[Closed] The church and homosexuality

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

Respect is earned, and I reject absolutely that religion has a 'divine right' to demand special treatment.

Me too. It's no different to any other sensitive personal belief.

pointing out how irrational/bigoted/wrong someone's beliefs are is perfectly fine.

Not when it's unsolicited.

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.

Except that on this forum, people just kick straight off with the attacking. This is what I do not like, and I don't believe it's fair or very nice.

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

Thanks for patronising - I've actually considered quite a lot. So much in fact, that I don't toss words like 'right' and 'wrong' around in such a glib manner. There's more to the human condition than that. Even if you don't quite get it.

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.

That's not really true though is it. When a senior member of the church speaks out then they are most definatly speaking for the church and by extension the members of that church (although I know that many memebers of the church who do not follow all the teachings of the church, cognative dissonance is I think the term). When a cabinet minister speaks they speak for the government but here is the thing what if I didn't vote for that party then they aren't speaking for me as I'm not a memeber of that group.

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.

You are making the same mistake that others make by assuming that criticism comes from a place of ignorance, a point made earlier, when in fact many of us have direct experience of the teachings of the church. In my case is certainly from there that my criticisms come from.

That's not really true though is it. When a senior member of the church speaks out then they are most definatly speaking for the church

But what the say is not an article of faith. You might say Bishop whoever says "all left-handers should burn in hell". It wouldn't mean that Catholicism hates left-handers

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.

The pope is revered by all who follow his brand, no criticism is tolerated, is a no no according to my contacts in side the faith.
you seem to want it both ways(no pun)-- sorry but its hypocritical--

You are making the same mistake that others make by assuming that criticism comes from a place of ignorance, a point made earlier, when in fact many of us have direct experience of the teachings of the church. In my case is certainly from there that my criticisms come from.

Well from what I've read, most people are expressing views based on hearsay rather than doctrine. To think that quoting the Old Testament is an argument against views of Catholicism, as some do, is showing a lack of knowledge of the teachings of the Catholic church with respect to the OT. So, that is ignorance

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

Just so we're clear, can we also assume that you're not implying anyone's ever seriously said that here?

we only ever get to hear about the stuff that's gone wrong.

Well, true enough. But the media being prawnsuckers is an entirely different subject.

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.

It never ceases to amaze me how many different 'obvious' interpretations there are around this. Only a couple of pages back, someone was saying exactly the opposite, that we all agree it was written by men. As "organised" things go, many religions do seem to be quite disorganised.

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.

Bingo.

face it, religion has had its hegemony, it's past it's sell- by date, and is an increasing irrelevance

Of course, that's only one opinion.

An example of the other side of the coin ... there's a Christian church near me who have been specifically asked by local MPs and Police to increase their profile/involvement in the area because they (the MPs/Police) have attributed a significant drop in crime rates, underage drinking and drug problems to stuff the church has been doing.

There are now a number of kids off drink and drugs.

Nobody else was or is doing much to help these people in this area, only the local irrelevant and out-dated church 😀

The pope is revered by all who follow his brand, no criticism is tolerated, is a no no according to my contacts in side the faith.
you seem to want it both ways(no pun)-- sorry but its hypocritical--

Perhaps, but those who 'follow his brand' also know that not everything he says is true. They know that they are the views of a man, albeit a senior official. They also know that it is not the same as an article of faith, or a part of catechism.

Do you?

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that i want it both ways

Not when it's unsolicited.

That may be so, but I'd suggest that it's not unsolicited if parties are both taking an active part in a debate.

does he advocate condom use in preventing disease ?

Not when it's unsolicited

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

e.g the nature of prayer, the Gnostic Heresy, transubstantiation. Not simple at all

There was a rather dim nun who used to front a show on Beeb2 some years ago on which she attempted to be an Art Critic. Sister Wendy something-or-other. Professional art critics used to tune in and watch when they wanted a bit of a laugh...

Anyway, she recently surfaced into this debate by saying that atheists "can't argue for the existence or non-existence of god because they don't have any theology, poor lambs."

A remarkable statement for being both stupid and patronising both at the same time.

Although it's true I don't have any theology, it's also true that I don't have any Santa Claus-ology, Leprechaunology or Fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-gardenology either yet strangely enough, I have no problem saying with confidence that those things don't exist either.

Theology is a non-subject all about nothing.

I'll happily criticise the catholic church in particular on it's stance and teachings on homosexuality, contraception, divorce and most of all on the fact that it's whole basis is a non falsifiable premise, without having to resort to any old testament teachings. In fact I think you'll find that I, and many others, have never made such criticisms although they are often ignored and what you present is little more than a straw man argument.

I'd also point out that if you don't accept the churchs teachings on things like the transubstantiation, women priests, married priests then you're not really a catholic and your personal beliefs fit much better with the protestant faith.

Perhaps, but those who 'follow his brand' also know that not everything he says is true. They know that they are the views of a man, albeit a senior official.

To think that quoting the Old Testament is an argument against views of Catholicism, as some do, is showing a lack of knowledge of the teachings of the Catholic church with respect to the OT. So, that is ignorance

This problem is not helped by people also claiming to be Catholics using non-canon from the bible as justification for their views! There needs to be a bit more of a vigorous enforcement of who is, and isn't Catholic. Maybe it could be copyrighted? Or maybe a Cheif Whip could be employed to make sure the Catholic line is the correct one whether it's espoused by those arguing for or against Catholicsism!

Either way, clarification on this issue does seem to crop up as an issue on these threads quite regularly.

molgrips
you've hit the nail on the head. I don't agree with unsolicited abuse either. But it's not unsolicited when you use your opinions to interfere with the rights of other people in a society.

Hold whatever opinions you want about any subject you care to fit in your head. (faeries, goblins, gods, elves, angels or unicorns). Do it with my blessing and with my guaranteed lack of interest and argument.

But don't bring those ideas into a discussion about the rights of others unless you want rational people to look at the basis for your claims, point fingers and possibly have a bit of a giggle.

We are not talking about "unsolicited" abuse. You are really genuinely asking for it.

The fact that you don't like it, and that your main defence is to demand "respect" (meaning silence from your critics) is not our problem.

This religious stuff is peculiar, people who appear and act in rational ways in other parts of their lives, seem to go irrational when talking /engaging about mysticism -- i suppose it means you have a get out clause for anything.....

That may be so, but I'd suggest that it's not unsolicited if parties are both taking an active part in a debate.

But it's not unsolicited when you use your opinions to interfere with the rights of other people in a society

Quite so.

There have been several threads ON HERE where someone's mentioned religion in passing and people all jump up telling the world what brainless cretins religious people are.

That is arrogant and offensive and not very nice. That is what I am complaining about.

In short - be nice to each other. It's not rocket science.

The fact that you don't like it, and that your main defence is to demand "respect" (meaning silence from your critics) is not our problem.

Whoah there, back up. Do you think that I am a religious person who is against gay marriage? Cos I'm not.

I've actually considered quite a lot. So much in fact, that I don't toss words like 'right' and 'wrong' around in such a glib manner. There's more to the human condition than that. Even if you don't quite get it.

It is about right and wrong whether you think these terms are glib or not.
You are aware that there is no evidence to support god
you are a physicists so you dont believe in things that dont have evidence or any physical basis.
Its gibberish and you know it so why do you do this?

I dont really get why you do such a staunch defences of the rights of the religious - that is those who are wrong - to ask us to respect their views which means allowing the whole society to dsicriminate against gays just because they dont like them. we are meant to elevate thier own personal bigotry of principles to some sort of pedestal we cannot debate lest we be disrespectfu; - WTF is what they are saying if not disrespectful?

It is hardly like their message of burning in hell for eteernity is a positive or tolerant one to those who choose to life their lives differently. However judgemental i get i am not daming their soul for disagreeing with me which is about as offensive and arrogant as it gets

in short if they wish to tell me what to do they can expect that i will tell them what to do.

if they want to do things in private then i will say nothing

That is arrogant and offensive and not very nice. That is what I am complaining about.

In short - be nice to each other. It's not rocket science.

Its a myth to suggest that the religious are a tolerant bunch they are not and they mor edeserve my tolerance than the BNP or the EDL as they just want to impose their view and discriminate

Look there is either a god or there is not a god there is no half way house
It is about right and wrong whether you think these terms are glib or not.
You are aware that there is no evidence to support god
you are a physicists so you dont believe in things that dont have evidence or any physical basis.
Its gibberish and you know it so why do you do this?

On a similar vein how about Free Will?
There's no scientific evidence of it's existence, but would you class a belief in it as gibberish?

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.

Many of the examples given in this thread are of UK christians, from mainstream churches such as the CofE. It is essentially the CofE which is preventing equal marriage from becoming legal in England and it is the catholic church essentially doing the same in Scotland.

Not extremists.

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.

Yet christians, catholics included, use quotes from the old testament to justify their stance.

One day I'm going to sit down with a christian, a bible and some highlighters so they can show me which bits are literally true, which bits are allegorical and which bits can be discarded altogether.