[Closed] The church and homosexuality

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.

So it appears that the position of the church has changed in a mere 13 years from irreformably against contraception to reluctantly accepting it.

You think they reached this position through revelation and the word of god? Or that they face compromise or death in the face of modern secular standards?

Neither. I don't think it was from the word of god, otherwise there would have been some kind of papal announcement. I don't think it was from fear of 'death'. I don't think people were leaving the catholic church because of some of the views being expressed about condoms. I think they had a think about it and decided that they might need to change their mind. But it does demonstrate that any teachings were not a part of doctrine, and so not actually fundamental to catholicism.

I live in a country whose head of state and head of the state church are one and the same person. It is also a country in which senior figures in this state church hold unelected positions within the upper chamber of the legislature.

That's why the position/teachings of the christian church bother me. Perhaps you live in a different country?

I think I probably do, but many of the people in you legislature, are not senior figures in the state church. Work with them first, they are the people you can influence.

That's a whole lot of voters, but I bet a whole shedload of them disagree with what religion HQ say to the government.

then they need to make their feelings known, it could be a simple vote winner for anyone looking to move into government

phew, thats three more pages since i left to go the bookies,watched a horse called Turbulent Priest, it was 100/1- ran okay for a bit then gave up the struggle and pulled up.

It is also a country in which senior figures in this state church hold unelected positions within the upper chamber of the legislature.

Hang on.. what's the difference between having a senior church figure in the legislature and a lay person who is in fact devoutly religious?

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

but would you need to understand that evidence and see it for yourself or would you be happy that the leading minds in science have recognised that their idea of the scientific concept was previously wrong? That just seems like faith in scientists to me

Hang on.. what's the difference between having a senior church figure in the legislature and a lay person who is in fact devoutly religious?

One is put there by the head of state. One is elected by their constituents. One is democratic, the other not.

Well no. A lord isn't elected.

Let's not get into a debate about democracy - that's not what I want to ask here.

The question is specifically why do you have a problem with there being bishops in the lords WITHIN the current unelected system, and not lay people who may be religious?

but would you need to understand that evidence and see it for yourself or would you be happy that the leading minds in science have recognised that their idea of the scientific concept was previously wrong? That just seems like faith in scientists to me

Trust in a system of evidence, peer review and experiment is not faith. There is a world of a difference.

The question is specifically why do you have a problem with there being bishops in the lords WITHIN the current unelected system, and not lay people who may be religious?

Because if the lay religious MP voted for or against the general view of the electorate because of their faith, the electorate can do something about it at the next election.

To pick a topic at random: gay marriage. If the general view of the population is that two people who love each other should be able to get married but an MP votes against this because of their religious beliefs, there is a channel through which the electorate can make their views know.

If the bishop votes against it there is no recourse.

The question is specifically why do you have a problem with there being bishops in the lords WITHIN the current unelected system, and not lay people who may be religious?

I have a problem with the concept of the House of Lords generally, yes. But within that I specifically have a problem with the idea of Bishops getting to vote on our laws, especially given the intolerance many of them are espousing in their official religious capacity.

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?"

Trust in a system of evidence, peer review and experiment is not faith. There is a world of a difference.

but then what do you call it when the belief system was shown to be wrong? It can only be belief, you can't know something which is subsequently shown to be wrong

Bishops, men in long dresses, funny hats, must be a party !

The elected house is bad enough, the appointed one is a bad joke well passed its time. I have no time for unaccountable mouthpieces of privilege, they are a parasitical layer of obfuscation .

To pick a topic at random: gay marriage. If the general view of the population is that two people who love each other should be able to get married but an MP votes against this because of their religious beliefs, there is a channel through which the electorate can make their views know.

If the bishop votes against it there is no recourse.

Well, Bishops can change their mind, I don't know the CoE, but I don't think the case against gay marriage is doctrinal. In fact, as i understand it, most churches don't actually perform marriages. Marriage is a civil procedure, and by definition within the law, only allows it to take place between a man and a woman. Priests are only blessing the union. This blessing can be applied to all such partnerships, and has been applied to same sex couples too. It seems that the injunction to gay marriage is not something which Christians forbid, it seems that it is something which the English forbid. Why do you English do that?

It seems that the injunction to gay marriage is not something which Christians forbid, it seems that it is something which the English forbid

I think this is pretty disingenuous TBH. What do you think the most common opinion on gay marriage would be amongst christians worldwide? Happy tolerance?

Well, they don't forbid it the way you English do

Because if the lay religious MP voted for or against the general view of the electorate because of their faith, the electorate can do something about it at the next election.

Nonono you misunderstand.

Given that the Lords is unelected, what's the difference between a bishop and a devout lay person?

Well, they don't forbid it the way you English do

Um.... there's only 10 countries in the world that recognize gay marriage.

I don't think any of them are officially christian countries, strangely enough.

Given that the Lords is unelected, what's the difference between a bishop and a devout lay person?

That one is officially representing the opinions of an organisation that legitimises/encourages bigotry, whereas the other should hopefully realise that he shouldn't allow his personal beliefs to cloud his professional judgement?

Belief based on rational analysis differs fundamentally from belief based on faith.
By it's nature it is subject to change as evidence is presented, tested and challenged.

Theologians have often used logical arguments to prove the existance of god, but these arguments are not rational or verifible as they present no evidence that can be tested.

Hence the comments re the irrelevance of theology.

The link between the stance of the Catholic church with regard to condoms and Aids in Africa is often cited. This is strange as Catholicism is not the majority Christian religion in Africa. Then even in the countries with a large proportion of Catholics, AIDS is not noticeably more widespread.

The whole AIDS / Africa thing is very complex with a number of contributory factors, not least of all the large number of parasites looking to line their own pockets at the expense of the lives of others. I'm looking at you, Mathias Rath.

However, even if they're not the majority doesn't mean that they aren't at least part of the problem, and even if as you suggest they aren't part of problem then it's still bloody irresponsible for influential people to be condemning condom use in areas where HIV is rife, don't you think?

Regardless, that wasn't really the point I was making. The question asked was about who preaches against condom usage; this was but one example.

why do you have a problem with there being bishops in the lords WITHIN the current unelected system, and not lay people who may be religious?

Because they're there because they're religious rather than despite it?

But when you generalise, you leave large holes in your argument. No one would expect to get away with an argument say "why do Englishmen ..."

I take your point, but it is a little of a catch-22 situation.

Given that the Lords is unelected, what's the difference between a bishop and a devout lay person?

The lay person is there presumably on the basis of expertise on some area (although granted that is not always the case), their faith is not relevant to this and they will presumably not be guided by the fact. The bishop is there solely because of the elevated position he holds in a particular religion with no requirement for any other expertise. That is the difference.

That one is officially representing the opinions of an organisation that legitimises/encourages bigotry, whereas the other should hopefully realise that he shouldn't allow his personal beliefs to cloud his professional judgement?

Is that their actual purpose and brief? To represent their organisation?

The lay person is there presumably on the basis of expertise on some area (although granted that is not always the case), their faith is not relevant to this and they will presumably not be guided by the fact. The bishop is there solely because of the elevated position he holds in a particular religion with no requirement for any other expertise

Lots of presumablies and hopefullies there.

So you trust the lay person not to let faith cloud their judgement, but not the Bishop?

EDIT from the CoE website:

"they seek to be a voice for all people of faith, not just Christians."

Hmm.. interesting.. there are quite a few of those in the UK aren't there? There does seem to be an official difference after all.

"they seek to be a voice for all people of faith, not just Christians."

Seems like a sensible claim to make if you want to maximise your chances of retaining power.

The rest of us godless heathens can get ****ed though, presumably.

Well not really, we can be represented by the 96% of Lords who are not Bishops.

So you trust the lay person not to let faith cloud their judgement, but not the Bishop?

Pretty much yeah. After all the bishop has no other reason to be there. Oh and the presumablys are there to highlight the general imperfections in the upper house.

Well not really, we can be represented by the 96% of Lords who are not Bishops.

But they represent religious people too surely - why do the religious need special extra representation?

So you trust the lay person not to let faith cloud their judgement, but not the Bishop?

*sigh*

Not necessarily but the lay person isn't there specifically to represent (intolerant) religion.

In the 14th century, religious leaders and landed gentry formed the 'Upper House' (the Lords) as, respectively, the Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal. Local representatives formed the 'Lower House' (the Commons). Apart from a brief interruption following the English Civil war, religious leaders have played an active role in parliament ever since.

It's absolutely ludicrous that in the 21st century we are still ruled, at least in part, by our unelected 'betters'.

After all the bishop has no other reason to be there

I dunno.. Bishops have generally spent a career thinking carefully about people's problems and issues, like judges.

Many of the ones I've heard speak have sounded pretty intelligent and switched on. Not all, of course.

It's absolutely ludicrous that in the 21st century we are still ruled, at least in part, by our unelected 'betters'.

Ok well I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there is definitely a place for an unelected house. Since the democratic system is pretty much bound to produce garbage.

But that is another thread, shall I start it?

I don't have a issue with religious people have positions in parliament, so on that basis there's no difference. It is the link between church and state which is the issue.

We do seem to have wandered away from stylish gentlemen and ladies who follow the tennis...

but then what do you call it when the belief system was shown to be wrong? It can only be belief, you can't know something which is subsequently shown to be wrong

Science gives the current best hypothesis, as supported by the available evidence. There are no absolute truths, merely theories that are currently supported by the available evidence. If new evidence is found, the theories are reformulated to account.

Belief doesn't come into it. I don't have a belief in gravity or evolution or bacteria.

Ok well I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there is definitely a place for an unelected house. Since the democratic system is pretty much bound to produce garbage.

I don't have too much of an issue with an appointed upper house. It's essentially a representation of the past x years of the elected lower house and can add stability and prevent more short-termist actions of the lower house. During the Blair years the Lords stopped a lot of the dodgier policies.

But bishops in the Lords skews the house away from being representative. If a proportion of the population were religious, these people would be represented anyway.

That one is officially representing the opinions of an organisation that legitimises/encourages bigotry, whereas the other should hopefully realise that he shouldn't allow his personal beliefs to cloud his professional judgement?
Is that their actual purpose and brief? To represent their organisation?

The lay person is there presumably on the basis of expertise on some area (although granted that is not always the case), their faith is not relevant to this and they will presumably not be guided by the fact. The bishop is there solely because of the elevated position he holds in a particular religion with no requirement for any other expertise
Lots of presumablies and hopefullies there.

So you trust the lay person not to let faith cloud their judgement, but not the Bishop?

EDIT from the CoE website:
they seek to be a voice for all people of faith, not just Christians

[b]Their presence in the Lords is an extension of their general vocation as bishops to preach God's word and to lead people in prayer.[/b] Bishops provide an important independent voice and spiritual insight to the work of the Upper House and, while they make no claims to direct representation, they seek to be a voice for all people of faith, not just Christians.

could somebody summarise in a couple of sentences please?

The Bible according to singletrackers.

Oh yes he is!
Oh no he isn't!

The Bible according to singletrackers.

There was very little of this

Oh yes he is!
Oh no he isn't!

There was none of this.

Did you just feel the need to make some contribution? No matter how facile?

So singletracked, I'll ask again. Why has the bit about the mixing of fabrics in the bible been conveniently forgotten, but not homosexuality? Or the ban on eating pork or shellfish? Or women wearing gold? Or having tattoos?

could somebody summarise in a couple of sentences please?

Dog with Bone

Which do you think is most likely to let their faith cloud their judgement - the lay person or the person who has dedicated their entire life to doing gods work. Its a tough one that eh.

I don't know. Neither do you. I think you are being rather judgemental there, I'd be embarassed if I'd said that.

😉

So singletracked, I'll ask again. Why has the bit about the mixing of fabrics in the bible been conveniently forgotten, but not homosexuality? Or the ban on eating pork or shellfish? Or women wearing gold? Or having tattoos?

He already had in his discussion of the relative importance of the New and Old Testament.

Thanks mefty.
Also, depending on the level of generalisation you are applying, the Catholic church blesses same-sex unions, as do some other churches. Unless, you mean a specific church