Crankboy, I have what are considered very liberal views on homsexuality. I do think that most modern ministers across the denominations are quite forward looking on the issue, although you would probably find a lot of churchgoers are not. Across the road from me lives a retired Methodist minister and his male partner, and next door lives the Head verger of the nearby Abbey and his male partner.
Strictly speaking Baptist Union of Great Britain (BUGB) ministers are forbidden from conducting gay marriages. However, all Baptist Churches are independant, and I would argue that ultimatetly it is up to the individual church, not the Union, to decide whether a minister should marry a gay couple. Steve Chalke, a well known Baptist minister recently wrote in favour of gay marriage. Although I felt his arguement was weak, it did start a debate among Baptists that we should have been having several years ago.
I probably would marry a gay couple, but I have to say that I don't really see marrying people outside my church as something I'm terribly keen to do anyway.
Just in case anyone's wondering, I would quickly point out that the American Southern Baptists do not have much in common with other Baptists around the world and in fact are not part of the Baptist World Alliance.
Crikey, I don't know, but I'd suggest your views come from the popular media perception of Christians. It seems to me that from a denominational heirachy perspective most denominations are trying to tackle organisational predudice.
I have what are considered very liberal views on homsexuality
although you would probably find a lot of churchgoers are not.
it did start a debate among Baptists that we should have been having several years ago.
I [b]probably[/b] would marry a gay couple
[b]It seems to me that from a denominational heirachy perspective most denominations are trying to tackle organisational predudice. [/b]
Aye, I'm sure you are... 😆
Same old, same old. Still tying yourselves in knots over homosexuality, despite it predating Christianity; we're waiting for you catch up...
Crikey, firstly none of what I said contradicts the fact that denominational hierachies are TRYING to to tackle prejudice.
Secondly, I qualified the 'probably' by saying that 'I don't really see marrying people outside my church as something I'm terribly keen to do anyway.' As there are no gay couples in my church, I would consider a request from a gay couple who weren't part of my church in the same way I'd consider a request from a straight couple who weren't part of my church. I'd also have to consider if it were an issue I'd be prepared to lose my accreditation over at this moment in time, given that, as part of the attempt to deal with prejudice, the ban on BUGB ministers marrying homosexuals is likely be lifted within a year or two.
You'd be very welcome to read my essay on homosexuality and marriage from a Biblical perspective if you'd like.
And if you don't know any non-religious 60+ year olds who are anti-gay then you probably don't know that many 60+ year olds!
Very comforting, that your attitude and actions concerning homosexuality are influenced less by what you feel and more by what your church says.
You've illustrated your religions opinion above, nice...
English Western Christianity is great. Non confrontational, charitable and so on, but when it comes to the tricky stuff, the 'let's tell the other people who consider themselves Christians that women can actually do the same jobs as men, gay people are just like us' stuff, it seems to be rather less than great.
Hmm, an interesting point though - should the church steer its congregation? Is it the job of the church to instruct its members on controversial subjects, or simply to chaperone them as they decide themselves? If so, who decides what that position is? If Anglicans had a Pope I think these questions would not exist.
Again, isn't this the same question raised by Luther?
crikey - you seem to not realize that tolerance is generally regarded as a virtue in the Christian Church so whilst you may disagree vehemently with older members, you are tolerant of their views and have the patience to let time take its course.
The churches', and individuals Christians', stance on marriage equality is, to me, further evidence that Christian morality is simply society's morality 20 years* later.
Actually, divorce is okay. Slavery is bad. Oh go on then, have women priests (not bishops though). Gays are ok, but not if they do it. Oh, go on then.
I'll add "individual relationship with good" to "they're attempts to explain the same thing" and "that bits allegorical" 🙂
*may be longer for Catholics
Good is god, is the typo in my previous post. And possibly a concise summary of my point.
I do think that most modern ministers across the denominations are quite forward looking on the issue, although you would probably find a lot of churchgoers are not.
If only there was some sort of mechanism whereby you could educate them as to why their bigotry was a bad thing...
If only there was some sort of mechanism whereby you could educate them as to why their bigotry was a bad thing...
Which brings us neatly back to us all needing to keep whatever faith we have, or not, with an open mind and heart. Possibly the most appropriate mechanism?
The question's we all need to ask ourselves is whether our personal belief's make us a better person? Would introducing some flexibility to my dogma enable me to understand and help other's?
The question's we all need to ask ourselves is whether our personal belief's make us a better person? Would introducing some flexibility to my dogma enable me to understand and help other's?
This is the issue in a nutshell.
I'm of the opinion that certainly the Abrahamic religions evolved from tribal or regional sets of rules; 'Do these things, follow these rules to belong'. The problem seems to have become that rules only work if they are largely followed, hence the need for a dogmatic, prescriptive approach to religion.
In a changing world such prescriptive rules appear to tell people what to think, tell them how to worship instead of providing a framework within which things can be thought about and discussed. A personal approach to religion would seem to be ideal, but stepping away from the rules makes you an outsider, a heretic, an unbeliever and so original thought becomes suppressed.
A personal approach to religion would seem to be ideal
Agreed. However, that's very difficult to do.
The problem here as far as I can see is that your holy books are supposed to be the words of god, or otherwise sacrosanct. So either you cherry-pick the bits you want to believe / follow, in which case you're intentionally going against what your god tells you, or you have to accept that the [insert holy text here] [i]isn't[/i] actually the word of god after all, and then you've suddenly got the thorny issue of "why am I believing any of it then?"
G'day.
Cougar, would you like me to climb inside you so you can get in touch?
The problem here as far as I can see is that your holy books are supposed to be the words of god, or otherwise sacrosanct. So either you cherry-pick the bits you want to believe / follow, in which case you're intentionally going against what your god tells you, or you have to accept that the [insert holy text here] isn't actually the word of god after all, and then you've suddenly got the thorny issue of "why am I believing any of it then?"
Stephen Fry mentioned this in the Intelligence Squared debate. Ann Widdecombe had said something along the line of "we shouldn't judge the Catholic church of the past by today's standards because we've moved on as a society/culture" to which he replied "then what are you for?"
Quite. I don't think Stephen would have any problem with "risible" as a descriptive.
The Hitch's contribution in this debate is remarkable also, given his preference of baby-sitter choice, in the light of my original post...
This is the issue in a nutshell.
Crikey - thank you. I am of course referring to both dogma's: Religious doctrine and the athiest 🙂
A personal approach to religion would seem to be ideal
The problem here as far as I can see is that your holy books are supposed to be the words of god, or otherwise sacrosanct. So either you cherry-pick the bits you want to believe / follow, in which case you're intentionally going against what your god tells you, or you have to accept that the [insert holy text here] isn't actually the word of god after all, and then you've suddenly got the thorny issue of "why am I believing any of it then?"
And if one were to adopt a personal approach to faith, then one's own definition of God applies. Including what one's God actually says or not. A personal approach to faith is precisely that, find the God within and without to bring about a greater sense of wellbeing.
A personal approach to religion would seem to be ideal, but stepping away from the rules makes you an outsider, a heretic, an unbeliever and so original thought becomes suppressed.
Not in the modern British CoE surely?
Afaik Catholicism is more about rules and dogma than protestant faiths...?
culture" to which he replied "then what are you for?"
What was the answer to that? Surely it is okay for a church to change? I'm sure a lot of people go to church for different reasons. Some might be going to have their conservative values reaffirmed and to be given q moral framework, some might not. I guess that it why we have a choice in the UK at least.
The problem here as far as I can see is that your holy books are supposed to be the words of god, or otherwise sacrosanct.
I think this is an argument from ignorance. I don't think you are required to believe the bible is the direct word of God and is inerrant to be a Christian.
Then you may as well throw out the holy books as you cannot work out which bits are true or not.
I'd recommend the religion of Bill & Ted which is pretty simple: "Be excellent to each other, and party on dude!" Anything else is really just faff.
Then you may as well throw out the holy books as you cannot work out which bits are true or not
I can only assume from that (along with the 'faff'), that you have not read them, or at the very most, not looked further than literal interpretation or researched the metaphor's within them. Essentially, my view of the NT is that it's a very good 'how to live your life and be good unto oneself and other's' guide.
Reference, if you want to: Zondervan NIV Matthew Henry Commentary. It offer's metaphorical and language interpretation of the books in modern English to both Old and New Testaments.
I don't think you are required to believe the bible is the direct word of God and is inerrant to be a Christian.
That depends on what type of Christian you decide to be...
Many Christians would say that you're not a Christian if you don't believe the Bible is the absolute truth. Others believe the Gospels are true, but the rest isn't.
Liberal Christians would say that you have to interpret the Bible in light of the historical context in which it was written and then in light of certain assumptions you've made about the character of God/Jesus.
my view of the NT is that it's a very good 'how to live your life and be good unto oneself and other's' guide
Many [url= http://www.bible.ca/f-women-speak-in-church.htm ]people take what is in the New Testament as showing women should not be priests[/url].
Paul wrote 1/2 of the New Testament under the direct guidance of Jesus Christ: Gal 1:11 "For I [Paul] would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." Further after prohibiting women from speaking in church, Paul says in the very next verse: 1 Cor 4:37-38 "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized." This is the only place Paul made this kind of statement. Any one who rejects Paul's teaching on the submission of women and woman preachers, is "not recognized" by God... or condemned.
I've only skim read that link, but I think it says I have to ignore my female boss and she should submit to my authority?
I think this is an argument from ignorance. I don't think you are required to believe the bible is the direct word of God and is inerrant to be a Christian.
I didn't say it was required; just that if you don't then the Bible becomes "just" a book. Which is fine, but it then seems a bit of a strange thing to be forming a belief system around. I could just as validly do that with Lord of the Rings and then start demanding to know what Parliment intends to do about the threat of Saruman.
I can only assume from that (along with the 'faff'), that you have not read them, or at the very most, not looked further than literal interpretation or researched the metaphor's within them. Essentially, my view of the NT is that it's a very good 'how to live your life and be good unto oneself and other's' guide.
Oh please. Not that old chestnut/insult.
Yes, as an ex-christian from an orange-order family with religious siblings, christian school etc. I have read it. Most probably with more of an open mind than you. It is still full of faff, unless you can give evidence to the opposite. And strange people looking deeply into how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is just hot air unless they actually consider that angels may not even exist...
Unless you want to move to the next argument which usually occurs at this point: that the bible is like having a bar of soap, having one is no good unless you use it. 😕
My phrase still stands. The Bill & Ted view of the world is superior. It doesn't assume that anyone is worse than anyone else, what food to eat on Fridays etc.
Fair point Miketually. However, the link does go further to look at the ambiguity of the historical and 'accepted' verses, providing alternative literal translation's in modern English.
For example:
What is meant by: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection"?This reveals a difference in roles of men and women.
There is an equality in the inheritance of men and women but we do not have the same role.Even the men in the church do not have equal roles.
All are commanded to submit to the rule of the elders, if the local church has them.KJV: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection."
NASV: "Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness."
"Silence" or "quietly" is from "Hesuchia" [hay-soo-khee'-ah] (hJsuciva)
"To rest, to cease from labor. To lead a quiet life, said of those who are not running hither and thither, but stay at home and mind their business."
Thayer's English Greek Lexicon of the New Testament
I agree with your overall point though - a lot of arguing from ignorance on the religion threads. It's almost like people who don't speak French discussing Balzac in French.
Ah so, Atheists can't discuss religion because we know nothing about it?
Hmm, perhaps the OP was right.
a lot of arguing from ignorance on the religion threads
Is discussing things not a good way of becoming less ignorant?
Hold on, the women being quiet thing is not a doctrine we should dismiss lightly...
AdamW:
Yes, as an ex-christian from an orange-order family with religious siblings, christian school etc. I have read it. Most probably with more of an open mind than you.
Hmmm… Orange order you say?….. Possibly so, possibly not and near impossible for you to make any valued judgement on me. Have you cherry-picked reading my post's as far as my views on the importance of having an open mind and heart? 😉
And strange people looking deeply into how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is just hot air unless they actually consider that angels may not even exist...
Your point being? Apart from it being a sentence to fill space on a page.
Unless you want to move to the next argument which usually occurs at this point: that the bible is like having a bar of soap, having one is no good unless you use it.
Errr, nope. Read my previous postings.
At which point and ignoring semantic's, I think we are both subscribing to a similar ideology in so far as 'be excellent to ourselves and other's'. I just find Keanu a little too wooden, even in Bill & Ted 🙂
Hmmm… Orange order you say?….. Possibly so, possibly not and near impossible for you to make any valued judgement on me. Have you cherry-picked reading my post's as far as my views on the importance of having an open mind and heart?
Strange that you seem to want to do it to me ("you haven't read the bible" - and hence can have no view on it that makes sense) but don't seem to like it when it is returned, no?
I agree that Keanu is wooden but he still gets the big coats which are cool. 😀
AdamW - I apologise for my earlier inference, although please do not mis-quote me.
Do you suppose he get's to wear the big coats to cover up the quant pole? 😉
Yes, as an ex-christian from an orange-order family with religious siblings, christian school etc. I have read it.
I wasn't raised as a Christian, but I attended church youth groups from age 11 to 19. I also attended church regularly as a teen and an adult for around a decade. As I said earlier, I'm married to a Christian.
I am [i]not[/i] arguing from a position of ignorance.
Is discussing things not a good way of becoming less ignorant?
Yes but those who are ignorant should not pronounce on the subject. Now I may be mis reading but it appears that some atheists are telling some Christians how useless the bible is when the Christians do not find it useless.
the Bible becomes "just" a book. Which is fine, but it then seems a bit of a strange thing to be forming a belief system around
I am not a bible scholar but I don't think Christianity is based around the bible any more than Judaism is based on the Torah. In both cases the religion predates the books. The books simply document teachings and writings.
The books simply document [b]alleged[/b] teachings and writings.
Yes but those who are ignorant should not pronounce on the subject
So people who follow a religion should be quiet about atheism then?
The books simply document teachings and writings.
The books represent the teachings and writings of those in a position to order the recording of the religious teachings and writings which were in vogue at the time, and hence represent the edited, abridged, selected, human interpretation of the religious leaders of the day, and probably not any actual divine utterings?
Yes but those who are ignorant should not pronounce on the subject.
I said the Bible says people shouldn't remarry after divorce. I was told this was an incorrect interpretation (but, the Pope agrees with me).
🙂
it appears that some atheists are telling some Christians how useless the bible is when the Christians do not find it useless.
If you're referring to me, I'm not [i]telling[/i] anyone anything. I'm voicing an idea, taking part in a discussion, inviting comment for someone with perhaps better knowledge(*) of the subject to tell me why (or indeed, if) I'm incorrect.
Mol, I like you a lot, and I've nothing but respect for you, but you do appear to increasingly be hell bent on stopping people from saying things they aren't actually saying. I appreciate that you want everyone to be nice to each other and just get on, but as far as I can tell we mostly are.
(* - which wouldn't be difficult; I've a working knowledge of the subject but I'm no expert)
In both cases the religion predates the books.
As both predate people alive today I'm not use as I understand how that matters.
If people are forming a belief system based on - oh ok, let's say "Christianity" instead then - they base it on what's written in the Bible (and what they're told by their preachers, who use the same reference source), they don't base it on what was said and done before then. How could they?
I said the Bible says people shouldn't remarry after divorce. I was told this was an incorrect interpretation
I doubt you've read the actual bible, you're probably thinking of a translation....
So people who follow a religion should be quiet about atheism then?
They probably shouldn't tell everyone what it's all about if they don't really understand it..
If you're referring to me
I wasn't.
you do appear to increasingly be hell bent on stopping people from saying things they aren't actually saying
There is a risk I am thinking about all the previous threads when I'm reading this one, which is colouring my interpretation. Probably falling into the tone of voice trap again.
As both predate people alive today I'm not use as I understand how that matters.
So, historically speaking then - bloke turns up and starts preaching, becomes popular, dies, becomes more popular, people start talking about him AND writing. People continue to talk about him and write about him. Most people can't read, so rely on the talking to understand the teachings. It's not for another millennium and a half ish that the bible is translated into a language that people actually speak (in this country at least). For most of this time the teachings have been handed out from Rome. So it's not hard to imagine how the two became disconnected.
Is there a name for the body of Catholic teaching as distinct from the bible?
EDIT apparently this is actually called dogma and does not necessarily correlate directly to the bible
There is a risk I am thinking about all the previous threads when I'm reading this one, which is colouring my interpretation.
I very nearly typed that pretty much word for word, yes (-:
"Tone of voice" is an interesting one in a text medium. I kind of assume that everyone knows me and knows not to take me overly seriously, but that's not always the case. It's the 'rule of of thumb for girlfriends' thing, isn't it; if I say something that can be taken two ways, and one of those ways makes you upset or angry, I almost certainly meant the other one.
I said the Bible says people shouldn't remarry after divorce. I was told this was an incorrect interpretation
I doubt you've read the actual bible, you're probably thinking of a translation....
Thanks; I understand how translation and the Bible works 🙄
How many Christians do you think have read the original text?
How many Christians have read any of the non-canonical gospels rather than relying on the synoptic gospels?
"Tone of voice" is an interesting one in a text medium. I kind of assume that everyone knows me and knows not to take me overly seriously, but that's not always the case
That applies to everyone on this thread. Having met someone it greatly helps when reading their posts.
Thanks; I understand how translation and the Bible works
I'm sure you do, so you'll appreciate that makes it even more open for debate than it would otherwise be. Even back then people were arguing about what the texts or even the teachings actually meant; now not only are we two millenia removed and live in a different society both in time and geography, but what we read has also been translated from the original at least once and that adds another layer of interpretation.
So like I say it's entirely reasonable to treat it as simply an important book rather than the exact word of God. Which was my point. Other religious texts are to be treated as the exact word of God though, as I understand it.
"[url= http://www.jesusandmo.net/2014/01/08/raft2/ ]Religious belief is warranted even if it isn't backed up by evidence or logic! God has given us a reliable belief-forming mechanism by which we can get to know him.[/url]"