[Closed] The church and homosexuality

Not been called a bumder before. I think I'll have to appropriate that.

You can have "fanny dodger" if you like. That one is mine. 😀

Think you can keep "fanny dodger" for yourself 🙂

I liked it when my man-Yoga instructor described himself as a "friend of Dorothy".

My friend graham isn't ( well dressed) he's got military cap( backwards) covering up really bad self harm undercut, blue checked scarf, glittery shirt, leggings, mismatched leg warmers. Looks like he was mugged by a wardrobe.

Sounds like he went to an 80s party and never left!

So far into the closet, he's in Narnia.

(No idea where I stole that from)

Tom in [i]"Gimme, Gimme, Gimme"[/i] - may have nicked from somewhere else, but that's where I first heard it.

Has anyone ever adjusted their point of view as a result of any of these 'religion' threads?

Me.
I'm with Junkyard. 😛

My friend graham isn't ( well dressed) he's got military cap( backwards) covering up really bad self harm undercut, blue checked scarf, glittery shirt, leggings, mismatched leg warmers. Looks like he was mugged by a wardrobe.

For clarity, this isn't me.

My scarf is cyan, not blue.

Then God help you both 🙂

what about a set of breeders doing it up the wrong us....is this ok?

I do love these gay threads so funny and so enlightening,

especially this

I personally think God is not a homosceptic and would not have a problem with lady gayers or bumders. They are after all generally nice people, quite creative and all very well dressed (Elton John aside).

CLASSIC.

Has anyone ever adjusted their point of view as a result of any of these 'religion' threads?

I have.

I used to be of the opinion that religion was okay, provided it wasn't fundamentalist and they left everyone else alone. I also quietly went along with my wife and kids to church on most Sunday mornings.

STW religion threads made question this a bit more. I've now got my Sunday mornings back.

I've been particularly shocked by some of the things I've heard about gay marriage from the middle-of-the-road Anglican church my wife attends. Until a year or so ago, the Rector was very liberal, had a gay son and attended the wedding blessing of a local gay vicar. Recently, he left that church and there have been much more openly-homophobic views expressed. Not just from the older generation there, but from well educated people of my age.

I've heard about gay marriage from the middle-of-the-road Anglican church my wife attends

Middle lane hogging homophobic christian motorists on a sunday.

Havent they realised the shops are open .

I've been particularly shocked by some of the things I've heard about gay marriage

Do they think kids can catch 'gay' then?

Having not bothered about clicking link to watch video clip.

I will say this, how can the church be against gay marriage when the church officials overlook their lackys who deem it ok to inappropriately commit acts with young boys.

Now the only reason in my logical mind opposing the gay sector is the sexual bit of their relationship. But that,s my opinion of course.

The church seriously needs to have a hard look at what actually a gay relationship/marriage is and the grounds upon their judgement is impaired.

Does it bug me that I see two gay men chatting when sipping a brew of espresso at the cafe, NO!

Does it bug me that I see two gay men kissing when " " " " " ". A LiTTLE YES.

It does however bug me, the thought of two men having ting ting together, YES!

But once again, that is purely my opinion and of course should not be construed as anything else.

For what it's worth, stw folk, you can sleep easy at night with your same sex partners ;d

Only just watched the vid.
Nice one. 🙂

Can any of the Xtians on here explain why God doesn't like gayers? I mean is he really that bothered?

emsz, no, He probably isn't, however the last time I replied on one of these gay/christian threads I offered to send you and anyone else who was interested an essay I wrote about what the Bible says about homosexuality and marriage. I guess though that no one really wants to hear a liberal Christian view about homosexuality for some reason.

Not all Christians are anti-gay or even anti gay marriage, and as a Christian minister I completely agree with much of the criticism of Christianity on this thread. I heartily recommend 'A new kind of Christianity' by Brian McLaren for those who want to see what a more liberal and relevant Christian faith might look like. And the offer of reading my little essay is still open!

Middle lane hogging homophobic christian motorists on a sunday.

It's ok, they're just moving in a mysterious way.

Can any of the Xtians on here explain why God doesn't like gayers? I mean is he really that bothered?

Ooh, ooh, miss, I know, I know!

It's the same argument as the anti-contraception one; the religious know that the best way of making new believers is procreation, contraception and gay relationships preclude this.

It's the same argument as the anti-contraception one; the religious know that the best way of making new believers is procreation, contraception and gay relationships preclude this.

Just as a quick clarification, that view (anti-contraception) is purely a Catholic one, not a Christian one as a whole.

And the offer of reading my little essay is still open!

If it isn't full on thesis length, then please could I have a look? My e-mail is in my profile.

Could do with some ammunition for when I see my parents. They are a bit full-on X-tians and still think Homosexuality is a disease that can be cured! 🙄

speed12 - Member

Just as a quick clarification, that view (anti-contraception) is purely a Catholic one, not a Christian one as a whole.

Sorry, but that's just not true.

Just a quick [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraception ]Wiki [/url]search shows that before 1900, almost all branches of Christianity were against birth control.

Wasn't me that wrote that Rusty S, it was speed12.

almost all branches of Christianity were against birth control.

but that's because

Peyote - Member

Wasn't me that wrote that Rusty S, it was speed12.

Sorry mate, no idea what happened there!

They are a bit full-on X-tians and still think Homosexuality is a disease that can be cured!

Cancer and heart disease are diseases, being gay isnt, its not something you catch,inherit or can get rid of with anti biotics or drugs,its a life style,a way of life.

Just a quick Wiki search shows that before 1900, almost all branches of Christianity were against birth control

A quick [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967 ]wiki [/url]search shows that before 1967 male homosexual acts were illegal in the uk

Thankfully, things have moved a long way since then. I'd love to know what my children really think about it now as it probably takes a generation to get really get rid of old ideas learned as we were growing up

A quick wiki search shows that before 1967 male homosexual acts were illegal in the uk

Thankfully, things have moved a long way since then.

Not if the Church had had their way.
Secular society has moved on - the churches have not.
The acceptance of reason undermines their authority.

If you convince me that there is no underlying purpose to our existence, then there's very little rationale for me doing anything 'nice' or 'charitable'

I struggle with long sentences, but wow.

The rationale is that it's nice to be nice to other people. Do you really think that's invalid without a higher being instructing you?

Do you think atheists are incapable of generosity and compassion?

Even more worrying, if God was not telling you to be nice to other people would you stop?

I do things for people because on a fundamental level it makes me happy. Not because I'm told to.

Not if the Church had had their way.
Secular society has moved on - the churches have not.
The acceptance of reason undermines their authority

You're correct, the church hasn't moved on and they recognise that there are a whole bunch of conflicts within the church caused by it. Part of the problem though (I believe) is that the church also sees itself as trying to be a place of stability in times of change which means they will always be behind current thought. Another aspect is that the way that states behave is changing (see the changes between 60, 70s and now) and they are also trying to see where they sit in the new order. This particular question is just one part of all of that

But you're right - it looks like they are behind and out of touch even though many people inside the church are right up to speed (and may are not as miketually found 🙁 )

I think you will find the problem is they have a book of rules and morals written by ill educated [ by our level of knowledge now] folk thousands of years ago using their moral code and understanding of the world and universe.

they cannot possibly move with the times and stay true to the book.
Of course it is outdated its very old.

Can i have the essay e-mail in profile

Leffeboy, thanks for the reply.

The problem the Churches face with homosexuality is a difficult one.
Western liberal society has pretty much come to terms with the fact that prejudice on the grounds of sexuality is wrong.
The states that have agreed to legalise against this prejudice have shown that allowing gay people to live openly has not resulted in the breakdown of society as people had feared and must have increased the sum total of human happiness 😀

Ok so maybe I am reading some of it.

"I have no rational basis or evidence for my views. However, I demand that for the purposes of this discussion you ignore that and confine yourself to polite disagreement.

So what if he doesn't have any rational evidence? What are you, the thought police? How is it any of your business?

You have a moral obligation (humanist or religious) not to piss people off. Slagging off their beliefs will do that.

I think you will find the problem is they have a book of rules and morals written by ill educated [ by our level of knowledge now] folk thousands of years ago using their moral code and understanding of the world and universe.

Yep. And there are two ways to approach it now (as we know from all of these discussions). One way is to say that as soon as a single bit is no longer applied then it all collapses (no more tasty little owls to eat)

The other way says that the book wasn't physically written by God but messages were passed to individuals and you have to work out what was meant, how it was interpreted at the time and how to apply it now.

If you think (as many do) that the last statement means that the church is making it up as they go along then yes, it all looks like nonsense. If you take the view that the church is trying to move ahead as best they can, keeping stability but also learning as mankind learns then you take a different viewpoint.

If you take the view that the church is trying to move ahead as best they can, keeping stability but also learning as mankind learns then you take a different viewpoint.

The problem is that from the outside this looks very much like a bunch of charlatans desperately trying to hold onto an audience which has realised how the trick is done.

I think most people understand the Bible as being the work of man - how much of that is based on God's word depends on your position of course.

And given that it's written by men, their interpretation (and even errancy) is open to your own interpretation. Or that of the church authorities, depending on your denomination 🙂

The problem is that from the outside this looks very much like a bunch of charlatans desperately trying to hold onto an audience which has realised how the trick is done

Not to me. I think you'd have to be cynical and quite poorly historically informed to think that!

So what if he doesn't have any rational evidence? What are you, the thought police? How is it any of your business?

Kaesae would love to explain physics to you and the cosmic forces at work in the universe ...of you go and respect his views that have no rational evidence. 😕

Its obvious something with proof and evidence trumps an act of faith.

You have a moral obligation (humanist or religious) not to piss people off. Slagging off their beliefs will do that.

Kaesae would love to explain physics to you and the cosmic forces at work in the universe ...of you go and respect his views that have no rational evidence

I respect his right to hold them. Makes no difference to me if he's wrong or not. I'm not one of the tomato-throwers on those threads!

Will telling someone gay they cannot get married do this?

It certainly will.

molgrips - Member

I think most people understand the Bible as being the work of man

Really?

What makes you think this?
Evangelism and biblical literalism is one of the fastest growing branches of Christianity.

Islam, in it's current, ' between reformations' state is also widely based on literalism.

Talking to Christians, and the fact that the church has evolved so much over the years.

Evangelism and biblical literalism is one of the fastest growing branches of Christianity.

What makes you think that?

The problem is that from the outside this looks very much like a bunch of charlatans desperately trying to hold onto an audience which has realised how the trick is done.

It can from the inside as well. Part of it depends who you are listening to and part of it depends what part of the picture you see. When Rowan Williams became archbishop I had huge hopes that the church would embrace homosexuality given that he had written 'The Body's Grace' not long before. However that never happened, partly because it wasn't for him as an individual to decide - he had to bring the whole church with him 🙁

is open to your own interpretation. Or that of the church authorities, depending on your denomination

and that's the other thing. It can be easy to imagine the view of the church as being the view of all christians but it really isn't. Individuals can move faster than the church can and in the same way as individual ideas on what is acceptable in sexual relationships will move faster that the state (1967) individual christians write and influence opinion faster than the church authorities respond.

I respect his right to hold them.

It certainly will.

Your choice but which physics do you believe in? rational or irrational

Just to throw another mentos in our coke bottle, I'll be interested in the report from this:

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19870036 ]Big Bang and religion mixed in Cern debate[/url]
Nothing available yet though

Your choice but which physics do you believe in?

Since when was this about me?

so pick which you choose to support the rights of gay people to be treated as equals or the right of some people to discriminate based on a book/religion

Are you asking me what I believe?

ah the molly show
as you were.

Evangelism and biblical literalism is one of the fastest growing branches of Christianity.

What makes you think that?

Oh, every single article I've read on the growth of Christianity over the last ten or fifteen years?

oh ffs. It's about equality plain and simple. why a couple of guys that love each other can't be treated by the government or society like a "normal" heterosexual couple? what's the problem? If It's some kind of christian ethos? get stuffed! that stuff is too old to matter and care about anyway.. let'em marry what da hell the whole world will explode!!

Ok so maybe I am reading some of it.

"I have no rational basis or evidence for my views. However, I demand that for the purposes of this discussion you ignore that and confine yourself to polite disagreement."

So what if he doesn't have any rational evidence? What are you, the thought police? How is it any of your business?

You have a moral obligation (humanist or religious) not to piss people off. Slagging off their beliefs will do that.

I agree that the holding of any particular belief isn't anyone elses buisness, however I note that you are conveninently ignoring the second sentence which demands not respect for a belief but that it not be criticised. Sorry but no that's not how life works. People are free to hold whatever racist, mysoginistic, homophobic beliefs they want; I for one will criticise them for it. No belief system should be considered beyond criticism. Not yours and certainly not mine.

Whilst I agree that deliberately setting out to offend isn't a particularly nice thing to do, no-one has the the right to not be offended.

Are all of us arguing about Christianity on here Bible scholars with years of study at theological college (which would thus mean we know what we're talking about), or are we doing what blokes always do which is just relating our opinion without really understanding anything about the subject matter?

Could you let us know which subjects we are allowed to discuss without years of study?

Are all of us arguing about Christianity on here Bible scholars with years of study at theological college (which would thus mean we know what we're talking about), or are we doing what blokes always do which is just relating our opinion without really understanding anything about the subject matter?

You're question implies there are only two categories: academically educated and ignorant! I'm not academically educated (in Theology anyway), but was brought up in a CoE, Anglican household so I think I do understand something about the subject matter, while recognising the limitiations of my experience and knowledge.

I hope that clarifies my own position, if not every other contributor to this thread!

My eldest son keeps talking about getting married / civil partnership, etc. I am entirely against this, though not because of my religion - it's because he expects me to pay for it all, and I know he'll be planning the full Baz Lurmanesque thing, probably wanting a big hollowed out elephant covered in sequins singing 'born this way' or something. And his boyfriend still insists on hogging the remote control - bastards, the pair of 'em.

Are all of us arguing about Christianity on here Bible scholars with years of study at theological college (which would thus mean we know what we're talking about), or are we doing what blokes always do which is just relating our opinion without really understanding anything about the subject matter?

I went to a church youth group from 14 to 18. I attended church most Sundays for about a decade. My wife is a school chaplain and a christian. So, I know a bit.

I know a doctor of theology, who is now pretty high up in training new clergy, who is incredibly liberal. I know other vicar who will pray for a car parking space. And another who believes homosexuality is a sin and set up an anti-gay marriage petition. I know another who is a divorced woman; some in the church would think she shouldn't have been allowed to remarry.

The people who are least likely to agree on what the bible says or means are theologians.

Ironically, the christian with a theology Phd I know is pro gay marriage, while the christian with a physics Phd is against.

All these people who pray, ever ask for a refund ?

Could you let us know which subjects we are allowed to discuss without years of study?

Yes, fair enough.

What I was sarcastically trying to imply was that we all arrive at very strong opinions of things that we don't actually know much about, other than bits and pieces we've picked up 2nd or 3rd hand over the years.

We wouldn't choose a house or car on such flimsy knowledge but most people seem happy to write off religion as man-made nonsense without ever making a proper effort to find out what it's really all about for themselves, first hand.

Anyhow, this is a bit of a digression from the original thread subject.

If someone these days came out with half the crap written in the bible they'd be sectioned or put on Jeremy Kyle.

"Yeah I got pregnant right, but I ain't never had no sex or owt. I'm a proper virgin me."

"I was at the seaside and some dude made the sea part and then just walked straight through it, mental as ****. Then another bloke started to walk on the water."

"The bloke down the street is worried about global warming so has built a massive **** off boat and is going to get 2 of every animal in the world plus all the food and stick them in his boat for a month and a half and look after them with all there individual needs and then release them all back in there correct locations. What a bloke."

Etc....

And yet people still live there lives unquestioningly following this book and what they were told to think when they were kids.

- bastards, the pair of 'em.

god hates those as well, apparently.

ah the molly show

Wot?

I note that you are conveninently ignoring the second sentence which demands not respect for a belief but that it not be criticised. Sorry but no that's not how life works

I disagree.

I could believe in the flying spaghetti monster. I do not have to justify it to you, and you are not entitled to charge in slagging me off cos it makes you feel big and clever, when it upsets me.

If a constructive discussion comes about then fine, it may be discussed, and criticised, as long as it's not acrimonious.

I don't believe it's ok to just start slagging something off that is held dear to other people. It's a sensitive and deeply personal subject, whether you like it or not, and I think that deserves respect.

Obviously, that does not give the religious free reign to start attacking the rest of us. If they do that then they are asking for an argument. However, people on STW are not, so you have to be careful to criticise the actions of those who are attacking gays, without criticising those nice and understanding religious folk who are reading your posts.

We wouldn't choose a house or car on such flimsy knowledge but most people seem happy to write off religion as man-made nonsense without ever making a proper effort to find out what it's really all about for themselves, first hand.

Which religion should we start with? And what flavour? For how many years should we make an effort to experience it, first hand?

I'm going to start with a decade of early-American puritanism, followed by three years following the strict religious rules of the Amazon crocodile people. Thankfully, there's [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions ]a list[/url], though presumably only one of these is right?

Or I could, you know, be rational.

What I was sarcastically trying to imply was that we all arrive at very strong opinions of things that we don't actually know much about, other than bits and pieces we've picked up 2nd or 3rd hand over the years.

Well I can't speak for anyone else but I was raised a catholic and attended catholic school both primary and secondary so my knowledge isn't exactly 2nd or 3rd hand. Provided discussions don't end up with arguments from authority (which my previous statement is dangerously close to) or ignorance then the debate can be had and is healthy. To do otherwise would stifle debate and that would not be a good thing in my opinion.

Molly, how about racial inferiority? A deeply held belief for some.
Sexual inequality?
Female circumcision?
Can we criticise those beliefs?

god hates those as well, apparently.

Only to the tenth generation though!

are we doing what blokes always do which is just relating our opinion without really understanding anything about the subject matter?

Could you point out what bits we've got wrong, perhaps?

barnsleymitch - Member
My eldest son keeps talking about getting married / civil partnership, etc. I am entirely against this, though not because of my religion - it's because he expects me to pay for it all, and I know he'll be planning the full Baz Lurmanesque thing, probably wanting a big hollowed out elephant covered in sequins singing 'born this way' or something. And his boyfriend still insists on hogging the remote control - bastards, the pair of 'em.

Can i have an invitation please sounds great.

What I was sarcastically trying to imply was that we all arrive at very strong opinions of things that we don't actually know much about, other than bits and pieces we've picked up 2nd or 3rd hand over the years.

Well, not all of us. Some of us have been brought up within these relegions first hand, others have close friends/aquaintances who have experienced similar. The assumption that we're all just regurgitating stuff we've read/heard from another source is probably not that accurate.

I think you're in danger of making the kind of assumptions about people, that you're accusing other people of making about relegion!

most people seem happy to write off religion as man-made nonsense without ever making a proper effort to find out what it's really all about for themselves, first hand.

I think that's a monumentally arrogant stance, TBH. You're assuming that a position of atheism is a position of ignorance, which may be true for some but most certainly isn't a blanket statement you can apply to everyone.

It's a sensitive and deeply personal subject, whether you like it or not, and I think that deserves respect.

I disagree. Respect is earned, and I reject absolutely that religion has a 'divine right' to demand special treatment. If religion wants respect, it can get its bloody house in order and be respectable first.

I don't believe it's ok to just start slagging something off that is held dear to other people

you can have the deeply held belief that you are the messiah and 29" wheels are the work of the devil, I'll still argue with you about it, as someone said you don't have the right to not be offended. And as many have pointed out several religions need to look at how much they respect other peoples belief/way of life before asking for respect for theirs.

I don't believe it's ok to just start slagging something off that is held dear to other people. It's a sensitive and deeply personal subject, whether you like it or not, and I think that deserves respect.

Am I right in saying that you think that deeply held personal beliefs [i]shouldn't[/i] be criticised? That is a [i]very[/i] slippery slope. Should I "respect" deeply held xenophobic beliefs? How about racist, or sexist ones? Are those beliefs also due respect simply because they are "...held dear to other people." I don't think so. All I argue for is that religious belief not get any special treatment. Such beliefs are no more (or less) deserving of respect than any other. Whilst I accept that I don't have the right to offend, neither does anyone have the right to not be offended. To think otherwise displays the priviliged position that religion enjoys in our society.

I agree with Cougar, but would say its the church, or organised religion, that needs to sort itself out. I don't feel that I'm bright / enough of an academic to try and debate with some of the folk on here regarding religion, so i'll just try and put my own viewpont forward. As I've said before, I was raised as a catholic, and still occasionally go to church, but to be honest, real life (looking after the kids, shift work, etc) gets more of my attention. I believe in god, but don't follow blindly, and as the dad of a gay son, I could hardly be expected to follow the churches opinion on homosexuality, could I? Other than that, This thread will obviously go the way of previous religion threads, and because of that, I'm oot 😛

Junkyard, sent you the essay. Peyote, couldn't see your email address for some reason, mine is kenadolphe AT hotmail DOT com if you want to shoot me a line I'll send the essay.

In answer to an above question, I spent three years at Theology College and have a degree in theology. What I find fascinating about this thread is that many contributors seem to be telling me what I believe about the Bible, homosexuality and everything else, and not only that but some people have made massive assumptions about how I came to believe what I do. It's bad enough me banging head against a brick wall every Sunday trying to convince Christians that the Bible is supposed to be an agent for positive change and that understanding it the way we did 100 years ago or even 60 years ago isn't neccessarily correct.

Up to about 200 years ago the Bible was used to justify slavery, yet today we use it to condemn slavery. As society's moral and ethical code evolves so does our understanding of faith and scripture. Part of the problem that my denomination (Baptist) faces is that the majority of our members are 65+ and really struggle to hear anything new and fresh about faith. They believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and of the preachers they heard when they were in their twenties and thirties and when young ministers fresh out of Theology College start preaching different concepts they are unable to cope.

Many of the criticisms on this thread about the church are very fair and very valid, and if Christians genuinely looked at Jesus' example and teaching, churches would be very different organisations indeed.

I think that's a monumentally arrogant stance, TBH. You're assuming that a position of atheism is a position of ignorance, which may be true for some but most certainly isn't a blanket statement you can apply to everyone.

True. I figured most people are intelligent enough to recognise a generalisation when they see it.

In a similar way that we all realise that someone saying "all Catholic priests are kiddy-fiddlers" is also a generalisation.

Naturally, I should also have put the usual "in my experience" disclaimer. Although seeing as I was typing it, I figured that goes without saying.

If religion wants respect, it can get its bloody house in order and be respectable first

Agreed. The Church hasn't helped itself in many ways.

And of course, such is the way the media works, we only ever get to hear about the stuff that's gone wrong.

This probably won't be very helpful, but it's my deeply held belief..

Religion, as far as I can make out (and I've been very close to a variety of religious folk for nearly 40 years) is a fairytale that has gotten completely out of hand..

A collection of ripping yarns designed for making the kids behave, various lunatics down the line have taken the stories on face value.. Out of desperation, for reasons of corruption, through indoctrination and plain old common or garden insanity, these tales of the bogeyman have taken on an altogether more sinister and powerful role in society..

Perhaps what religion needs to do is issue a big general apology for all the confusion, and then to make a fresh start

Peyote, couldn't see your email address for some reason, mine is kenadolphe AT hotmail DOT com if you want to shoot me a line I'll send the essay.

Hmm, still not familiar with these new fangled forum thingies! Will send you an e-mail, thanks in advance!

My opinion that religion is simple-minded drivel and the province of the ignorant, indoctrinated and easily-led is deeply held and sincere and I demand that you respect it and not criticise me for having it.

Or I'll be so upset, I'll jump up and down and scream and scream until I'm sick.

Up to about 200 years ago the Bible was used to justify slavery, yet today we use it to condemn slavery.

This behaviour is not scriptural though, it's just man (ab)using it to suit his own end. You don't need faith/religion to know slavery is wrong.

As society's moral and ethical code evolves so does our understanding of faith and scripture

If the Bible is the Spirit-inspired word of God (as any real Christian would agree), then their understanding of it is from the same source.

There must be some key foundational elements to the Bible that don't change just because society decides, otherwise you're reducing the Word of God to just some things written but some blokes thousands of years ago.

if Christians genuinely looked at Jesus' example and teaching, churches would be very different organisations indeed

This was the main thing that struck me about church.

In the bible, Jesus was very, very, very clear on remarriage after divorce being adultery but had pretty much nothing to say about homosexuality. A divorced and remarried woman can become a CofE priest. Two men who love each other can't get married in a CofE church.

Also, for a bunch of people who believe they're going to live forever, they're a pretty miserable, complaining, back-stabbing bunch.

This behaviour is not scriptural though, it's just man (ab)using it to suit his own end. You don't need faith/religion to know slavery is wrong.

If the Bible is the Spirit-inspired word of God (as any real Christian would agree), then their understanding of it is from the same source.

There must be some key foundational elements to the Bible that don't change just because society decides, otherwise you're reducing the Word of God to just some things written but some blokes thousands of years ago.

You've just made two very contradictory statements there.

just some things written but some blokes thousands of years ago.

Now you're getting it...

molgrips :

Others have answered already but in in the hope that it might sink in - if you don't want your views. criticised - don't get involved in trying to defend them..

one way to do this is to keep them to yourself and not use them to try and deprive others of their right to to equality under the law. (which makes them everyones business)

as an aside its worth considering that if you cant defend your views rationally. then maybe it's because they are actually wrong?

majority of our members are 65+ and really struggle to hear anything new and fresh about faith.

old dogs new tricks ?
'
face it, religion has had its hegemony, it's past it's sell- by date, and is an increasing irrelevance.

I'm not going to trawl through that whole thread, unless it appears that there are some strong arguments. But with a brief scan and at least looking at the title. Terms like 'the church' and 'Christians' aren't particularly helpful. There are lots of different kinds of Christians, as you all know. Often the ones that are the catalyst for debate are the fundamental ones, which generally only exist in America and are generally unrepresentative of the day to day Christians in the UK. There also seems to be a treatment of Christianity as a monolithic body, quoting passages from the Old Testament as examples of intolerance or hypocrisy is a meaningless approach, for Catholics at least. Catholics are not asked to believe the Old Testament as a literal text and it is recognised as a metaphorical text for the a specific time and place. Of course, Catholics are allowed to take it literally if they like, very few do. Furthermore this reference to Bishop, whoever said and Cardinal whoever said, is a representation of the opinions of some senior members of the church. It no more represents the faith than the pronouncements of a cabinet memeber represents the views of the average citizen. If you want to know what the Catholic church teachings are then you have to get informed. Reading the documentation of Vatican II is a very good place to start. It was the last up date to dogma and articles of faith. You might be surprised at how many of the ideas which you associate with the Catholic church exist only in your head.

Hope that helps

is the pope the top dog in that crew ?

does he advocate condom use in preventing disease ?

My opinion that religion is simple-minded drivel and the province of the ignorant, indoctrinated and easily-led is deeply held and sincere and I demand that you respect it and not criticise me for having it

If you can support that opinion with evidence then you are welcome to it. However, I think you may have difficulty in showing that the Jesuits, as a group are ignorant, indoctrinated and easily led. Equally, you may struggle to show that religion is simple minded drivel, there are many deep and rich philosophical debates around religion, which are far from simple. e.g the nature of prayer, the Gnostic Heresy, transubstantiation. Not simple at all

is the pope the top dog in that crew ?

does he advocate condom use in preventing disease ?

You've missed the point. Whether or not the Pope advocates the use of of condoms has nothing to do with the Catholic faith. The only time the pope expresses something which becomes dogma is when he makes an 'ex-cathedra' statement.

but surely you know all this