Old bloody reverends ...

tj-music.com

.... always using the lords name in vain!!

nearly six years into the 21st century and lightyears ahead of ourselves it is time to acknowledge change and a change in a global society.

Same-sex marriages obviously is what free people like to choose. A marriage before God, who loves all equaly and I really believe he does.

So how come that a stinking reverend publicly protests while the first same sex marraiges in Ireland take place.

He can protest all he likes but saying: "that this is a perverted lifestyle and GOD doesn´t approve of it" is simply not for him to say.

As long as we have sexist reverends and a pope who openly speaks out against homosexuals (who are ALL children of God too, right?!) Christianity will continue to be met with suspicion and will further loose its right to exist.

Modern men for modern times is what is needed. :mad:

larryone

tj-music.com wrote:

.... always using the lords name in vain!!

nearly six years into the 21st century and lightyears ahead of ourselves it is time to acknowledge change and a change in a global society.

Same-sex marriages obviously is what free people like to choose. A marriage before God, who loves all equaly and I really believe he does.

So how come that a stinking reverend publicly protests while the first same sex marraiges in Ireland take place.

He can protest all he likes but saying: "that this is a perverted lifestyle and GOD doesn´t approve of it" is simply not for him to say.

As long as we have sexist reverends and a pope who openly speaks out against homosexuals (who are ALL children of God too, right?!) Christianity will continue to be met with suspicion and will further loose its right to exist.

Modern men for modern times is what is needed. :mad:

It's not for him to say, but he (and loads of people on this particular forum) believe that the bible is the word of God, literally, and that the Bible doesnt approve of it.

The Bible certainly doesnt approve of it, but I dont believe the Bible to literally be the word of God.

Homosexuals are children of God.

Many will tell what they do is offensive to God.

subtext is an anagram of buttsex

Excelsior

Just as I head off to bed I thought I'd fire out that Christianity does not teach that the Bible is "literally the word of God". I don't think there are any of the regular Christians on this forum would agree to that definition. As with everything in Christianity, common conception of it and its adherents is far from the truth. The issues that the original poster raises are substantial and significant but the premise is, I think, flawed.

BrianCalgary

tj-music.com wrote:

nearly six years into the 21st century and lightyears ahead of ourselves it is time to acknowledge change and a change in a global society.


Modern men for modern times is what is needed. :mad:

As Christians we acknowledge the change, but that does not make the change right or moral. Different societies throughout the ages have allowed sin to occur in their societies and have justified the behaviour as being modern and right for the times. Homosexual behaviour is not new (ancient Greece and Sodom / Gomorrah and Ancient Rome come to mind) nor modern. The only truth that has lasted throughout time has been the truth of the one who has created us.

If you use anything for a purpose other than for what it is created it becomes a disaster.

Your other comment on "free people" choosing. You insinuate that Christians are not free. Christians are free. We are free from the bondage of sin, however we are NOT free from sin, as we are still sinful. We choose to do God's will which is the most fulfilling life that you can imagine and since it is fulfilling it makes sense to share that knowledge with as many as possible. Life when carried out in God's purpose is the greatest, most fulfilling, challenging, and happiest life you can imagine. The Bible condemns homosexuality as sinful behaviour, along with adultery, drunkenness, etc.

We as citizens have the right to voice our opinions in the public square (although I didn't see the reverands carry-on) is his display as offensive to you as the displays put on by the gay/lesbian community during their gay pride parades offensive to me as I see it on the news? Free speech is for everyone or no one. Last time I checked free-speech was possible in all countries of western European heritage and Judaeo-Christan values, whereas countries that do not follow Judaeo-Christian values will kill you for expressing certain points of view. (OK I'm ranting) I'll stop.

UU

I wouldn't use the Bibles, respectively the Jewish Torah and the Christian Gospels, as rulebooks for life which many do. They are amazing books which maybe not as such in a literal way but certainly metaphorically pose us which different scenarios. Also they were written in the elder years when people knew less about the world and society and the union between male and female was very sacred, certainly more than it seems to be in today's society. Heterosexual bonds meant children which meant more people and that it probably the real reason for homophobia within the Bible and their enemies like the Romans and Egyptians committed homosexual acts. Unlike the Qu'ran of Islam which is said to be written by the hands of Allah (which I very much doubt), the Torah and the Gospels are written by men through the words of God (which I also disbelieve).

My theory, as I myself am gay, is to take parts of the Bibles that I like and which mean something to me. Anyway they condemn everything! Apparently it is forbidden to consume seafood! Although some are ignorant at present and don't understand homosexuality. I find though that a majority of people know somebody who is and are quite accepting but you do get the odd bigot which I just completely ignore! Perhaps the Bible should bear a stamp on the cover saying "DO NOT TAKE LITERALLY" which many fundamentalist Bible Belters do from cover to back.

samb

BrianCalgary wrote:

We as citizens have the right to voice our opinions in the public square (although I didn't see the reverands carry-on) is his display as offensive to you as the displays put on by the gay/lesbian community during their gay pride parades offensive to me as I see it on the news? .

How is a gay pride parade offensive to you? Thier behaviour does not condem you in any way. The people attacking the gays are guilty of incitment to hatred. If you can't see the difference between the two scenarios then I think you should look back on some of the nicer things you may have learned as a seminarian. ''do unto other..etc

larryone

BrianCalgary wrote:

If you use anything for a purpose other than for what it is created it becomes a disaster.

The word "innovation" comes to mind...

BrianCalgary wrote:

The Bible condemns homosexuality as sinful behaviour, along with adultery, drunkenness, etc.

But does that necessarily mean God condemns it as alot of people are making out?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Last time I checked free-speech was possible in all countries of western European heritage and Judaeo-Christan values, whereas countries that do not follow Judaeo-Christian values will kill you for expressing certain points of view. (OK I'm ranting) I'll stop.

When comments like this are made I always think of the ammount of people that were executed for heresy by catholicism.

robindch

> The Bible condemns homosexuality as sinful behaviour, along
> with adultery, drunkenness, etc.

Oi! You left out clams, oysters, lobsters, snails, camels, hares, pigs, ravens, bats and lots of other stuff! See here for an incomplete list:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/11.html#10

And wearing two types of cloth at the same time, etc, etc, etc, etc. And doesn't it say to murder adulterers:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/20.html#10

> Last time I checked free-speech was possible in all countries
> of western European heritage [...]

Sir, your knowledge of other cultures does you proud! Even if you do seem a trifle hazy about what goes on in a lot of the ex-european colonies around the world

> [...] whereas countries that do not follow Judaeo-Christian
> values will kill you for expressing certain points of view.

I thank my stars that there's a judaeo-christian president + congress in the USA, from where rolling waves of warm approbation, gentle peace + love, international co-operation and a warm sense of shared values with us lot here in "Old Europe", are all practiced daily! Makes me proud to be alive!

<wipes tear from eye>

Excelsior

Robin, you old fundie, I have shown you the New Testament passage that deals with why we can eat lobster. Jesus deals with Sabbath law and violence. These literalist attacks on Scripture are below you.

But on the issue of Bush and his Judeo-Christian ethic, I'm right behind you, wiping those tears from my eyes.

The Christians who protested in Belfast had a right to do it. I fully support their right. But I hold the Bible to be the authority in my faith and not the mores of my culture and so I would challenge those Free Ps to start picketing the premises of multi-national corporations who are raping the 3rd World, local businesses who are unfairly laying people off, government offices that are ruining people's lives through red-tape or simple apathy and on down through the list of sinful actions and institutions that do physical harm to people. Before all that I would ask them to examine their own eye for logs before picking at others and if after all that they still had energy for verbally assaulting people in the street while claiming to represent the Prince of Peace, I might join in.

That day won't come though. Sadly.

Civil union is a matter of civil rights. I don't deny civil rights to sinners. I would be denying civil rights to myself! I do believe that homosexual sex is a sin but I think that all sex outside of marriage is a sin and I know that I am a sinner in this area as in every other. You cannot legislate sin away. That is one of the major teachings of Jesus and so I would support the introduction of civil unions for heterosexuals and homosexuals in the Republic.

hairyheretic

Excelsior wrote:

But I hold the Bible to be the authority in my faith and not the mores of my culture

Here's a tangential thought. Would the laws mentioned in the bible have reflected the cultural values of the time? Since all cultures evolve over time, changing what is considered moral, are those biblical laws a good value set for today?

Asiaprod

hairyheretic wrote:

Here's a tangential thought. Would the laws mentioned in the bible have reflected the cultural values of the time? Since all cultures evolve over time, changing what is considered moral, are those biblical laws a good value set for today?

WhooooHoooo, that is an excelent question.
Thats the real issue, right there in black and umm, kinda gray on my screen.
"are those biblical laws a good value set for today"
I would say some are, but a lot more are not.
Now I will add the other side of the question:

What can be done about it?

Excelsior

Of course they reflect the cultural biases of the day. The Bible is not, as often characterised, the literal word of God, but rather the God-inspired story of His redemptive purposes written by men and women through centuries.

Yet whether one is a Christian or not, there are some issues that are morally binding. Cultures change but the underlying principles behind laws don't. (The laws of course do). There has never been a society that viewed cowardice as a virtue. But that issue of cultural and moral relativism is a whole other thread.

The teachings on sex and homosexuality in the Old Testament are reflective of the cultural processes of Israel at the time. With Jesus, Christians believe we receive teaching that is true for all people in all places at all times and his teaching reinforces the principles (although not the punishments) of Hebrew Scriptures.

Dades

Hmmm the question as to whether the laws of the bible reflect the times they were written in is irrelevant if you believe they were inspired by God. The Creator of the entire cosmos would not change with the times. Did he wear flares in the 70's? Have a mullet in the 80's?

If you do believe they are in fact the words of God then you must obey them, though it is open to you to interpret them in the light of our times.

If you don't believe the bible to be Gods word then the question becomes a merely theoretical one.

Eek - cross posted with Exelsior - preparing to look foolish...

hairyheretic

Excelsior wrote:

Of course they reflect the cultural biases of the day. The Bible is not, as often characterised, the literal word of God, but rather the God-inspired story of His redemptive purposes written by men and women through centuries.

Which leads me to another thought. Over what period of time was the bible laid down? Has it been established when the version that exists today was formally set?

And if the bible was revised, changed, or what have you over that period, why then should the religious leaders of today not continue to do so?

When it was written I imagine it dealt with the issues of the time (as the early church saw it). Might a "living" bible be useful to christians of today?

BTW I'm not proposing the bible be scrapped, or we immediately start penning the Book of Bob .. just tossing out a few random thoughts

Excelsior wrote:

Yet whether one is a Christian or not, there are some issues that are morally binding. Cultures change but the underlying principles behind laws don't. (The laws of course do). There has never been a society that viewed cowardice as a virtue.

Some issues do certain transcend cultural boundaries, but there are probably equally many that do not. I imagine we would see some fairly different ideas of what constituted "moral" behaviour if we were to compare, for sake of arguement, western, middle eastern and asian culture.

Excelsior wrote:

But that issue of cultural and moral relativism is a whole other thread.

Worth discussing do you think? Might be more suitable to humanities than here though.

Excelsior wrote:

The teachings on sex and homosexuality in the Old Testament are reflective of the cultural processes of Israel at the time. With Jesus, Christians believe we receive teaching that is true for all people in all places at all times and his teaching reinforces the principles (although not the punishments) of Hebrew Scriptures.

Sex is probably a very good example to pick to illustate changing cultural mores. IIRC the bible states sex outside of marriage is a no no, yet in todays society, it is (generally speaking) seen as a non issue.

If two people are in a long term, commited relationship, yet have chosen not to marry for whatever reason, should their sexual relations be condemned?

That of two people in a commited relationship that has not yet become long term?

In my oppinion, morality can only be a personal thing. It may well be influenced by the likes of religious upbringing, and what society has deemed "moral", but only the individual can truely decide what they believe is right or wrong.

Excelsior

hairyheretic wrote:

Over what period of time was the bible laid down?

The Hebrew Scriptures were probably written over the span from around 1200BC to 400BC. The New Testament was written from about 45AD to 95AD.

hh wrote:

Has it been established when the version that exists today was formally set?

Yes. There are a number of threads elsewhere on this board that discusses this. The Christian Canon was largely in place by the end of the 2nd Century and firmly established through the ecumenical councils over the next 300 years.

hh wrote:

And if the bible was revised, changed, or what have you over that period, why then should the religious leaders of today not continue to do so?

That is an assumed if.

There is no reason to believe that the Scriptures we have have been modified. That is not the same thing as saying that you have to accept them as true, of course. But the Old and New Testament are the pinnacle documents in terms of preservation from the ancient era.

I don't know about other religions but Christianity believes that the Bible has been revealed by God. It would be non-sensical to revise or change it.

hh wrote:

When it was written I imagine it dealt with the issues of the time (as the early church saw it). Might a "living" bible be useful to christians of today?

I don't think so. With all respect due to you HH, I don't think that you understand the role that the Bible plays in Christianity or the role that Christ plays.

hh wrote:

BTW I'm not proposing the bible be scrapped, or we immediately start penning the Book of Bob .. just tossing out a few random thoughts

I totally understand. What is this forum for but the informal discussion of a few thoughts! I write this sitting surrounded by bookcases filled with Christian literature and in a sense, authors like Philip Yancey and Max Lucado are keeping that Biblical witness fresh and relevant but they are doing it by holding firm to the original intention of the authors.

hh wrote:

Some issues do certain transcend cultural boundaries, but there are probably equally many that do not. I imagine we would see some fairly different ideas of what constituted "moral" behaviour if we were to compare, for sake of arguement, western, middle eastern and asian culture.

Less than we'd imagine, I think. But the underlying principles that are instantiated in values are common to all societies. Liberties might change but virtues don't. Another way of saying it is that there is a common sense of right and wrong underpinning the different interpretations through cultures and eras that is unchanging. This meta-morality is transcendent and unchanging but like Chomsky's natural grammar I don't think it wil ever be found. Unlike Chomsky's natural grammar, I do think it exists.

The Bible is surprisingly unconcerned with the actual ins and outs of morality. If you took it by word or page analysis, very little of the Bible deals with moral law. There is the Levitical Law, the Decalogue, the Sermon on the Mount and that is about that. The whole span of the story however is about goodness and the foundations of a virtuous life in a loving God. The teaching on sex sits contextually within the span of the narrative although bits of it are found within the moral codes.

hh wrote:

If two people are in a long term, commited relationship, yet have chosen not to marry for whatever reason, should their sexual relations be condemned?

Not by me. Not by any Christian. But Christians do think that God will condemn the relations. He loves the persons involved but because of that love he will hold them accountable for their actions.

I don't think that the Sermon on the Mount is addressed to non Christians (I touched on that disucssion this week with LarryOne) and I don't think the Ten Commandments is addressed to those who aren't Christians and Jews. I think God is far more interested in having his relationship with individuals restored and reconciled than in punishing people for their sin.

I'm sorry for the sketchy and jumpy answer I've given but it risks becoming an essay if I give it a full treatment. I hope it still makes sense.

hh wrote:

In my oppinion, morality can only be a personal thing. It may well be influenced by the likes of religious upbringing, and what society has deemed "moral", but only the individual can truely decide what they believe is right or wrong.

I think that functionally, morality is a personal thing. If you do something, you do it because you choose to do it and in that moment you think you are doing the right thing. But I think that there is a higher standard to which we are all called to reach for. Majorities and societies and individuals can decide to believe one thing or another is right or wrong but that does not make it right or wrong. I think I can hold Pol Pot and Milosevic and the executives of Enron up to the light of this higher standard and show them that they are categorically and without doubt in the wrong. Circumstances or cultural mores or personal preferences will make no impact on this meta-morality becuase, I believe, these principles are shared by everyone.

qwertyphobia

BrianCalgary wrote:

The only truth that has lasted throughout time has been the truth of the one who has created us.
QUOTE]

Thats what you chose to belive in. I chose to belive that the only truth that realy matters is the need and ability to give and except love from another human being.

If personal beliefs should be a bais for civil societies I think my belief would give rise to a saner, healther and happyer world.

hairyheretic

Excelsior wrote:

Yes. There are a number of threads elsewhere on this board that discusses this. The Christian Canon was largely in place by the end of the 2nd Century and firmly established through the ecumenical councils over the next 300 years.

So would it be fair to say that it took between 300 and 500 years for the bible of today to be laid out in its present form?

Excelsior wrote:

That is an assumed if.

There is no reason to believe that the Scriptures we have have been modified. That is not the same thing as saying that you have to accept them as true, of course. But the Old and New Testament are the pinnacle documents in terms of preservation from the ancient era.

I don't know about other religions but Christianity believes that the Bible has been revealed by God. It would be non-sensical to revise or change it.

Sorry, I don't think I phrased that as I should have. I'm not refering to changing of specific passages, but moreso the decision as to what pieces were included and what excluded. The apocthycra <SP?> books mentioned just recently are a good example. They were early teachings, but it was decided that they did not suit what the then church wanted. Is that a fair assessment?

If the spiritual leaders of today can claim equal authority with those earlier leaders, do they not have equally the ear of god, and the ability to include or exclude material?

Excelsior wrote:

I don't think so. With all respect due to you HH, I don't think that you understand the role that the Bible plays in Christianity or the role that Christ plays.

Probably not I am a heretic after all

Excelsior wrote:

I totally understand. What is this forum for but the informal discussion of a few thoughts! I write this sitting surrounded by bookcases filled with Christian literature and in a sense, authors like Philip Yancey and Max Lucado are keeping that Biblical witness fresh and relevant but they are doing it by holding firm to the original intention of the authors.

Or what they believe the original intent of those authors was.

Excelsior wrote:

Less than we'd imagine, I think. But the underlying principles that are instantiated in values are common to all societies. Liberties might change but virtues don't. Another way of saying it is that there is a common sense of right and wrong underpinning the different interpretations through cultures and eras that is unchanging. This meta-morality is transcendent and unchanging but like Chomsky's natural grammar I don't think it wil ever be found. Unlike Chomsky's natural grammar, I do think it exists.

The idea of meta morality (if I understand you) is interesting, but I don't think I could agree with it. I've seen too many people try to justify opposing viewpoints and claim they are "moral".

To be honest, I don't like the word morality. For me, its been too tainted by people who would force their version of "morality" down everyone elses throats. The whole "I don't like /agree with it, therefore its wrong and no one else should do it either".

Excelsior wrote:

The Bible is surprisingly unconcerned with the actual ins and outs of morality. If you took it by word or page analysis, very little of the Bible deals with moral law. There is the Levitical Law, the Decalogue, the Sermon on the Mount and that is about that. The whole span of the story however is about goodness and the foundations of a virtuous life in a loving God. The teaching on sex sits contextually within the span of the narrative although bits of it are found within the moral codes.

If you'll forgive me for saying so, the more fundamental branches of christianity seem VERY concerned with morality .. or at least their perception of other peoples morality (or lack thereof, normally).

Excelsior wrote:

Not by me. Not by any Christian. But Christians do think that God will condemn the relations. He loves the persons involved but because of that love he will hold them accountable for their actions.

People should be accountable for their actions. I don't have a problem with that. In this case though, I personally wouldn't see their actions as wrong. But that is just my view.

Excelsior wrote:

I'm sorry for the sketchy and jumpy answer I've given but it risks becoming an essay if I give it a full treatment. I hope it still makes sense.

No, it comes across fine.

Excelsior wrote:

I think that functionally, morality is a personal thing. If you do something, you do it because you choose to do it and in that moment you think you are doing the right thing.

Generally speaking, yes. I think it might be better to say that you decide for yourself whether you consider an action right or wrong before choosing to do it.

After all, plenty of people will choose to do the "wrong" thing, either rationalising for themselves a reason for it, or by knowing it is wrong but doing it anyway.

Excelsior wrote:

But I think that there is a higher standard to which we are all called to reach for. Majorities and societies and individuals can decide to believe one thing or another is right or wrong but that does not make it right or wrong.

What is public morality but a consensus oppinion on whether something is right or not? And over time that consensus can and indeed does change.

Slavery. Segregation. Freedom of religion. There are plenty of examples throughout history of activities that were considered "right" at the time, but that we do not do now.

Excelsior wrote:

I think I can hold Pol Pot and Milosevic and the executives of Enron up to the light of this higher standard and show them that they are categorically and without doubt in the wrong. Circumstances or cultural mores or personal preferences will make no impact on this meta-morality becuase, I believe, these principles are shared by everyone.

I can see where you are coming from, and certainly there are some principles that all can aspire to, but I still suspect that others of mine would differ from yours