I don't know. Neither do you. I think you are being rather judgemental there, I'd be embarassed if I'd said that.
Ah we are in the playground , excellent.
I dont understand why you take up positions you dont really believe in them labour them to death
News Flash
Pope Decrees God Does NOT Exist
He already had in his discussion of the relative importance of the New and Old Testament.
Where? this bit?
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.
Not sure why you are specifying Catholics, but are you suggesting the Old Testament is irrelevant to Christians then? If so why is it frequently quoted by Christians seeking to justify certain arguments? Wasn't it meant to be the direct word of God?
This would seem to suggest Jesus was in favour of all the old laws.....
2. “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:46-47.)
And anyway, what specifically does Jesus say about homosexuality in the New Testament, assuming 'all bets are off' and the Old Testament is to be ignored?
are you suggesting the Old Testament is irrelevant to Christians then? If so why is it frequently quoted by Christians seeking to justify certain arguments? Wasn't it meant to be the direct word of God?
The OT is not irrelevant or to be ignored, however many elements do not apply in the same way after JC & the new covenant (New Testament basically).
For example, Christians are no longer required to sacrifice animals to cover for their sin etc.
There are also many elements of the OT that need to be interpreted/understood in the context of the culture of the time, hence why the Bible should not always be taken literally.
Some "christians" will use the Bible out of context to argue a point. As with many things, it is quite easy to twist things without trying very hard or ignore the context of a verse which means it completely loses it's intended meaning.
The thing with the Bible is that it is not intended to be read as a purely intellectual exercise - Christians believe it is the 'living word' of God, and full/true understanding comes through the Holy Spirit.
Singletracked, I'd already made several contribitions, with the benefit of a strict Catholic upbringing.
However, you appear not to have read them.
I wonder if this is indicitive of a closed mind on other subjects, or just with this one?
I've mostly found those raised in a Catholic environment to have an excellent sense of humour, God knows, we need one.
Nice to find an exception that proves the rule.
Rusty Spanner-- some good mates of mine, like you had strict upbringings, thankfully they can laugh about them now.
Ah we are in the playground , excellent.
You started it, I was just repeating it for a bit of a joke. But it is a serious point that your objections seem to be based on assumptions which seem to be based on prejudice.
I dont understand why you take up positions you dont really believe in them labour them to death
It's the principle.
I don't believe in God, but I don't believe that other people who don't should be allowed to be really nasty to people who do. I've no problem with intelligent debate, but the nastiness and name calling is really not nice.
Surely that's clear enough?
If I think that religious belief is a load of old vacuous drivel (which I do), why should I not be honest about it and say so?
Because it might "cause offence" amongst the religious?
Religion itself is something that I find offensive. So I'm offended. Nothing's going to happen.
Ah we are in the playground , excellent.
You started it
*slow hand clap*
but the nastiness and name calling is really not nice.
who's been nasty ??
and just an aside, when the jehovahs' come a knockin-- if you tell em your'e a catholic they leave you alone--- they know a dead horse when they see one
I don't believe in God, but I don't believe that other people who don't should be allowed to be really nasty to people who do. I've no problem with intelligent debate, but the nastiness and name calling is really not nice.
I've not seen any real nastiness in this thread.
The OT is not irrelevant or to be ignored, however many elements do not apply in the same way after JC & the new covenant (New Testament basically).
Thanks joao3v16, but does the bit I quoted not suggest the old laws should still apply? That's what they're arguing here in what is to my mind a very tenuous justification of homosexuality still being seen as a sin.
http://www.thebible.net/modules.php?name=Read&itemid=81&cat=9
And again, is there anywhere in the NT where Jesus specifically says that homosexuality is wrong?
but the nastiness and name calling is really not nice.
Like where Christians tell homosexuals (or non-believers) they are sinners and will burn in hell you mean? I'd say that's a fair bit nastier than mocking someone and saying you don't believe what they believe. Presumably you would have less of a problem with that though.
It seems you are being offended on behalf of christians while the actual christians on here calmly get on with having a conversation. 😕
The thing with the Bible is that it is not intended to be read as a purely intellectual exercise - Christians believe it is the 'living word' of God, and full/true understanding comes through the Holy Spirit.
The problem with this is that everyone interprets it differently, which then makes it impossible to have a reasoned discussion about it. Even christians can't agree on what it means or what is a christian position.
The problem with this is that everyone interprets it differently
Moreover, should we really be setting laws which affect everyone based on something which by admission of its advocates is open to interpretation?
I've not seen any real nastiness in this thread.
Not as much this time around, admittedly.
Perhaps my message is getting across 😉
And again, is there anywhere in the NT where Jesus specifically says that homosexuality is wrong?
[b]Mark 10:6-7[/b]
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,
This part of the gospels, where Jesus describes a marriage as being between a man and woman, is often used to justify not allowing homosexual marriage. Jesus gives the model for marriage as being between a man and a woman, sex outside of marriage is a sin and so homosexuality is a sin.
Of course the fuller quote shows that Jesus is saying the divorce is wrong...
[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."
The Anglican church will remarry a divorcee, but not two men or two women.
To accept any of this is to suppose that the alleged Nazarene actually existed as a historical figure, which is largely open to question.
At least we know that Mahommed existed, although he seems to have spent his time preaching just as equally vapid nonsense, having lifted most of it from the bible in the first place.
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,
And in the original language?
I've mostly found those raised in a Catholic environment to have an excellent sense of humour, God knows, we need one.
Nice to find an exception that proves the rule.
Bzzzzzt!! Making an assumption there, old boy.
And in the original language?
Who knows.
It's a ludicrous situation. Even if we assume that the Bible is what the believers claim it is; it's written in dead languages, collated from various sources over centuries, translated and retranslated by hopefully impartial men based on what they think they original meant.
It's then been hacked about with over the last millennium or so by various groups who've created their own versions, and is now presented to us as the ultimate 'guide to life' that we should all follow and revere, even though after fifteen hundred years to work it out we're still making excuses for our lack of understanding. And yet this still has an influence on our legal system?
Not sure why you are specifying Catholics, but are you suggesting the Old Testament is irrelevant to Christians then? If so why is it frequently quoted by Christians seeking to justify certain arguments? Wasn't it meant to be the direct word of God?
I'm only specifying Catholics because it demonstrates that it is not useful to talk about Christians as a whole. Some Christians may think the OT is the word of god, others don't. Some Christians churches including Catholic ones, bless same-sex unions.
Out of interest, Singletracked, can I ask what your view on same-sex marriage is?
And in the original language?
Do you mean the language Jesus spoke (Aramaic) or the language first used to write the gospels (Greek)?
I speak neither, so they don't help. But, Young's Literal Translation has these verses as:
6 but from the beginning of the creation, a male and a female God did make them;
7 on this account shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife,
For all your "that verse in different translations and languages needs" I give you [url= http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010:6-7 ]Bible Gateway[/url]
"The Anglican church will remarry a divorcee, but not two men or two women.".... Yet
It's a great big slow poddling instution it'll get there in time.
Much like society in general really, we wouldn't have thought the whole thing was possible 10 years ago... and I'm sure there are just as many and probably far more non-christains who sadly don't beleive in gay marriage.
Never been told by a Xtian ( of any sort ) that I'm going to burn in hell. Btw
Edit agree with Rosey, only a matter of time
Singletracked, I'd already made several contribitions, with the benefit of a strict Catholic upbringing.
Is this becuase I called your recent contribution facile? If you've engaged in the threa, why did you represent it as 'Yes he is / No he isn't?' It seemed a strange interpretation of the discussion. But now you say I lack a sense of humour, because of my response? Oh, ok "Yes he is / No he isn't?" was a joke!!! haha I get it! good one!!
Is my sense of humour good enough to be a Catholic now?
I'm sure there are just as many and probably far more non-christains who sadly don't beleive in gay marriage
But we're allowed to call those people homophobes. [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/oct/08/archbishop-canterbury-gay-marriage-tory ]Saying the same to a christian is like the beginning of Nazi Germany[/url].
Out of interest, Singletracked, can I ask what your view on same-sex marriage is?
It should be legal
*page change glitch*
Much like society in general really, we wouldn't have thought the whole thing was possible 10 years ago... and I'm sure there are just as many and probably far more non-christains who sadly don't beleive in gay marriage.
Religion, as ever, is dragged along kicking and screaming by ethical improvements in society bought about by secular forces.
Who cares whether or not whomever "believes" in gay marriage? Make it the law.
Selah.
It should be legal
So you support it, or do you just think it should be legal despite your personal feelings?
(Not meaning to single you out here, I'm genuinely interested in your opinion; feel free to tell me to bugger off)
No Singletracked, not an assumption.
I said that I had mostly found it to be true.
This is based on personal experience, not assumption.
Anyway, I stopped believing in The Assumption when I was about nine.
That's a lapsed Catholic/atheist joke, btw.
Good job I didn't say 'He's behind you' really isn't it?
"But we're allowed to call those people homophobes." Saying the same to [b]a[/b] christian is like the beginning of Nazi Germany.
No not to A christain you're right... but to tar the whole group as such ??
Never been told by a Xtian ( of any sort ) that I'm going to burn in hell. Btw
My friend's mum is a devout evangelical christian. She genuinely believes and has told all her kids they are going to be damned to an eternal fiery hell, unless they repent and bring Jesus into their lives. Apparently it really upsets her (and to a lesser extent the kids). Pretty tragic IMO.
I'm only specifying Catholics because it demonstrates that it is not useful to talk about Christians as a whole. Some Christians may think the OT is the word of god, others don't. Some Christians churches including Catholic ones, bless same-sex unions.
How many Catholic churches actually do that? I strongly suspect the number is so few as to make it pretty much irrelevant. The fact is that the vast majority of Christians do believe homosexuality is a sin, and that gay marriage is wrong. This is based on my experience of being brought up a Christian, in a Christian country, having listened to the pronouncements of various Christian leaders, and knowing a fair bit about Christianity in certain parts of Africa through some work I've done.
Yes that doesn't apply to every single Christian but it's a reasonable generalisation to make - otherwise the concept of Christianity at all is meaningless. Do you think it's also unfair to generalise that most Christians believe Jesus is the son of God, or that they believe in the concept of hell?
No not to A christain you're right... but to tar the whole group as such ??
Maybe not the whole group but there is a strong, officially endorsed strain of homophobia throughout most of Christianity.
Grum, I don't doubt it, my ex is at Oxford uni and belongs to to GLTB group that was regularly attacked by some regilous students, I know it happens, just not to me personally.
Cougar, you don't need my views on gay marriage, right? 😀
Emsz, I'm fairly sure your views aren't difficult to work out. (-:
No not to A christain you're right... but to tar the whole group as such ??
Maybe I should have said The Church, rather than christians.
The church and some christians hold/express homophobic views. Some christians do not.
As I said earlier, my wife is a church-attending christian. She's not homophobic, but I've certainly heard other members of that church expressing homophobic views.
It could be said that those views aren't because of their religion, because some non-religious people also hold those views. But, as that religion's official position is anti-homosexual marriage and they're of an age, class and level of education who are currently generally open-minded and liberal, it would seem that it is their religion which is the cause of their views.
The fact is that the vast majority of Christians do believe homosexuality is a sin
I'd like to see stats on that.
Christians, church goers, or believers in God? How about broken down by country?
So that makes me and Miketually's wife... as pro-homosexual marriage
Hey ... its a start
It's not really a "homosexual marriage" issue. It's an equal rights issue.
Ok Cougar ... you are right
Stupid of me to try and lighten the mood with a friendly post.
I'd like to see stats on that.Christians, church goers, or believers in God? How about broken down by country?
Why don't you look some up then? Here's some for starters.
A new survey conducted by LifeWay Research finds that 44 percent of Americans believe homosexuality is a sin. Meanwhile, 43 percent believe it is not, and 13 percent are not sure.The survey, conducted among a random sampling of 2,144 adult Americans, asked the question: ""Do you believe homosexual behavior is a sin?" Results indicate that gender, education, church attendance, and religious affiliation affect one's views.
According to the survey, 47 percent of men believe homosexuality is a sin while 40 percent of women believe the same.
[b]Seventy-one percent of those who attend a church service once weekly or more believe it is a sin, compared to a mere 8 percent who never attend a church service.
Among evangelical, fundamentalist or born again Christians, 82 percent say homosexuality is a sin while only 14 percent say it is not a sin. This is compared to the 29 percent of those from other religions who say homosexuality is sinful. [/b]
It's not really a "homosexual marriage" issue. It's an equal rights issue.
That summarises in a nutshell the reason why so few understand the CofE's position. They believe a marriage can only be between a man and a woman, so by their and they would argue society's definition, it is simply impossible for a marriage between two people of the same sex to exist. Their view is that discrimination under the law has been removed by civil partnerships.
Seventy-one percent of those who attend a church service once weekly or more believe it is a sin, compared to a mere 8 percent who never attend a church service.
A slight point about those stats: presumably a fairly large percentage of the [i]"8 percent who never attend a church service"[/i] don't believe in any kind of sin, so that skews the stats a little.
i.e. if you said to me "Is murder a sin?" I'd say no. Not because I don't think murder is bad, but because I don't believe in the religious concept of sin.
A large percentage of 8% is at worst going to skew the stats by something under eight percent.
Some of the other 92% may have rejected the premise of 'sin' as you suggest, but as you say, that's just a presumption. It's not clear whether it was a leading question or not.
