[Closed] The church and homosexuality

they live in a country, with a democratic process, which also forbids same sex marriage.

Don't forget gay rights and perceptions have improved hugely in the last 50 years or so. This is a good thing. It's still a shame that a few obstacles remain of course.

'there is almost certainly no god, but the possibility is so tiny that it's really not worth thinking about

In other words, they [b]believe[/b] there is no good.

Hehehe.

I think most people who consider themselves atheists actually think:

'there is almost certainly no god, but the possibility is so tiny that it's really not worth thinking about'

That certainly my position. All the would be required for me to change my mind is evidence. Just as I'd believe any scientific 'truth' to be false, if I were presented with evidence to the contrary.

In other words, they believe there is no good.

Belief in good is not the preserve of the religious.

@cougar

I wasn't using ignorance in a derogatory way,

Perhaps not. But you need to be careful with words, because people can twist them.

For instance, I broadly agree with Grum's comment; but it does suggest that there may, after all, be a god, and thus a) affirms the theists and b) devalues the stance of many atheists. If we were to list all the things that probably don't exist, we'd be here a while.

EDIT: ... as Molgrips has just ably demonstrated.

Exactly miketually

Molgrips, what's your point exactly?

In other words, they believe there is no god.

The absence of belief in something isn't the same as a belief in the absence of something.

I only disbelieve in one more god than the pope disbelieves in.

'there is almost certainly no god, but the possibility is so tiny that it's really not worth thinking about

In other words, they [s]believe there is no good.[/s] don't think about it

In other words, they [s]don't think about it[/s] have probably given it more critical thought than many theists

The atheist (depending on personal definition).
That they can prove the negative.
Because they can't.

By that measure we are ALL ignorant and the word "ignorant" loses any real meaning.

e.g. if I say to you "Unicorns don't exist" then I'd be "ignorant" because they might well exist somewhere in the universe or multiverse.

How about this instead: I describe myself as atheist because I am "without theism" - I do not believe in a god or gods and do not subscribe to any spirituality.

Is that still ignorant?

I don't deny there is probably, somewhere out there in the vastness of the uni/multiverse an intelligence far greater than our own. It really would be ignorant to conclude otherwise, but that/they is/are not "god" by any definition I know of.

How about the last Pope, does he count as a Christian? He gave a speech in Africa saying condoms were sinful and they should prevent the spread of HIV by not having sex.

Again, to clarify, this is the CATHOLIC church, NOT Christianity as a whole.

I don't deny there is probably, somewhere out there in the vastness of the uni/multiverse an intelligence far greater than our own.

Didn't he get banned?

Again, to clarify, this is the CATHOLIC church, NOT Christianity as a whole.

Same god? Same Jesus? Same holy book? Same saints?

(Edit)

"The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian church, with more than one billion members worldwide."

So, about 50% of christians are catholics, as there about 2 billion christians in the world.

So, using the beliefs of catholics to describe christianity is probably ok? Catholicism also at least tends to have definite beliefs. Trying to have a rational debate about wishy-washy liberal christianity is like trying to nail jelly to a wall.

Molgrips, what's your point exactly?

As above.

My real point is that it's not nice for people to start laying into Christians without any provocation.

On a deeper level, I find it frustrating that people don't seem to understand belief.

The existence of God is unproveable, right? So it's consequently academic. This means it doesn't matter if you believe or not. Either position is LOGICALLY valid. Therefore, you are free to choose the position that makes you feel happy, warm and fuzzy

You can pile up all the evidence you like, but none of it's conclusive, so you might as well give up and let everyone be happy.

Note that the above discourse is about the existence of God. The doctrine of organised religion is an entirely separate debate.

By that measure we are ALL ignorant and the word "ignorant" loses any real meaning.

e.g. if I say to you "Unicorns don't exist" then I'd be "ignorant" because they might well exist somewhere in the universe or multiverse

Indeed. We have to keep an open mind. But if we open it too much, our brains will fall out.

Note that the above discourse is about the existence of God. The doctrine of organised religion is an entirely separate debate.

I see no mention of god in the title of the thread or any real mention of him within this thread. It has all been about people and religious institutions.

Again, to clarify, this is the CATHOLIC church, NOT Christianity as a whole.

Are Catholics not Christians?

I asked this before, but perhaps you could enlighten us as to which Christian groups are pro-condoms and pro-same sex marriage? Then we can avoid any embarrassing confusions or unfair representation in the future.

The existence of God is unproveable, right?

I'd agree with that.

Edit - actually on balance, no. What mike said.

This means it doesn't matter if you believe or not. Either position is LOGICALLY valid.

Err no I'd not accept that. Just because there are two positions on a matter doesn't mean that they are equally valid.

Therefore, you are free to choose the position that makes you feel happy, warm and fuzzy

Again yes I'd agree, however you really should keep opinions to yourself and not seek to deny people some of the basic rights that you enjoy. Also you should not expect that your belief is above criticism.

The existence of God is unproveable, right?

Not at all. Just show her to us.

The non-existence of god is unprovable.

Same god? Same Jesus? Same holy book? Same saints?

Yes and No. Same God - yes. Same Jesus - yes, Same Holy Book - yes, Same saints - no, that is just a Catholic thing.

This sums it up best (this is a quote on how Catholicism and Protestantism are different):

[i]They’re the same as they were at the Reformation. There are three significant ones. First is the question of final authority. Protestants hold to sola scriptura [Scripture as their final authority]. For Catholics, the final authority is Scripture as interpreted by the church, that is, the magisterium (the pope and bishops). That’s where Catholicism gets its teachings that can’t be found in Scripture, like veneration of Mary, indulgences and purgatory. Second, Catholics view the church as an extension of Christ’s incarnation. For them, the church is divine as Christ was divine. One result of this is the Catholic proclamation: “Come to the church for salvation, for faith in the church and faith in Christ are one act of faith.” That leads to the third difference: salvation. The Catholic catechism makes it very clear that you are born again and justified through baptism. That means faith plus a certain rite — which is administered by the church — is necessary for salvation. So, the church essentially grants salvation. Although this salvation is “by faith,” additional grace enables us “to work” to attain eternal life. And that’s the problem with saying we speak the same gospel. One of them is clear: Christ did it; we can’t add anything to that. The other one is: Christ did it, but to actually avail yourself of what Christ did you have to do this and this.[/i]

There is a lot of Doctrine in the Catholic church that has been made up by the church (this is where the condom thing comes from as well as the other stuff noted above). Now, ok, I'll take it that some of you don't believe that the Bible was inspired by God - BUT there is a big difference between Christians who take their doctrine solely from the Bible, and the Catholic church where the doctrine from the Bible is taken and then other stuff added on later, essentially to add in what their current thoughts are.

Not a Catholic bashing - but it is very important in 'discussions' like these to be clear that when you quote stuff that is Catholic teaching, it is not necessarily the same as Christian teaching.

Hope that makes sense!

I'd just like to add that I cured a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses.
In one case I was very glad as his little brother later "came out", so he still had support within the family.

I know, I'm just too ****ing nice.

Is Schroedinger's cat alive or dead?

you really should keep opinions to yourself and not seek to deny people some of the basic rights that you enjoy

Yep. As above, whether or not God exists is academic. What you think he wants you do is less so.

Your belief may be criticised, but only when you bring it up.

As in, if I ask you if you like my trousers, you may say no. You may not walk up to me in the street and start taking the piss randomly.

Protestants hold to sola scriptura [Scripture as their final authority]

'there is almost certainly no god, but the possibility is so tiny that it's really not worth thinking about

Er. Says who exactly?

Some mere feeble humans have decided that the divine almighty creator of life, the universe & everything doesn't exist?

"I can't explain it or understand it, therefore it can't possibly be true"

Hooray for human arrogance!

What's the equation that tells us there's almost certainly no god? If there isn't one then it's just a theory or opinion at most.

😀

There is a lot of Doctrine in the Catholic church that has been made up by the church (this is where the condom thing comes from as well as the other stuff noted above). Now, ok, I'll take it that some of you don't believe that the Bible was inspired by God - BUT there is a big difference between Christians who take their doctrine solely from the Bible, and the Catholic church where the doctrine from the Bible is taken and then other stuff added on later, essentially to add in what their current thoughts are.

What about the christians who take their doctrine from some of the bible but miss out the bits that they find inconvenient?

Are Catholics not Christians?

I asked this before, but perhaps you could enlighten us as to which Christian groups are pro-condoms and pro-same sex marriage? Then we can avoid any embarrassing confusions or unfair representation in the future.

So, using the beliefs of catholics to describe christianity is probably ok?

Catholics are Christians in that they have the same Christ, but in a lot of ways that is where it ends. The utter core teaching of Christianity is that there is NOTHING that WE can do to redeem one's sins - it is only Jesus who can do that. Catholicism has the teaching (as mentioned above) that Jesus cleansed our Sins, but you also have to actually do a load of good deeds in order to make sure that happens.

That is a HUGE difference in terms of theology. One has believers doing good works because they WANT to and there is NO MOTIVATION for doing so (and this of course is not saying that believers only can do good works - I think you know what I mean), whereas the other has them doing good works because they NEED to in order to save themselves.

What about the christians who take their doctrine from some of the bible but miss out the bits that they find inconvenient?

Such as? (genuine question, give some examples and I'll try to explain the truth behind or not..if I can that is!)

Er. Says who exactly?

Some mere feeble humans have decided that the divine almighty creator of life, the universe & everything doesn't exist?

"I can't explain it or understand it, therefore it can't possibly be true"

Hooray for human arrogance!

What's the equation that tells us there's almost certainly no god? If there isn't one then it's just a theory or opinion at most.

Some humans have decided that there's no evidence for the existence of god or gods.

Others have decided that as they can't explain it or understand it, god did it.

You can pile up all the evidence you like, but none of it's conclusive, so you might as well give up and let everyone be happy.

You mean 'let everyone be happy' like how the church is doing with gay people who want to get married? Or women who want to be priests?

My real point is that it's not nice for people to start laying into Christians without any provocation.

The provocation is that christianity still enjoys a massively privileged position in society, and it is fairly galling to have christians crying persecution when they see this privilege threatened, especially when their issue is being allowed to carry on promoting intolerance.

I was raised in a christian tradition, many of my family are religious and I can appreciate good things about their faith - I don't go around shouting 'hahah IDIOT do you believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden too'. It was quite traumatic for me to realise when I was about 10 that I no longer believed, and have to admit that to my parents.

So I'm not 'anti-christian' - I just want the same rules and critical thought applied to them as they are to everyone else.

Same god? Same Jesus? Same holy book? Same saints?

Such as? (genuine question, give some examples and I'll try to explain the truth behind or not..if I can that is!)

The ones who allow a divorcee to remarry. That's about the single clearest comment from Jesus about a concrete, modern issue that I can think of in the bible. Yet, the Church of England allow remarriage.

Such as? (genuine question, give some examples and I'll try to explain the truth behind or not..if I can that is!)

"Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee." -- Leviticus 19:19

The provocation is that christianity still enjoys a massively privileged position in society

Don't agree. The reason for that is historical, whatever. It doens't give you carte blanche to verbally kick the shit out of any believers, any more than the fact some cyclists are arseholes gives white van man carte blanche to run me off the road.

If you really want to change the situation, talk to the church AUTHORITIES or the Government. Don't just start insulting anyone who believes.

Don't agree. The reason for that is historical, whatever. It doens't give you carte blanche to verbally kick the shit out of any believers,

When did I say that?

So I'm not 'anti-christian' - I just want the same rules and critical thought applied to them as they are to everyone else.

You didn't answer this bit either.

You mean 'let everyone be happy' like how the church is doing with gay people who want to get married? Or women who want to be priests?

If you really want to change the situation, talk to the church AUTHORITIES or the Government. Don't just start insulting anyone who believes.

There is really very little I can do which will help change the church or it's position in society - it will just (hopefully) eventually come about naturally as we mature as a society and realise that blind subservience to church and royalty is an outmoded concept.

In the meantime let's treat christians just the same as we treat everyone else. How do you feel about scientology? Should that be respected?

I'm sure we can all agree that we shouldn't be tolerating those linen and wool wearing bastards regardless of our other opinions.

Don't agree. The reason for that is historical, whatever. It doens't give you carte blanche to verbally kick the shit out of any believers, any more than the fact some cyclists are arseholes gives white van man carte blanche to run me off the road.

If you really want to change the situation, talk to the church AUTHORITIES or the Government. Don't just start insulting anyone who believes.

To be fair, I'd say that this has been one of the most balanced and reasonable religious-based thread on this forum. I've not noticed any insulting of individuals.

I'm sure we can all agree that we shouldn't be tolerating those linen and wool wearing bastards regardless of our other opinions.

God hates fags, prawns and polycotton blends.

I'm sure we can all agree that we shouldn't be tolerating those linen and wool wearing bastards regardless of our other opinions.

[img] [/img]

it is very important in 'discussions' like these to be clear that when you quote stuff that is Catholic teaching, it is not necessarily the same as Christian teaching.

Fair comment. The only problem there is, if we stop generalising and start picking out individual groups like, say, Catholics, the discussion spirals into "why are we picking on the Catholics?"

Some mere feeble humans have decided that the divine almighty creator of life, the universe & everything [s]doesn't[/s] [b]does[/b] exist?

FTFY.

"I can't explain it or understand it, therefore it can't possibly be true"

... which is why we have religion. Or at least, why a number of people give it credence. All those nasty sciency theories are just so [i]complicated.[/i]

If you really want to change the situation, talk to the church AUTHORITIES or the Government. Don't just start insulting anyone who believes.

The ones who allow a divorcee to remarry. That's about the single clearest comment from Jesus about a concrete, modern issue that I can think of in the bible. Yet, the Church of England allow remarriage.

Great, yeah, thats probably a good one. From my experience as a Christian (both Anglican and Evangelical-ish) and those of others I know and have read etc, the general teaching in the church on divorce is: Divorce is not good, marriage is something that we believe God created for man and woman to be together and is sacred, so to split it is not good. Jesus said this as you mentioned and that is what we believe. BUT we also believe, even more strongly and on top of that, that there is not ONE of us that is without fault and sin. All sins are equal in the eyes of God. So, although divorce should be avoided (and most churches have great counselling teams for marriages in difficulty to try and avoid it), if it does happen, then there is no condemnation on the couple - they are no more sinful than anyone else. If they then re-marry, then that is a great thing - they are entering into another sacred bond under God and this is good!

Hope that makes some sense, please feel free to pick any bits that don't and I'll try and explain further.

I believe the singer out of Slipknot went to Rome to see the Pope...

Is my reply appearing to anyone? It said its posted but for some reason I can't see it?!?!

EDIT: Yes it is thre.....was looking on the wrong page....

Yep. Forum bug. Do not adjust your set.

Hope that makes some sense

You're new to this, aren't you?

speed12 - Member

Great, yeah, thats probably a good one.

How come you ignored mine?

Hope that makes some sense, please feel free to pick any bits that don't and I'll try and explain further.

So essentially the church has modified it's stance, away from the literal teachings of the bible, to adopt a more common sense approach? Why can't it do that on gay marriage then?

they are entering into another sacred bond under God and this is good!

You mean like gay people would like to but aren't allowed?

Hurrah! Mr Woppits here!

What's your view on linen and woolen clothing?

Hope that makes some sense, please feel free to pick any bits that don't and I'll try and explain further.

Umm the bit where you conclude that sinning is "great" is less than clear. Granted I wasn't brought up CofE but I'm fairly sure that in most branches of chritianity sin is seen as a bad thing.

if [divorce] does happen, then there is no condemnation on the couple - they are no more sinful than anyone else.

If what Mike says is correct, this is contrary to what the Bible says. How does the CofE reconcile that?

crikey - Member

Hurrah! Mr Woppits here!

Thankyou. I have been here for some time already, if you read the thread. Something that speed12 evidently hasn't managed to do or he wouldn't be arguing from his steaming great bag of superstitious gibberish.

All sins are equal in the eyes of God

Really? 😯

Speed12 - I agree that divorce is not good. Mine was expensive, traumatic and nearly cost me, well, more than I could say. What that has to do with religion, however, is debatable. I felt bad enough at the time without religious condemnation, thanks. Reading back through this thread, I wonder why I maintain that I believe in God. All I can say is that I do, but that organised religion needs to spend an awfully long time on the naughty step.

Oh and there's a difference between respectfully disagreeing with someone and slagging them off with insults.

The latter is not nice regardless of subject.

he wouldn't be arguing from his steaming great bag of superstitious gibberish.

Harsh.

As religious opinions go, Speed12's appears to be well thought out and well presented.

For all that I'm anti-religion, it's possible to take that viewpoint without being a dick about it.

Sorry Mr Woppit, I've been out on the bike and automatically flicked to the end of the thread to see where it had ended up. My recollection is hazy, but it's normally about this point where Mrs Barnsleymitches chest is brought in and the conversation becomes rather more well rounded...

Oh and there's a difference between respectfully disagreeing with someone and slagging them off with insults.

The latter is not nice regardless of subject.

Ultimately though, I have no more credulity about believing in God than I do if someone believes in Unicorns. I wouldn't go out of my way to say that to a christian in a mocking way but that is my honest opinion.

Do you suggest I should pretend otherwise - or keep quiet about it at all times in case it offends? Why shouldn't I be able to express my honest opinion or debate about religion?

Again, how do you feel about Scientologists who believe this:

In the materials for OT III (Operating Thetan level 3), L. Ron Hubbard writes that, 75 million years ago, the head of the Galactic Federation, made up of 76 planets, was a being named Xenu. Faced with an overpopulation problem, he brought beings to this planet, blew them up with hydrogen bombs, and packaged them. Their spirits now infest our bodies: he says "One's body is a mass of individual thetans stuck to oneself or to the body." Scientologists at this level try to rid themselves of these thetans (spirits) by helping each one to remember the painful experiences of being blown up like that.

?

Their views should be respected and not questioned in case they are offended right - or does it only apply to christians? How about extremist muslims who are against women being educated, and think that all non-believers deserve to die? Let's respect them too.

I already did that over on the BLURAY vs DVD thread crikey, but speaking of well rounded... 😀

For all that I'm anti-religion, it's possible to take that viewpoint without being a dick about it.

Isn't it. I have great hopes for barnsleymitch, however. Just a couple more steps...

For all that I'm anti-religion, it's possible to take that viewpoint without being a dick about it.

+1

All sins are equal in the eyes of God

Then God is an Ass

Not a prayer woppit, you naughty old evangelist you! By the way, somebody on the DVD thread just mentioned directional cables! 😳

Then God is an Ass

Ah, that explains that coveting commandment then; I always wondered about that.

The comment and the coveting are unsurprisingly linked

Why shouldn't I be able to express my honest opinion or debate about religion?

You can, that's fine.

Just don't, as you put it, 'go out of your way to say that in a mocking way'.

That's what I have a problem with. We go to quite some lengths in real life and on here to be nice to each other except for politics and religion threads. Mostly the latter can get extremely nasty for no real reason.

That's what I am campaigning against.

Surely better that some people go a bit over the top in mocking/criticism of religion than the centuries of stifling intolerant religious dogma that have preceded the current situation?

And what about Scientologists? Fair game for mocking/scathing criticism or not?

Surely better that some people go a bit over the top in mocking/criticism of religion than the centuries of stifling intolerant religious dogma that have preceded the current situation?

Er, not really following you there.

How does upsetting a nice believing person redress centuries of nastiness?

And what about Scientologists? Fair game for mocking/scathing criticism or not?

Only if they start it. Isn't this obvious stuff we teach to kids? Don't hit first...?

I believeCrikey to be correct:
The singer out of Slipknot did indeed go to Rome to see the Pope.

And then what did the Pope say to his aide, Crikey? 🙂

I believe the answer is contained within:

Except I can't get it to link properly...

How does upsetting a nice believing person redress centuries of nastiness?

Straw man argument.

Ah, thanks Crikey.

I thought that's what he said.

the centuries of stifling intolerant religious dogma that have preceded the current situation?

How does upsetting a nice believing person redress centuries of nastiness?

Straw man argument

That's what I am saying.. Grum's point was a straw man.

Er, not really following you there.

How does upsetting a nice believing person redress centuries of nastiness?

I never said it did. Yours is the straw man argument - really not sure how you are claiming mine is there. 😉

My point is, better the current situation where a few people get a bit upset occasionally but people are free to say what they like about religion, rather than a situation where large numbers of people are genuinely persecuted, even killed, for doing something the church doesn't agree with, which has been the status quo for hundreds of years.

A lack of willingness to criticise religion was a large part of that status quo being able to maintain it's hold for so long.

Only if they start it. Isn't this obvious stuff we teach to kids? Don't hit first...?

But what if you believe scientology to be a scam? You should keep quiet in case you offend anyone?

As one of your friendly STW Christians I’ve sat this one out so far... don’t want to keep getting involved and you lot thinking I’m a God botherer now, do I? 😀

There’s been some good new input, some old and tired arguments and of course Woptit’s wonderful charm and eloquence.

I’m no theological scholar all I can add is my own humble interpretation …. Do unto others… The number one lesson. Be it from the Bible, the pulpit or your mum and dad …. and at the moment CoE is failing in this…. I’m sure given time they (the hierarchy) will come to their senses.... hopefully soon

Peace out

Ok, bit by bit as i read it

Are we suggesting that the Vatican's views can be safely ignored for the purposes of discussing Xtianity as a whole, now?

Yours is the straw man argument

My general argument, or that particular comment? Cos that was just a rebuttal not an assertion...

My point is, better the current situation where a few people get a bit upset occasionally but people are free to say what they like about religion, rather than a situation where large numbers of people are genuinely persecuted, even killed, for doing something the church doesn't agree with, which has been the status quo for hundreds of years.

Yes, you're quite right.

But that still does not give you the right to randomly slag people off cos you feel like being nasty! (the hypothetical you)

But what if you believe scientology to be a scam? You should keep quiet in case you offend anyone?

If you feel that you can help someone that you are close to by discussing the business practices of that lot then fine. Don't just walk up to Tom Cruise and start yelling in his face.

Like I said. Don't hit FIRST.

don’t want to keep getting involved and you lot thinking I’m a God botherer now, do I?

Its ok we forgive you 😉

My general argument, or that particular comment? Cos that was just a rebuttal not an assertion

BINNERSTSHIRTS - the molly show

I mean gently arguing round and round in circles when you dont even really mean what you say

I mean gently arguing round and round in circles when you dont even really mean what you say

Or to put it another way, trying in vain to make a philosophical point.

From my experience as a Christian (both Anglican and Evangelical-ish) and those of others I know and have read etc, the general teaching in the church on divorce is: Divorce is not good, marriage is something that we believe God created for man and woman to be together and is sacred, so to split it is not good. Jesus said this as you mentioned and that is what we believe. BUT we also believe, even more strongly and on top of that, that there is not ONE of us that is without fault and sin. All sins are equal in the eyes of God. So, although divorce should be avoided (and most churches have great counselling teams for marriages in difficulty to try and avoid it), if it does happen, then there is no condemnation on the couple - they are no more sinful than anyone else. If they then re-marry, then that is a great thing - they are entering into another sacred bond under God and this is good!

I get the whole hate the sin, not the sinner thing. But...

I get the logic of: Remarriage is adultery --> adultery is a sin --> all sins are forgive --> remarriage is ok

But with homosexuality it seems to become "being gay is okay as long as you don't keep doing it". Ie. you can be gay, as long as you don't continue having sex with men. The logic being that sins are only forgiven if you truly repent, and you can't truly repent if you keep doing it.

If the same standards/logic were applied to remarriage of divorcees, the marriage would be okay, so long as there's no sex happening.

Yet, in the bible homosexuality is barely mentioned and the teaching on divorce is so clear:

[b]Luke 16:18[/b]
Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

[b]Mark 10:2-12[/b]
And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away." 5 But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

Interestingly, I'm sure I've heard the middle of that second passage used as a model for marriage and the reason why the church won't allow same sex marriage.