Gays cause Floods (the swines!)

pH

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xml

Ahh yes, God floods and drowns innocent people because some of us are greedy and immoral, God is in effect a SS squad who executes the entire village because of some resistance in the area.

The sad thing is, these aren't rabid Islamic fundamentalists, or bible-bashing US TV evangelists saying this, these are CoE bishops - the most wishy-washy lovey-dovey religion I know (apologies to Buddhists who think that *they* are).

The real problem with this kind of thinking is that it opens the door for violence as innocent believers genuinely don't want to get caught up in God's punishment when he lashes out at the sinners:

• God hates gays
• Instead of smiting the gays, God is liable to lash out at everyone living around them.
• When God lashes out it gets nasty (think hurricanes, floods and AIDS)
• We certainly don't want to get caught up in that!

-> Let's get those Gays!

Zillah

Nah, modern liberalism is far too well established. I'd be very suprised if the vast majority of people, including CoE followers didn't look at that and go "What an idiot!"

Dades

FYI Robin posted this in "Generally Strange", but no harm I suppose having a new thread. (Besides I don't want to have to muck about with moving stuff!)
About half way down:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055079109&page=4

Two great post titles BTW
Man with Wooden Stick says God caused Weekend Floods
Gays cause Floods (the swines!)

Fallen Seraph

I knew it was the gays. Even when it was the weather conditions, I knew it was the gays.

biko

I'd think it was those gay paedophiliac priests raping young boys? I'm pretty sure a god would be pretty upset with that.

Tar.Aldarion

pH wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xml

Ahh yes, God floods and drowns innocent people because some of us are greedy and immoral

'Us', he is one of them, get him!

PDN

pH wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xml

Ahh yes, God floods and drowns innocent people because some of us are greedy and immoral, God is in effect a SS squad who executes the entire village because of some resistance in the area.

The sad thing is, these aren't rabid Islamic fundamentalists, or bible-bashing US TV evangelists saying this, these are CoE bishops - the most wishy-washy lovey-dovey religion I know (apologies to Buddhists who think that *they* are).

The real problem with this kind of thinking is that it opens the door for violence as innocent believers genuinely don't want to get caught up in God's punishment when he lashes out at the sinners:

• God hates gays
• Instead of smiting the gays, God is liable to lash out at everyone living around them.
• When God lashes out it gets nasty (think hurricanes, floods and AIDS)
• We certainly don't want to get caught up in that!

-> Let's get those Gays!

A Church of England minister once described his denomination to me as being a bit like Noah's Ark - it contains 2 of every kind, including the hyenas. Its very tolerance means any crackpot can climb up through the ranks.

I am a bit disappointed to see posters keep repeating the untruth that churches preaching against homosexuality will somehow increase violence against homosexuals. This unverified claim should be subjected to examination. If it were true then those countries in the world that have been the most exposed to Christianity should be the same countries where the most acts of violence occur against homosexuals. Equally, such research should show that those countries where Christianity has been least proclaimed would show the most tolerance towards homosexuals and the least incidence of acts of violence against homosexuals. Any real skeptics out there like to put this to the test?

layke

I thought a lack of motion in the ocean would help to stop flooding?

hairyheretic

PDN wrote:

I am a bit disappointed to see posters keep repeating the untruth that churches preaching against homosexuality will somehow increase violence against homosexuals. This unverified claim should be subjected to examination. If it were true then those countries in the world that have been the most exposed to Christianity should be the same countries where the most acts of violence occur against homosexuals. Equally, such research should show that those countries where Christianity has been least proclaimed would show the most tolerance towards homosexuals and the least incidence of acts of violence against homosexuals.

For that to be the case, the only factor in the violence would have to be christianity. Unfortunately mankind has shown itself capable of many reasons for hatred and violence.

It may be A factor. Its not THE factor.

pH

PDN wrote:

I am a bit disappointed to see posters keep repeating the untruth that churches preaching against homosexuality will somehow increase violence against homosexuals.

I hardly think it's an untruth. Saying that homosexuality is a sin (and something that will be dealt with by God when you die) is one thing - but warning the population that God will visit death and destruction on us because we're not persecuting them is a direct call to violence.

This unverified claim should be subjected to examination. If it were true then those countries in the world that have been the most exposed to Christianity should be the same countries where the most acts of violence occur against homosexuals. Equally, such research should show that those countries where Christianity has been least proclaimed would show the most tolerance towards homosexuals and the least incidence of acts of violence against homosexuals. Any real skeptics out there like to put this to the test?

This is rubbish - there are plenty of other anti-homosexual agenda holders out there in the form of other religions and other institutions, all equally obsessed with what men do with their penises and to whom.

When I think of the persecution of brilliant men like Alan Turing and Oscar Wilde it makes me angry and bitter. The sheer waste of human talent, and the nasty pleasure the persecution of homosexuals gives to these close-minded bigots enrages me still.

redtom

Would someone please tell that bishop to grow the **** up...

Sapien

pH wrote:

I hardly think it's an untruth. Saying that homosexuality is a sin (and something that will be dealt with by God when you die) is one thing - but warning the population that God will visit death and destruction on us because we're not persecuting them is a direct call to violence.


This is rubbish - there are plenty of other anti-homosexual agenda holders out there in the form of other religions and other institutions, all equally obsessed with what men do with their penises and to whom.

When I think of the persecution of brilliant men like Alan Turing and Oscar Wilde it makes me angry and bitter. The sheer waste of human talent, and the nasty pleasure the persecution of homosexuals gives to these close-minded bigots enrages me still.

Hallelujah.

UU

I reckon that Bishop is probably a closeted gay himself and is just covering up his own insecurities by being homophobic and being a priest. It's the case at lot of the times. Just look at 'el Pastor Ted Haggard of the New Life Baptist Church in Colorado Springs in USA...

Fanny Cradock

I always thought it was the Jews, myself. Guess I was wrong.

fatmammycat

Jeez, I thought it was the Mormans and their tricksy underwear behind it all. The gays? Wait 'til I tell my friend Country Gay he's behind the floods, he'll be stoked.

mukki

UU wrote:

I reckon that Bishop is probably a closeted gay himself and is just covering up his own insecurities by being homophobic and being a priest. It's the case at lot of the times. Just look at 'el Pastor Ted Haggard of the New Life Baptist Church in Colorado Springs in USA...

or the neightbour in american beauty

PDN

Turns out that the bishops did not blame gays for the floods at all. They did say that human sin had contributed to the floods, but they were referring to global warming as a consequence of human greed and irresponsibility.

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=41625

Some one-eyed reporters evidently felt that environmentally friendly Christians were not newsworthy enough and tried to play the tired old 'homophobic Christians' card instead. Then, some rather unskeptical posters who believe everything they read in the Sunday Telegraph & the Daily Mail decided to jump on the bandwagon here on boards.ie

robindch

PDN wrote:

Turns out that the bishops did not blame gays for the floods at all. [...] some rather unskeptical posters who believe everything they read in the Sunday Telegraph

Nor indeed did I say that he did blame them. You must also have missed the "<cough>" in my original posting.

But, anyway, let's have a look at what the good bishop was quoted as saying anyway:

Bishop Dow of Carlisle, Daily Telegraph wrote:

The sexual orientation regulations [which give greater rights to gays] are part of a general scene of permissiveness. We are in a situation where we are liable for God's judgment, which is intended to call us to repentance.

Canon Pratt of Carlisle, Church Times wrote:

What Graham is saying is that our behaviour is all of a whole: it isn’t appropriate to separate out different bits. There’s a natural way in which one can understand that the floods are a consequence of human behaviour via the release of carbon dioxide and global warming, but when one is interpreting the floods to see what God is saying to us, we might want to remember that all our behaviour needs to change.

Bishop Jones of Liverpool, Church Times wrote:

When people lose their lives, others their homes and livelihoods, it is important pastorally to say that the disaster is not a judgment of God on them.

Now, I must say that it's quite clear that Dow's spokesman, Pratt, has clarified what Dow originally said. Namely, that Dow's deity disapproves of the UK government's laws concerning homosexuality just as the deity disapproves of global warming. And furthermore, that this deity delivered a stern message concerning both in the flood waters currently lapping around the ankles of, and occasionally drowning, the members of the church's more southerly parishes.

Naturally, one is inclined to wonder why the deity didn't point out the dangers of global warming and environmental degradation centuries ago, but Dow's deity chose to remain strangely silent on the topics. And that's odd given that these global dangers threaten us all, whereas the many preachings about homosexuality describe a specific threat to the moral nature of just a few.

I think you should interpret the bishop's musings more carefully -- he really is surprisingly clear on the topic, at least for a CofE guy anyway.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

PDN

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Are you deliberately being obtuse? The bishops said that the floods were caused by environmental recklessness, which is sinful. They did not say that the floods were a judgement on homosexuality, but did say (whether by design or in response to further questioning) that sin is not just confined to environmental irresponsibility but is also expressed in other aspects of moral behaviour.

I appreciate that the truth is less exciting for you than the idea of a bishop blaming the floods on gays, but you can keep on reading the Daily Mail and the Telegraph if right-wing crap-stirring is what you like.

Galvasean

I forget which comedian it was, but in response to claims that hurricane Katrina was God's vengeance against homosexuals he said it was "like a child with autism stomping on an ant hill".

robindch

PDN wrote:

The bishops said that the floods were caused by environmental recklessness, which is sinful. They did not say that the floods were a judgement on homosexuality, but did say (whether by design or in response to further questioning) that sin is not just confined to environmental irresponsibility but is also expressed in other aspects of moral behaviour.

I must say, PDN, your ability to reason yourself to the conclusion you wanted to reach is amazing, even by the fly-blown standards of religious logic.

The bishop said "The sexual orientation regulations are part of a general scene of permissiveness. We are in a situation where we are liable for God's judgment [...]" While the bishop's spokesman clarified by saying "[...] our behaviour is all of a whole: it isn’t appropriate to separate out different bits. [...] when one is interpreting the floods [...] we might want to remember that all our behaviour needs to change."

Both guys are clearly saying that the government's laws concerning gays are a contributory factor in these floods happening. You're free, of course, to wave your over-used word-wand over what the bishop said until your wrist goes limp, but you won't change one whit of what the bishop quite clearly said.

Have you given much consideration to the view that you may not have picked up the bishop correctly?

PDN

robindch wrote:

Have you given much consideration to the view that you may not have picked up the bishop correctly?

Yes, I have considered that possibility. I have also considered the possibility that journalists are capable of taking 2 parts of an interview and linking them in a way that paints the interviewee in the worst possible light.

The bishops have stated that they were misquoted and that they did not say that the floods were a judgment on homosexuality.

Given my personal experience of CoE bishops (generally truthful if somewhat fond of waffling) and my personal experience of English journalists (unprincipled lying pond-life) I tend to believe the bishops. You, of course, may prefer to believe the Daily Mail and the Telegraph.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

Yes, I have considered that possibility. I have also considered the possibility that journalists are capable of taking 2 parts of an interview and linking them in a way that paints the interviewee in the worst possible light.

The bishops have stated that they were misquoted and that they did not say that the floods were a judgment on homosexuality.

Given my personal experience of CoE bishops (generally truthful if somewhat fond of waffling) and my personal experience of English journalists (unprincipled lying pond-life) I tend to believe the bishops. You, of course, may prefer to believe the Daily Mail and the Telegraph.

So your prejudice towards tabloidists (which are separate from "Journalists" and I will thank you kindly to observe the distinction between "pond life" and educated 5th estaters) means you are more likely to take the word of a indoctrinated homophobe?

Wow ... just wow.

IF he had been misqouted in such a severe manner, why is the bishops(s) not suing? It would be libel to deliberately say someone said something that they did not.

I dont see a story of them suing the journalist (tabloidist) do you?

(note: the pond lilfe comment was actually a quite humourous use of words)

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

Are you deliberately being obtuse? The bishops said that the floods were caused by environmental recklessness, which is sinful. They did not say that the floods were a judgement on homosexuality, but did say (whether by design or in response to further questioning) that sin is not just confined to environmental irresponsibility but is also expressed in other aspects of moral behaviour.

I appreciate that the truth is less exciting for you than the idea of a bishop blaming the floods on gays, but you can keep on reading the Daily Mail and the Telegraph if right-wing crap-stirring is what you like.

Actually the Telegraph and the Daily Mail are both quite clear in their support for Church of England.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

So your prejudice towards tabloidists (which are separate from "Journalists" and I will thank you kindly to observe the distinction between "pond life" and educated 5th estaters) means you are more likely to take the word of a indoctrinated homophobe?

Do you have personal knowledge of whether the bishop has a phobia of homosexuals? Or are you in fact referring to any Christian as an indoctrinated homophobe? You don't work for a tabloid yourself by any chance?

IF he had been misqouted in such a severe manner, why is the bishops(s) not suing? It would be libel to deliberately say someone said something that they did not.

I dont see a story of them suing the journalist (tabloidist) do you?

I once had the experience of being totally misquoted by an English tabloid. I could have sued, but my lawyer explained the costs and the time that I would have to invest. He also explained that, in the course of the trial, the false quotes would be repeated in court and reprinted in many other media outlets. I chose not to sue.

God has the last laugh anyway. The paper that misquoted me (Today) went to the wall a couple of years later and their lies didn't appear to harm our church unduly.

Dades

PDN, do you believe that the CoE has actually been misquoted, or just that certain elements of a bigger theory have been singled out and embellished for the sake of a story?

Bishop Dow of Carlisle, Daily Telegraph wrote:

The sexual orientation regulations are part of a general scene of permissiveness.

I mean if this is an actual quote, no matter how much other bluster surrounds it, it is clear the Bishop is suggesting a link between floods and, amongst other things, homosexuality.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

Do you have personal knowledge of whether the bishop has a phobia of homosexuals? Or are you in fact referring to any Christian as an indoctrinated homophobe? You don't work for a tabloid yourself by any chance?



I once had the experience of being totally misquoted by an English tabloid. I could have sued, but my lawyer explained the costs and the time that I would have to invest. He also explained that, in the course of the trial, the false quotes would be repeated in court and reprinted in many other media outlets. I chose not to sue.

God has the last laugh anyway. The paper that misquoted me (Today) went to the wall a couple of years later and their lies didn't appear to harm our church unduly.

No I dont work for a Tabloid but nice try at diverting attention from your biased claims.

"indoctrinated homophobe" means exactly what it says on the tin. He is a member of a faith which views homosexuality as a sin and has gone out of its way to influence the development of society with this in mind (though not as its sole purpose before you try and claim that one). Secondly, his comments, if correct, are homophobic in that they suggest an irrational and daft connection between bum-sex and rainfall.

As for costs - dont make me laugh. As a representative of the church any bishop would be funded by said church to take legal action against the journalist and paper because the libel is against the church as well (by extention of the Bishops status as a representative of same). If they are worried about being painted as homophobes during a trial in which the statements would be read and re-read perhaps they shouldnt have made such statements in the first place? Perhaps they shouldnt condone or encourage a tradition of homophobia in their culture?

I'm sorry you were misqouted (alledgedly) and I'm glad you feel vindicagted by the demise of a publication but I wholeheartedly scoff at he idea that its collapse had anything to do with God.

PDN

The Atheist wrote:

PDN, do you believe that the CoE has actually been misquoted, or just that certain elements of a bigger theory have been singled out and embellished for the sake of a story?

Based on my experience of journalists (both of the tabloid newspaper and the TV documentary variety) I believe the interview could easily have gone along these lines.

Reporter: Do you believe these floods are an act of God?

Bishop: I believe that the floods are a consequence of human sin. We have acted irresponsibly in creating global warming and now we are reaping what we sowed.

Reporter: So you are saying that the floods are a judgment from God?

Bishop: I wouldn't use the word 'judgment'. They are a consequence of sin.

Reporter: So the church is now seeing sin in purely environmental terms? Have you abandoned more traditional concepts of sin?

Bishop: No, not at all. We believe that sin is part of the general human condition. You can't separate just one aspect of it and ignore the rest. All of our behaviour needs to change.

Reporter: So you would include the sexual regulations as sinful?

Bishop: I wouldn't want to focus on that one issue, but the regulations are part of a general scene of permissiveness.

Reporter: So God will judge us for it?

Bishop: Again, I don't want to talk of judgment, but biblically you must understand that all sin has consequences. We can't isolate just one aspect of human behaviour. Inequalities in food distribution and the practices of multinational corporations are equally offensive in the sight of God. If we persist in sinful behaviour then we make ourselves liable for judgment.

Headline: BISHOP SAYS GAYS CAUSE FLOODS

Is that what happened? We don't know because none of us were there. The bishops have said they were misquoted, and what I have just described is, in my experience, very possible.

Last June I had a moronic journalist from the Irish Independent who wanted to run a story about how crazy fundamentalist Christians were fearing that some kind of terrible disaster would occur on the 6th of June 2006 (666). She phoned me for a quote and kept asking leading questions which, like the imaginary example above, were designed to portray me as some semi-literate bible-basher who spends his days obsessing over numbers in order to scare gullible people out of their wits. I gave her nothing to work with, having learned long ago that the best strategy is to give journalists nothing but name, rank, and number and to put them on speakerphone with a couple of witnesses in the room.

In the end she actually asked me if I could give her the names of some other religious leaders who might give her some "better quotes of the kind I'm looking for". Such journalists, in my opinion, rank lower than drug dealers and pornographers.

The Atheist wrote:

I mean if this is an actual quote, no matter how much other bluster surrounds it, it is clear the Bishop is suggesting a link between floods and, amongst other things, homosexuality.

No, what is clear is that the Bishop made the following points:

1. The floods are not a capricious act of God but are caused by global warming which is a result of by human actions (environmental irresponsibility).

2. You cannot separate this aspect of sin from others. Sin is a condition, not just an act. We need to seek God's help to overcome our sinfulness.

3. All sin results in judgment of some sort.

4. Sexual orientation regulations are part of a wider permissiveness which is sinful.

That in no way equates to saying that the homosexuality is linked in any way with the floods.

robindch

PDN wrote:

You, of course, may prefer to believe the Daily Mail and the Telegraph.

From this, I assume that you're saying that the Telegraph intentionally misquoted the bishop.

But if so, how come the Church Times didn't point this out, and instead actually confirmed what the Telegraph said?

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

If they are worried about being painted as homophobes during a trial in which the statements would be read and re-read perhaps they shouldnt have made such statements in the first place?

So, let me get this clear. Your argument is as follows:
1. The Bishops must have said what was reported because otherwise they would sue.
2. You admit that if they were misquoted and sued then the false quotes would be repeated and reprinted.
3. In that case they shouldn't have made the false quotes in the first place.

Are you being serious?

Dades

PDN wrote:

That in no way equates to saying that the homosexuality is linked in any way with the floods.

I'd have to agree without actually having a recording of the interview, it could well have gone down the way you describe it.

I think they key issue is who brought up the whole "sexual regulations" point. If it was the journalist, then I'm right with you. If however it was the Bishop - knowing the context of the topic at hand: 'man taking responsibility for his actions' and the flooding - then there are no excuses IMO.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

So, let me get this clear. Your argument is as follows:
1. The Bishops must have said what was reported because otherwise they would sue.
2. You admit that if they were misquoted and sued then the false quotes would be repeated and reprinted.
3. In that case they shouldn't have made the false quotes in the first place.

Are you being serious?

No my argument is very simple.

!) If the Bishop said what was quoted then he shouldnt be complaining about being caled a homophobe
2) If he didnt he should sue and have the article RETRACTED and a PUBLIC APOLOGY issued
3) Homosexuals dont cause floods - otherwise we would send Graham Norton to Ethiopia to dance until it showered.

JacobM

It seems to me, from the interview, he is explaining floods with science?

In the US it used to be drainage was the problem. Now they shake their fist at the sky again. Lack of discipline.

Homosexuals doing a rain dance may be an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. It is not homosexuality itself that ever caused God to punish the world. It was the attempt to make a way with those whom God did not find abomination in. It could be homos, it could be any number of things.

In such a rigorously regulated, up-tight society it is unlikely loose moral standards are an issue. God does not like crucifixions, buggery, imprisonment, blasphemy, the breaking of the covenant, etc. Those who are not an Abomination will not wantonly break laws. Either there is someone falsely imprisoned, or the social order is contradictory i.e. breaking of the covenant. It is not prudent to assume consummation out of wedlock. Jesus was crucified by popular demand.

Hivemind187

JacobM wrote:

It seems to me, from the interview, he is explaining floods with science?

In the US it used to be drainage was the problem. Now they shake their fist at the sky again. Lack of discipline.

Homosexuals doing a rain dance may be an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. It is not homosexuality itself that ever caused God to punish the world. It was the attempt to make a way with those whom God did not find abomination in. It could be homos, it could be any number of things.

In such a rigorously regulated, up-tight society it is unlikely loose moral standards are an issue. God does not like crucifixions, buggery, imprisonment, blasphemy, the breaking of the covenant, etc. Those who are not an Abomination will not wantonly break laws. Either there is someone falsely imprisoned, or the social order is contradictory i.e. breaking of the covenant. It is not prudent to assume consummation out of wedlock. Jesus was crucified by popular demand.

Sodom & Gomorrah.

Dades

JacobM wrote:

It could be homos, it could be any number of things.

JacobM, you're just arrived so we'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

But if you're going to engage in this debate please keep your terminology such that it will not cause offence. Otherwise you won't be engaging for long.

jtsuited

PDN wrote:

rank lower than drug dealers and pornographers.

what's wrong with pornographers? i'll tell you who i rank the lowest: people who construct a league table of who they hate.

Oh the irony!

While it's possible that the bishops may have been misquoted, they still slipped out a reminder of their unethical and cruel stance on homosexuality.

Galvasean

jtsuited wrote:

what's wrong with pornographers?

I think he was referring to the ones who treat their 'stars' poorly. It is something of an old stereotype at this point. Id hardly say Hugh Hefner is inherently evil now.

Bexz

pH wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xml

Ahh yes, God floods and drowns innocent people because some of us are greedy and immoral, God is in effect a SS squad who executes the entire village because of some resistance in the area.

The sad thing is, these aren't rabid Islamic fundamentalists, or bible-bashing US TV evangelists saying this, these are CoE bishops - the most wishy-washy lovey-dovey religion I know (apologies to Buddhists who think that *they* are).

The real problem with this kind of thinking is that it opens the door for violence as innocent believers genuinely don't want to get caught up in God's punishment when he lashes out at the sinners:

• God hates gays
• Instead of smiting the gays, God is liable to lash out at everyone living around them.
• When God lashes out it gets nasty (think hurricanes, floods and AIDS)
• We certainly don't want to get caught up in that!

-> Let's get those Gays!

(I don't believe in a deity) God apparantley did this flood, yes because, gays sinners and everyone else who is bad. He did this apparantley, to eradicate "sin" and to produce a new perfect human race. Sounds a bit like Hitler, dont you think?!

Dades

Bexz wrote:

Sounds a bit like Hitler, dont you think?!

Godwin's Law strikes!

Talliesin

I've only managed to flood my own garden. And only one garden at a time. I assume this is because I'm bi rather than gay.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Based on my experience of journalists (both of the tabloid newspaper and the TV documentary variety) I believe the interview could easily have gone along these lines.

Reporter: Do you believe these floods are an act of God?

Bishop: I believe that the floods are a consequence of human sin. We have acted irresponsibly in creating global warming and now we are reaping what we sowed.

Reporter: So you are saying that the floods are a judgment from God?

Bishop: I wouldn't use the word 'judgment'. They are a consequence of sin.

Reporter: So the church is now seeing sin in purely environmental terms? Have you abandoned more traditional concepts of sin?

Bishop: No, not at all. We believe that sin is part of the general human condition. You can't separate just one aspect of it and ignore the rest. All of our behaviour needs to change.

Reporter: So you would include the sexual regulations as sinful?

Bishop: I wouldn't want to focus on that one issue, but the regulations are part of a general scene of permissiveness.

Reporter: So God will judge us for it?

Bishop: Again, I don't want to talk of judgment, but biblically you must understand that all sin has consequences. We can't isolate just one aspect of human behaviour. Inequalities in food distribution and the practices of multinational corporations are equally offensive in the sight of God. If we persist in sinful behaviour then we make ourselves liable for judgment.

Headline: BISHOP SAYS GAYS CAUSE FLOODS

Is that what happened? We don't know because none of us were there. The bishops have said they were misquoted, and what I have just described is, in my experience, very possible.

Such an interview certainly justifies the headline "BISHOP SAYS SIN CAUSES FLOODS - FAT CATS, GAYS, POLLUTERS ALL IMPLICATED", which I don't consider much of an improvement. As to the matter of 'judgment' versus 'consequence', that's PR-style weaselling. The bishop doesn't "want to talk of judgment" - he may not want to talk about it, but it's perfectly clear that he's saying it.

As long as one considers homosexuality as a sin, such an attitude certainly says that gays are responsible for flooding - only that they are not solely responsible. The degree of culpability imputed to any given set of sinners is left to the audience, whereas the degree of culpability that gays have for climate change is exactly zero.

The bishop is therefore not only offensive in including sexual permissiveness in his list of things that might have lead to the flooding, but plain flat wrong, and dangerously, cretinously misleading. Climate change is too important an issue for the Bronze Age superstitions - the Bishop may be being misquoted, but he is quite rightly being derided, because his attitudes are 3000 years out of date.

It's interesting that you should put forward such a version as blameless.

regards,
Scofflaw

pH

Scofflaw wrote:

It's interesting that you should put forward such a version as blameless.

PDN seemed to produce a made up conversation between the bishop and the reporter but failed to include in his version the 'quotes' from the original article:

"This is a strong and definite judgment because the world has been arrogant in going its own way," he said. "We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation, as well as the environmental damage that we have caused."

"We are in serious moral trouble because every type of lifestyle is now regarded as legitimate,"

"In the Bible, institutional power is referred to as 'the beast', which sets itself up to control people and their morals. Our government has been playing the role of God in saying that people are free to act as they want,"

"The sexual orientation regulations [which give greater rights to gays] are part of a general scene of permissiveness. We are in a situation where we are liable for God's judgment, which is intended to call us to repentance."

"It has set up dominant economic structures that are built on greed and that keep other nations in a situation of dependence. The principle of God's judgment on nations that have exploited other nations is all there in the Bible,"

etc.

So either the accusation is that the reporter invented these quotes (a very serious accusation - and one to my knowledge that *hasn't* been made) or that theses phrases were used out of context.

So if PDN wants to produce a possible conversation between the two (to show how these phrases have a completely different explanation) he should at the very least include the words and phrases which we know were used.

Either way:
If God is omnipotent then by definition nothing he does can be a surprise for him, so everything he does is intentional (insofar as he can see the ourcome of all his actions)

If God is all powerful then nothing constrains his actions, he doesn't *have* to use crude tools like floods to punish us - he can literally do anything he wants - therefore he *could* just punish the guilty.

If God is 'good', kind and merciful then he *wouldn't* hurt the innocent for no reason, he'd smite the evildoers only - deliberately causing pain and suffering to the innocent is by definition not a 'good' act.

So we're back to Theodicy: any god who would use floods to punish some of the population cannot be both all powerful and good.

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

If God is 'good', kind and merciful then he *wouldn't* hurt the innocent for no reason, he'd smite the evildoers only - deliberately causing pain and suffering to the innocent is by definition not a 'good' act.

So we're back to Theodicy: any god who would use floods to punish some of the population cannot be both all powerful and good.

Hmm. I suppose I see this one from a different angle. I'm a green, and always have been, so I see this primarily from a green angle.

Usually, as you know, I have a soft spot for religion compared to many atheists, but issues like this are practical matters. The bishops are mixing up the causes of climate change with injunctions from a Bronze Age religion. The only possible excuse for them is that it might work, but given how much easier it is to find justification in the Bible for homosexuality-as-sin than pollution-as-sin I think it's a dangerous game. If it has the net effect of convincing people that sexual permissiveness causes climate change, or that climate change is a just punishment of the wickedness of others, then they should keep their mouths shut.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dan719

Talliesin wrote:

I've only managed to flood my own garden. And only one garden at a time. I assume this is because I'm bi rather than gay.

Hey I can't wait to try out my new found powers on people I don't like!:D