with another woman—and he’s confronted about it—we don’t usually have suicides as a result. But, we do have teenagers committing suicides at higher rates when they are part of congregations that have these exclusionary teachings about homosexuality.
It throws up a range of questions. Why don't adulterous couples feel guilty enough to commit suicide, whereas gay teenagers do - if it is indeed about guilt? At what point in history did gay teenagers in churches start to commit suicide? Did John Wesley have to deal with this problem in his churches, or is it a peculiarly late/post-Christendom thing? Do gay evangelicals feel unable to give up on churchgoing and go off to sow their wild oats as young Christians in other Western church traditions are quite willing to do?
I'm speaking from a British perspective, of course. The same issues will exist in some churches here, but the level of intensity is probably less; the young person will be less cocooned in the evangelical environment and will be more aware of other options. Our culture more or less expects children not to become carbon copies of their parents. If they're clever enough they'll go away to university and can escape from an unpalatable moral code for ever, if they wish.
I hope the churches each find a helpful way to deal with this issue in their own context. I'm not terribly liberal according to the framework in which this is usually udiscussed, but I believe in the need for a diversity of churches, and there's clearly a need for more diversity in this respect.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Of course, by 'mistakes' you mean not coming out as pro-SSM,
I wasn't talking so much about substance as about methods (I expect the SEC to permit equal marriage within the next few years, but that's beside the point). The song and dance about "facilitated conversations" and whatever else has resulted in an awful lot of talking about gay people and treating gay Christians as a problem that needs fixing, rather than talking to gay men and women of faith. Provost Kelvin Holdsworth's recent blog post is illustrative of the sort of thing I mean:
How not to have a synodical discussion
[ 14. June 2014, 22:42: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I'm still looking for the Christian that follows every command and prohibition in Scripture (even one who follows merely those in the New Testament.) Because I don't believe they exist, the onus remains on those who are opposed to gay relationships to show why this rule is binding when so many others uttered by Jesus and Paul aren't.
Could you provide an example?
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I'm still looking for the Christian that follows every command and prohibition in Scripture (even one who follows merely those in the New Testament.) Because I don't believe they exist, the onus remains on those who are opposed to gay relationships to show why this rule is binding when so many others uttered by Jesus and Paul aren't.
Could you provide an example?
The obvious one seems to be remarriage after divorce - even Roman Catholics have a way of rules lawyering around that one if they need it. Any church that takes the alleged prohibition of same sex relationships more seriously than the blatant prohibition against divorce and remarriage is engaging in fairly blatant hypocrisy.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
