A heinous sin?

Tim Robbins

I am posting in this forum because my post is critical of unquestioning dogma. I also worry I might offend some theists as I have in the past.
The Presbyterians allow divorce and their Ministers to marry, but look what their current take is on homosexuality...

Speaker calls homosexuality a 'heinous' sin

Patsy McGarry, Religious Affairs Correspondent

Presbyterian General Assembly: Homosexuality was described as "a sin of the most heinous kind, which calls down the judgment of God upon the sinner, or a society or church which tolerates, or promotes, or practises it", at the Presbyterian General Assembly in Belfast yesterday.

Rev Ken Patterson continued: "I know of no other sin which caused God to destroy whole cities in ancient times, but that is what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah . . . " He was speaking in a debate on pastoral guidelines for the care of homosexuals and which recommended ways of addressing homophobia in the church. The guidelines described homophobic attitudes as "unacceptable" and encouraged "repentence" on the part of the church for past treatment of gay people.

An amendment, proposing that the guideline be referred back to presbyteries, was narrowly defeated by 163 votes for to 168 votes against. Proposing the amendment, Rev William Moody said advice in the guidelines on not speaking of homosexuality as "unnatural" contradicted scripture. Seconding the amendment, Rev Stephen Neilly told the assembly that "Christ can deliver people fully from the sin of homosexuality just as much as alcoholism or from other sexual sin."

Proposing that the guidelines be adopted, Rev Bobby Liddle, who helped prepare them, said "it is very humbling to sit across a table from a young person who was committed to Jesus Christ, devoted to youth work in his church, active in evangelism, well grounded in scripture and to hear him tell how he stood with a rope around his neck feeling that to be the only answer - that suicide was preferable to being open with his church and his parents about his sexuality struggles."

Former moderator Rev Dr Ken Newell said it was his hope that the whole church,would send out "a very strong message" to gay people that it apologised "for any hurt that you have experienced and we pledge ourselves to cherish you". He continued: "To put it simply, if and when you need us, we are here for you."

Rev Richard Hill pointed out that Jesus told us to love our neighbour. "My neighbour is gay and lesbian and straight," he said.

The general assembly agreed to adopt the pastoral guidelines by 159 votes to 120.

The Presbyterian community at Maynooth, Co Kildare was formally established as a congregation of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland at the assembly yesterday. Proposing the memorial that made this possible, former moderator Rev Dr Trevor Morrow spoke of his "great sense of joy and not a little excitement at doing so". He said of all the places in Ireland where it might be expected a Presbyterian community might grow and thrive, the most unlikely was Maynooth.

"Maynooth, the epicentre of Irish Roman Catholicism; home of the House of Catholic Bishops; from whose seminary men went out to become leaders in the Catholic world," he said.

Zillah

This reminds me of Sam Harris' argument that moderate religion is the most untenable position. Fundamentalism fails intellectually, while science is theologically useless, but moderate religion is both. The evil ones are correct, the Bible really does say that Homosexuality is a terrible sin and God did indeed physically annihilate two cities for it, amongst other things. The liberal Christians haven't a leg to stand on.

Which is why I have to attack their Bible-believing if I want to attack their position on homosexuality.

philologos

Ministers and priests to marry is outlined in Leviticus 21. Just a certain church ignores it. However I would also be of the mind that the act of homosexuality is a sin as outlined in Leviticus 18.

Acts 15:19-21 wrote:

"It is of my opinion", James went on, "that we should not trouble the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write a letter telling them not to eat any food that is ritually unclean because it has been sacrificed to idols; to keep themselves from sexual immorality; and not to eat any animal that has been strangled, or any blood. For the Law of Moses has been read for a very long time in the synagogues every Sabbath, and his words are preached in every town"

Meaning that the sexual immorality laws of the Law of Moses, apply to Christianity.

Sapien

Tim Robbins wrote:

Presbyterian General Assembly: Homosexuality was described as "a sin of the most heinous kind, which calls down the judgment of God upon the sinner, or a society or church which tolerates, or promotes, or practises it", at the Presbyterian General Assembly in Belfast yesterday.

I don't understand what the context of this statement is. Did the Assembly pass it as some kind of resolution, or was it simply aired by one of the more theatrical ministers present during the course of the debate?

What was the official outcome of the Assembly?

philologos

It was a resolution for discussing the change of the Presbyterian Church's stance on homosexuality. There was a resolution going forward that homophobia was unacceptable and that the church should repent for it, and it failed to pass by a close margin.

Scofflaw

Acts 15:19-21 wrote:

"It is of my opinion", James went on, "that we should not trouble the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write a letter telling them not to eat any food that is ritually unclean because it has been sacrificed to idols; to keep themselves from sexual immorality; and not to eat any animal that has been strangled, or any blood. For the Law of Moses has been read for a very long time in the synagogues every Sabbath, and his words are preached in every town"

No black pudding for Christians, then?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

No black pudding for Christians, then?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Oh go on, lets use the prawn argument again

PDN

Jakkass wrote:

It was a resolution for discussing the change of the Presbyterian Church's stance on homosexuality. There was a resolution going forward that homophobia was unacceptable and that the church should repent for it, and it failed to pass by a close margin.

According to the report Tim posted, the resolution calling homophobia unacceptable and calling on the church to repent was passed. What failed to pass was an amendment that sought to refer the resolution back to the presbyteries (basically, a stalling tactic to prevent the resolution going through by discussing it at local level for a few more years).

Tim Robbins wrote:

The Presbyterians allow divorce and their Ministers to marry, but look what their current take is on homosexuality

Their current take would appear to be that individual ministers are divided on the issue, but that they have officially said that homophobia is 'unacceptable' and have called upon their members to repent of past attitudes towards homosexuals. They have also advised their ministers against referring to homosexuality as 'unnatural'.

One minister, who appears to have been on the losing side in the debate, called homosexuality a 'heinous sin'. I think that the fact the Presbyterian Church in such a benighted place as Northern Ireland has condemned homophobia is a good thing - but I understand that a remark made by one of the minority who opposed the resolution does obviously make a more lurid headline for a journalist (or indeed for a thread).

Quite what that has to do with divorce, or ministers marrying, I don't know.

Dades

PDN wrote:

According to the report Tim posted, the resolution calling homophobia unacceptable and calling on the church to repent was passed. What failed to pass was an amendment that sought to refer the resolution back to the presbyteries (basically, a stalling tactic to prevent the resolution going through by discussing it at local level for a few more years).

Nice sum up.

And I agree there appears to be no "current take" on homosexuality. If anything that article makes if clear there is no such thing.

I wonder do the pro-resolution people such as Rev Bobby Liddle believe the bible isn't against homosexuality, or do they just try to find a workaround (Jesus loves you) because they are unwilling to see the church involved in blatant discrimination? Kudos either way IMO.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Quite what that has to do with divorce, or ministers marrying, I don't know.

That's a post Catholic comment intended for post Catholics. The majority of A&As on this board would be post Catholic.
The insinuation was:
"in some respects these guys are more progressive than where we came from, but in others they don't appear to be."

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

No black pudding for Christians, then?

Oh go on, lets use the prawn argument again

No, no - this is serious! It makes Ecky-Thump a Black Art, for starters...

worried,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Meaning that the sexual immorality laws of the Law of Moses, apply to Christianity.

As Scofflaw touched on, surely then having homosexual sex is as bad as eating black pudding and vice versa (having homosexual sex while eating pudding must make you worse than Hitler)

Have you ever ate black pudding? Do you think God cares?

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

As Scofflaw touched on, surely then having homosexual sex is as bad as eating black pudding and vice versa (having homosexual sex while eating pudding must make you worse than Hitler)

Have you ever ate black pudding? Do you think God cares?

Indeed - to summarise my position: I cannot see that any of the justifications used here for continuing to observe the Levitical prohibition on homosexuality could not equally be held to apply to certain other prohibitions, but aren't.

There are very obviously two camps (so to speak) within Christianity (whichever Christianity you're having): those who hold the Bible to justify their position on accepting homosexuality, and those who hold the Bible to justify their position on condemning homosexuality.

Historically, the obvious parallel is slavery, where both camps again quoted the Bible at each other, and fully believed it supported their position.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Its the usual problem with organised religions and the democratizing of same. It just doesnt work (not without dissolving into a pantomime of its original stand point anyway).

The more and more moderate members of the group become the more likely it is that they will change the rules to suit themselves and their personal beliefs - a position and concept antithetical of "religion" in that it implies that the word of god, the supposed creator (alpha & omega etc) can be wrong or have a change of mind. Which in turn implies that God is not infallible nor omniescient.

Adhering to the ancient beliefs and rules of the club may be more in keeping with the original concept of God etc but it is a wholely unpopular stance these days and it is (perhaps rightly so) becoming even more unpopular as the years pass.

Kudos to the ones who wanted to make the issue of homosexuality an open and accepted practice - because it is this kind of re-evaluation of morality and ethics that undermines the daft irrationality of religion and will eventually (and hopefully) lead to the total collapse of theocratic influence on society.

Sapien

PDN wrote:

According to the report Tim posted, the resolution calling homophobia unacceptable and calling on the church to repent was passed. What failed to pass was an amendment that sought to refer the resolution back to the presbyteries (basically, a stalling tactic to prevent the resolution going through by discussing it at local level for a few more years).
...
Their current take would appear to be that individual ministers are divided on the issue, but that they have officially said that homophobia is 'unacceptable' and have called upon their members to repent of past attitudes towards homosexuals. They have also advised their ministers against referring to homosexuality as 'unnatural'.

That's what I thought, yet wherever I see this reported, it's with "heinous sin" and "Sodom and Gomorrah" as the headline. People seem to be missing the point. Kudos to the Presbos.

Tim Robbins

Sapien wrote:

That's what I thought, yet wherever I see this reported, it's with "heinous sin" and "Sodom and Gomorrah" as the headline. People seem to be missing the point. Kudos to the Presbos.

I am beginning to think Patsy McGarry reporting is not the most objective w.r.t. anything to do with the Presbyterian Church. He keeps talking about them as if the Free Presbyterians and Presbyterians are all the one.

Here's a letter w.r.t. to another article he wrote:

PRESBYTERIANS AND HOMOSEXUALITY

Madam, - I read Patsy McGarry's article on the forthcoming Presbyterian General Assembly (June 2nd) with dismay as, not for the first time, he implicated the Presbyterian Church in Ireland with the DUP and its leading lights.

The fact is that Ian Paisley jnr is not a member of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland and his recent comments on homosexuality have nothing to do with the impending debate at the General Assembly - a debate that was scheduled a year ago.

Moreover, the report to be debated is specific to the pastoral responses for those who are homosexual and for their families.

It is not a reconsideration of the church's stance on homosexuality, as stated at the General Assembly in June 1979; indeed, it assumes that sexual relations are permissible only between a man and woman within a monogamous marriage.

The Presbyterian Church acknowledges the stress and hurt experienced by homosexuals and appreciates the Christian duty to respond in love and truth.

The debate in the assembly will be part of the process towards improving our response. - Yours, etc,

Rev ALAN BOAL, Co-convener, Church and Society Committee, Presbyterian Church in Ireland, Griffith Avenue, Dublin 11.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

No black pudding for Christians, then?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I had breakfast with a pastor from Guatemala once and he got very offended at me for eating black pudding. Apparently a lot of Christians in Latin America see the eating of blood as still verboten.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

As Scofflaw touched on, surely then having homosexual sex is as bad as eating black pudding and vice versa (having homosexual sex while eating pudding must make you worse than Hitler)

Have you ever ate black pudding? Do you think God cares?

The verses referred to said Gentile believers should abstain from immorality and from the eating of blood. It didn't say they were as bad as each other.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

The verses referred to said Gentile believers should abstain from immorality and from the eating of blood. It didn't say they were as bad as each other.

And it didn't say they weren't. Since they're both prohibited, and James mentions them in the same breath, we're back to special pleading to claim one is more important than the other.

I appreciate you think of this as a rather silly attack on your religion, but as I say, blind spots are a special interest of mine, and I am sure that the prohibition on homosexuality is effectively irrelevant to your faith in any case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

A question regarding the blood. I wonder could this be in reference to other practices (non-Christian) deemed immoral that would have used blood of animals (people?)?

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

And it didn't say they weren't. Since they're both prohibited, and James mentions them in the same breath, we're back to special pleading to claim one is more important than the other.

I appreciate you think of this as a rather silly attack on your religion, but as I say, blind spots are a special interest of mine, and I am sure that the prohibition on homosexuality is effectively irrelevant to your faith in any case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't think it's special pleading at all. Sexual immorality is condemned in dozens of other New Testament passages, but the eating of blood is not.

I do think, however, that Acts 15 is an unsafe passage for drawing inferences as to what practices should be permitted or not in the church today. Acts 15:22-35 deals specifically with instructions sent to "the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia". The receiving of Gentlies into the church had to be handled carefully because of Jewish sensibilities & prejudices, so it is entirely possible that this was a temporary measure designed to keep the Judaizers quiet. For example in Acts 16:1-3 we see that Paul had Timothy circumcised "because of the Jews", even though we know from Galatians that Paul was steadfastly opposed to circumcision being imposed on Gentlie believers.

Generally speaking it is much safer to draw principles for doctrine and practice from didactic writings (such as epistles, or moral discourses such as the Sermon on the Mount) than from one-off directives in a historical account such as Acts.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

I don't think it's special pleading at all. Sexual immorality is condemned in dozens of other New Testament passages, but the eating of blood is not.

Mmm. Sexual immorality is indeed - but you are assuming that homosexuality is sexual immorality.

PDN wrote:

I do think, however, that Acts 15 is an unsafe passage for drawing inferences as to what practices should be permitted or not in the church today. Acts 15:22-35 deals specifically with instructions sent to "the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia". The receiving of Gentlies into the church had to be handled carefully because of Jewish sensibilities & prejudices, so it is entirely possible that this was a temporary measure designed to keep the Judaizers quiet. For example in Acts 16:1-3 we see that Paul had Timothy circumcised "because of the Jews", even though we know from Galatians that Paul was steadfastly opposed to circumcision being imposed on Gentlie believers.

Yet, curiously, what are clearly the writings of the earliest missionaries and organisers of the church are taken as Gospel, even where Gospel says nothing.

PDN wrote:

Generally speaking it is much safer to draw principles for doctrine and practice from didactic writings (such as epistles, or moral discourses such as the Sermon on the Mount) than from one-off directives in a historical account such as Acts.

Hmm. Strange that something so apparently basic was never mentioned by Jesus.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Mmm. Sexual immorality is indeed - but you are assuming that homosexuality is sexual immorality.

Actually I'm not assuming that at all. I responded to posts others made about Acts 15, but I confined my remarks to what the Bible text actually says and so referred simply to sexual immorality rather than to homosexuality per se. You are responding to Posts #18 & #21 where I pointed out that the eating of blood and sexual immorality are not necessarily stated as being equally bad.

The original assumption that 'sexual immorality' in Acts 15 includes homosexuality was made by Jakkass in Post #3, and shared by Wicknight in Post #12.

Yet, curiously, what are clearly the writings of the earliest missionaries and organisers of the church are taken as Gospel, even where Gospel says nothing.

Ah, is the etymological sleight of hand here deliberate or unintentional?
The word 'Gospel' has at least three meanings:
1. The Gospel message - literally, the 'Good News'. This is "the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. The Christian revelation."
2. Something regarded as true and implicitly believed. This second meaning is derived from the first definition.
3. One of the four books of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John) that concentrate solely on Christ's life and teachings.

So, the canonical writings of the apostles are taken as 'Gospel' because they are indeed part of definition #1.
These canonical writings are, as part of Scripture, therefore treated as being inspired by God (defintion #2). However, I should mention that one of the tasks of biblical exegesis is to distinguish between what is directed as being specific to one situation (for example, we don't believe that every Christian in every generation is commanded to greet Rufus and his mother in Romans 16:13) and what is intended to be normative for the church as a whole.
Then you (deliberately?) omit the definite article from "where Gospel says nothing" where, I think, you are simply saying that the Four Gospels don't mention certain subjects. The false impression is thereby created that, if something doesn't appear in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John (Gospels) that Christians should not treat it as true (Gospel) even though it is part of the apostolic teaching (the Gospel).

In fact, as I have already pointed out to you in another thread, Christians believe all Scripture to be inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16). So the issue is not whether something is taught in the Gospels, Acts, Epistles, or Revelation - but whether such teaching was situational (therefore only applying to a limited audience) or a matter of doctrine or principle (applying to the entire church for all generations). You may disagree with Christians for trying to base our lives on the Bible, but the accusation that we simply choose which texts to obey and not to obey in order to suit ourselves is not true. We apply exegesis to the biblical text and try to live by the results, even though that is often at a cost to ourselves and derided by others as being opposed to prevailing trends in our surrounding culture.

Hmm. Strange that something so apparently basic was never mentioned by Jesus.

Are you still talking about homosexuality here? If so then it is not strange at all. Jesus taught in a Palestinian context where homosexuality was forbidden by Judaism but practiced by the Roman occupiers. To Christ's audience, then, any hint of homosexuality would be doubly unacceptable - both religiously and as an act that was identified solely with their Gentile oppressors. For a Jew in 1st Century Palestine to engage in homosexuality would be like a resident of republican West Belfast in the 1970s choosing to fly a Union Jack from their bedroom window while simultaneously breaking every teaching of the Catholic Church!

Most of the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the 4 Gospels address areas where He was radically reinterpreting, or drawing out neglected emphases, in the Jewish law and traditions. Therefore, if Jesus agreed with the Jewish idea of homosexuality as being immoral, I would hardly expect Him to mention the subject at all in the Gospels (particularly since it is not as important to Christians as it appears to be to the atheists & agnostics on this board). In fact, if Jesus really wanted to change from the Jewish teaching on the subject then it would indeed be strange that it is not mentioned in the Gospels, wouldn't it?

However, once the Gospel began to spread to Gentile areas then homosexuals began to join the Church. At that point the issue became 'live' and so we would expect the subject to be mentioned in those New Testament writings (like Romans & Corinthians) that were addressed to residents of cities where homosexuality was more widely accepted and practiced.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Actually I'm not assuming that at all. I responded to posts others made about Acts 15, but I confined my remarks to what the Bible text actually says and so referred simply to sexual immorality rather than to homosexuality per se. You are responding to Posts #18 & #21 where I pointed out that the eating of blood and sexual immorality are not necessarily stated as being equally bad.

The original assumption that 'sexual immorality' in Acts 15 includes homosexuality was made by Jakkass in Post #3, and shared by Wicknight in Post #12.

Now you've confused me. Do the sexual immorality laws of the OT (including that on homosexuality) pass through unabridged and unaltered to the NT, or not?

If they do, on what basis do they do so, and on what basis do they include homosexuality, when the "written law" is specifically stated to be voided, and there is no new prohibition given?

Simple condemnation of "sexual immorality" I regard as insufficient, since I too condemn "sexual immorality", but doubt I mean by it the same thing that you do (and we're not even separated by as much as a thousand years, except metaphorically).

PDN wrote:

Ah, is the etymological sleight of hand here deliberate or unintentional?

Unintentional!

PDN wrote:

In fact, as I have already pointed out to you in another thread, Christians believe all Scripture to be inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16). So the issue is not whether something is taught in the Gospels, Acts, Epistles, or Revelation - but whether such teaching was situational (therefore only applying to a limited audience) or a matter of doctrine or principle (applying to the entire church for all generations). You may disagree with Christians for trying to base our lives on the Bible, but the accusation that we simply choose which texts to obey and not to obey in order to suit ourselves is not true. We apply exegesis to the biblical text and try to live by the results, even though that is often at a cost to ourselves and derided by others as being opposed to prevailing trends in our surrounding culture.

I have not claimed that. I have claimed that the results of exegesis vary according to the mores of those doing the exegesis. Unlike science, exegesis is exactly the sort of discipline that post-modernism correctly attacks as being incapable of 'absolute' truth, because it is concerned with the interpretation of meaning.

PDN wrote:

Are you still talking about homosexuality here? If so then it is not strange at all. Jesus taught in a Palestinian context where homosexuality was forbidden by Judaism but practiced by the Roman occupiers. To Christ's audience, then, any hint of homosexuality would be doubly unacceptable - both religiously and as an act that was identified solely with their Gentile oppressors. For a Jew in 1st Century Palestine to engage in homosexuality would be like a resident of republican West Belfast in the 1970s choosing to fly a Union Jack from their bedroom window while simultaneously breaking every teaching of the Catholic Church!

How bizarre, then, that Philo should choose to mention it at some length.

PDN wrote:

Most of the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the 4 Gospels address areas where He was radically reinterpreting, or drawing out neglected emphases, in the Jewish law and traditions. Therefore, if Jesus agreed with the Jewish idea of homosexuality as being immoral, I would hardly expect Him to mention the subject at all in the Gospels (particularly since it is not as important to Christians as it appears to be to the atheists & agnostics on this board).

That's a nice piece of spin - I like the implication that we are interested because we're a bunch of obsessive perverts.

In fact, we are interested because it represents something frequently presented as a clear and solidly held teaching of Christianity, which on closer examination turns out to be a set of weakly linked inferences requiring heavy interpretation.

PDN wrote:

In fact, if Jesus really wanted to change from the Jewish teaching on the subject then it would indeed be strange that it is not mentioned in the Gospels, wouldn't it?

That's a nice try, but we don't have Jesus repudiating the dietary laws, either.

PDN wrote:

However, once the Gospel began to spread to Gentile areas then homosexuals began to join the Church. At that point the issue became 'live' and so we would expect the subject to be mentioned in those New Testament writings (like Romans & Corinthians) that were addressed to residents of cities where homosexuality was more widely accepted and practiced.

So, then, what makes you sure that this is an 'eternal' part of the strictures of Christianity, rather than a limited historical one? Does this all come down to Paul's condemnation of it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

I don't think it's special pleading at all. Sexual immorality is condemned in dozens of other New Testament passages, but the eating of blood is not ...
so it is entirely possible that this was a temporary measure designed to keep the Judaizers quiet.

Er, no offense but that is nonsense.

The eating of the blood of an animal is condemned after the Flood in Genesis as God spoke to Noah. When God is defining the role of man and animal after the Flood he makes it very clear that the lifeblood of animal is never to be eaten.

Gen 9:4
But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.

An animal must be drained of blood before the animal is eaten. This is fundamental. No ifs or buts.

The reason that this is keep when the council was discussing the Gentiles is that it was something the Gentiles must follow because it is a fundamental aspect of the arrangement God made with Noah and in effect all of mankind as descendants of Noah.

This is long before Moses and the covenant with the Israelites. It applies to all man kind, all descendants of Noah, and therefore must apply to the Gentiles as well as the Hebrews. You can ignore the law of Moses and say that this applies only to Hebrews but one cannot ignore the older directives laid out to Noah, as all are descendants of Noah.

Think about that the next time you are having pudding.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

This is long before Moses and the covenant with the Israelites. It applies to all man kind, all descendants of Noah, and therefore must apply to the Gentiles as well as the Hebrews. You can ignore the law of Moses and say that this applies only to Hebrews but one cannot ignore the older directives laid out to Noah, as all are descendants of Noah.

Also, of course, any arrangement that damns most of Northern England is pretty much bound to be right.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Also, of course, any arrangement that damns most of Northern England is pretty much bound to be right.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And Ireland don't forget ... I had a fully Irish this morning with some lovely black pudding ... straight to hell for me.

(it sounds ridiculous when it is said like that, but is it any more ridiculous than the idea that a gay man is going straight to hell because he sleeps with another man?)

rockbeer

I truly fear and respect any deity who has the sheer balls to allow small children to starve while wasting his time sending grown adults to hell for eating black pudding.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Simple condemnation of "sexual immorality" I regard as insufficient, since I too condemn "sexual immorality", but doubt I mean by it the same thing that you do (and we're not even separated by as much as a thousand years, except metaphorically).

I agree that 'sexual immorality' is too vague a term to outlaw a specific practice. However, stating that those who engage in a specific behaviour have 'no inheritance in the Kingdom of heaven' pretty well nixes the behaviour for adherents of a religion whose whole point is getting to heaven.

How bizarre, then, that Philo should choose to mention it at some length.

Not bizarre at all since Philo was from Alexandria, not Palestine.

That's a nice piece of spin - I like the implication that we are interested because we're a bunch of obsessive perverts.

No such implication. Obsessive, quite possibly, but I don't think you're a pervert.

That's a nice try, but we don't have Jesus repudiating the dietary laws, either.

Oh, but we do. Mark 7:18

Crucifix

PDN wrote:

Oh, but we do. Mark 7:18

"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?" (NIV)
Hmm, sounds like Sodomy is cleared then

Scofflaw

Crucifix wrote:

"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?"

Hmm.

PDN wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

That's a nice try, but we don't have Jesus repudiating the dietary laws, either.

Oh, but we do. Mark 7:18

KJV wrote:

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Er, no. This is not Jesus rejecting the dietary laws. Jesus is rather specifically rejecting what he calls "commandments of men". If the Levitical laws are God's commandments, they are not "commandments of men". If they are "commandments of men", then they are not God-given, in which case they presumably should not be in the Bible as God's commandments.

If we're talking God's commandments, then something given in Genesis, and repeated in Leviticus, then repeated again in Acts, would seem to me to have pretty solid standing.

PDN wrote:

No such implication. Obsessive, quite possibly, but I don't think you're a pervert.

Well, a bit obsessive. It's not the homosexuality per se, any more than I'm obsessed with black pudding...

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Er, no. This is not Jesus rejecting the dietary laws. Jesus is rather specifically rejecting what he calls "commandments of men". If the Levitical laws are God's commandments, they are not "commandments of men". If they are "commandments of men", then they are not God-given, in which case they presumably should not be in the Bible as God's commandments.

Sorry, I gave the reference as Mark 7:18 when I was thinking of verse 19 (It was late at night & I was quoting the reference from memory - too tired to look it up properly). Verse 19 reads: For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

I'll ignore the fact that you have to go the King James Version to support your argument (the better manuscripts that form the basis of more accurate modern translations omits the phrase on which you've concentrated).

You are concentrating on verse 8, which was addressed to the Pharisees - but verses 18 and 19 were addressed afterwards in private to the disciples. This is probably an example of what New Testament commentators call 'the Messianic Secret', where Jesus sometimes told people not to publicise his real identity or mission or the fact that he had worked a miracle. The 'Messianic Secret' is always an area of debate among first year theology students. (If Jesus command us to spread the Word about him then why would he tell people to keep it quiet?) It may well have been due to the fact that, if Jesus had been totally open about who he was and how his life and death would open up the Gospel to the Gentiles and so essentially finish Judaism off, then he would have been instantly killed and so not have had time to prepare his disciples. Whatever the reason, we frequently find that Jesus reserves his most radical teachings for a private setting with his disciples.

In the present case we see that Jesus confines his remarks to the Pharisees to the issue of washing pots and cups. In this context he makes the comment (to a crowd of people) that what comes from outside cannot make someone unclean. Then, in a more private setting, his disciples question him about this statement. After all, they would have said, isn't the entire system of our Jewish dietary laws established on the principle that what comes from outside into the stomach does make you unclean? At this point Jesus stuns them by following through with the logical, but for a Jew totally heretical, conclusion that, in fact, all foods are clean.

Fanny Cradock

rockbeer wrote:

I truly fear and respect any deity who has the sheer balls to allow small children to starve while wasting his time sending grown adults to hell for eating black pudding.

Oh, please! I hardly think God was holding back his cash at the recent G8 summit. There is a glut of food and money in the world - certainly enough to go around to all people. God hasn't reneged on past promises with regards to sharing those abundant resources. If you are looking at someone to blame for starvation, you need look no further than ourselves.

Zillah

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Oh, please! I hardly think God was holding back his cash at the recent G8 summit. There is a glut of food and money in the world - certainly enough to go around to all people. God hasn't reneged on past promises with regards to sharing those abundant resources. If you are looking at someone to blame for starvation, you need look no further than ourselves.

How about the thousands of generations of humanity who suffered starvation and plagues long before there was a Western world?

Fanny Cradock

Zillah wrote:

How about the thousands of generations of humanity who suffered starvation and plagues long before there was a Western world?

1000's of generations! That's a bit of hyperbole, no? From the manner in which you phrase your question, I assume you believe that man lived a pitiable and squalid existence before the 'Western World' arrived. Each day was another day closer to death etc. (I took some artistic licence in my ad-libbing, there ).

A few things:

First, I don't accept that life back in the day was that bad. I would suggest that most people were quite capable of looking after themselves and would have lived a content, rewarding life.

Second, I would suggest the same reasons that allow starvation to exist in our modern, bountiful world would have existed in the same form back then. It's really all to do with greed and selfishness. Nowadays the only real difference is that this seems to be done on a global scale rather than by fiefdom or kingdom.

Lastly, plagues could have very well been caused and accentuated by the social conditions at the time, e.g. pack the poor people in together with no sanitation. So it could be argued that a proportion (whatever that proportion is) of plagues could have been an indirect result of living in a society based on such massive inequalities.

rockbeer

Fanny Cradock wrote:

There is a glut of food and money in the world - certainly enough to go around to all people. God hasn't reneged on past promises with regards to sharing those abundant resources. If you are looking at someone to blame for starvation, you need look no further than ourselves.

Couldn't agree more.

Oh, and since I don't actually believe in said deity it would be just a touch inconsistent to blame him for the ills of the world. Just pointing out one of the bizarre contradictions of faith.

Dades

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Oh, please! I hardly think God was holding back his cash at the recent G8 summit. There is a glut of food and money in the world - certainly enough to go around to all people. God hasn't reneged on past promises with regards to sharing those abundant resources. If you are looking at someone to blame for starvation, you need look no further than ourselves.

For an omnipotent God it's like watching a small child drown in 6 inches of water.

Fanny Cradock

The Atheist wrote:

For an omnipotent God it's like watching a small child drown in 6 inches of water.

Well, you assume that God (whom I realise you don't believe in) is sitting back watching impassively. I'd disagree. Even if you have no propensity for belief in God, surely you agree that there are many Christian based charities that do vital humanitarian work in the name of God. This for me is an obvious sign of God's active role in our world. Furthermore, if God does indeed 'move in mysterious ways' then I would suggest it very possible He does much good behind the scenes, so to speak. You wouldn't accuse someone working in a Dublin based charity office as being devoid of care just because they aren't working on the front lines feeding starving children and whatnot. Like God, their work is hidden but vital nonetheless.

Considering the fact that greed does seem to be in the nature of man (some men at least), God would have to constantly intervene to ensure the equal distribution of resources. More so, it is likely that He would have to alter the very nature of man to prevent this type of thing happening in the future. This would result in the removal of our free will, turning us into automata.

Using your analogy, I'd suggest to you that the blame lies with the pitiless parents standing beside the drowning child and not with God shouting from afar for them to do something.

Zillah

Fanny Cradock wrote:

First, I don't accept that life back in the day was that bad.

Have you seen those pictures of hungry, diseased African tribes people who have to walk miles for water? Humanity, all of them, lived like that for hundreds of thousands of years. I'm not talking about the Middle Ages, I'm talking about our primeval past. GOD didn't come into existence once Jesus was born, he was around the whole time, apparently. Children regularily died before they reached a year old. The mother often died in labour. Plagues could wipe out whole families/villages at the drop of a hat.

You really have no idea what a unbelieveable paradise Western society is, do you?

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I'd disagree. Even if you have no propensity for belief in God, surely you agree that there are many Christian based charities that do vital humanitarian work in the name of God. This for me is an obvious sign of God's active role in our world.

I see.

So, if plagues and starvation kill millions, its our fault because of our immoral societies, but if people do good things THEN God takes credit?

I'm always amazed at the mental gynastics some people can/need to do.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

in fact, all foods are clean.

This guy would disagree (as do seemingly a lot of people)

http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/common.htm


The reason for the differing translations is a ONE letter variation between the Greek manuscript base used by the NKJV translators and the manuscript base used by the translators of other modern versions (such as the NASU). The vast majority of the Greek manuscripts of Mark end verse 19 with the conclusion to Yeshua's statement being ". . . thus cleansing all foods" (Gr. katharizon panta ta bromata). The "o" in katharizon (καθαριζον, "cleansing") is the Greek letter omicron (ο). However, a very few Greek manuscripts instead have katharizon (καθαριζων) spelled with the "o" being the Greek letter omega (ω) instead of omicron. The omega changes the word's gender from neuter to masculine, allowing for the difference in translation.

Without getting into a technical debate regarding Greek grammar or the pros and cons of each manuscript base, the overwhelming textual evidence supports the NKJV rendering of verse 19 over the NASU translation.

Most Greek manuscripts of Mark 7:19 literally read: "Because it does not enter into his heart, but into the stomach, and into the toilet passes, cleansing all foods." It is clear that Yeshua is not declaring all foods "clean" here, because the cleansing process he refers to is digestion, which ultimately leads to defecation. Yeshua' point here appears obvious: Breaking God's law defiles a man, not non-adherence to man-made traditions. This parable has nothing to say about eating unclean animals.

rockbeer

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Well, you assume that God (whom I realise you don't believe in) is sitting back watching impassively. I'd disagree. Even if you have no propensity for belief in God, surely you agree that there are many Christian based charities that do vital humanitarian work in the name of God. This for me is an obvious sign of God's active role in our world. Furthermore, if God does indeed 'move in mysterious ways' then I would suggest it very possible He does much good behind the scenes, so to speak. You wouldn't accuse someone working in a Dublin based charity office as being devoid of care just because they aren't working on the front lines feeding starving children and whatnot. Like God, their work is hidden but vital nonetheless.

And what would you say of all the people who do terrible things in God's name. By your logic shouldn't they also be seen as his ambassadors?

You are highly selective in the things you seek to ascribe to god and those you ascribe to his creations.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Considering the fact that greed does seem to be in the nature of man (some men at least), God would have to constantly intervene to ensure the equal distribution of resources.

He wasn't shy about intervening in the distant past. It seems as time's gone on he's less and less active though. Perhaps he's losing interest in his creation.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

More so, it is likely that He would have to alter the very nature of man to prevent this type of thing happening in the future. This would result in the removal of our free will, turning us into automata.

I think you're asking all the wrong questions if you don't mind me saying so. The question you've got to consider is, is he omnipotent or not. If no, then he doesn't do what he says on the tin. If yes, then you have to face the fact that he could have done everything differently. After all, if he's truly omnipotent then he must have had a free hand in how to design us and the world we live in. Therefore he must, if you believe in him, bear ultimate responsibility for the horrors of the world. Would a benevolent and loving omnipotent god really have designed a world in which people routinely starve due to the greed of others? And in which people are sent to eternal damnation for the simple sin of having been born in a part of the world where they've never even heard of him? Why?? What's in it for him???

That sort of thinking is just madness.

You christians generally want it both ways. God - oh he's omnipotent. Except when it doesn't fit with the facts. Believing in the christian god is like being given a seat at a banquet but choosing to sulk in the corner eating the dog's dinner.

Tbh, I find your god so abhorrent that even if you could prove conclusively that he existed and the whole bible was true, I still wouldn't bend the knee to him.

JC 2K3

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Considering the fact that greed does seem to be in the nature of man (some men at least), God would have to constantly intervene to ensure the equal distribution of resources. More so, it is likely that He would have to alter the very nature of man to prevent this type of thing happening in the future. This would result in the removal of our free will, turning us into automata.

If greed is in the nature of man and God designed us, doesn't that kinda nullify the fact that He gave us free will in the first place?

If he altered man to be less inclined to be greedy, how would that take away our "free will"? Not being a slave to greed seems to be more free to me.

Fanny Cradock

Zillah wrote:

You really have no idea what a unbelieveable paradise Western society is, do you?



I see.

So, if plagues and starvation kill millions, its our fault because of our immoral societies, but if people do good things THEN God takes credit?

I'm always amazed at the mental gynastics some people can/need to do.

You are fond of retorical questions, no?

Bearing in mind you don't believe in God, how then do you reach your apparent conclusion that the starvation seen throughout the world is not our fault? Yet you seem to take a great deal of offence which I dare suggest that it is mankind's fault - an idea I think you can only but subscribe to considering your lack of belief in a deity.

Is it not immoral to actually pay farmers not to produce certain foods when there is huger in the world? In similar manner, is it not a horrendous thing that someone can win €100,000,000 in the lotto when so many around the world subsist on so little?

Zillah wrote:

You really have no idea what a unbelieveable paradise Western society is, do you?

Moral high ground, eh! That's unnecessary conjecture on your part.

rockbeer wrote:

And what would you say of all the people who do terrible things in God's name. By your logic shouldn't they also be seen as his ambassadors?

You are highly selective in the things you seek to ascribe to god and those you ascribe to his creations.

It's a fair point, and one debated in depth in other threads. My answer would be that not all people who make claims, whatever they be, are telling the truth. I, for instance, could claim that the 10 people I killed last night were done so in your name. Would that then make you culpable?

rockbeer wrote:

I think you're asking all the wrong questions if you don't mind me saying so. The question you've got to consider is, is he omnipotent or not. If no, then he doesn't do what he says on the tin. If yes, then you have to face the fact that he could have done everything differently. After all, if he's truly omnipotent then he must have had a free hand in how to design us and the world we live in. Therefore he must, if you believe in him, bear ultimate responsibility for the horrors of the world. Would a benevolent and loving omnipotent god really have designed a world in which people routinely starve due to the greed of others? And in which people are sent to eternal damnation for the simple sin of having been born in a part of the world where they've never even heard of him? Why?? What's in it for him???

Again, a valid point. However, the very fact that we do bad things isn't a reflection on God. Why? Well, I don't believe that every action in the world can be attributed to God. Therefore, given the fact that a person has a choice in any given moment not to do evil (I'm using that as a broad term for the moment), I would suggest the blame remains with man.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Again, a valid point. However, the very fact that we do bad things isn't a reflection on God. Why? Well, I don't believe that every action in the world can be attributed to God. Therefore, given the fact that a person has a choice in any given moment not to do evil (I'm using that as a broad term for the moment), I would suggest the blame remains with man.

That is a rather handy set up though isn't it

The world looks and functions just as if there wasn't a god.

rockbeer

Fanny Cradock wrote:

It's a fair point, and one debated in depth in other threads. My answer would be that not all people who make claims, whatever they be, are telling the truth. I, for instance, could claim that the 10 people I killed last night were done so in your name. Would that then make you culpable?

Of course not, but that misses the point. You are essentially saying that people who do good things in god's name are telling the truth and people who do bad things for the same reason are lying. Kind of a win win situation for your big fella.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Again, a valid point. However, the very fact that we do bad things isn't a reflection on God.

Why not? You let him off he hook very easily I must say. According to you he designed us this way, yet you absolve him of all responsibility for that decision.

Imagine I've designed a car that routinely kills people due to some mechanical failure you might get away with blaming the driver or the car the first couple of times, but eventually you'd have to accept that the designer was at fault.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Why? Well, I don't believe that every action in the world can be attributed to God. Therefore, given the fact that a person has a choice in any given moment not to do evil (I'm using that as a broad term for the moment), I would suggest the blame remains with man.

How can you be so sure that a person always has a choice? There are strong social and genetic indicators for many behaviours christians would consider evil. You christians can't even agree amongst yourselves over what actually is evil half the time.

You talk about free will a lot. Let me ask you this: what kind of deity would give us free will - the ability to think, reason, discover and explore - yet condemn us to eternal damnation for using it? Even if I have come to the wrong conclusion, why should that result in an eternity of suffering for me? I'm not a bad person - I'm only using the free will you say your god gave me. Hell gives the lie to your free will argument - if the threat of hell doesn't amount to coercion then what does?

You really can't have it both ways.