The end of the Church of Scotland?

[Sir David Gray]

I don't expect many people on here to be particularly concerned with this issue, in fact I actually hear some people cheering at the thought of this happening as I type this post!

However, one issue that has really caught my eye over the past couple of days has been the decision of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (AKA 'The Kirk') to permit openly homosexual men and women to be ordained as CoS ministers, for at least the next two years whilst a study is published on the wider issues.

This whole issue has the potential to seriously split the Church of Scotland and threatens its status as Scotland's national church.

My own personal belief, which I am not afraid to say, is that this is a very wrong move that the church has taken. I believe that the Bible is very clear on what is and what isn't acceptable and that includes homosexual relations.

A minister, in my eyes anyway, is supposed to uphold good moral standards and I don't know how that can be compatible with what the Bible states on homosexual practices. I do not agree that homosexuality should be a criminal offence, I have always stated that I am opposed to that and the idea that someone should be stoned to death or whatever for being a homosexual is totally unacceptable and, as far as this country goes anyway, was rightly left behind in a previous century where it belongs.

I never have had, and never will have, anything against individual people who are homosexual. However that does not mean to say that I have to agree with their relationships etc and if I am being honest, yes I do feel quite uncomfortable watching two people of the same sex being passionate with one another.

For me, one of the single most important institutions in the world today is that of marriage and, to me, marriage must only be defined as the union between one man and one woman. I do not agree with any exceptions or variations to this rule.

If, as seems to be the case, the ordination of homosexual ministers within the Church of Scotland becomes common practice in the months and years ahead, how on Earth can a homosexual minister, who cannot legally marry in this country (at least not yet anyway, I'm sure that'll change over the next few years), possibly conduct a religious wedding ceremony and, at the same time, speak as an authoritative figure on issues such as the sanctity of marriage?

I just hope that the people who have taken this decision know what they are letting themselves - and the church - in for. Around 20% of Church of Scotland members, who were asked, stated that they would seek to leave the church, should the ordination of homosexual clergy be permitted and already a minister from the Highlands has stated his intention to resign from his post, following this decision.

Yes I'm sure that there will always be a church called the Church of Scotland but in what form and at what price? I can see a similar thing happening here as what happened when the Church of England voted to ordain women as bishops a few years ago and many members left the Church of England and joined the Roman Catholic Church.

Now obviously this is a completely separate issue and I have no problem at all with the ordination of women, after all the Church of Scotland has had female ministers for many decades. However, this is probably the biggest crisis to hit the Church of Scotland for almost 170 years, since hundreds of ministers left the church to establish the Free Church of Scotland in 1843 and I can see many members leaving over this to go and join other Presbyterian churches.

Thoughts anyone?

[The Green Goblin]

I never have had, and never will have, anything against individual people who are homosexual. However that does not mean to say that I have to agree with their relationships etc and if I am being honest, yes I do feel quite uncomfortable watching two people of the same sex being passionate with one another.

Thoughts anyone?



There`s too much in there to address, but I`ll start with the part in bold. My response is to ask you: what has the bit in bold got to do with anything whatsoever?

If that is your definition of what it is to be homosexual, then you are truly lost and out of your depth. It is - forgive me - a terribly ignorant comment to make. To judge anyone on the basis of their sexuality - never mind in those terms - is shallow at worst, but to see it only in those terms only confirms your lack of awareness of the truth of many such relationships, which are loving, respectful, happy and are committed to by individuals who uphold the highest moral standards in all areas of their daily lives, in the same way that many heterosexual couples also do.

Look around you. Would you say that the sacred union between man and woman never fails to bring about the best moral standards in either them or their children? I think not. There`s no guarantee, regardless of the nature of the union.

I would say, that if the Church of Scotland is equally as narrow-minded as to share your view of the world in relation to this subject, then it doesn`t deserve to survive. Who are they, and who are you, to bring such shallow and ill-informed judgements down upon the lives of others?

GG

[bighairyfaeleith]

I don't expect many people on here to be particularly concerned with this issue, in fact I actually hear some people cheering at the thought of this happening as I type this post!

However, one issue that has really caught my eye over the past couple of days has been the decision of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (AKA 'The Kirk') to permit openly homosexual men and women to be ordained as CoS ministers, for at least the next two years whilst a study is published on the wider issues.

This whole issue has the potential to seriously split the Church of Scotland and threatens its status as Scotland's national church.

My own personal belief, which I am not afraid to say, is that this is a very wrong move that the church has taken. I believe that the Bible is very clear on what is and what isn't acceptable and that includes homosexual relations.

A minister, in my eyes anyway, is supposed to uphold good moral standards and I don't know how that can be compatible with what the Bible states on homosexual practices. I do not agree that homosexuality should be a criminal offence, I have always stated that I am opposed to that and the idea that someone should be stoned to death or whatever for being a homosexual is totally unacceptable and, as far as this country goes anyway, was rightly left behind in a previous century where it belongs.

I never have had, and never will have, anything against individual people who are homosexual. However that does not mean to say that I have to agree with their relationships etc and if I am being honest, yes I do feel quite uncomfortable watching two people of the same sex being passionate with one another.

For me, one of the single most important institutions in the world today is that of marriage and, to me, marriage must only be defined as the union between one man and one woman. I do not agree with any exceptions or variations to this rule.

If, as seems to be the case, the ordination of homosexual ministers within the Church of Scotland becomes common practice in the months and years ahead, how on Earth can a homosexual minister, who cannot legally marry in this country (at least not yet anyway, I'm sure that'll change over the next few years), possibly conduct a religious wedding ceremony and, at the same time, speak as an authoritative figure on issues such as the sanctity of marriage?

I just hope that the people who have taken this decision know what they are letting themselves - and the church - in for. Around 20% of Church of Scotland members, who were asked, stated that they would seek to leave the church, should the ordination of homosexual clergy be permitted and already a minister from the Highlands has stated his intention to resign from his post, following this decision.

Yes I'm sure that there will always be a church called the Church of Scotland but in what form and at what price? I can see a similar thing happening here as what happened when the Church of England voted to ordain women as bishops a few years ago and many members left the Church of England and joined the Roman Catholic Church.

Now obviously this is a completely separate issue and I have no problem at all with the ordination of women, after all the Church of Scotland has had female ministers for many decades. However, this is probably the biggest crisis to hit the Church of Scotland for almost 170 years, since hundreds of ministers left the church to establish the Free Church of Scotland in 1843 and I can see many members leaving over this to go and join other Presbyterian churches.

Thoughts anyone?

This is exactly the problem with organised religion in this country and why younger people are rejecting it en mass, there are too many people who take the bible, a book written thousands of years ago, literally.

The church should be about celebrating your god, not about peoples sexuality. If your church doesn't get into this century and quick it will lose a lot more than 20% of it's people.

The country has changed greatly in the last fifty years and the church has not, unless it does you might as well just close the doors.

I genuinely think you need to wake up.

[Hibrandenburg]

I don't expect many people on here to be particularly concerned with this issue, in fact I actually hear some people cheering at the thought of this happening as I type this post!

However, one issue that has really caught my eye over the past couple of days has been the decision of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (AKA 'The Kirk') to permit openly homosexual men and women to be ordained as CoS ministers, for at least the next two years whilst a study is published on the wider issues.

This whole issue has the potential to seriously split the Church of Scotland and threatens its status as Scotland's national church.

My own personal belief, which I am not afraid to say, is that this is a very wrong move that the church has taken. I believe that the Bible is very clear on what is and what isn't acceptable and that includes homosexual relations.

A minister, in my eyes anyway, is supposed to uphold good moral standards and I don't know how that can be compatible with what the Bible states on homosexual practices. I do not agree that homosexuality should be a criminal offence, I have always stated that I am opposed to that and the idea that someone should be stoned to death or whatever for being a homosexual is totally unacceptable and, as far as this country goes anyway, was rightly left behind in a previous century where it belongs.I never have had, and never will have, anything against individual people who are homosexual. However that does not mean to say that I have to agree with their relationships etc and if I am being honest, yes I do feel quite uncomfortable watching two people of the same sex being passionate with one another.

For me, one of the single most important institutions in the world today is that of marriage and, to me, marriage must only be defined as the union between one man and one woman. I do not agree with any exceptions or variations to this rule.

If, as seems to be the case, the ordination of homosexual ministers within the Church of Scotland becomes common practice in the months and years ahead, how on Earth can a homosexual minister, who cannot legally marry in this country (at least not yet anyway, I'm sure that'll change over the next few years), possibly conduct a religious wedding ceremony and, at the same time, speak as an authoritative figure on issues such as the sanctity of marriage?

I just hope that the people who have taken this decision know what they are letting themselves - and the church - in for. Around 20% of Church of Scotland members, who were asked, stated that they would seek to leave the church, should the ordination of homosexual clergy be permitted and already a minister from the Highlands has stated his intention to resign from his post, following this decision.

Yes I'm sure that there will always be a church called the Church of Scotland but in what form and at what price? I can see a similar thing happening here as what happened when the Church of England voted to ordain women as bishops a few years ago and many members left the Church of England and joined the Roman Catholic Church.

Now obviously this is a completely separate issue and I have no problem at all with the ordination of women, after all the Church of Scotland has had female ministers for many decades. However, this is probably the biggest crisis to hit the Church of Scotland for almost 170 years, since hundreds of ministers left the church to establish the Free Church of Scotland in 1843 and I can see many members leaving over this to go and join other Presbyterian churches.

Thoughts anyone?

Don't want to offend Falkirk but this probably will and I feel it has to be said so I make no apology for doing so.

I sincerely hope that in the not too distant future we can be saying the same about your judgmental views of people and their lifestyle as you say in the part of your post that I've highlighted.

[Hainan Hibs]

and if I am being honest, yes I do feel quite uncomfortable watching two people of the same sex being passionate with one another.



My question is why are you sitting around watching gay people get passionate with each other?

[Beefster]

Thoughts anyone?

That folk that hide behind a literal interpretation of the Bible, a book written almost two millenia ago, in order to justify their own prejudices don't have the courage to come out and say "yup, I just hate them and what they do". Good on the C of S for having the courage to consider the matter. One day, even the Vatican will have to deal with it.

Btw, the fact that you find two gay people 'uncomfortable' to see says more about you that it does about the behaviour of anyone else. I'd like to say I'm surprised that you hold this view but I'm not.

Btw, I say all of this as a Catholic.

PS Good to see that you don't think we should stone the gays to death any longer though.

[Lucius Apuleius]

I'll tell you after the ministers sermon on sunday.:agree:


I don't expect many people on here to be particularly concerned with this issue, in fact I actually hear some people cheering at the thought of this happening as I type this post!

However, one issue that has really caught my eye over the past couple of days has been the decision of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (AKA 'The Kirk') to permit openly homosexual men and women to be ordained as CoS ministers, for at least the next two years whilst a study is published on the wider issues.

This whole issue has the potential to seriously split the Church of Scotland and threatens its status as Scotland's national church.

My own personal belief, which I am not afraid to say, is that this is a very wrong move that the church has taken. I believe that the Bible is very clear on what is and what isn't acceptable and that includes homosexual relations.

A minister, in my eyes anyway, is supposed to uphold good moral standards and I don't know how that can be compatible with what the Bible states on homosexual practices. I do not agree that homosexuality should be a criminal offence, I have always stated that I am opposed to that and the idea that someone should be stoned to death or whatever for being a homosexual is totally unacceptable and, as far as this country goes anyway, was rightly left behind in a previous century where it belongs.

I never have had, and never will have, anything against individual people who are homosexual. However that does not mean to say that I have to agree with their relationships etc and if I am being honest, yes I do feel quite uncomfortable watching two people of the same sex being passionate with one another.

For me, one of the single most important institutions in the world today is that of marriage and, to me, marriage must only be defined as the union between one man and one woman. I do not agree with any exceptions or variations to this rule.

If, as seems to be the case, the ordination of homosexual ministers within the Church of Scotland becomes common practice in the months and years ahead, how on Earth can a homosexual minister, who cannot legally marry in this country (at least not yet anyway, I'm sure that'll change over the next few years), possibly conduct a religious wedding ceremony and, at the same time, speak as an authoritative figure on issues such as the sanctity of marriage?

I just hope that the people who have taken this decision know what they are letting themselves - and the church - in for. Around 20% of Church of Scotland members, who were asked, stated that they would seek to leave the church, should the ordination of homosexual clergy be permitted and already a minister from the Highlands has stated his intention to resign from his post, following this decision.

Yes I'm sure that there will always be a church called the Church of Scotland but in what form and at what price? I can see a similar thing happening here as what happened when the Church of England voted to ordain women as bishops a few years ago and many members left the Church of England and joined the Roman Catholic Church.

Now obviously this is a completely separate issue and I have no problem at all with the ordination of women, after all the Church of Scotland has had female ministers for many decades. However, this is probably the biggest crisis to hit the Church of Scotland for almost 170 years, since hundreds of ministers left the church to establish the Free Church of Scotland in 1843 and I can see many members leaving over this to go and join other Presbyterian churches.

Thoughts anyone?

[hibsbollah]

The problem with trying to find literal interpretations in the bible is the fundamentalists do it selectively. The passage calling homosexuality 'detestable' (leviticus 18:22 and other passages apparently) also contains reference to eating shellfish being detestable. You're banned from eating camels in leviticus, and 'rock badgers'. Does the modern church campaign against eating lobsters as well as poofery?

Its surely obvious to anyone that these dictats are products of the world 1500+ years ago, and not actually the literal word of God. I wish theyd just own up to being bigoted against homosexuals, it would save a lot of pointless philosophising.

(interstingly, the Qu'ran also forbids eating 'rock badgers'. Assuming this isnt a euphemism for some gay sex act, maybe they just taste like ****? Its likely that Muhammad and peter/paul/whoever were trying to save their followers a bout of indigestion?)

[CropleyWasGod]

If you are going to base your whole argument on the words of the Bible, let me quote you 1 Corinthians 13:13.....

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

That's love. Not heterosexual love. Not platonic love. Not sexual love. Just love.

[lapsedhibee]

Around 20% of Church of Scotland members, who were asked, stated that they would seek to leave the church, should the ordination of homosexual clergy be permitted and already a minister from the Highlands has stated his intention to resign from his post, following this decision.


Serious question here, as I'm not a churchigoer myself. Do the males among this 20% roll up to worship with bicycle clips on, and wearing a cork up their ****, just in case?

[CropleyWasGod]

I




I just hope that the people who have taken this decision know what they are letting themselves - and the church - in for. Around 20% of Church of Scotland members, who were asked, stated that they would seek to leave the church, should the ordination of homosexual clergy be permitted and already a minister from the Highlands has stated his intention to resign from his post, following this decision.



So the Kirk might lose 20% of its membership. Personally, I doubt it. However, I reckon that would be outweighed by the number of people whose respect for the Kirk would return; indeed, membership might even increase.

As for the minister who says he would leave? He's entitled to his view, but its not one I would equate with the basic teachings of Christianity. Intolerance is not welcome.

[Twa Cairpets]

My own personal belief, which I am not afraid to say, is that this is a very wrong move that the church has taken. I believe that the Bible is very clear on what is and what isn't acceptable and that includes homosexual relations.

A minister, in my eyes anyway, is supposed to uphold good moral standards and I don't know how that can be compatible with what the Bible states on homosexual practices. I do not agree that homosexuality should be a criminal offence, I have always stated that I am opposed to that and the idea that someone should be stoned to death or whatever for being a homosexual is totally unacceptable and, as far as this country goes anyway, was rightly left behind in a previous century where it belongs.

You have clearly never read the bible if you are looking at it for moral instruction and a guide for what is or isn't acceptable behaviour.

As Hibsbollah very eloquently points out, do you have the same detestation of any of the other areas of bonkersness spouted in Leviticus? Just go an have a read of it, and then come back and tell me if your view is based on biblical teaching or on personal prejudice? I somewhat suspect it has to be the latter, unless you are happy picking and choosing which of Gods instructions you are happy working with.



I never have had, and never will have, anything against individual people who are homosexual. However that does not mean to say that I have to agree with their relationships etc and if I am being honest, yes I do feel quite uncomfortable watching two people of the same sex being passionate with one another.

What truly weasel words these are. I don't believe you for an instant.



For me, one of the single most important institutions in the world today is that of marriage and, to me, marriage must only be defined as the union between one man and one woman. I do not agree with any exceptions or variations to this rule.


You don't agree with "exceptions or variations".
Here's a few things I'd like you to consider and respond to.
Is a loving same sex partnership better or worse from your moral standpoint than an abusive heterosexual one?
Is a sexual relationship between heterosexuals outwith marriage better or worse than a homosexual one within a marriage?
What do you see as the reason for marriage in the first place? I see it as a way of declaring publicly (and officaly) a persons love for their partner - you may see it differently.

[--------]

If you are going to base your whole argument on the words of the Bible, let me quote you 1 Corinthians 13:13.....

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

That's love. Not heterosexual love. Not platonic love. Not sexual love. Just love.


Just to explain - the Greek word Paul uses is αγάπη (transliterated "agape", pronounced "agapay") and has nothing whatsoever to do with sex. The Greek word for sexual love is "eros" as in "erotic". There are at least 4 words in the NT translated "love" and they all refer to different emotions and feelings. C S Lewis wrote a wee book called "The Four Loves" which is a better explanation of the matter than I can give on this forum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Loves

However, you're absolutely right in pointing to that verse as central to the heart of what the Christian Gospel is really about.

What Paul is writing about in 1 Corinthians 13 is that specific kind of love, totally selfless and totally giving, best exemplified by the self-sacrifice of Christ on the Cross for others. The "nobody can show greater love for another than by laying down his/her life for them" sort of love. Not Platonic love - Christian love, a lot more costly if you take the concept really seriously.

IMHO Falkirk better curb his glee a little - we may be around a little longer yet than he anticipates. It's one of the weaknesses of the C of S that so many of us find it so hard to take the Bible seriously as "a guide to faith and life" (I'm quoting the Church's Declaratory Articles or constitution there), but it's also one of our strengths that we do actually discuss and argue about these issues and don't just accept the first simplistic reading of a couple of verses some semi-educated American tent-preacher offers us. I have no time at all for the Elmer Gantry's of this world.

TC's right about one thing. I mean, we're gonnae start stoning teenagers to death for being cheeky to the old man? Execute women for adultery? Isolate them from normal company during their menstrual periods? (It's all in Leviticus, and there are people - I blush to admit it - who advocate just exactly that very thing. But I wouldn't consider them disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.)

And IMHO the matter of sexual ethics is a lot more complicated than either the religious fundamentalists (of whatever variety) or the militant secularists admit; and I would suggest that the whole subject demands a lot more thought, consideration, and humility than either of these groups are in the habit of displaying whenever they go off arguing about it... :rolleyes:

[CropleyWasGod]

And IMHO the matter of sexual ethics is a lot more complicated than either the religious fundamentalists (of whatever variety) or the militant secularists admit; and I would suggest that the whole subject demands a lot more thought, consideration, and humility than either of these groups are in the habit of displaying whenever they go off arguing about it... :rolleyes:

A minister pal of mine, who was actually quite surprised that a decision was reached at all this week, echoed your last paragraph. He asked for time and respect.

IMO, as a non Kirk-goer, it is entirely right that you take your time debating the issues. Just because the current mood of society is that anything goes, in sexuality terms, doesn't mean that the Kirk has to follow suit. Moral changes in society take generations to happen and, as one of our moral leaders, the Kirk has to consider its position with care, intelligence and, yes, love.

So... as I said to my pal, the current postion is that.... if you're already out, you can stay in. If you're in, but you're not out, you'd better stay in. If you're not in, but you're not out yet, you're definitely no getting in.

That about it? :greengrin

[--------]

A minister pal of mine, who was actually quite surprised that a decision was reached at all this week, echoed your last paragraph. He asked for time and respect.

IMO, as a non Kirk-goer, it is entirely right that you take your time debating the issues. Just because the current mood of society is that anything goes, in sexuality terms, doesn't mean that the Kirk has to follow suit. Moral changes in society take generations to happen and, as one of our moral leaders, the Kirk has to consider its position with care, intelligence and, yes, love.

So... as I said to my pal, the current postion is that.... if you're already out, you can stay in. If you're in, but you're not out, you'd better stay in. If you're not in, but you're not out yet, you're definitely no getting in.

That about it? :greengrin


I THINK it's more like - "If you're in, and already out, you can stay in. If you're in, but not out yet, you'd better not come out. If you're not in, and not out, you'll get in unless you come out. And if you're not in and already out, you're not getting in - to the ministry. You can still come into the Church; just keep your head down."

But that's me being cynical. :greengrin

One of my friends made the point recently that the door of the church MUST be open to anyone and everyone who wants to come in, but that we should be much more careful than we are about who's allowed into the pulpit. No one should be turned away if we're serious about being disciples of Christ. But equally how we worship and how we understand our faith and practice needs a lot more thought and prayer and self-sacrifice than many of us are prepared to put in right now.

I don't think he was meaning that we should be applying a rigid "party line" either - a serious, respectful and thoughtful attitude to the Bible coupled with emotional balance and maturity and an accepting and non-judgmental nature was what he had in mind. Oh, yes - and a proper sense of honesty and morality in EVERY aspect of one's life, not just sexuality. And the humility to admit to God, to yourself and to others that you're not perfect, that you get it wrong regularly.

Sexuality's an area where Pharisees find it very easy to point the finger. Christianity's about the whole person - all our attitudes and relationships, about how we deal with other people, with possessions, with money, with politics, with the world...

But it's a lot less demanding to throw stones at adulteresses than it is to put our own hearts and lives in order.

[ancienthibby]

I don't expect many people on here to be particularly concerned with this issue, in fact I actually hear some people cheering at the thought of this happening as I type this post!

However, one issue that has really caught my eye over the past couple of days has been the decision of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (AKA 'The Kirk') to permit openly homosexual men and women to be ordained as CoS ministers, for at least the next two years whilst a study is published on the wider issues.

This whole issue has the potential to seriously split the Church of Scotland and threatens its status as Scotland's national church.

My own personal belief, which I am not afraid to say, is that this is a very wrong move that the church has taken. I believe that the Bible is very clear on what is and what isn't acceptable and that includes homosexual relations.

A minister, in my eyes anyway, is supposed to uphold good moral standards and I don't know how that can be compatible with what the Bible states on homosexual practices. I do not agree that homosexuality should be a criminal offence, I have always stated that I am opposed to that and the idea that someone should be stoned to death or whatever for being a homosexual is totally unacceptable and, as far as this country goes anyway, was rightly left behind in a previous century where it belongs.

I never have had, and never will have, anything against individual people who are homosexual. However that does not mean to say that I have to agree with their relationships etc and if I am being honest, yes I do feel quite uncomfortable watching two people of the same sex being passionate with one another.

For me, one of the single most important institutions in the world today is that of marriage and, to me, marriage must only be defined as the union between one man and one woman. I do not agree with any exceptions or variations to this rule.

If, as seems to be the case, the ordination of homosexual ministers within the Church of Scotland becomes common practice in the months and years ahead, how on Earth can a homosexual minister, who cannot legally marry in this country (at least not yet anyway, I'm sure that'll change over the next few years), possibly conduct a religious wedding ceremony and, at the same time, speak as an authoritative figure on issues such as the sanctity of marriage?

I just hope that the people who have taken this decision know what they are letting themselves - and the church - in for. Around 20% of Church of Scotland members, who were asked, stated that they would seek to leave the church, should the ordination of homosexual clergy be permitted and already a minister from the Highlands has stated his intention to resign from his post, following this decision.

Yes I'm sure that there will always be a church called the Church of Scotland but in what form and at what price? I can see a similar thing happening here as what happened when the Church of England voted to ordain women as bishops a few years ago and many members left the Church of England and joined the Roman Catholic Church.

Now obviously this is a completely separate issue and I have no problem at all with the ordination of women, after all the Church of Scotland has had female ministers for many decades. However, this is probably the biggest crisis to hit the Church of Scotland for almost 170 years, since hundreds of ministers left the church to establish the Free Church of Scotland in 1843 and I can see many members leaving over this to go and join other Presbyterian churches.

Thoughts anyone?

Falkirk,

Good to read your passion about your church!

When I heard the first news story I thought, 'well that's OK', since it seemed to say that the CoS was confirming the current position, but not allowing it to go further. In other words, those concerned who were in the Church would not be excommunicated, and I thought 'fair enough, that's Grace being shown'!

Now however it seems that further inductions of gay-practising ministers into the CoS could be made and that, I believe, is a wrong move.

Unlike other posters, I will not go near Leviticus, since there is no need. In fact, if anyone wants to check, Scripture is abundantly clear about the whole matter - and I mean the full male/female thing not just the male/male thing.

God, in Genesis, is quite clear, He blessed one human relationship alone, and that was in creating the female as a companion for the male. And as Scripture further tells us, 'God saw what He had created and it was good'. (Oh and don't anyone come on and say that gives the male this right and that right to this and that to the female - God created His people in His own image and that means that abuse of the one to the other, should never exist)!!

And to a post from Cropley about intolerance not being permitted, I would suggest he should consider that Jesus showed complete intolerance when he angrily cleaned out His father's house of all the traders and merchants.

God, is of course, a God of grace and mercy (as I well know) but He is also jealous of His holiness and His Creation, and He will not forever permit aberrations.

[hibsbollah]

.

Unlike other posters, I will not go near Leviticus, since there is no need. In fact, if anyone wants to check, Scripture is abundantly clear about the whole matter - and I mean the full male/female thing not just the male/male thing.

God, in Genesis, is quite clear, He blessed one human relationship alone, and that was in creating the female as a companion for the male. And as Scripture further tells us, 'God saw what He had created and it was good'. (Oh and don't anyone come on and say that gives the male this right and that right to this and that to the female - God created His people in His own image and that means that abuse of the one to the other, should never exist)!!






Thats open to interpretation. The quote youve inserted isnt clear at all.

[ancienthibby]

Thats open to interpretation. The quote youve inserted isnt clear at all.

That's probably because I did not insert a quote!!:greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

Falkirk,

Good to read your passion about your church!

When I heard the first news story I thought, 'well that's OK', since it seemed to say that the CoS was confirming the current position, but not allowing it to go further. In other words, those concerned who were in the Church would not be excommunicated, and I thought 'fair enough, that's Grace being shown'!

Now however it seems that further inductions of gay-practising ministers into the CoS could be made and that, I believe, is a wrong move.

Unlike other posters, I will not go near Leviticus, since there is no need. In fact, if anyone wants to check, Scripture is abundantly clear about the whole matter - and I mean the full male/female thing not just the male/male thing.

God, in Genesis, is quite clear, He blessed one human relationship alone, and that was in creating the female as a companion for the male. And as Scripture further tells us, 'God saw what He had created and it was good'. (Oh and don't anyone come on and say that gives the male this right and that right to this and that to the female - God created His people in His own image and that means that abuse of the one to the other, should never exist)!!


So you think the churches position on this should be time limited? Surely from a from a biblically inspired moral position you either interpret it is as wrong or acceptable - it can't, I'd suggest, be a bit of both (would that be being morally bi-curious)?

I tend to agree that the bible is fairly unequivocal on this, and you dont need to go Old Testament: Romans 1:26-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:9-10 don't lend themselves to much to interpetation and if I was gay I'd be pretty clear that God doesnt want anything to do woith me and that I wouldnt be likely to enter heaven any time soon.


And to a post from Cropley about intolerance not being permitted, I would suggest he should consider that Jesus showed complete intolerance when he angrily cleaned out His father's house of all the traders and merchants.

God, is of course, a God of grace and mercy (as I well know) but He is also jealous of His holiness and His Creation, and He will not forever permit aberrations.

The Bible (both testaments) is chock full of intolerance, divinely caused death and suffering, pettiness, and any manner of pointless instruction and restriction. People only ever look at the more benign elements, and miss out huge great swathes of really pretty ghastly stuff.

As for jealous, who, exactly, is he jealous of? If he's the one true God, then it seems he's a bit on the paranoid side. Maybe this is why he invokes the following (NT) phrase, which to me is one of the most telling of the whole Bible

Christians cannot be freethinkers, since all their thoughts and imaginings must be brought into captivity in obedience to Christ. 2 Corinthians10:5

In other words, don't think for yourself, don't challenge, don't question, don't wonder, don't have an independent opinion. This is why so many in the CoS are troubled by the impact of reality - they don't have the ability to think independently. (I exclude Doddie entirely from this criticism)

[RyeSloan]

Falkirk,

Good to read your passion about your church!

When I heard the first news story I thought, 'well that's OK', since it seemed to say that the CoS was confirming the current position, but not allowing it to go further. In other words, those concerned who were in the Church would not be excommunicated, and I thought 'fair enough, that's Grace being shown'!

Now however it seems that further inductions of gay-practising ministers into the CoS could be made and that, I believe, is a wrong move.

Unlike other posters, I will not go near Leviticus, since there is no need. In fact, if anyone wants to check, Scripture is abundantly clear about the whole matter - and I mean the full male/female thing not just the male/male thing.

God, in Genesis, is quite clear, He blessed one human relationship alone, and that was in creating the female as a companion for the male. And as Scripture further tells us, 'God saw what He had created and it was good'. (Oh and don't anyone come on and say that gives the male this right and that right to this and that to the female - God created His people in His own image and that means that abuse of the one to the other, should never exist)!!

And to a post from Cropley about intolerance not being permitted, I would suggest he should consider that Jesus showed complete intolerance when he angrily cleaned out His father's house of all the traders and merchants.

God, is of course, a God of grace and mercy (as I well know) but He is also jealous of His holiness and His Creation, and He will not forever permit aberrations.

With all due respect I'm always absolutely amazed at how certain you and others are that 'scripture said this and therefore it means that'. c2,000 year old texts that were written well after the event that have been translated across languages yet still they are quoted (almost :greengrin) as if they are indisputable truths. Weird.

Anyway re the OP, big up for being brave enough to state your thoughts. Personally I'm with you on the "yes I do feel quite uncomfortable watching two people of the same sex being passionate with one another" point...well when it's men I am, even watching two men kiss makes me want to boke...can't say the same about women though but there you go :greengrin

Thing is though that simply banning something doesn't make it go away...much better for the church to admit it exists and to deal with it accordingly. Still if the moral teaching of the church defines homosexuality as a sin then there would seem little room in that church for gays....I think the CoS would be much better standing up for what they believe in rather than the current fudge (no pun intended - honest :greengrin)...that may ultimately drive more away than gay clergy but you either have a moral belief and code and stick by it or you don't.

Last thing I would say is such dilemas show just how much traditional religions are failing to reflect the modern world...trying to force society as it is now into a moral code written a couple of millenia ago seems rather futile and doomed to failure.

[Mon Dieu4]

The problem with trying to find literal interpretations in the bible is the fundamentalists do it selectively. The passage calling homosexuality 'detestable' (leviticus 18:22 and other passages apparently) also contains reference to eating shellfish being detestable. You're banned from eating camels in leviticus, and 'rock badgers'. Does the modern church campaign against eating lobsters as well as poofery?

Its surely obvious to anyone that these dictats are products of the world 1500+ years ago, and not actually the literal word of God. I wish theyd just own up to being bigoted against homosexuals, it would save a lot of pointless philosophising.

(interstingly, the Qu'ran also forbids eating 'rock badgers'. Assuming this isnt a euphemism for some gay sex act, maybe they just taste like ****? Its likely that Muhammad and peter/paul/whoever were trying to save their followers a bout of indigestion?)

Might be the old name for a Honey Badger, they are my favourite animal, they are known as "the most fearless animals in the world", they take on Lions and all sorts :faf:

I think they also eat gays............ :wink:

[hibsbollah]

Might be the old name for a Honey Badger, they are my favourite animal, they are known as "the most fearless animals in the world", they take on Lions and all sorts :faf:

I think they also eat gays............ :wink:

We've done this before i think mate :-) honey badgers are deffo the matty jacks of the animal world.

Im intrigued that both the qu'ran and the bible have the same monotheistic hangups; buggery, eating shellfish, rock badgers etc. The world sounds a strange place the milennium before last.

[IndieHibby]

I reckon this debate would be best sorted out with a team-deathmatch between Honey Badgers and Homophobes.

Honey Badgers are as hard as nails.

Completely mental.

They'd eat cowardly bigots for breakfast!

[Mon Dieu4]

We've done this before i think mate :-) honey badgers are deffo the matty jacks of the animal world.

Im intrigued that both the qu'ran and the bible have the same monotheistic hangups; buggery, eating shellfish, rock badgers etc. The world sounds a strange place the milennium before last.

Haha I miss him in a creepy kind of way, wonder what he voted?:faf:

[hibsbollah]

Haha I miss him in a creepy kind of way, wonder what he voted?:faf:

SNP first choice, Christian Peoples Alliance 2nd id guess :-)

[Betty Boop]

We've done this before i think mate :-) honey badgers are deffo the matty jacks of the animal world.

Im intrigued that both the qu'ran and the bible have the same monotheistic hangups; buggery, eating shellfish, rock badgers etc. The world sounds a strange place the milennium before last.

Jews don't eat shellfish either.

[Beefster]

Jews don't eat shellfish either.

Any religion that bans fresh mussels in a white wine and shallot sauce is just mean.

[Betty Boop]

Any religion that bans fresh mussels in a white wine and shallot sauce is just mean.

I've never tried this, but it sounds lovely ! :greengrin

[hibsbollah]

Any religion that bans fresh mussels in a white wine and shallot sauce is just mean.

Langoustines. couldnt worship any god who wouldnt let me eat them.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Falkirk,

Good to read your passion about your church!

When I heard the first news story I thought, 'well that's OK', since it seemed to say that the CoS was confirming the current position, but not allowing it to go further. In other words, those concerned who were in the Church would not be excommunicated, and I thought 'fair enough, that's Grace being shown'!

Now however it seems that further inductions of gay-practising ministers into the CoS could be made and that, I believe, is a wrong move.

Unlike other posters, I will not go near Leviticus, since there is no need. In fact, if anyone wants to check, Scripture is abundantly clear about the whole matter - and I mean the full male/female thing not just the male/male thing.

God, in Genesis, is quite clear, He blessed one human relationship alone, and that was in creating the female as a companion for the male. And as Scripture further tells us, 'God saw what He had created and it was good'. (Oh and don't anyone come on and say that gives the male this right and that right to this and that to the female - God created His people in His own image and that means that abuse of the one to the other, should never exist)!!

And to a post from Cropley about intolerance not being permitted, I would suggest he should consider that Jesus showed complete intolerance when he angrily cleaned out His father's house of all the traders and merchants.

God, is of course, a God of grace and mercy (as I well know) but He is also jealous of His holiness and His Creation, and He will not forever permit aberrations.

It actually scares me a bit that people can take some musty old book so seriously, I mean really, do you actually believe this ****?:eek:

[bighairyfaeleith]

Jews don't eat shellfish either.

aye and muslims dinnae drink and christians dinnae **** bums:fibber:

[ArabHibee]

If, as seems to be the case, the ordination of homosexual ministers within the Church of Scotland becomes common practice in the months and years ahead, how on Earth can a homosexual minister, who cannot legally marry in this country (at least not yet anyway, I'm sure that'll change over the next few years), possibly conduct a religious wedding ceremony and, at the same time, speak as an authoritative figure on issues such as the sanctity of marriage?
Sorry for dissecting your post FH, but re the bit above. Couldn't you say the same thing about a catholic priest or an unmarried young protestant minister?

[Allant1981]

Sorry for dissecting your post FH, but re the bit above. Couldn't you say the same thing about a catholic priest or an unmarried young protestant minister?

Exactly, or like our local minister who has been married twice and had kids before he was married

[Peevemor]

Exactly, or like our local minister who has been married twice and had kids before he was married

He's a cert for the burny hot place. :agree::rules:

[steakbake]

Hmm, I believe the original rules of Leviticus is where we find the Christian dislike for homosexuality: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

So thankfully that means we've overcome the killing bit - at least in this country but not in some parts of the world, like Christian fundamentalist societies such as Uganda.

Can anyone in the know clarify whether the Church now permits the wearing of mixed fibre clothes (Leviticus 19:19) , shaving (Leviticus 19:19), or answering back your ma and da (Leviticus 20:9)? Should we eat Kosher as it seems to suggest in Leviticus chapter 11?

Or, does Galatians 3:24 and Ephesians 2:15, which state that as Jesus died on the cross, those ordinances no longer apply because faith in him transcends all former laws?

If that is the case, does that include stoning for adulterers, cheeky kids and homosexuals or are the rules still in place for them on a case by case basis, depending on how intolerant your version of Christianity is?

I find it all very confusing.

[Dinkydoo]

I don't expect many people on here to be particularly concerned with this issue, in fact I actually hear some people cheering at the thought of this happening as I type this post!

However, one issue that has really caught my eye over the past couple of days has been the decision of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (AKA 'The Kirk') to permit openly homosexual men and women to be ordained as CoS ministers, for at least the next two years whilst a study is published on the wider issues.

This whole issue has the potential to seriously split the Church of Scotland and threatens its status as Scotland's national church.

My own personal belief, which I am not afraid to say, is that this is a very wrong move that the church has taken. I believe that the Bible is very clear on what is and what isn't acceptable and that includes homosexual relations.

A minister, in my eyes anyway, is supposed to uphold good moral standards and I don't know how that can be compatible with what the Bible states on homosexual practices. I do not agree that homosexuality should be a criminal offence, I have always stated that I am opposed to that and the idea that someone should be stoned to death or whatever for being a homosexual is totally unacceptable and, as far as this country goes anyway, was rightly left behind in a previous century where it belongs.

I never have had, and never will have, anything against individual people who are homosexual. However that does not mean to say that I have to agree with their relationships etc and if I am being honest, yes I do feel quite uncomfortable watching two people of the same sex being passionate with one another.

For me, one of the single most important institutions in the world today is that of marriage and, to me, marriage must only be defined as the union between one man and one woman. I do not agree with any exceptions or variations to this rule.

If, as seems to be the case, the ordination of homosexual ministers within the Church of Scotland becomes common practice in the months and years ahead, how on Earth can a homosexual minister, who cannot legally marry in this country (at least not yet anyway, I'm sure that'll change over the next few years), possibly conduct a religious wedding ceremony and, at the same time, speak as an authoritative figure on issues such as the sanctity of marriage?

I just hope that the people who have taken this decision know what they are letting themselves - and the church - in for. Around 20% of Church of Scotland members, who were asked, stated that they would seek to leave the church, should the ordination of homosexual clergy be permitted and already a minister from the Highlands has stated his intention to resign from his post, following this decision.

Yes I'm sure that there will always be a church called the Church of Scotland but in what form and at what price? I can see a similar thing happening here as what happened when the Church of England voted to ordain women as bishops a few years ago and many members left the Church of England and joined the Roman Catholic Church.

Now obviously this is a completely separate issue and I have no problem at all with the ordination of women, after all the Church of Scotland has had female ministers for many decades. However, this is probably the biggest crisis to hit the Church of Scotland for almost 170 years, since hundreds of ministers left the church to establish the Free Church of Scotland in 1843 and I can see many members leaving over this to go and join other Presbyterian churches.

Thoughts anyone?

Usually enjoy reading your posts FH but have to say I only made it to the part about sexuality and stopped as anything you could have said after that holds no credability what so ever IMO.

It is my opinion - and like you, I've always been quite open about it - that religion is used as a tool to civilise uneducated people. Now I'm not saying you are uneducated - you quite obviously aren't - but now that a lot of the world is no longer living in mud huts and raping each others wives I think it's about time we decided to stop all of this organised religion nonsense.

I am in no doubt that religion does give people inner strength and support but I've seen more evidence of it causing pain than good in my lifetime and your statement about homosexuals has done all but nothing to change my mind.

[hibs0666]

Hmm, I believe the original rules of Leviticus is where we find the Christian dislike for homosexuality: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

So thankfully that means we've overcome the killing bit - at least in this country but not in some parts of the world, like Christian fundamentalist societies such as Uganda.

Can anyone in the know clarify whether the Church now permits the wearing of mixed fibre clothes (Leviticus 19:19) , shaving (Leviticus 19:19), or answering back your ma and da (Leviticus 20:9)? Should we eat Kosher as it seems to suggest in Leviticus chapter 11?

Or, does Galatians 3:24 and Ephesians 2:15, which state that as Jesus died on the cross, those ordinances no longer apply because faith in him transcends all former laws?

If that is the case, does that include stoning for adulterers, cheeky kids and homosexuals or are the rules still in place for them on a case by case basis, depending on how intolerant your version of Christianity is?

I find it all very confusing.

Leviticus gave us the yarn about pigs and badgers (I think) being unclean and not to be eaten, as well as the two-material garment being a sin.

I don't really get from whether munching on a crispy bacon roll is any better or worse than homosexuality.

I do get the bit about wearing a poly-cotton mix mind - that's just nasty.

[steakbake]

Leviticus gave us the yarn about pigs and badgers (I think) being unclean and not to be eaten, as well as the two-material garment being a sin.

I don't really get from whether munching on a crispy bacon roll is any better or worse than homosexuality.

I do get the bit about wearing a poly-cotton mix mind - that's just nasty.

It isn't, but if we're going down the line of "it says in the bible that...." then surely you cannot pick and choose.

[hibs0666]

It isn't, but if we're going down the line of "it says in the bible that...." then surely you cannot pick and choose.

That's far too logical - remember it's faith we're talking about here, not reason. But it kind-of fits in well with the Old Testament god who is a really nasty and spiteful old radge. His son's generation of gods seem to be a bit more mellow.

[ancienthibby]

It actually scares me a bit that people can take some musty old book so seriously, I mean really, do you actually believe this ****?:eek:

I do actually believe in our Great God of Grace!

But your ****?:eek is your own:greengrin.

[ancienthibby]

So you think the churches position on this should be time limited? Surely from a from a biblically inspired moral position you either interpret it is as wrong or acceptable - it can't, I'd suggest, be a bit of both (would that be being morally bi-curious)?

I was just trying to suggest that, if the Church sought to draw a line against its recent past misjudgements, then that was a good thing to go forward from i.e. if a mistake has been made, no one will be punished, but the situation for the future has been clarified.

I tend to agree that the bible is fairly unequivocal on this, and you dont need to go Old Testament: Romans 1:26-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:9-10 don't lend themselves to much to interpetation and if I was gay I'd be pretty clear that God doesnt want anything to do woith me and that I wouldnt be likely to enter heaven any time soon.

Absolutely, not at all - the Christ of the Cross when he told the man beside Him: today you will be with me in Paradise' made no distinction of any kind abut his sin or condition. This is, as Doddie's signature makes clear, free Grace open to all. Absorb!!


The Bible (both testaments) is chock full of intolerance, divinely caused death and suffering, pettiness, and any manner of pointless instruction and restriction. People only ever look at the more benign elements, and miss out huge great swathes of really pretty ghastly stuff.

As for jealous, who, exactly, is he jealous of? If he's the one true God, then it seems he's a bit on the paranoid side. Maybe this is why he invokes the following (NT) phrase, which to me is one of the most telling of the whole Bible

Christians cannot be freethinkers, since all their thoughts and imaginings must be brought into captivity in obedience to Christ. 2 Corinthians10:5

Yes, but that is true freedom!!

In other words, don't think for yourself, don't challenge, don't question, don't wonder, don't have an independent opinion. This is why so many in the CoS are troubled by the impact of reality - they don't have the ability to think independently. (I exclude Doddie entirely from this criticism)

Not so!

I question every day and I am always astonished how the Grace of God is measured out to me every day!!

[fat freddy]

It actually scares me a bit that people can take some musty old book so seriously, I mean really, do you actually believe this ****?:eek:

i share your sentiments...science is the way forward...i pray to god that all religions are banished to the burning fires of hell..

[Saorsa]

It actually scares me a bit that people can take some musty old book so seriously, I mean really, do you actually believe this ****?:eek::hilarious

:thumbsup: :top marks :thumbsup:

[Twa Cairpets]

So you think the churches position on this should be time limited? Surely from a from a biblically inspired moral position you either interpret it is as wrong or acceptable - it can't, I'd suggest, be a bit of both (would that be being morally bi-curious)?

I was just trying to suggest that, if the Church sought to draw a line against its recent past misjudgements, then that was a good thing to go forward from i.e. if a mistake has been made, no one will be punished, but the situation for the future has been clarified.

I understand that, but that is a human reaction to the crisis caused by the moral teaching of the bible. It seems to me from a secular point of view of people trying to crowbar modern thought (rightly) into a an ancient, doctrinal prejudice. It makes for a helluva clash.




I tend to agree that the bible is fairly unequivocal on this, and you dont need to go Old Testament: Romans 1:26-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:9-10 don't lend themselves to much to interpetation and if I was gay I'd be pretty clear that God doesnt want anything to do woith me and that I wouldnt be likely to enter heaven any time soon.

Absolutely, not at all - the Christ of the Cross when he told the man beside Him: today you will be with me in Paradise' made no distinction of any kind abut his sin or condition. This is, as Doddie's signature makes clear, free Grace open to all. Absorb!!

That is the most tenuous justification I think Ive ever seen! So, are you saying that God/Jesus is happy to forgive anything, as loing as he's nailed up alongside him on a cross. If the chap on the other cross at Golgotha had been gay, one has to suspect that he wouldnt have been looked upon favourably by Jesus.

You often in previous threads claim you cant take excerpts from the bible in isolation, and this is precisely what you are doing here. Reference after reference of "abomination" cannot be ignored.



The Bible (both testaments) is chock full of intolerance, divinely caused death and suffering, pettiness, and any manner of pointless instruction and restriction. People only ever look at the more benign elements, and miss out huge great swathes of really pretty ghastly stuff.

As for jealous, who, exactly, is he jealous of? If he's the one true God, then it seems he's a bit on the paranoid side. Maybe this is why he invokes the following (NT) phrase, which to me is one of the most telling of the whole Bible

Christians cannot be freethinkers, since all their thoughts and imaginings must be brought into captivity in obedience to Christ. 2 Corinthians10:5

Yes, but that is true freedom!!

What absolute nonsense. If your God denies me the right to think for myself, (having presumably created me with the capability to have such freedom of thought in the first place), then, frankly, he's not the type of God I'd want to have anything to do with.



In other words, don't think for yourself, don't challenge, don't question, don't wonder, don't have an independent opinion. This is why so many in the CoS are troubled by the impact of reality - they don't have the ability to think independently. (I exclude Doddie entirely from this criticism)

Not so!

I question every day and I am always astonished how the Grace of God is measured out to me every day!!

You may well question but if every question has the answer "God did it" at the end, its not really much of an interrogative stance. The difference between you and me is that you claim to have all the answers, and that God is that answer. I claim just not to know.

On the OP topic the CoS seems to have some mealy mouthed pardody of itself on this, trying desparate to be socially acceptable while just not being able to escape the shackles of scripture. They "know" but just dont have the cahoonas to accept the unpalatable truth that what they are required to believe is, on this issue as so many others, completely wrong in the modern world.

[heretoday]

I dunno about the homosexual thing but the stoning to death thing sounds like it's worth a try.

[97hills]

I don't expect many people on here to be particularly concerned with this issue, in fact I actually hear some people cheering at the thought of this happening as I type this post!

However, one issue that has really caught my eye over the past couple of days has been the decision of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (AKA 'The Kirk') to permit openly homosexual men and women to be ordained as CoS ministers, for at least the next two years whilst a study is published on the wider issues.

This whole issue has the potential to seriously split the Church of Scotland and threatens its status as Scotland's national church.

My own personal belief, which I am not afraid to say, is that this is a very wrong move that the church has taken. I believe that the Bible is very clear on what is and what isn't acceptable and that includes homosexual relations.

A minister, in my eyes anyway, is supposed to uphold good moral standards and I don't know how that can be compatible with what the Bible states on homosexual practices. I do not agree that homosexuality should be a criminal offence, I have always stated that I am opposed to that and the idea that someone should be stoned to death or whatever for being a homosexual is totally unacceptable and, as far as this country goes anyway, was rightly left behind in a previous century where it belongs.

I never have had, and never will have, anything against individual people who are homosexual. However that does not mean to say that I have to agree with their relationships etc and if I am being honest, yes I do feel quite uncomfortable watching two people of the same sex being passionate with one another.

For me, one of the single most important institutions in the world today is that of marriage and, to me, marriage must only be defined as the union between one man and one woman. I do not agree with any exceptions or variations to this rule.

If, as seems to be the case, the ordination of homosexual ministers within the Church of Scotland becomes common practice in the months and years ahead, how on Earth can a homosexual minister, who cannot legally marry in this country (at least not yet anyway, I'm sure that'll change over the next few years), possibly conduct a religious wedding ceremony and, at the same time, speak as an authoritative figure on issues such as the sanctity of marriage?

I just hope that the people who have taken this decision know what they are letting themselves - and the church - in for. Around 20% of Church of Scotland members, who were asked, stated that they would seek to leave the church, should the ordination of homosexual clergy be permitted and already a minister from the Highlands has stated his intention to resign from his post, following this decision.

Yes I'm sure that there will always be a church called the Church of Scotland but in what form and at what price? I can see a similar thing happening here as what happened when the Church of England voted to ordain women as bishops a few years ago and many members left the Church of England and joined the Roman Catholic Church.

Now obviously this is a completely separate issue and I have no problem at all with the ordination of women, after all the Church of Scotland has had female ministers for many decades. However, this is probably the biggest crisis to hit the Church of Scotland for almost 170 years, since hundreds of ministers left the church to establish the Free Church of Scotland in 1843 and I can see many members leaving over this to go and join other Presbyterian churches.

Thoughts anyone?

Anyone who proposes moral authority on a book written 1800 years ago is a fool and should be embarassed. Why not go back over 2000 years ago to Ancient Greece where homosexuality was deemed to be at the very high end of morality!?

I find statements made in the above to be absolutely infuriating. How can one person feel that stoning a disobedient child or marrying a women you've raped know it is wrong but yet still claim moral authority on every other subject because of the other parts of this fictional book that are somewhat loving.

Where along the line did you choose to ignore other parts of the bible but still claim the 'good' parts to be fitting to a modern society. Answer, you know what is right and what is wrong without reading this book. You prove this by knowing that not everything the bible says is correct.

The sooner we move away from the bible when considering our actions and morality the better. Morals are ever changing, they evolve, and most importantly are never absolute. Any person that lives their life through a fixed set of rules that cannot be changed (unless you're King James I) should automatically have their opinion on the subject null and void.

Interestingly, homesexuality is actually more abundant in the natural world than it is in humans. Stating that homesexuality is wrong, whether it is within a church or within 'normal' society is surely saying God was wrong, no?

[97hills]

I understand that, but that is a human reaction to the crisis caused by the moral teaching of the bible. It seems to me from a secular point of view of people trying to crowbar modern thought (rightly) into a an ancient, doctrinal prejudice. It makes for a helluva clash.




That is the most tenuous justification I think Ive ever seen! So, are you saying that God/Jesus is happy to forgive anything, as loing as he's nailed up alongside him on a cross. If the chap on the other cross at Golgotha had been gay, one has to suspect that he wouldnt have been looked upon favourably by Jesus.

You often in previous threads claim you cant take excerpts from the bible in isolation, and this is precisely what you are doing here. Reference after reference of "abomination" cannot be ignored.



What absolute nonsense. If your God denies me the right to think for myself, (having presumably created me with the capability to have such freedom of thought in the first place), then, frankly, he's not the type of God I'd want to have anything to do with.



You may well question but if every question has the answer "God did it" at the end, its not really much of an interrogative stance. The difference between you and me is that you claim to have all the answers, and that God is that answer. I claim just not to know.

On the OP topic the CoS seems to have some mealy mouthed pardody of itself on this, trying desparate to be socially acceptable while just not being able to escape the shackles of scripture. They "know" but just dont have the cahoonas to accept the unpalatable truth that what they are required to believe is, on this issue as so many others, completely wrong in the modern world.


Some good points there TwoCarpets.

Hundreads of years ago, that bright ball in the sky was God. We now know it is the sun.

We thought the twinkling lights in the sky was heaven, we now know they are stars.

We thought that multicoloured streaks across the sky was god showing he was in a good mood, we now know it's the splitting of light through raindrops.

We thought (and some still do) that the earth is 6000 years old. We now think it is 4.5 billion years old

We thought homesexuality was unnatural and only occurs in people with mental issues, we now know it occurs naturally.

We treated women as second class citizens, we now treat them as equals.

We thought slavery was acceptable, we now know that it is clearly not.

The work of 'god' is basically a get out of anyone who doesn't know. If we do not know it must be god. However, things we used to take from god are now clearly wrong and the work of 'god' diminishes as we become smarter. I expect this trend to keep on going as more and more people see how wrong this way of thinking is.

[Bishop Hibee]

Not really much to do with the thread but as Christian v Atheist has been done to death on here, I thought both might enjoy this link.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391666/The-Lord-Provideth-Woman-wins-1-million-Lotto-jackpot-atheist-son-prays-prize.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

[Twa Cairpets]

Not really much to do with the thread but as Christian v Atheist has been done to death on here, I thought both might enjoy this link.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391666/The-Lord-Provideth-Woman-wins-1-million-Lotto-jackpot-atheist-son-prays-prize.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

That's an interesting story, and to take the potential impact of it seriously for a moment, it's ludicrous that its even being reported.

Its just the laws of large numbers at work, plain and simple. There are nor reports of the millions and millions of prayers for the same thing not happening. If the odds of a big win following a prayer are, say, 10,000,000 to 1, then it will happen every ten million prayers. This family just happened to be the lucky one.

Where it is important is that people will use this story as evidence, when its not. Where it links to the OP is that people will see it as reinforcement of the truth of God, the power of prayer and the righteousness of the bible. The more people unquestioningly accept this type of "evidence", the more likely it is that unpleasant views relating to such things as homosexuality are erroneosuly reinforced also.

[Beefster]

Not really much to do with the thread but as Christian v Atheist has been done to death on here, I thought both might enjoy this link.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391666/The-Lord-Provideth-Woman-wins-1-million-Lotto-jackpot-atheist-son-prays-prize.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Millions of practicing Christians pray for lottery wins every week without success so why would God answer the prayers of a non-believer?

Like TC says, it's a coincidence. Nothing more, nothing less.

[The Green Goblin]

If the chap on the other cross at Golgotha had been gay, one has to suspect that he wouldnt have been looked upon favourably by Jesus.

Yes, besides the fact that it`s a contradiction of "love thy neighbour" it also sends the message that to be a thief or a murderer is forgivable but to be gay is not. :wink:

GG

[jakki]

I was brought up in the CoS but when unwelcome at my local kirk with a greeting bairn, I crossed the road to the local RC chapel where both of us were welcome.

I then felt it was important to worship God and it didn't matter what religion I prayed with. After a few years I decided to join thr RC community with my now 3 children and went through the education of what the church was all about.

2 years later, my priest and confidantee left the church to get married to the young housekeeper. I was shattered but still continued to follow the "faith". Then my new priest and confidantee was charged with sexual abuse against children. I was then a foster parent and having to deal with sexual abuse against those children. I stopped going to the chapel as I was so disgusted with the person that I had confess all my "sins".

Nowadays, I don't go to church but still believe in God. Mankind has twisted all his sayings to their own ends.

I have a beautiful niece who is gay. Her love for her partner is unbelievable and it is returned to her. God is love. Who is to say this is wrong!

[The Green Goblin]

I was brought up in the CoS but when unwelcome at my local kirk with a greeting bairn, I crossed the road to the local RC chapel where both of us were welcome.

I then felt it was important to worship God and it didn't matter what religion I prayed with. After a few years I decided to join thr RC community with my now 3 children and went through the education of what the church was all about.

2 years later, my priest and confidantee left the church to get married to the young housekeeper. I was shattered but still continued to follow the "faith". Then my new priest and confidantee was charged with sexual abuse against children. I was then a foster parent and having to deal with sexual abuse against those children. I stopped going to the chapel as I was so disgusted with the person that I had confess all my "sins".

Nowadays, I don't go to church but still believe in God. Mankind has twisted all his sayings to their own ends.

I have a beautiful niece who is gay. Her love for her partner is unbelievable and it is returned to her. God is love. Who is to say this is wrong!



A really interesting and heartfelt post. Thank you for sharing it.

GG

[--------]

So you think the churches position on this should be time limited? Surely from a from a biblically inspired moral position you either interpret it is as wrong or acceptable - it can't, I'd suggest, be a bit of both (would that be being morally bi-curious)?

I tend to agree that the bible is fairly unequivocal on this, and you dont need to go Old Testament: Romans 1:26-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:9-10 don't lend themselves to much to interpetation and if I was gay I'd be pretty clear that God doesnt want anything to do woith me and that I wouldnt be likely to enter heaven any time soon.



The Bible (both testaments) is chock full of intolerance, divinely caused death and suffering, pettiness, and any manner of pointless instruction and restriction. People only ever look at the more benign elements, and miss out huge great swathes of really pretty ghastly stuff.

As for jealous, who, exactly, is he jealous of? If he's the one true God, then it seems he's a bit on the paranoid side. Maybe this is why he invokes the following (NT) phrase, which to me is one of the most telling of the whole Bible

Christians cannot be freethinkers, since all their thoughts and imaginings must be brought into captivity in obedience to Christ. 2 Corinthians10:5

In other words, don't think for yourself, don't challenge, don't question, don't wonder, don't have an independent opinion. This is why so many in the CoS are troubled by the impact of reality - they don't have the ability to think independently. (I exclude Doddie entirely from this criticism)


That's very kind of you, TC, but I can assure you that most of my congregation are very well able to think for themselves.

A wee bit of unquestioning robotic obedience would make Doddie's life a lot easier at times.

And richer - "Don't worry, guys - God says just sign over the money and drink the Kool-Aid..." :devil:

Trust me, it doesn't work like that.

[Beefster]

That's very kind of you, TC, but I can assure you that most of my congregation are very well able to think for themselves.

A wee bit of unquestioning robotic obedience would make Doddie's life a lot easier at times.

And richer - "Don't worry, guys - God says just sign over the money and drink the Kool-Aid..." :devil:

Trust me, it doesn't work like that.

That bit made me chuckle, Doddie! You will be far from the only one thinking that either.

[One Day Soon]

Why don't the non-believers chill out and let the believers get on with their thing, while the believers can not bother the non-believers? There's an awful lot of energy put in by non-believers to the attempt to prove the irrationality of something they don't believe in.

[steakbake]

Why don't the non-believers chill out and let the believers get on with their thing, while the believers can not bother the non-believers? There's an awful lot of energy put in by non-believers to the attempt to prove the irrationality of something they don't believe in.

Quite so.

Faith is as immune to reason as reason is to faith.

Doesn't mean that it shouldn't be debated. There are evangelists on both sides. This happens to be a thread where the two meet.

[(((Fergus)))]

Read an interesting point the other day which said that if your belief system is based on that which makes sense to you you will not be able to enquire beyond that which makes sense to you. However if your belief system is based on something higher than yourself (and of course 100% benevolent) then there is no need to fear honest enquiry. There is no fear of being proven wrong, only certitude that you will understand more.

Since the universe (in its origin, maintenance and extent) is beyond comprehension by reason alone we need some other faculty in addition to reason in order to fully "understand" it, i.e., be equipped to live wisely within it.

[Twa Cairpets]

Why don't the non-believers chill out and let the believers get on with their thing, while the believers can not bother the non-believers? There's an awful lot of energy put in by non-believers to the attempt to prove the irrationality of something they don't believe in.

In the particular instance of this thread, and the churches attitude to homosexuality, you have - for me anyway - a perfect example of why it needs debated, discussed and challenged.

Religion is the only organised platform where the actions of individuals can be claimed to be so abhorrent that it is against the will of the creator of the world, and the Lord of all mankind. The consequences of the action viewed in such a way is one of eternal damnation.

The acceptance of this stance by the govening body of the church gives tacit (or indeed explicit) approval to people holding homophobic opinions. A bigotry that is backed by God gives you a pretty strong ally and therefore moral certainty when someone expresses this view or acts upon it, be it through active discrimination or passive objection.

From a personal point of view, I find the atheist/theist argument very intellectually stimulating - others on The Hoy Ground have more interest for topics such as Israel/Palestine/Scottish Independence, and debate the pros and cons of their position. Why dont you apply your "let them get on with their thing" position to them? Religion is a complex topic. I find the reasons why people choose to belive in what is from any impartial stance a fantastical concept, bereft of evidence and so full of contradictions and anomalies that it holds up to very little scrutiny fascinating. It is interesting to challenge people on their beliefs - not too confrontationally I hope - but to get an understanding of why they are held. I see no reason why religion should be held as (if you'll excuse the pun) sacred when it comes to questioning.

Im quite happy to admit that overall, I see the impact of all religion as a force for regression, oppression and the furtherance of collective and individual stupidity. That doesnt mean that it doesnt provide a great many individuals with comfort, nor that people who believe are all stupid. But I do believe that a belief in any creator fundamentally puts a block to at least an element of a persons capability for rational thought - it has to. To beleive in a creator as defined by almost any church - the type who answers prayers, who talks to people directly, who performs miracles - is to believe in things that have zero evidence, and I think that people who are credulous of that type of thing lose their ability to be skeptical/critical of anything they are told as being true. I do not think this is a good thing.

As an aside, I also think that the vast majority of people who comment on these threads from the christian side have not read the bible, and that just pisses me off.

Does that answer your question?

[Twa Cairpets]

Read an interesting point the other day which said that if your belief system is based on that which makes sense to you you will not be able to enquire beyond that which makes sense to you. However if your belief system is based on something higher than yourself (and of course 100% benevolent) then there is no need to fear honest enquiry. There is no fear of being proven wrong, only certitude that you will understand more.

Change the bit in bold to the single word "science" and I think you have a pretty good summary of the scientific method.


Since the universe (in its origin, maintenance and extent) is beyond comprehension by reason alone we need some other faculty in addition to reason in order to fully "understand" it, i.e., be equipped to live wisely within it.

Not necessarily true. While Im not an astrophysicist, I think there is a pretty good set of theories concerning a lot of hoe the Universe works. Just because its difficult to understand doesn tmean it doesnt exist. It certainly doesnt need the invention of additional bits by way of religion (which is what I think you mean).

[ancienthibby]

I understand that, but that is a human reaction to the crisis caused by the moral teaching of the bible. It seems to me from a secular point of view of people trying to crowbar modern thought (rightly) into a an ancient, doctrinal prejudice. It makes for a helluva clash.




That is the most tenuous justification I think Ive ever seen! So, are you saying that God/Jesus is happy to forgive anything, as loing as he's nailed up alongside him on a cross. If the chap on the other cross at Golgotha had been gay, one has to suspect that he wouldnt have been looked upon favourably by Jesus.

You often in previous threads claim you cant take excerpts from the bible in isolation, and this is precisely what you are doing here. Reference after reference of "abomination" cannot be ignored.



What absolute nonsense. If your God denies me the right to think for myself, (having presumably created me with the capability to have such freedom of thought in the first place), then, frankly, he's not the type of God I'd want to have anything to do with.



You may well question but if every question has the answer "God did it" at the end, its not really much of an interrogative stance. The difference between you and me is that you claim to have all the answers, and that God is that answer. I claim just not to know.

On the OP topic the CoS seems to have some mealy mouthed pardody of itself on this, trying desparate to be socially acceptable while just not being able to escape the shackles of scripture. They "know" but just dont have the cahoonas to accept the unpalatable truth that what they are required to believe is, on this issue as so many others, completely wrong in the modern world.

Don't think I am taking a single excerpt from the Gospel in isolation. What I was (maybe feebly) trying to do was to take the Gospel at its apex - that is the Christ of the Cross - and point out that everything in Scripture boils down to one thing for every man woman and child on earth - and it's this : how do you respond to the Christ of the Cross?

At the end of the day, any number of people can become besotted by one or a couple of single verses of Scripture and this thread is an example of that.

Ultimately, that's not what it comes down to! The Gospel of Christ asks a simple question - if I may paraphrase - 'are you for me or agin me'.

Whether we like it or not, or even ignore it, that's the only question that matters!

[Twa Cairpets]

Don't think I am taking a single excerpt from the Gospel in isolation. What I was (maybe feebly) trying to do was to take the Gospel at its apex - that is the Christ of the Cross - and point out that everything in Scripture boils down to one thing for every man woman and child on earth - and it's this : how do you respond to the Christ of the Cross?

At the end of the day, any number of people can become besotted by one or a couple of single verses of Scripture and this thread is an example of that.

Ultimately, that's not what it comes down to! The Gospel of Christ asks a simple question - if I may paraphrase - 'are you for me or agin me'.

Whether we like it or not, or even ignore it, that's the only question that matters!


If that was truly the case then the bible is redundant, its teachings are redundant, and you are entirely free to interpret anything contained within to suit your own ends. I dont buy that at all.

Tto use your phrase of " are you for me or agin me", you need to know what you are for or agin, surely, and that's what the bible is about. From a secular perspective, some of what the bible reports as being Jesus's claims I'm for, becuase it's sensible, rational and sane but I'm sure not for it all either, especially if what it is claims he stands for, as reported by Paul for instance, is accurate.

You also have to accept the back story of how Jesus ended up on the cross in the first place, with all the attendant baggage of miracles and Old Testament goings on too.

So, from your viewpoint then what is the scriptural stance that the CoS should take?

[ancienthibby]

If that was truly the case then the bible is redundant, its teachings are redundant, and you are entirely free to interpret anything contained within to suit your own ends. I dont buy that at all.

Tto use your phrase of " are you for me or agin me", you need to know what you are for or agin, surely, and that's what the bible is about. From a secular perspective, some of what the bible reports as being Jesus's claims I'm for, becuase it's sensible, rational and sane but I'm sure not for it all either, especially if what it is claims he stands for, as reported by Paul for instance, is accurate.

You also have to accept the back story of how Jesus ended up on the cross in the first place, with all the attendant baggage of miracles and Old Testament goings on too.

So, from your viewpoint then what is the scriptural stance that the CoS should take?

As posted before:

Falkirk,

Good to read your passion about your church!

When I heard the first news story I thought, 'well that's OK', since it seemed to say that the CoS was confirming the current position, but not allowing it to go further. In other words, those concerned who were in the Church would not be excommunicated, and I thought 'fair enough, that's Grace being shown'!

Now however it seems that further inductions of gay-practising ministers into the CoS could be made and that, I believe, is a wrong move.

Unlike other posters, I will not go near Leviticus, since there is no need. In fact, if anyone wants to check, Scripture is abundantly clear about the whole matter - and I mean the full male/female thing not just the male/male thing.

God, in Genesis, is quite clear, He blessed one human relationship alone, and that was in creating the female as a companion for the male. And as Scripture further tells us, 'God saw what He had created and it was good'. (Oh and don't anyone come on and say that gives the male this right and that right to this and that to the female - God created His people in His own image and that means that abuse of the one to the other, should never exist)!!

And to a post from Cropley about intolerance not being permitted, I would suggest he should consider that Jesus showed complete intolerance when he angrily cleaned out His father's house of all the traders and merchants.

God, is of course, a God of grace and mercy (as I well know) but He is also jealous of His holiness and His Creation, and He will not forever permit aberrations.

[The Green Goblin]

The Gospel of Christ asks a simple question - if I may paraphrase - 'are you for me or agin me'.

Whether we like it or not, or even ignore it, that's the only question that matters!



The same sentiment used by George W Bush after 9/11. (Just saying, likes...)

GG

[The Green Goblin]

Would be good to see some involvement from the OP, after the ruccus he has started. :greengrin

GG

[ancienthibby]

The same sentiment used by George W Bush after 9/11. (Just saying, likes...)

GG

I'll now have to listen to your album!!:greengrin

[One Day Soon]

Big deep breath.


In the particular instance of this thread, and the churches attitude to homosexuality, you have - for me anyway - a perfect example of why it needs debated, discussed and challenged.

No it doesn't. You're not in that church, it doesn't pass laws that control your life, it is an organisation predicated upon a belief in a God that you don't believe exists. Leave it alone. Alternatively start a list of all the organisations with rules you find unacceptable that you are also not a member of - perhaps start with bowling and golf clubs - and then wade into those too.

Religion is the only organised platform where the actions of individuals can be claimed to be so abhorrent that it is against the will of the creator of the world, and the Lord of all mankind. The consequences of the action viewed in such a way is one of eternal damnation.

And? Let religious nut speak unto religious nut.

The acceptance of this stance by the govening body of the church gives tacit (or indeed explicit) approval to people holding homophobic opinions. A bigotry that is backed by God gives you a pretty strong ally and therefore moral certainty when someone expresses this view or acts upon it, be it through active discrimination or passive objection.

You are confusing organised religion with God. They are two quite separate things. Or in your case no they're not because one of them doesn't exist. However, as I understand it the church appears to be facing both ways and neither way on this issue at the moment so you can hardly claim they are validating homophobic opinions unless you also claim that they are simultaneously validating non-homophobic opinions.

From a personal point of view, I find the atheist/theist argument very intellectually stimulating - others on The Hoy Ground have more interest for topics such as Israel/Palestine/Scottish Independence, and debate the pros and cons of their position. Why dont you apply your "let them get on with their thing" position to them?

Because this is religion and, in this context at least, it holds no sway over who governs us, the laws that are passed, no jihadist or zionist agenda, no relationship to whether Alex Salmond is a political Messi or Iain Gray a political Makalambay (pace ancienthibby) and because the utter futility of the scientific reductionist versus faith debate is absolute.

Religion is a complex topic. I find the reasons why people choose to belive in what is from any impartial stance a fantastical concept, bereft of evidence and so full of contradictions and anomalies that it holds up to very little scrutiny fascinating.

Yes, that's why its called a faith. It is in fact the whole point. Otherwise it would be a bit like believing in Argos or Debenhams.

It is interesting to challenge people on their beliefs - not too confrontationally I hope - but to get an understanding of why they are held. I see no reason why religion should be held as (if you'll excuse the pun) sacred when it comes to questioning.

I think the confrontational challenge is usuallly more stimulating and revealing but that's just me. Reductionists won't ever get it though, no matter how much fun it is.

Im quite happy to admit that overall, I see the impact of all religion as a force for regression, oppression and the furtherance of collective and individual stupidity.

Bit sweeping, no? Christian Aid, Oxfam etc? And by way of contrast, let's look at some of the by products of science and bad science - thalidomide, eugenics, chemical weapons.

That doesnt mean that it doesnt provide a great many individuals with comfort, nor that people who believe are all stupid. But I do believe that a belief in any creator fundamentally puts a block to at least an element of a persons capability for rational thought - it has to. To beleive in a creator as defined by almost any church - the type who answers prayers, who talks to people directly, who performs miracles - is to believe in things that have zero evidence, and I think that people who are credulous of that type of thing lose their ability to be skeptical/critical of anything they are told as being true. I do not think this is a good thing.

Really? We could post a very long list of the kind of people who believe or believed in a God but who were among the most enlightened, creative, and inspired.

As an aside, I also think that the vast majority of people who comment on these threads from the christian side have not read the bible, and that just pisses me off.

That is certainly true. But then you do get a lot of people talking about scientific achievement who couldn't spell relativity let alone understand it.

Does that answer your question?

I hope you will appreciate that a little - but only very little - of what I have posted is tongue in cheek.

Right, my work here is done.

[The Green Goblin]

I'll now have to listen to your album!!:greengrin

haha :greengrin thanks!

GG

[hibsbollah]

Would be good to see some involvement from the OP, after the ruccus he has started. :greengrin

GG


I don't believe he exists.

[hibsbollah]

One Day Soon; you are being ridiculous.

Makalambay and Iain Gray are not comparable. Makalambay is now a Premiership footballer after a previous incarnation as a widely abused and mocked failure in his chosen profession, he has now reached his moment of footballing destiny. In political terms he's more like a early 1940 Winston Churchill.

Iain Gray is unquestionably Colin Nish.

[ancienthibby]

One Day Soon; you are being ridiculous.

Makalambay and Iain Gray are not comparable. Makalambay is now a Premiership footballer after a previous incarnation as a widely abused and mocked failure in his chosen profession, he has now reached his moment of footballing destiny. In political terms he's more like a early 1940 Winston Churchill.

Iain Gray is unquestionably Colin Nish.

HB,

If I may, I'll use your post to observe that this thread has engendered a good number of humorous and good-natured posts (yours included) and in this respect, I take my hat off to 'One Day Soon' for his. Well done. sir!

I'd also add, with respect to the poster who asked about the OP, I would hope that young FalkirkHibee will be responding soon. I have no idea if anything particular is wrong with him these days (and he needs no apologists), but I know he is a fine and brave young Hibee with some issues that he has to cope with every day (and which would shame us all!!)

Meanwhile, here, in the home for the bewildered, the lights are flickering....:greengrin

[hibsbollah]

Thank you Ancient.

im just watching the final part of diarmid macullouchs excellent bbc4 programme the history of christianity. Very interesting discussion on modern scepticism.

[Twa Cairpets]

Big deep breath.

In the particular instance of this thread, and the churches attitude to homosexuality, you have - for me anyway - a perfect example of why it needs debated, discussed and challenged.

No it doesn't. You're not in that church, it doesn't pass laws that control your life, it is an organisation predicated upon a belief in a God that you don't believe exists. Leave it alone. Alternatively start a list of all the organisations with rules you find unacceptable that you are also not a member of - perhaps start with bowling and golf clubs - and then wade into those too.

The fact that the CoS is a significant organisation, with significant influence in communities and local politics in particular makes it a very valid area for me, or anyone else to question. When any organisation claims biblical doctrine for its stance and as a basis for persuading its members that activities of other people are immoral and sinful, that to me is plain wrong. Strip out the religion, and if you had a golf club that as well as organising the monthly medal routinely told people that gay people were sinners would you be so laissez faire?

I could be trite and say that you could also just ignore the religious threads if they dont appeal.


Religion is the only organised platform where the actions of individuals can be claimed to be so abhorrent that it is against the will of the creator of the world, and the Lord of all mankind. The consequences of the action viewed in such a way is one of eternal damnation.

And? Let religious nut speak unto religious nut.

If it was only the nuts. I dont think FalkirkHibee is a nut or ancient is a nut, but I think they are wrong by claiming biblical validation for their stance.


The acceptance of this stance by the govening body of the church gives tacit (or indeed explicit) approval to people holding homophobic opinions. A bigotry that is backed by God gives you a pretty strong ally and therefore moral certainty when someone expresses this view or acts upon it, be it through active discrimination or passive objection.

You are confusing organised religion with God. They are two quite separate things. Or in your case no they're not because one of them doesn't exist. However, as I understand it the church appears to be facing both ways and neither way on this issue at the moment so you can hardly claim they are validating homophobic opinions unless you also claim that they are simultaneously validating non-homophobic opinions.

I am emphatically not confusing the two, and the distinction is moot anyway. Ask someone who says "I believe in god but not the organised church", and you're speaking to someone who is either an arrogant solo cultist, or someone who turns out to have very little idea what it is they think. It's a kind of diet faith that has no foundations. And I think the churches stance is one of "we'll tolerate you for a wee while, but actually we don't approve". Its hardly a ringing endorsement of personal choice regarding sexuality is it?


From a personal point of view, I find the atheist/theist argument very intellectually stimulating - others on The Hoy Ground have more interest for topics such as Israel/Palestine/Scottish Independence, and debate the pros and cons of their position. Why dont you apply your "let them get on with their thing" position to them?

Because this is religion and, in this context at least, it holds no sway over who governs us, the laws that are passed, no jihadist or zionist agenda, no relationship to whether Alex Salmond is a political Messi or Iain Gray a political Makalambay (pace ancienthibby) and because the utter futility of the scientific reductionist versus faith debate is absolute.

So a topic has to relate to who governs us or examples of extreme religion to be worthy of opinion? Also, I've tried pretty much to avoid raising the scientific point, because it hasnt been directly relevant to this thread. I'll debate the merits of a scientific stance quite happily with anyone, but on this thread it is more about the impact of religious positions on matters of modern morality and the way in which religion is organised in Scotland in future as a direct result of a potential schism caused by interpretation of scripture.


Religion is a complex topic. I find the reasons why people choose to belive in what is from any impartial stance a fantastical concept, bereft of evidence and so full of contradictions and anomalies that it holds up to very little scrutiny fascinating.

Yes, that's why its called a faith. It is in fact the whole point. Otherwise it would be a bit like believing in Argos or Debenhams.

Why people have faith is interesting. How they choose to use that faith is interesting. I understand very well what faith is, and it is why I find it a force for great potential harm. If you're prepared to truly believe something with no evidence, you're prepared to believe anything with no evidence.


It is interesting to challenge people on their beliefs - not too confrontationally I hope - but to get an understanding of why they are held. I see no reason why religion should be held as (if you'll excuse the pun) sacred when it comes to questioning.

I think the confrontational challenge is usuallly more stimulating and revealing but that's just me. Reductionists won't ever get it though, no matter how much fun it is.

I meant that while its easy to say "the bible is pointless, youre all loonies" it doesnt lend itself to a constructive debate. Conforntational is ok as long as its kinda civil.


Im quite happy to admit that overall, I see the impact of all religion as a force for regression, oppression and the furtherance of collective and individual stupidity.

Bit sweeping, no? Christian Aid, Oxfam etc? And by way of contrast, let's look at some of the by products of science and bad science - thalidomide, eugenics, chemical weapons.

Yes, that's why I qualified it below. And why do you feel the need to compare it to bad science? You could compare it to evil political systems or terrible natural disasters and it would be equally invalid. Being an atheist doesnt mean that you automatically believe "science has all the answers".


That doesnt mean that it doesnt provide a great many individuals with comfort, nor that people who believe are all stupid. But I do believe that a belief in any creator fundamentally puts a block to at least an element of a persons capability for rational thought - it has to. To beleive in a creator as defined by almost any church - the type who answers prayers, who talks to people directly, who performs miracles - is to believe in things that have zero evidence, and I think that people who are credulous of that type of thing lose their ability to be skeptical/critical of anything they are told as being true. I do not think this is a good thing.

Really? We could post a very long list of the kind of people who believe or believed in a God but who were among the most enlightened, creative, and inspired.

Not disputing that, and it isnt the point I wanted to make. If you are fed on a diet of doctrine that you must take on faith, and you are trained to think this way and just accept stuff, then it must dull the baility to challenge and think.


As an aside, I also think that the vast majority of people who comment on these threads from the christian side have not read the bible, and that just pisses me off.

That is certainly true. But then you do get a lot of people talking about scientific achievement who couldn't spell relativity let alone understand it.

Again why are you referencing lack of understanding of science as defence of ignorance of the bible? In the context of this thread it is irrelevant. If you have an incomplete understanding of chemistry, it doesnt drive a belief that homosexuality is wrong.


I hope you will appreciate that a little - but only very little - of what I have posted is tongue in cheek.

I do

[steakbake]

Would be good to see some involvement from the OP, after the ruccus he has started. :greengrin

GG

Indeed so! It's the hibs.net version of farting in a lift and getting out before the smell hits.

I'd be interested to know what he thinks of the stink he's created!

[Twiglet]

Any religion that bans fresh mussels in a white wine and shallot sauce is just mean.

Christianity doesn't ban you from eating mussels. (See Peter's vision in Acts 10). My friends would all be in trouble if it were.:agree:

[Jack]

My Dad was an expert in the Bible, almost knew it verse for verse and could discuss the Biblical hind legs off a donkey if the need arose.

He told me that the Old Testament was basically a set of folk lore stories all lumped together in a sort of “The Works of Hans Christian Anderson” style. These were stories that had been handed down through the generations, most by word of mouth as few could write, by people of different faiths and beliefs, so a bit been had lost, and probably added, over the centuries.

The New Testament was a bit like pulling together a series of articles from [today's] newspapers sometime after the event. So they were kind of questionable as to their accuracy.

If you add to this the Bible, as a collection of books, wasn’t written in English and so the interpretation of what was written was up to the interpreter, or more likely hundreds of interpreters, throughout the centuries, it suggests to me what was there even at the start wasn’t very accurate as a prime document and it went downhill from there.

So to take this as “The Word of God” and to quote down to verse level on individual subjects, when almost every subject written about has an equal and opposite point of view somewhere else, IMO, is somewhat questionable.

[RyeSloan]

My Dad was an expert in the Bible, almost knew it verse for verse and could discuss the Biblical hind legs off a donkey if the need arose.

He told me that the Old Testament was basically a set of folk lore stories all lumped together in a sort of “The Works of Hans Christian Anderson” style. These were stories that had been handed down through the generations, most by word of mouth as few could write, by people of different faiths and beliefs, so a bit been had lost, and probably added, over the centuries.

The New Testament was a bit like pulling together a series of articles from [today's] newspapers sometime after the event. So they were kind of questionable as to their accuracy.

If you add to this the Bible, as a collection of books, wasn’t written in English and so the interpretation of what was written was up to the interpreter, or more likely hundreds of interpreters, throughout the centuries, it suggests to me what was there even at the start wasn’t very accurate as a prime document and it went downhill from there.

So to take this as “The Word of God” and to quote down to verse level on individual subjects, when almost every subject written about has an equal and opposite point of view somewhere else, IMO, is somewhat questionable.

The bit in bold is what troubles me most.....the church and it's members state this all of the time and as you have indicated it's nothing of the sort.

Taking a step back and looking at the 'word of god' and it's accuracy I think of it like this.

With an assumption that Jesus was indeed the son of Christ and that God exists (I know I know stay with me though) his words and actions as recorded in the bible are second hand (at the very very best) you immediately you have to question the accuracy of the reporting.

When you then look at the fact that even the 'newspaper articles' included in the bible are contradictory in a number of ways you would start to be seriously concerned over the accuracy of any of it.

Next when you learn that a hell of a lot of 'newspaper articles' were deliberately not included in the final version of the bible you would now be pretty sure that none of the contents could be fully trusted.

Finally once you take into account the translation issue your ability to truthfully repeat that the words contained were indeed "the word of god" must be about zero.

So in this example I started with a a belief that Jesus was indeed the son of god but despite that I simply cannot see how anyone can say with any confidence that his words and deeds were recorded with any accuracy at all.

I would be really interested to hear why people are so happy to accept what is written is accurate and how that could possibly be so.

[RyeSloan]

Why don't the non-believers chill out and let the believers get on with their thing, while the believers can not bother the non-believers? There's an awful lot of energy put in by non-believers to the attempt to prove the irrationality of something they don't believe in.

And why not...considering the effort 'the belivers' put into telling the world what is morally right and wrong I would have thought the 'non believers' have a pretty strong motivation to ask the question as to why they think they are so right and everyone else so wrong.

You could apply your logic to every single topic discussed on this board...i.e if you don't like SNP policy let them get on with their thing as you seem to put an awful lot of energy in an attempt to prove the irrationality of something you don't believe in.

Always find it strange when someone decides what is worthy of debate or note...surely that should be left to the individual..if not's not worthy of debate the thread will go nowhere, if it interests people then it ends up pages and pages....who are you or anyone else to decide that "the non-believers chill out and let the believers get on with their thing"??

[One Day Soon]

I don't believe he exists.

Are you saying that you don't believe Fergus exists or are you saying that Fergus doesn't exist? They are two quite different things surely?

[One Day Soon]

One Day Soon; you are being ridiculous.

Makalambay and Iain Gray are not comparable. Makalambay is now a Premiership footballer after a previous incarnation as a widely abused and mocked failure in his chosen profession, he has now reached his moment of footballing destiny. In political terms he's more like a early 1940 Winston Churchill.

Iain Gray is unquestionably Colin Nish.

Ah but you don't know that. He might turn out to be Stephen Dobbie!

[ancienthibby]

Are you saying that you don't believe Fergus exists or are you saying that Fergus doesn't exist? They are two quite different things surely?

Back to the drawing board, ODS!!,,

It's no Fergus -:greengrin:greengrin:greengrin

[Sergio sledge]

Rather than replying to this thread straight away and saying something which is based on my thoughts alone I have taken the time to pray, read and think about this issue and my thoughts on the matter are (hopefully accurately) detailed below.

Firstly I must state, as ancienthibby has already stated, that one or two verses in the Bible cannot and should not be taken in isolation and abused to support whatever prejudices or hatred a person may have.

Secondly, I believe that the New Testament gives very clear instruction that because of Jesus’ death and resurrection as a final sacrifice for our sins, we are set free from the law of the Old Testament and are not required to follow the Old Testament rules about crimes and punishments, warfare, slavery, diet, circumcision, sacrifice, feast days, Sabbath observance, ritual cleanness, etc. (John 1:16-17, Acts 13:39, Romans 2:25-29, 8:1-4, 1 Corinthians 9:19-21, Galatians 2:15-16,Ephesians 2:15) Jesus’ message was one of Love, Grace and Forgiveness. None of us are perfect and none of us can keep the Old Testament law in all its fullness, so Jesus was sent to take the punishment that we deserve so that we might be set free from the ritual obedience of the law to show God’s Love and Grace to the world. This doesn’t mean that we can do as we please, but that we should be seeking to deal with sin, ours and others, in a loving way.

The issue as I see it is not one of whether gay people are welcome in the Church (they most certainly are IMHO) it is of what the moral standards are that our Church leaders should be held to when they are in a position of leadership. I do not believe for one second that Church leaders are in any way better than ordinary people (we are all sinners) but the leadership of the Church provides role models for the congregations to follow and if a Church leader is living an obviously sinful life and not doing anything about it, then the Church will inevitably follow.

The issue as I see it boils down to this:


The Bible is very clear that Christian marriage was instituted by God in creation to be between one man and one woman. (to be flippant – it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve…)
The Bible is also very clear that any sexual activity outside of this marriage is sinful. (heterosexual or homosexual)
Therefore, if a Church leader is very obviously engaging in something which is sinful (in this case sex outside marriage) then they should not be allowed to be in their position as a Church leader.


Let me make myself clear however, I believe that God loves us all no matter what, and that he forgives us all provided our repentant spirit is genuine and leads to a change in attitude and actions. No-one should be persecuted or prejudiced because of the sin they are guilty of, because “all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.” If I were to judge someone else because of their sin then I would be a hypocrite as there are many sinful things that I do every day which may not be obvious on the outside but require forgiveness from God the same as every other sin.

[Lucius Apuleius]

If you love me keep my commandments.

The way I see it, there are more people trying to say God does not exist than there are saying he does. :wink: All subjective in my opinion. I do not for one second deny there are many many people who go to church regularly who believe that everything written in the bible is the word of God and was written by him. Obviously it wasn't. The majority of people who go to church, in my opinion, will know this. I tend to look at the bible, and the commandments as mentioned above, as a moral structure to my life. I do not want to steal, commit adultery, covet my neighbours ass or any of the other commandments, not because I fear what is going to happen to me in an afterlife, but purely because I feel it is the proper, morally correct way to live and to treat people. Christian morals? Probably not. They should be the morals of all humans.

I am actually a bit torn both ways regarding Falkirk's comments and the dilemma facing the Kirk at the minute. I appreciate that what we read as the bible was written many moons ago and for that period was probably correct. The world moves on and perceptions and morals change, not neccessarily for the better. Would it worry me to have a homosexual minister preaching to me on a Sunday? Depends what he or she was preaching about to be honest. What I don't think people take into consideration and lump togerther as homophobia is the fact that a lot of people cannot get their heads round the act of physical love between two men or two women and not neccessarily how it goes against the bible, but goes against what a lot of people consider would be natural sex. Having spent the last 18 months being probed then I can assure you it is not something I would do for pleasure. Having said that, I am sure there are plenty other sex acts and deviations out there that I would also not like to be part of.
To me it is a live and let live world. The Kirk has, again in my opinion, done the right thing by sitting back and working towards 2013 when a decision is made, meanwhile accepting those already within the body of the Kirk for what they are.

Interesting times, but needing looked at by everybody with a lot of dialogue and open mindedness.

I will still be in Kirk on Sunday.:wink:

[Dinkydoo]

My Dad was an expert in the Bible, almost knew it verse for verse and could discuss the Biblical hind legs off a donkey if the need arose.

He told me that the Old Testament was basically a set of folk lore stories all lumped together in a sort of “The Works of Hans Christian Anderson” style. These were stories that had been handed down through the generations, most by word of mouth as few could write, by people of different faiths and beliefs, so a bit been had lost, and probably added, over the centuries.

The New Testament was a bit like pulling together a series of articles from [today's] newspapers sometime after the event. So they were kind of questionable as to their accuracy.

If you add to this the Bible, as a collection of books, wasn’t written in English and so the interpretation of what was written was up to the interpreter, or more likely hundreds of interpreters, throughout the centuries, it suggests to me what was there even at the start wasn’t very accurate as a prime document and it went downhill from there.

So to take this as “The Word of God” and to quote down to verse level on individual subjects, when almost every subject written about has an equal and opposite point of view somewhere else, IMO, is somewhat questionable.


The bit in bold is what troubles me most.....the church and it's members state this all of the time and as you have indicated it's nothing of the sort.

Taking a step back and looking at the 'word of god' and it's accuracy I think of it like this.

With an assumption that Jesus was indeed the son of Christ and that God exists (I know I know stay with me though) his words and actions as recorded in the bible are second hand (at the very very best) you immediately you have to question the accuracy of the reporting.

When you then look at the fact that even the 'newspaper articles' included in the bible are contradictory in a number of ways you would start to be seriously concerned over the accuracy of any of it.

Next when you learn that a hell of a lot of 'newspaper articles' were deliberately not included in the final version of the bible you would now be pretty sure that none of the contents could be fully trusted.

Finally once you take into account the translation issue your ability to truthfully repeat that the words contained were indeed "the word of god" must be about zero.

So in this example I started with a a belief that Jesus was indeed the son of god but despite that I simply cannot see how anyone can say with any confidence that his words and deeds were recorded with any accuracy at all.

I would be really interested to hear why people are so happy to accept what is written is accurate and how that could possibly be so.

Two of the best posts I've ever read on Hibs.net; whilst I lack the articulacy to add anything significant to this thread I do have some questions/considerations of my own.

Taking in some of the more balanced posts on this thread around looking to the bible (in particular the new testament) as a set of moral guidelines rather than believing the whole thing literally (or taking passages in isolation to justify your own prejudices), I have to ask.......

Why does anyone actully need a moral 'rule book' on how to live thier life?

I mean, if you know right from wrong, how to be a decent person, and aren't niave enough to accept every aspect of the bible as gospel (pardon the pun).

Why don't people think; OK, the symbolism in this book really makes it quite clear on what was morally acceptable thousands of years ago and quite a few passages are still relevant to our society today, so lets get on with it.

Does accepting the teachings of the bible (treat others as you yourself wish to be treated) mean that you have to buy into the spiritual stuff as well?

I suspect not.

[hibsbollah]

Are you saying that you don't believe Fergus exists or are you saying that Fergus doesn't exist? They are two quite different things surely?

I KNOW Fergus exists. He looks a bit like Hagrid and is quite a nice chap despite some suspiciously rightwing views.

Falkirk is the OP and i take an agnostic position on him. A bit like extra terrestial landings or Iraqi WMDs.

[One Day Soon]

Back to the drawing board, ODS!!,,

It's no Fergus -:greengrin:greengrin:greengrin

Oops. I meant Falkirk, must have 'Fergus on my mind'. Still that's the first time you've corrected me on something and been in the right eh? :wink:

[One Day Soon]

I KNOW Fergus exists. He looks a bit like Hagrid and is quite a nice chap despite some suspiciously rightwing views.

Falkirk is the OP and i take an agnostic position on him. A bit like extra terrestial landings or Iraqi WMDs.

You think Fergus is the one who has suspiciously right wing views?!?????!!!!!

[hibsbollah]

Oops. I meant Falkirk, must have 'Fergus on my mind'. Still that's the first time you've corrected me on something and been in the right eh? :wink:

Dont talk Balls.


:-)

[One Day Soon]

One Day Soon[/B]

The fact that the CoS is a significant organisation, with significant influence in communities and local politics in particular makes it a very valid area for me, or anyone else to question. When any organisation claims biblical doctrine for its stance and as a basis for persuading its members that activities of other people are immoral and sinful, that to me is plain wrong. Strip out the religion, and if you had a golf club that as well as organising the monthly medal routinely told people that gay people were sinners would you be so laissez faire?

I think the notion that CoS has significant influence on local politics is pretty far fetched. Anyone can question whatever they like, including me questioning why you would question the questions that the CoS is trying to answer. There are a number of religions and political movements which would hold that the way we conduct ourselves as a nation and society is immoral and - for many of them - sinful. But so what? This is essentially the faithful speaking to and arguing with the faithful. They are debating what goes on within their church, not what goes on outside it. I don't expect to have a say in how the Brownies conduct themselves since I'm not a member (I mean the girl's organisation, not the adherents of Gordon Brown), actually that's not quite true since my daughter is a Brownie so maybe I would have an opinion on if they decide to implement a cannabis growing badge or something.

If the militantly heterosexual golf club you refer to existed my view would be that a) they wouldn't win many competitions if they sent their time worrying about how people swing, rather than their swing and b) the ludicrousness of their views would be self defeating pretty much by itself. But of course the CoS doesn't spend its time routinely telling people that gay people are sinners does it? That's a straw man that is.

I could be trite and say that you could also just ignore the religious threads if they dont appeal.

Why would I ignore them? I like a discussion - as McGlashan can testify. I agree it does need debated, discussed and challenged - by the members of the CoS, not particularly by a bunch of onlooking voyeurs who don't even hold membership of that group.

If it was only the nuts. I dont think FalkirkHibee is a nut or ancient is a nut, but I think they are wrong by claiming biblical validation for their stance.

I am not going to be drawn into a discussion on the nuttiness or otherwise of ancient and Falkirk. Of course you think that on biblical validation, you don't believe in God.

I am emphatically not confusing the two, and the distinction is moot anyway. Ask someone who says "I believe in god but not the organised church", and you're speaking to someone who is either an arrogant solo cultist, or someone who turns out to have very little idea what it is they think. It's a kind of diet faith that has no foundations. And I think the churches stance is one of "we'll tolerate you for a wee while, but actually we don't approve". Its hardly a ringing endorsement of personal choice regarding sexuality is it?

You have a very narrow interpretation on faith. By definition God (if he exists) is an omnipotent and omnipresent being, one therefore that cannot be comprehended. Organised churches are organised by man and therefore are, by contrast, fallible. To hold a faith in God is not therefore analagous to holding faithfully to organised religion. And the practising of organised religion is not necessarily analagous to faith in God.


Why do you think the church should be issuing a 'ringing endorsement of personal choice regarding sexuality'?

So a topic has to relate to who governs us or examples of extreme religion to be worthy of opinion? Also, I've tried pretty much to avoid raising the scientific point, because it hasnt been directly relevant to this thread. I'll debate the merits of a scientific stance quite happily with anyone, but on this thread it is more about the impact of religious positions on matters of modern morality and the way in which religion is organised in Scotland in future as a direct result of a potential schism caused by interpretation of scripture.

Not at all. Everyone is clearly entitled to their opinions on whatever they want.But you asked "Why dont you apply your "let them get on with their thing" position to them?" ie politics etc and I answered that question. The scientific reductionist perspective is absolutely relevant to this discussion because the difference boils down to those who require empirical evidence for everything and those who do not because they have a faith. It is impossible to square these two positions.

Why people have faith is interesting. How they choose to use that faith is interesting. I understand very well what faith is, and it is why I find it a force for great potential harm. If you're prepared to truly believe something with no evidence, you're prepared to believe anything with no evidence.

With respect I do not think you do understand what faith is, precisely because you don't have it. For the record I'm not saying I do either. I agree it is a force for great potential harm, just as it is a force for great potential good. But so is science, television and Hannah Montana.

I meant that while its easy to say "the bible is pointless, youre all loonies" it doesnt lend itself to a constructive debate. Conforntational is ok as long as its kinda civil.

I don't know, you know. Often the 'you're a complete twat' approach is the most likely to crack open the real discssion.

Yes, that's why I qualified it below. And why do you feel the need to compare it to bad science? You could compare it to evil political systems or terrible natural disasters and it would be equally invalid. Being an atheist doesnt mean that you automatically believe "science has all the answers".

See above.

Not disputing that, and it isnt the point I wanted to make. If you are fed on a diet of doctrine that you must take on faith, and you are trained to think this way and just accept stuff, then it must dull the baility to challenge and think.

Well Einstein appears to have held the notion of a 'God' as a prime mover and it doesn't seem to have dulled his ability to think or challenge.

Again why are you referencing lack of understanding of science as defence of ignorance of the bible? In the context of this thread it is irrelevant. If you have an incomplete understanding of chemistry, it doesnt drive a belief that homosexuality is wrong.

Because usually the argument used against the existence of God etc is that of the scientific reductionist and more often than not those making the arguments do not even understand fully their own 'philosphical' position or rather the basic texts which inform it. An incomplete understanding of biology and the functioning of the human mind certainly can drive a belief that homosexuality is wrong and often does unfortunately.


I do


I predict double figures pages on this one. That's predict mind you, not foresee.

[One Day Soon]

Dont talk Balls.


:-)

I try not to, can you say the same?

(That's enough Balls. Ed)

[J-C]

As an athiest I've nothing to really say on this topic apart from the fact tha One Day Soon, who is thankfully on my ignore list is managing to get under the skin and pee off other posters on this forum. His posts I cannot see but I can when someone quotes him and I must admit it really does look like he enjoys winding folk up and likes a good argument rather than a good debate. Once again thanks for the ignore button.:greengrin

[IWasThere2016]

As a former member of the Kirk, I would add that IMHO the churches are mostly interested in their financial wellbeing and the Bible is as contrived as the Beano (apologies if that offends but I cannot understand where people got faith from .. tried but failed .. I am just too simple I think).

Come to think of it, I enjoyed the church for the fitba with the BB and the singing of the hymns.

[One Day Soon]

And why not...considering the effort 'the belivers' put into telling the world what is morally right and wrong I would have thought the 'non believers' have a pretty strong motivation to ask the question as to why they think they are so right and everyone else so wrong.

You could apply your logic to every single topic discussed on this board...i.e if you don't like SNP policy let them get on with their thing as you seem to put an awful lot of energy in an attempt to prove the irrationality of something you don't believe in.

Always find it strange when someone decides what is worthy of debate or note...surely that should be left to the individual..if not's not worthy of debate the thread will go nowhere, if it interests people then it ends up pages and pages....who are you or anyone else to decide that "the non-believers chill out and let the believers get on with their thing"??

No, there is a world of difference between political parties seeking office and which will dictate in law and in services how we all live our lives on the one hand and a church which will dictate - at most - what its own members will do on the other.

I haven't decided what's worthy of debate for everyone else - I have simply expressed my own view on the matter and made a suggestion that both sides could live and let live. People can either agree with it or not.

[Twa Cairpets]

I think the notion that CoS has significant influence on local politics is pretty far fetched. Anyone can question whatever they like, including me questioning why you would question the questions that the CoS is trying to answer. There are a number of religions and political movements which would hold that the way we conduct ourselves as a nation and society is immoral and - for many of them - sinful. But so what? This is essentially the faithful speaking to and arguing with the faithful. They are debating what goes on within their church, not what goes on outside it. I don't expect to have a say in how the Brownies conduct themselves since I'm not a member (I mean the girl's organisation, not the adherents of Gordon Brown), actually that's not quite true since my daughter is a Brownie so maybe I would have an opinion on if they decide to implement a cannabis growing badge or something.

Blimey, the Brownies are progressive these days...

I do understand the argument that its an internal CoS matter, but the outcome of it will affect directly the message delivered to around 5-10% of the population from the pulpit, if these churchgoing figures are right. The internal decisions of this organisation will impact the wider society, so it is relevant to you and me.



If the militantly heterosexual golf club you refer to existed my view would be that a) they wouldn't win many competitions if they sent their time worrying about how people swing, rather than their swing and b) the ludicrousness of their views would be self defeating pretty much by itself. But of course the CoS doesn't spend its time routinely telling people that gay people are sinners does it? That's a straw man that is.

OK, I retract the "routinely" bit.



Why would I ignore them? I like a discussion - as McGlashan can testify. I agree it does need debated, discussed and challenged - by the members of the CoS, not particularly by a bunch of onlooking voyeurs who don't even hold membership of that group.

Nah, I dont buy that at all for the reasons detailed above.



I am not going to be drawn into a discussion on the nuttiness or otherwise of ancient and Falkirk. Of course you think that on biblical validation, you don't believe in God.

I also dont believe in Koranic or Talmudic validation.



You have a very narrow interpretation on faith. By definition God (if he exists) is an omnipotent and omnipresent being, one therefore that cannot be comprehended. Organised churches are organised by man and therefore are, by contrast, fallible. To hold a faith in God is not therefore analagous to holding faithfully to organised religion. And the practising of organised religion is not necessarily analagous to faith in God.

So you're saying because of something that is essentially unknowable, faith can be anything you want it to be? Wicca, sun worship or any other cult has the same validity as Christianity? (Actually, I think it does, but thats a different topic). If you have this kind of amorphous, undefined "faith" in God, then it has no place in defining the moral law, because there is no codification or accepted way of following your faith. If you happen to be Christian, your faith is based on the teachings of God and Jesus as laid out in the two testaments. Both are examples of faith, because the easiest way of defining the word faith when it comes to religion is to describe it as belief without evidence. This is not a scince v religion thing, its just useful way of defining faith in this context.



Why do you think the church should be issuing a 'ringing endorsement of personal choice regarding sexuality'?
I dont, and didnt say that. They could start by saying that we're fine with whatever people want to do in their own bedrooms, and just move on. If it ceases to be a point of contention, it ceases to be an issue.



Not at all. Everyone is clearly entitled to their opinions on whatever they want.But you asked "Why dont you apply your "let them get on with their thing" position to them?" ie politics etc and I answered that question. The scientific reductionist perspective is absolutely relevant to this discussion because the difference boils down to those who require empirical evidence for everything and those who do not because they have a faith. It is impossible to square these two positions.

No.

"Homosexuality is wrong"
"Why?"
Becuase the bible says so
"And what else?"
"No, that about it"

I think that holding the italicised opinion aboe is one that that people might be entitled to, but I also think its unpleasant and fundamentally unsubstantiated.

Its nothing at alll to do with science, nothing at all. I don't need scientific evidence to tell me that viewing individuals as abhorrent and sinners as a result of their sexuaility is morally repugnant. I dont need scientific evdience because it something that is science does not lend itself too.



With respect I do not think you do understand what faith is, precisely because you don't have it. For the record I'm not saying I do either. I agree it is a force for great potential harm, just as it is a force for great potential good. But so is science, television and Hannah Montana.
I disagree with your first point - personal circumstances have brought me into very close contact with people of very, very deep faith. As I said, its an area I find very interesting, and I try to read a lot from both sides of the debate. With the exception of Hannah Montana (who on my daughters behalf I cant allow a word to be said against), the areas you mention are of course potential sources of harm, but they're not valid comparisons, as they don't require any faith.



I don't know, you know. Often the 'you're a complete twat' approach is the most likely to crack open the real discssion.

Sometimes, but they tend to be short discussions.



Well Einstein appears to have held the notion of a 'God' as a prime mover and it doesn't seem to have dulled his ability to think or challenge.

Going well off topic, but Einstein is generally held to have been an atheist
http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Was-Einstein-an-Atheist-.htm



Because usually the argument used against the existence of God etc is that of the scientific reductionist and more often than not those making the arguments do not even understand fully their own 'philosphical' position or rather the basic texts which inform it. An incomplete understanding of biology and the functioning of the human mind certainly can drive a belief that homosexuality is wrong and often does unfortunately.

I think we may broadly agree on something here.:wink:

[One Day Soon]

As an athiest I've nothing to really say on this topic apart from the fact tha One Day Soon, who is thankfully on my ignore list is managing to get under the skin and pee off other posters on this forum. His posts I cannot see but I can when someone quotes him and I must admit it really does look like he enjoys winding folk up and likes a good argument rather than a good debate. Once again thanks for the ignore button.:greengrin

I'm glad that you don't see any malign English influence in this issue at least! But what's point of the ignore button if you read my posts by proxy anyway and then also post on them?

[One Day Soon]

Blimey, the Brownies are progressive these days...

Yes but as long as they don't go to politics or religion I'm fine with it....

I do understand the argument that its an internal CoS matter, but the outcome of it will affect directly the message delivered to around 5-10% of the population from the pulpit, if these churchgoing figures are right. The internal decisions of this organisation will impact the wider society, so it is relevant to you and me.

You're stretching it here. The biggest impact this will have is newspaper headlines. Beyond that, nowt.

OK, I retract the "routinely" bit.

Fair enough.



Nah, I dont buy that at all for the reasons detailed above.

I do, also for the (different) reasons stated above



I also dont believe in Koranic or Talmudic validation.

I don't doubt it.



So you're saying because of something that is essentially unknowable, faith can be anything you want it to be? Wicca, sun worship or any other cult has the same validity as Christianity? (Actually, I think it does, but thats a different topic). If you have this kind of amorphous, undefined "faith" in God, then it has no place in defining the moral law, because there is no codification or accepted way of following your faith. If you happen to be Christian, your faith is based on the teachings of God and Jesus as laid out in the two testaments. Both are examples of faith, because the easiest way of defining the word faith when it comes to religion is to describe it as belief without evidence. This is not a scince v religion thing, its just useful way of defining faith in this context.

I'm saying that by definition God is unproveable. From the perspective of the person with faith - whatever faith - their faith is valid. Actually I think faith and relationship with God should be about the personal relationship of the believer to God rather than about imposing a moral code on everyone regardless of their own several views, but that's just me. Yes, faith is best defined as belief without evidence.


I dont, and didnt say that. They could start by saying that we're fine with whatever people want to do in their own bedrooms, and just move on. If it ceases to be a point of contention, it ceases to be an issue.

Why? Why would or should they say that? I'm not a CoS member myself but why should they express that view if it isn't what they believe?

No.

"Homosexuality is wrong"
"Why?"
Becuase the bible says so
"And what else?"
"No, that about it"

I think that holding the italicised opinion aboe is one that that people might be entitled to, but I also think its unpleasant and fundamentally unsubstantiated.

Again fair enough, I think we're singing from the same hymn sheet here.

Its nothing at alll to do with science, nothing at all. I don't need scientific evidence to tell me that viewing individuals as abhorrent and sinners as a result of their sexuaility is morally repugnant. I dont need scientific evdience because it something that is science does not lend itself too.

Not sure I'm following your point here, but it is late at night so maybe I'm not as on the ball as I should be.


I disagree with your first point - personal circumstances have brought me into very close contact with people of very, very deep faith. As I said, its an area I find very interesting, and I try to read a lot from both sides of the debate. With the exception of Hannah Montana (who on my daughters behalf I cant allow a word to be said against), the areas you mention are of course potential sources of harm, but they're not valid comparisons, as they don't require any faith.

Close contact is not the same as being in the position. Hannah Montana must be stopped. Before you know it they have progressed on to the Jonas brothers. Mark my words.



Sometimes, but they tend to be short discussions.



Going well off topic, but Einstein is generally held to have been an atheist
http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Was-Einstein-an-Atheist-.htm

Now you know you're at it here. www.time.com/time/2007/einstein/16.html (http://www.time.com/time/2007/einstein/16.html)


I think we may broadly agree on something here.:wink:

Excellent. Now, about why the world is flat and not round....

[RyeSloan]

I haven't decided what's worthy of debate for everyone else - I have simply expressed my own view on the matter and made a suggestion that both sides could live and let live. People can either agree with it or not.

I wonder why you felt the need to comment at all then considering plenty of others had already joined the debate?


No, there is a world of difference between political parties seeking office and which will dictate in law and in services how we all live our lives on the one hand and a church which will dictate - at most - what its own members will do on the other.


So despite the head of state also being head of a church there is a world of difference huh?

Are you seriously saying that the Christian churches followed by millions in the UK don't have signifcant influence on the approach the state takes on law and services?

Are you suggesting that the huge numbers of pupils who attend faith schools are not influenced by that faith at all?

I find your determination to somehow portray organised religion as somehow removed from influencing the wider world as somewhat strange.

A quick google search shows the following:

"A delegation from the Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Methodist Church, Quakers, The Salvation Army and United Reformed Church will attend the Liberal Democrat, Labour and Conservative party conferences in September and October to discuss their shared concerns."

"A cross-party group of Parliamentarians have joined church groups in expressing their backing for the planned blockade of Faslane nuclear naval base"

"10 Downing Street recently hosted a historic inaugural meeting between government and black church leaders...

10 Downing Street recently hosted a historic inaugural meeting between government and black church leaders presided over by the Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, and Baroness Amos, Leader of the House of Lords.

The delegation of 32 church leaders, which included Bishop Eric Brown, National Overseer of the New Testament Church of God, Rev Kingsley Appiagyei of Trinity Baptist Church and Rev Cecil Perry, leader of Britain’s Seventh day Adventists was led by Rev Joel Edwards, General Secretary of the Evangelical Alliance and Bishop John Francis, leader of Ruach Ministries."

"Cardinal Keith O’Brien has joined other Church leaders in calling for Scottish Christians to vote with their social consciences in the forthcoming Holyrood elections"

"Salmond and O'Brien say they will also campaign together against plans to replace Trident with a new generation of nuclear weapons"

"A campaign to lobby FTSE 100 companies to adopt the Living Wage has been backed by the Methodist Church and its Central Finance Board"



Makes your statement of "church which will dictate - at most - what its own members will do" completely false when it is clear they have significant access to the political elite and no issue with putting their weight behind issues completely unconnected to "God".

[Twa Cairpets]

I'm saying that by definition God is unproveable. From the perspective of the person with faith - whatever faith - their faith is valid. Actually I think faith and relationship with God should be about the personal relationship of the believer to God rather than about imposing a moral code on everyone regardless of their own several views, but that's just me. Yes, faith is best defined as belief without evidence.


Do you really agree that everyones belief are equally valid? What do people base their personal belief of/relationship with God on? If it doesnt follow the general doctrine of the organised church/mosque/temple whatever, then it is a personalised, distilled version of the bits people want to keep.

If its not based on holy teachings as passed down through holy men and books its essentially completely made up by an individual, which most people would define as either mad or weird. If I was to claim I believe God is a transdimensional pixie called Kevin McKevinson and he commanded that mankind needed saving through the medium of interpretive dance - and truly believed it - would you think I was bonkers or held a valid belief system because it was my own personal relationship with the divine pixie?

As we are human, its almost impossible not to build your faith if you are of that particualr way of thinking on what you have learned from other people. People born without access to Jesus wont believe in him, will they?

Anyway, to get back on track, faith, for many, means believing that God wants you to behave in certain ways. If you behave that way you're in for an eternal reward, if you don't its burnt toast for tea every night for eternity. How do you know what these certain ways are? Through preaching, learning, sermons, study.

If you claim to get your morality from the bible or any other holy book, as many millions of people in this country do, and literally billions of people throughout the world, it is utterly inevitable that the understanding of the moral code is sought to be imposed on others. Look at bible belt USA, or Uganda for examples of this. Your somewhat accomodationist "well they shoudnt impose their moral views on others" is missing the point. Religious authorities do just that, and you're dang tootin they shouldn't.

People can hold views on anything they want, but when the view is only backed up by "the bible says it" for something as important as homophobic prejudice, I immediately see that view as being one formed from ignorance and subservience. What the CoS have cravenly done is issued a kind of wishy washy tut-tutting about the issue, and as a result not taken an opportunity to modernise itself and actually start reflecting the way society is. Why? Because the bible says so.

[One Day Soon]

I wonder why you felt the need to comment at all then considering plenty of others had already joined the debate?

Let's see. Because I'm allowed an opinion?


So despite the head of state also being head of a church there is a world of difference huh?

Yes

Are you seriously saying that the Christian churches followed by millions in the UK don't have signifcant influence on the approach the state takes on law and services?

We're still talking about the CoS here right?

Are you suggesting that the huge numbers of pupils who attend faith schools are not influenced by that faith at all?

There are CoS schools now?

I find your determination to somehow portray organised religion as somehow removed from influencing the wider world as somewhat strange.

Can't please every one.

A quick google search shows the following:

"A delegation from the Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Methodist Church, Quakers, The Salvation Army and United Reformed Church will attend the Liberal Democrat, Labour and Conservative party conferences in September and October to discuss their shared concerns."
Pretty much anyone can attend party conferences. All you have to do is buy the passes. It's not clear what the purpose was so its impossible to say whether they swayed policy.

"A cross-party group of Parliamentarians have joined church groups in expressing their backing for the planned blockade of Faslane nuclear naval base"
A photo op/press release. Clearly the church groups were unsuccessful since the nuclear base at Faslane is still there. Despite your claim that "they have significant access to the political elite and no issue with putting their weight behind issues completely unconnected to "God"", it seems the case that I was right to suggest they have little influence beyond their own members.

"10 Downing Street recently hosted a historic inaugural meeting between government and black church leaders...

10 Downing Street recently hosted a historic inaugural meeting between government and black church leaders presided over by the Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, and Baroness Amos, Leader of the House of Lords.

The delegation of 32 church leaders, which included Bishop Eric Brown, National Overseer of the New Testament Church of God, Rev Kingsley Appiagyei of Trinity Baptist Church and Rev Cecil Perry, leader of Britain’s Seventh day Adventists was led by Rev Joel Edwards, General Secretary of the Evangelical Alliance and Bishop John Francis, leader of Ruach Ministries."

Another photo-op/press release, though this one seems as much about race as religion. Again not clear what they were after so impossible to say whether they influenced government policy.

"Cardinal Keith O’Brien has joined other Church leaders in calling for Scottish Christians to vote with their social consciences in the forthcoming Holyrood elections"

And? Cardinal O'Brien issues press release - shock. Did you see many people outside of these church members take any notice?

"Salmond and O'Brien say they will also campaign together against plans to replace Trident with a new generation of nuclear weapons"

Well that's been VERY successful hasn't it? That O'Brien clearly has a direct line to the MOD. Another press release.

"A campaign to lobby FTSE 100 companies to adopt the Living Wage has been backed by the Methodist Church and its Central Finance Board"

And another press release. And a spectacularly failed campaign too.

Hooray for Google. Doesn't have much to do with CoS though and even if it did frankly the notion that a list of press releases and photo opportunities constitutes influence over government policy making is just laughable. In fact I congratulate you on proving my point for me - access to email and fax machines by the press officers of the main religions constitutes a capacity to cultivate some colum inches in the media. That's pretty much it.

Makes your statement of "church which will dictate - at most - what its own members will do" completely false when it is clear they have significant access to the political elite and no issue with putting their weight behind issues completely unconnected to "God".

No it doesn't and no they don't.

[One Day Soon]

Do you really agree that everyones belief are equally valid?
No that wasn't my point. I'm saying that they believe this.

What do people base their personal belief of/relationship with God on? If it doesnt follow the general doctrine of the organised church/mosque/temple whatever, then it is a personalised, distilled version of the bits people want to keep.
I can't think of an enormous number of people I have met who had a faith who weren't also 'cafeteria' believers, ie they picked which elements of their faith they exercised and which they didn't. Just for a start, the vast majority of those who regard themselves as Christians in this country do not attend church ever Sunday. That's fairly selective against the tenets of their faith.

If its not based on holy teachings as passed down through holy men and books its essentially completely made up by an individual, which most people would define as either mad or weird.
No, it isn't a case of you're either accepting it all or you're completely making it up yourself. You are falling into a misleading reductionist trap here.

If I was to claim I believe God is a transdimensional pixie called Kevin McKevinson and he commanded that mankind needed saving through the medium of interpretive dance - and truly believed it - would you think I was bonkers or held a valid belief system because it was my own personal relationship with the divine pixie?
I'd think it was bonkers. What's more important though is what you would think of yourself.

As we are human, its almost impossible not to build your faith if you are of that particualr way of thinking on what you have learned from other people.
That's true of almost anything. Those who accept the theory of relativity largely rely on the work of Einstein instead of working it though for themselves from first principles.

People born without access to Jesus wont believe in him, will they?
An awful lot of people seem to have done just that.

Anyway, to get back on track, faith, for many, means believing that God wants you to behave in certain ways. If you behave that way you're in for an eternal reward, if you don't its burnt toast for tea every night for eternity. How do you know what these certain ways are? Through preaching, learning, sermons, study.
Actually I suspect many of those with faith would argue that they come to know the will of their God through divine revelation or through proximity to their deity achieved by prayer. But we seem to have plenty of actual CoS and other believers on here so perhaps they could give us the benefit of their experience?

If you claim to get your morality from the bible or any other holy book, as many millions of people in this country do, and literally billions of people throughout the world, it is utterly inevitable that the understanding of the moral code is sought to be imposed on others.
Not it isn't. Where does the CoS do this?

Look at bible belt USA, or Uganda for examples of this. Your somewhat accomodationist "well they shoudnt impose their moral views on others" is missing the point. Religious authorities do just that, and you're dang tootin they shouldn't.
Why not look at Scotland which is what we were discussing? I happen to disagree with it but they aren't imposing anything on anyone outside of their own members.

People can hold views on anything they want, but when the view is only backed up by "the bible says it" for something as important as homophobic prejudice, I immediately see that view as being one formed from ignorance and subservience.
Let's get this straight (perhaps straight isn't the best term to use here). They are an organisation founded in a religious belief arising from their faith and their bible (however right or wrong external observers may judge that faith) and when they have a discussion among themselves in which there are different viewpoints and not yet a conclusion your view is that they pursuing homophobic prejudice?

What the CoS have cravenly done is issued a kind of wishy washy tut-tutting about the issue, and as a result not taken an opportunity to modernise itself and actually start reflecting the way society is. Why? Because the bible says so.
That's hilarious. You think an organised religion should be taking an opportunity to modernise itself? Why? Its not a supermarket, its a religion.

[Twa Cairpets]

I can't think of an enormous number of people I have met who had a faith who weren't also 'cafeteria' believers, ie they picked which elements of their faith they exercised and which they didn't. Just for a start, the vast majority of those who regard themselves as Christians in this country do not attend church ever Sunday. That's fairly selective against the tenets of their faith.

Yes. So the validity of their actions or claims of moral guidance as a result of this belief are equally selective, and therefore even by their own standards of biblical direction must be diluted.


No, it isn't a case of you're either accepting it all or you're completely making it up yourself. You are falling into a misleading reductionist trap here. Thats not what im saying - I'm not proposing it is an all or nothing gig. In fact, most people have considerable shades of gray in what it is they think they believe, and thats what makes it pointless.



I'd think it was bonkers. What's more important though is what you would think of yourself. I'd think I lived in a world of happy interpretative dance, which would be fine as long as it didnt go round proselytising about it. I'd stil be bonkers though.


That's true of almost anything. Those who accept the theory of relativity largely rely on the work of Einstein instead of working it though for themselves from first principles.
I'm not going to be drawn to far into the science side here, becuase you'll just shout "reductionism", but the point you make is irrelevant. Relativity is evidenced, tested, predictable and not requiring of faith. People cannot interpret what it is in thousands of different ways. If it was possible, for example, to wipe knowledge from people other than the ability to read and comprehend and then let them loose in a library, they would pretty quickly get to grip swith things like physics, agriculture and chemistry. The words written in any of the holy books woul dhave the same level of impact as The Lord of the Rings. Religion absolutely requires teaching and the passing of lore from generation to generation, starting at an early age before critical faculties exist.


An awful lot of people seem to have done just that. Sorry, to clarify, I meant without any access during their lives, not just born without access. I would be surprised if anyone has ever spontaneously started beliveing in God, Jesus or Allah without being told about them by another person.


Actually I suspect many of those with faith would argue that they come to know the will of their God through divine revelation or through proximity to their deity achieved by prayer. But we seem to have plenty of actual CoS and other believers on here so perhaps they could give us the benefit of their experience?
I'm even less inclined to take moral direction from people who claim it comes from voices in their head. If my pixie deity spoke to me would that be ok? No, of course not, I'd be carted off with my arms strapped behind me.


Not it isn't. Where does the CoS do this? Erm, in church, every Sunday?


Why not look at Scotland which is what we were discussing? I happen to disagree with it but they aren't imposing anything on anyone outside of their own members. But they are and do seek to have influence. You may disagree as per your reply to SiMar, but I think you're wrong. The point I'll make again is that the views from the pulpit permeate through society, it is not contained within the walls of the kirk.


They are an organisation founded in a religious belief arising from their faith and their bible (however right or wrong external observers may judge that faith) and when they have a discussion among themselves in which there are different viewpoints and not yet a conclusion your view is that they pursuing homophobic prejudice?
See above. Its not just "amongst themselves". The absence of condemnation of the prejudice is, in this situation, tacit approval of it.



That's hilarious. You think an organised religion should be taking an opportunity to modernise itself? Why? Its not a supermarket, its a religion [/B]
And religions dont modify themselves in line with prevailing social mores? Now that is hilarious! How often do they still preach about witchcraft? Or not condemning slavery (and before you jump on this yes the church had a key part in abolition, but that did take a few hundred years). How about the bits of the bible here women are deemed to be subservient to men? Or women cant be ordained as ministers?

If religion didnt morph to fit into what society at any given time views as acceptable, it would die completely. Its another reason why I view it with some disdain, because its foundational tenets are chameleon like.

[Twa Cairpets]

I found this. (http://translate.google.de/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bkae.org%2Findex.php%3Fid%3D439 %26L%3D1)Its a link to a German site, constructed by the Federation of Catholic Doctors. It has relevance to this thread because it is another group of religious people - this time Doctors, whcih is deeply scary - using their religion to justify their "treatments" for homosexuality, this time (and you can imagine how happy I was to find this), including homeopathy!!! Apparently its a platinum dilution you need to high potency. I never knew platinum caused homosexuality, but there you go. It also offers homeopathy for paedophilia, and I'll make no comment on that.

[97hills]

That's hilarious. You think an organised religion should be taking an opportunity to modernise itself? Why? Its not a supermarket, its a religion.

I think you have quite succinctly managed to some up why your argument is wrong by that statement. Isn't it incredibly worrying that even a hint of progression in an organisation which counts around 1 in 10 of everyone in Scotland as a member makes you laugh?

Are you not embarrassed to say that this is it? This is as far as we'll go? There is no need to improve on what we have now?

I for one would prefer to live in a society where we strive to improve in any and every way we can, not stifle it with dogma.

[PeeJay]

I found this. (http://translate.google.de/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bkae.org%2Findex.php%3Fid%3D439 %26L%3D1)Its a link to a German site, constructed by the Federation of Catholic Doctors. It has relevance to this thread because it is another group of religious people - this time Doctors, whcih is deeply scary - using their religion to justify their "treatments" for homosexuality, this time (and you can imagine how happy I was to find this), including homeopathy!!! Apparently its a platinum dilution you need to high potency. I never knew platinum caused homosexuality, but there you go. It also offers homeopathy for paedophilia, and I'll make no comment on that.


Initially I laughed out loud when I read this on "Der Spiegel" this morning, (although if truth be told, TC, your link to the Google-inspired translation of the German site was even more hilarious than the intentions of the docs!), but then I thought only recently we had an octogenarian rapture prophesising nutist actually convincing "believers" to sell up and head for the hills because the end was nigh (postponed until October apparently)! So, surely, by the same token – believers who are also homosexual and who not only have faith in God, but in the art of homeopathy too, may find that their “aberration” (astonishingly a word used to describe them elsewhere in this thread, if I’m not mistaken) can indeed undergo therapy and be “cured” through faith – i.e. in God and mini globules . A truly nonsensical idea for me, but it seems these German doctors (hardly intellectually challenged) are only aiming to help those “afflicted” souls who are desperate for a way out of what they all perceive to be a problem?

For people who have faith in an omniscient God and the associated fairy tales, the step to knocking back some little sugar-coated globules and water to cure an inclination deemed by a religious group to be an aberration, is probably not a big one: I guess as long as they "believe" everything might turn out OK.

Anyway, taking this back to the OP’s original question: the thinking that propagates such nonsense is one reason for me to wish the demise of organised religion in general and the COS in particular, asap! We really need to move away from superstition and intolerance.

This type of thinking also lays waste to the claim that “we” simply let the religious-minded practise their beliefs as they are not doing anyone else any harm – this German group of doctors and all religious faiths in this country are violently opposed, e.g. in this country to PID, because they claim every embryo has a soul and is a life in its own right and… OK, it’s another topic for another day.

Role on the demise of the COS and all religions! Mind you it's "Ascension Day" here in Germany and most people are on a public holiday because of it, so maybe I need to rethink that?:rolleyes:

[Beefster]

Sadly, it would appear from this, and other related threads, that there are atheists who are just as prejudiced or patronising towards those that don't share their beliefs as any Christian/Muslim/Sikh etc etc.

[easty]

If I was to claim I believe God is a transdimensional pixie called Kevin McKevinson and he commanded that mankind needed saving through the medium of interpretive dance - and truly believed it - would you think I was bonkers or held a valid belief system because it was my own personal relationship with the divine pixie?


We're in the same religion. I thought I was the only Scottish member. :greengrin

To me, that's really no more ridiculous than believing in God and the bible. Yeah you might sound like a loony shouting about it in the Meadows but just because millions of people believe in a ridiculous story doesn't make it anymore, or any less, true.

[Beefster]

If its not based on holy teachings as passed down through holy men and books its essentially completely made up by an individual, which most people would define as either mad or weird. If I was to claim I believe God is a transdimensional pixie called Kevin McKevinson and he commanded that mankind needed saving through the medium of interpretive dance - and truly believed it - would you think I was bonkers or held a valid belief system because it was my own personal relationship with the divine pixie?

Is it really any dafter than believing that stomach ulcers are caused by stress or that the universe is static? All widely-held beliefs until proven otherwise.

[Twa Cairpets]

Is it really any dafter than believing that stomach ulcers are caused by stress or that the universe is static? All widely-held beliefs until proven otherwise.

You give yourself the answer to your question - "until proven otherwise". For things that are relevant to scientific investigation, you have a hypothesis, you test it, and when it fails you discard it. You can do this with your examples, you cant with God.

Its not a case of semantics, but there is a difference between faith (as defined elsewhere on this thread), and belief.


Sadly, it would appear from this, and other related threads, that there are atheists who are just as prejudiced or patronising towards those that don't share their beliefs as any Christian/Muslim/Sikh etc etc

I dont know if you are referring to me, but this card is played regularly in these discussions. Disagreement with peoples religious belief is pretty much always seen as being patronising or disrespectful, usually for no other reason than that it is seen as being too personal a topic to challenge. I dont think prejudiced is a fair criticism.

If you catch me saying - "you're a christian,therefore you're a twat" I'll take that accusation on the chin. If I say "you're a christian, I think your belief system is flawed" then that is a debate, not prejudice. I'm more than happy to defend and discuss my point of view without resorting to slagging, as I think most contributors to this thread (and others) from both sides are.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Is it really any dafter than believing that stomach ulcers are caused by stress or that the universe is static? All widely-held beliefs until proven otherwise.

or believing that hibs will one day win the scottish cup:wink:

[97hills]

Sadly, it would appear from this, and other related threads, that there are atheists who are just as prejudiced or patronising towards those that don't share their beliefs as any Christian/Muslim/Sikh etc etc.

Really? First dictionary definition of prejudice I came across:

"an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason."

When this whole thread has been using the 'reason' side to show how ludicrous religion is. The great thing about science is that it keeps on developing. If a great big hand pops down from the sky, picks up all the bad people in world, cures the world of cancer, stops natural disasters, wipes the world clean of AIDS (except for those who are gay of course) then scientists will reevaluate their theories. However, as things stand now, it is so blatantly obvious the word of god should be taken in the same realm as the tooth fairy, santa claus, zeus or kevin mckevinson. i.e. all it is is creating a 'being' to get people to act in a way that you want.

Patronising? Possibly. But if you have millions of people that live their life in a specific way because of what one book tells them and you can see that they are all disillusioned then it's possibly hard not to be slightly patronising. Not because I'm deliberately trying to be hurtful, but because these people are so brainwashed to think in a way which beggars belief. Much in the same way anyone would talk to a Mormon if they were having an in depth truthful discussion about their religion:

"Really, you were officially a racist organisation until 1978? However, I will never say any of that is wrong because it may patronise your belief system and something that you have based your entire life on"

Thing is, I see all religions the same. All of them have their one little tidbits of craziness and they all have underlying rules which create prejudice.

If anyone is interested you should have a look at the 'global peace index'. This is an organisation which takes an in depth look at how we can create 'peace' and analyses what factors in the most peaceful countries have helped create it. Now there are clearly a vast array of factors that can affect this but an interesting finding was that the amount of conflict within a country is very clearly correlated to the religious following within that country. Additionally, the emancipation of women is a massive factor but we all know what your book thinks of them!

[Betty Boop]

Really? First dictionary definition of prejudice I came across:

"an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason."

When this whole thread has been using the 'reason' side to show how ludicrous religion is. The great thing about science is that it keeps on developing. If a great big hand pops down from the sky, picks up all the bad people in world, cures the world of cancer, stops natural disasters, wipes the world clean of AIDS (except for those who are gay of course) then scientists will reevaluate their theories. However, as things stand now, it is so blatantly obvious the word of god should be taken in the same realm as the tooth fairy, santa claus, zeus or kevin mckevinson. i.e. all it is is creating a 'being' to get people to act in a way that you want.

Patronising? Possibly. But if you have millions of people that live their life in a specific way because of what one book tells them and you can see that they are all disillusioned then it's possibly hard not to be slightly patronising. Not because I'm deliberately trying to be hurtful, but because these people are so brainwashed to think in a way which beggars belief. Much in the same way anyone would talk to a Mormon if they were having an in depth truthful discussion about their religion:

"Really, you were officially a racist organisation until 1978? However, I will never say any of that is wrong because it may patronise your belief system and something that you have based your entire life on"

Thing is, I see all religions the same. All of them have their one little tidbits of craziness and they all have underlying rules which create prejudice.

If anyone is interested you should have a look at the 'global peace index'. This is an organisation which takes an in depth look at how we can create 'peace' and analyses what factors in the most peaceful countries have helped create it. Now there are clearly a vast array of factors that can affect this but an interesting finding was that the amount of conflict within a country is very clearly correlated to the religious following within that country. Additionally, the emancipation of women is a massive factor but we all know what your book thinks of them!

Interesting to read that Israel along with Bahrain received the worst possible rating in the 'Disrespect for Human Rights category' with a 5/5, with North Korea, Iran and Saudi Arabia on 4/5.

[Beefster]

You give yourself the answer to your question - "until proven otherwise". For things that are relevant to scientific investigation, you have a hypothesis, you test it, and when it fails you discard it. You can do this with your examples, you cant with God.

Its not a case of semantics, but there is a difference between faith (as defined elsewhere on this thread), and belief.



I dont know if you are referring to me, but this card is played regularly in these discussions. Disagreement with peoples religious belief is pretty much always seen as being patronising or disrespectful, usually for no other reason than that it is seen as being too personal a topic to challenge. I dont think prejudiced is a fair criticism.

If you catch me saying - "you're a christian,therefore you're a twat" I'll take that accusation on the chin. If I say "you're a christian, I think your belief system is flawed" then that is a debate, not prejudice. I'm more than happy to defend and discuss my point of view without resorting to slagging, as I think most contributors to this thread (and others) from both sides are.

You freely admit that most folk (and yourself) believe (and have done numerous times before) theories that have no real evidence behind them. Who is to say that those who believe in God don't use the same rationale as you (i.e. I'll believe in him until his existence is proven or otherwise)?

Just to be clear, I was talking about the folk that insult or patronise those who are religious and I don't play any 'cards'. As folk might know from my posts, I'll call things as I see them. I'll happily admit that 'prejudice' may have been the wrong word, if some are going to concentrate on that rather than the sentiment. Phrases like 'fairy stories' and the like are unnecessary. If you've done that then yes, it applies to you. If not, it doesn't. The post you quoted was aimed at the general tone of the thread rather than any individual though.

I'm not defending anyone (as you might have seen, I've already argued against FH's original post) but this is going the way that every other debate about religion or politics goes on here.

[The Baldmans Comb]

I don't expect many people on here to be particularly concerned with this issue, in fact I actually hear some people cheering at the thought of this happening as I type this post!

However, one issue that has really caught my eye over the past couple of days has been the decision of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (AKA 'The Kirk') to permit openly homosexual men and women to be ordained as CoS ministers, for at least the next two years whilst a study is published on the wider issues.

This whole issue has the potential to seriously split the Church of Scotland and threatens its status as Scotland's national church.

My own personal belief, which I am not afraid to say, is that this is a very wrong move that the church has taken. I believe that the Bible is very clear on what is and what isn't acceptable and that includes homosexual relations.

A minister, in my eyes anyway, is supposed to uphold good moral standards and I don't know how that can be compatible with what the Bible states on homosexual practices. I do not agree that homosexuality should be a criminal offence, I have always stated that I am opposed to that and the idea that someone should be stoned to death or whatever for being a homosexual is totally unacceptable and, as far as this country goes anyway, was rightly left behind in a previous century where it belongs.

I never have had, and never will have, anything against individual people who are homosexual. However that does not mean to say that I have to agree with their relationships etc and if I am being honest, yes I do feel quite uncomfortable watching two people of the same sex being passionate with one another.

For me, one of the single most important institutions in the world today is that of marriage and, to me, marriage must only be defined as the union between one man and one woman. I do not agree with any exceptions or variations to this rule.

If, as seems to be the case, the ordination of homosexual ministers within the Church of Scotland becomes common practice in the months and years ahead, how on Earth can a homosexual minister, who cannot legally marry in this country (at least not yet anyway, I'm sure that'll change over the next few years), possibly conduct a religious wedding ceremony and, at the same time, speak as an authoritative figure on issues such as the sanctity of marriage?

I just hope that the people who have taken this decision know what they are letting themselves - and the church - in for. Around 20% of Church of Scotland members, who were asked, stated that they would seek to leave the church, should the ordination of homosexual clergy be permitted and already a minister from the Highlands has stated his intention to resign from his post, following this decision.

Yes I'm sure that there will always be a church called the Church of Scotland but in what form and at what price? I can see a similar thing happening here as what happened when the Church of England voted to ordain women as bishops a few years ago and many members left the Church of England and joined the Roman Catholic Church.

Now obviously this is a completely separate issue and I have no problem at all with the ordination of women, after all the Church of Scotland has had female ministers for many decades. However, this is probably the biggest crisis to hit the Church of Scotland for almost 170 years, since hundreds of ministers left the church to establish the Free Church of Scotland in 1843 and I can see many members leaving over this to go and join other Presbyterian churches.

Thoughts anyone?

The end of the Church of Scotland can't come quick enough for a myriad of reasons starting with you.:confused:

[Beefster]

or believing that hibs will one day win the scottish cup:wink:

God popping into my house for a cup of tea with Mohammed and Richard Dawkins is more likely than that!

[bighairyfaeleith]

You freely admit that most folk (and yourself) believe (and have done numerous times before) theories that have no real evidence behind them. Who is to say that those who believe in God don't use the same rationale as you (i.e. I'll believe in him until his existence is proven or otherwise)?

Just to be clear, I was talking about the folk that insult or patronise those who are religious and I don't play any 'cards'. As folk might know from my posts, I'll call things as I see them. I'll happily admit that 'prejudice' may have been the wrong word, if some are going to concentrate on that rather than the sentiment. Phrases like 'fairy stories' and the like are unnecessary. If you've done that then yes, it applies to you. If not, it doesn't. The post you quoted was aimed at the general tone of the thread rather than any individual though.

I'm not defending anyone (as you might have seen, I've already argued against FH's original post) but this is going the way that every other debate about religion or politics goes on here.

Don't think I have done that on this thread however I have in the past, not because I want to patronise someone just because it can be frustrating when you can clearly see something is wrong but they still blindly accept it as true.

It's similar to arguing with a jambo, you know there wrong, everyone else around knows there wrong but they still stand there looking smug saying there right to follow there chosen one, in hearts case vlad.

I try and adopt the each to there own etc but on a thread like this with a belter of an op that we had I am quite astonished the the thread has stayed as dignified as it has.

[Twa Cairpets]

You freely admit that most folk (and yourself) believe (and have done numerous times before) theories that have no real evidence behind them. Who is to say that those who believe in God don't use the same rationale as you (i.e. I'll believe in him until his existence is proven or otherwise)?

No, there is a huge difference. The examples you gave and any other of countless ones that could be given are examples of people rejecting things when they see it isnt so or there is no substance behind them. This is not a pop at religion, I just don't think it valid to conflate belief in the tangible and faith in the intangible.


Just to be clear, I was talking about the folk that insult or patronise those who are religious and I don't play any 'cards'. As folk might know from my posts, I'll call things as I see them. I'll happily admit that 'prejudice' may have been the wrong word, if some are going to concentrate on that rather than the sentiment. Phrases like 'fairy stories' and the like are unnecessary. If you've done that then yes, it applies to you. If not, it doesn't. The post you quoted was aimed at the general tone of the thread rather than any individual though.
Just to be clear in return, the "card playing" was aimed at the general tendency of it being raised in matters of this type.


I'm not defending anyone (as you might have seen, I've already argued against FH's original post) but this is going the way that every other debate about religion or politics goes on here.

Happy to keep it very much on track of the OP, but the nature of discussion of these things will inevitably grow arms and legs - thats not a bad thing necessarily.

[BEEJ]

Really? First dictionary definition of prejudice I came across:

"an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason."

When this whole thread has been using the 'reason' side to show how ludicrous religion is. The great thing about science is that it keeps on developing. If a great big hand pops down from the sky, picks up all the bad people in world, cures the world of cancer, stops natural disasters, wipes the world clean of AIDS (except for those who are gay of course) then scientists will reevaluate their theories. However, as things stand now, it is so blatantly obvious the word of god should be taken in the same realm as the tooth fairy, santa claus, zeus or kevin mckevinson. i.e. all it is is creating a 'being' to get people to act in a way that you want.
Unfortunately, that paragraph implies prejudice, I'm afraid. You may have applied 'reason', but (using your own quoted definition) there is not even a hint of superficial knowledge in there of any of the main religions.

I trust that you have much stronger arguments tucked away somewhere?


Patronising? Possibly. But if you have millions of people that live their life in a specific way because of what one book tells them and you can see that they are all disillusioned then it's possibly hard not to be slightly patronising. Not because I'm deliberately trying to be hurtful, but because these people are so brainwashed to think in a way which beggars belief.
No. 'Almost certainly'. :greengrin


Thing is, I see all religions the same. All of them have their one little tidbits of craziness and they all have underlying rules which create prejudice.
Well at least you admited it in the end. :wink: But it appears to have been turned around to be the fault of the belief system that has caused it, just by its very existence!

By all means have a rant at religion / faith / belief as being the cause of all the worlds ills, if you wish. No one should be that precious or offended by the expression of such views.

But at least recognise and be honest about your own attitudes in doing so.

[97hills]

You freely admit that most folk (and yourself) believe (and have done numerous times before) theories that have no real evidence behind them. Who is to say that those who believe in God don't use the same rationale as you (i.e. I'll believe in him until his existence is proven or otherwise)?

Just to be clear, I was talking about the folk that insult or patronise those who are religious and I don't play any 'cards'. As folk might know from my posts, I'll call things as I see them. I'll happily admit that 'prejudice' may have been the wrong word, if some are going to concentrate on that rather than the sentiment. Phrases like 'fairy stories' and the like are unnecessary. If you've done that then yes, it applies to you. If not, it doesn't. The post you quoted was aimed at the general tone of the thread rather than any individual though.

I'm not defending anyone (as you might have seen, I've already argued against FH's original post) but this is going the way that every other debate about religion or politics goes on here.

What a ridiculous post. Scientific theories have rationale behind them such as the theory of gravity. Every single one of them is looked at, critiqued, analysed and improved if necessary. It is an infinite process. It's not aimless, it is built of years and years of research and will continue to improve.

There is a huge amount of evidence that suggests god does not exist and one book to suggest he does. I know which one I believe is more likely

To go down the route of believing something because it cannot be proved that it does not exist with absolute 100% accuracy is truly ridiculous. Why not worship a unicorn? Can you prove to me with 100% certainty that they do not exist?

You really start on a very slippery slope when you believe that's somethings's ok to believe in when it only cannot be disproved with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. That's all we're searching for, a bit of evidence and reason as to why we should believe in god. If I die and I find myself at the pearly gates I will dramatically rethink my outlook at religion. However, failing that, I've not heard one decent reason why I should believe in God or should think he exists.

[RyeSloan]

No it doesn't and no they don't.

Right so the fact that Church leaders have access to 10 downing street, the Scottsh 1st Minister and the ability to have their views and thoughts published in a wide variety of media proves to you that they only have influence on their own congregations. Must admit I simply don't get that :confused:

[Beefster]

What a ridiculous post. Scientific theories have rationale behind them such as the theory of gravity. Every single one of them is looked at, critiqued, analysed and improved if necessary. It is an infinite process. It's not aimless, it is built of years and years of research and will continue to improve.

There is a huge amount of evidence that suggests god does not exist and one book to suggest he does. I know which one I believe is more likely

To go down the route of believing something because it cannot be proved that it does not exist with absolute 100% accuracy is truly ridiculous. Why not worship a unicorn? Can you prove to me with 100% certainty that they do not exist?

You really start on a very slippery slope when you believe that's somethings's ok to believe in when it only cannot be disproved with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. That's all we're searching for, a bit of evidence and reason as to why we should believe in god. If I die and I find myself at the pearly gates I will dramatically rethink my outlook at religion. However, failing that, I've not heard one decent reason why I should believe in God or should think he exists.

Thanks for starting off by ridiculing my post. Good start. Your post is a prime example of the sort of stuff I was referring to earlier. 'Ridiculous', 'unicorns', yadda, yadda, yadda.

By the way, a theory is just that - a theory. There is no theory of gravity - it's a proven fact. I'd imagine that more theories are disproved than are ever proved though so should we not pay any attention to any theories until they are proven?

I'm not sure who you think is trying to convince you to believe in God, Buddha, Mohammed or whoever but I'm dying to hear the huge amount of [concrete, indisputable] evidence that he/she/they do[es]n't exist though. You might just be about to become famous.

Incidentally, I have a Maths/Science degree so I am loosely aware of how theories are proven or rejected. If you think science is some sort of slow and steady march towards the truth, read some Kuhn.

[One Day Soon]

Yes. So the validity of their actions or claims of moral guidance as a result of this belief are equally selective, and therefore even by their own standards of biblical direction must be diluted.
So what? Exactly the same thing pertains in science where advances are often made becuase scientists do not accept or fully accept the conventional theories and test new approaches against their own thinking. The fact that there is to some extent individual interpretation doesn't detract from the core thesis does it?

Thats not what im saying - I'm not proposing it is an all or nothing gig. In fact, most people have considerable shades of gray in what it is they think they believe, and thats what makes it pointless.
Why does it make it pointless? Do the different views of almost every Hibs supporter on how we should play, who we should sign and who we should play make that pointless?


I'd think I lived in a world of happy interpretative dance, which would be fine as long as it didnt go round proselytising about it. I'd stil be bonkers though.
You would. Still, doesn't sound like too bad a place to live. Is there a membership fee?


I'm not going to be drawn to far into the science side here, becuase you'll just shout "reductionism", but the point you make is irrelevant. Relativity is evidenced, tested, predictable and not requiring of faith. People cannot interpret what it is in thousands of different ways. If it was possible, for example, to wipe knowledge from people other than the ability to read and comprehend and then let them loose in a library, they would pretty quickly get to grip swith things like physics, agriculture and chemistry. The words written in any of the holy books woul dhave the same level of impact as The Lord of the Rings. Religion absolutely requires teaching and the passing of lore from generation to generation, starting at an early age before critical faculties exist.
I will shout reductionism because that again is what you are doing. Nothing wrong in that but this just illustrates the futility of trying to reconcile these two approaches. One is reductive and the other isn't, they are therefore incompatible. If it was possibleto wipe knowledge from people other than the ability to read and comprehend and then let them loose in a library, they would pretty quickly get to grips withthe Christian and other faiths. Science absolutely requires teaching and the passing of knowledge from generation to generation starting at an nearly age before critical faculties exist.

Sorry, to clarify, I meant without any access during their lives, not just born without access. I would be surprised if anyone has ever spontaneously started beliveing in God, Jesus or Allah without being told about them by another person.
Really? The specific historical figure perhaps, but surely not God?


I'm even less inclined to take moral direction from people who claim it comes from voices in their head. If my pixie deity spoke to me would that be ok? No, of course not, I'd be carted off with my arms strapped behind me.
Who says you should take moral direction from any faith if you aren't a follower? Why the voices in their head reference? If you have an idea, is that a voice in your head?

Erm, in church, every Sunday?
You are claiming that the CoS seeks to impose its moral code on others in church every Sunday? You have noticed that it is generally only members of the CoS who attend church in CoS churches on sunday. Or have they developed some kind of paramilitary wing which goes around forcing innocent bystanders into church?

But they are and do seek to have influence. You may disagree as per your reply to SiMar, but I think you're wrong. The point I'll make again is that the views from the pulpit permeate through society, it is not contained within the walls of the kirk.
Seeking is not the same as having. Show me some evidence of having real influence. Which views from the pulpit permeate through society and how do you see that manifested?

See above. Its not just "amongst themselves". The absence of condemnation of the prejudice is, in this situation, tacit approval of it.
It is amongst themselves, or have they started framing proposals for government, Network Rail, Universities, hospitals, taxi drivers etc as to how they should conduct themselves and who can and cannot be members and office bearers within those and other institutions? To take your assertion and turn it on its head, the absence of a decision to force homosexual ministers from the Kirk is, in this situation, tacit approval of it.


And religions dont modify themselves in line with prevailing social mores? Now that is hilarious! How often do they still preach about witchcraft? Or not condemning slavery (and before you jump on this yes the church had a key part in abolition, but that did take a few hundred years). How about the bits of the bible here women are deemed to be subservient to men? Or women cant be ordained as ministers?
That's not my point as I am sure you are well aware. You are expecting an institution which is almost unique in its structure, purpose and (apart from other churches of course) origins to react in a way that almost any other functional oraganisation might act. Which it won't - probably cannot - because its a church. If you are going to judge it by those standards you are going to be permanently disappointed. I'm not saying it is right, I'm saying that talking about it 'modernising' is just ludicrous. Did it mention witchcraft in the bible by the way? I can't recall it.

If religion didnt morph to fit into what society at any given time views as acceptable, it would die completely. Its another reason why I view it with some disdain, because its foundational tenets are chameleon like.

I think you are being a little disingenuous as to your reason for disliking religion. You think the Mormons, Catholic Church, Islam have morphed into what society finds acceptable? Pro polygamy (I think, could be wrong), anti abortion, anti contraception and not exactly hostile to limb removal or stoning to death in certain circumstances are hardly what I would describe as 'acceptable' even in their own core areas.

[One Day Soon]

I think you have quite succinctly managed to some up why your argument is wrong by that statement. Isn't it incredibly worrying that even a hint of progression in an organisation which counts around 1 in 10 of everyone in Scotland as a member makes you laugh?
See above.

Are you not embarrassed to say that this is it? This is as far as we'll go? There is no need to improve on what we have now?
I'm not saying anything of the sort. What are you talking about?

I for one would prefer to live in a society where we strive to improve in any and every way we can, not stifle it with dogma.
I agree. Go join the CoS and then you can express your view there as a member with some chance of being listened to. You don't think they should tell people how to think and behave, so what makes you think they should listen to your views on how they should think and behave within their own organisation?

[Twa Cairpets]

Thanks for starting off by ridiculing my post. Good start. Your post is a prime example of the sort of stuff I was referring to earlier. 'Ridiculous', 'unicorns', yadda, yadda, yadda.

By the way, a theory is just that - a theory. There is no theory of gravity - it's a proven fact. I'd imagine that more theories are disproved than are ever proved though so should we not pay any attention to any theories until they are proven?

I'm not sure who you think is trying to convince you to believe in God, Buddha, Mohammed or whoever but I'm dying to hear the huge amount of [concrete, indisputable] evidence that he/she/they do[es]n't exist though. You might just be about to become famous.

Incidentally, I have a Maths/Science degree so I am loosely aware of how theories are proven or rejected. If you think science is some sort of slow and steady march towards the truth, read some Kuhn.

More of a Popper man myself...

And strictly speaking gravity is covered by laws rather than facts.

Hypotheses tend to be disproved a lot - it takes a lot in scientific terms to move from a hypothesis into a robust theory, and is always subject to review and update as more evidence presents itself - take evolution and the very recent advances in the rols of junk DNA, for example.

Im sure 97hills will defend him/herself, but the gripe I have is the wider impact of faith based morality impacting upon societal values. I don't personally think (in the UK anyway) there is much overt attempt by mainstream religions to evangelise. There is some, but not much. The acceptable and accepted mainstream churches, be they CoS, RC or whatever hold beliefs that I find morally wrong, and they champion/espouse/defend as being morally right on the basis of their faith. If people are prejudiced against gay people then fine, thats a different argument - you can talk about why they are. If there argument is "the bible/priest/minister says its wrong", its an example of people not willing to think for themsleves and receiving divine justification for their bigotry.

[Twa Cairpets]

So what? Exactly the same thing pertains in science where advances are often made becuase scientists do not accept or fully accept the conventional theories and test new approaches against their own thinking. The fact that there is to some extent individual interpretation doesn't detract from the core thesis does it?

One way of looking at things is designed to be challenged and developed and changed in the light of discovery and evidence. The other isnt because it is fundamentally rooted in a boxed set of rules that dont allow themselves to be challenged without adopting the most tortuous apologist stance.


Why does it make it pointless? Do the different views of almost every Hibs supporter on how we should play, who we should sign and who we should play make that pointless?
Its pointless bcuas it means that everyone just makes up what they want as being divine guidance. Why not just decide whats right and wrong all by yourself?


You would. Still, doesn't sound like too bad a place to live. Is there a membership fee?
You cant join, you don't believe therefore you have no right to comment :wink:


I will shout reductionism because that again is what you are doing. Nothing wrong in that but this just illustrates the futility of trying to reconcile these two approaches. One is reductive and the other isn't, they are therefore incompatible. If it was possibleto wipe knowledge from people other than the ability to read and comprehend and then let them loose in a library, they would pretty quickly get to grips withthe Christian and other faiths. Science absolutely requires teaching and the passing of knowledge from generation to generation starting at an nearly age before critical faculties exist.
I see what you did there.
But I'd ask you to think about it a bit further. Take our library full of keen, but blank minds. All the things which are tangible, real and for want of a better word, do-able, they'll say, "oh, yeh, I see that", because it happening is not contingent upon them having faith in it happening. If you give them the Koran, the Talmud, the Bible or any other holy book, they wil have absolutely nothing to base an opinion on of which is right. They cant test what they say. They cant experience the truth of them.



Really? The specific historical figure perhaps, but surely not God? If belief is a hard wired requirement, and I had no direction from anyone, I think you'd be hard pushed to see past regarding the sun as the thing worthy of worship.


Why the voices in their head reference? If you have an idea, is that a voice in your head?
You started it with the people believing God talks to them.


You are claiming that the CoS seeks to impose its moral code on others in church every Sunday? You have noticed that it is generally only members of the CoS who attend church in CoS churches on sunday. Or have they developed some kind of paramilitary wing which goes around forcing innocent bystanders into church?

Do the people come out of church after the service? Do they interact with other people in the community?


Seeking is not the same as having. Show me some evidence of having real influence. Which views from the pulpit permeate through society and how do you see that manifested?
Views on marriage, homosexuality, divorce, blasphemy. I think you'd be hard pushed to claim the opposite.


It is amongst themselves, or have they started framing proposals for government, Network Rail, Universities, hospitals, taxi drivers etc as to how they should conduct themselves and who can and cannot be members and office bearers within those and other institutions? To take your assertion and turn it on its head, the absence of a decision to force homosexual ministers from the Kirk is, in this situation, tacit approval of it.
They do lay down guidelines for members of government, network rail, doctors and taxi drivers. some of the guidelines are good, others not so hot. The good ones to me tend to be basic human qualities, the bad ones the sanctification of prejudice.



That's not my point as I am sure you are well aware. You are expecting an institution which is almost unique in its structure, purpose and (apart from other churches of course) origins to react in a way that almost any other functional oraganisation might act. Which it won't - probably cannot - because its a church. If you are going to judge it by those standards you are going to be permanently disappointed. I'm not saying it is right, I'm saying that talking about it 'modernising' is just ludicrous. Did it mention witchcraft in the bible by the way? I can't recall it.

It is the point as I read it.

It should be judged on what it stands for, regardless of what it is.

And yes, Exodus 22:18


I think you are being a little disingenuous as to your reason for disliking religion. You think the Mormons, Catholic Church, Islam have morphed into what society finds acceptable? Pro polygamy (I think, could be wrong), anti abortion, anti contraception and not exactly hostile to limb removal or stoning to death in certain circumstances are hardly what I would describe as 'acceptable' even in their own core areas. Youre correct. Different societies tolerate the influenc eof religion in different ways. In the west, the church has had to keep up with society or risk being marginalised. In many muslim countries, the refusal to allow change in what are effectively theocracies has caused repression and stunted progress.

[97hills]

Thanks for starting off by ridiculing my post. Good start. Your post is a prime example of the sort of stuff I was referring to earlier. 'Ridiculous', 'unicorns', yadda, yadda, yadda.

By the way, a theory is just that - a theory. There is no theory of gravity - it's a proven fact. I'd imagine that more theories are disproved than are ever proved though so should we not pay any attention to any theories until they are proven?

I'm not sure who you think is trying to convince you to believe in God, Buddha, Mohammed or whoever but I'm dying to hear the huge amount of [concrete, indisputable] evidence that he/she/they do[es]n't exist though. You might just be about to become famous.

Incidentally, I have a Maths/Science degree so I am loosely aware of how theories are proven or rejected. If you think science is some sort of slow and steady march towards the truth, read some Kuhn.

Ridiculous views and beliefs deserve ridicule. No subject is immune from it and quite rightly so. It just so happens that this particular belief is so ingrained in our society that any word against it is offensive to them. They have the right to believe in whatever fictitious character they want, however, I have the right to show them why I think their beliefs are absurd. This thread is about explaining why I think that.

There is no vendetta against the small congregation who for the most part, are incredibly caring. The vendetta is against religion as a whole and what it represents. If all Christians were like my Gran it would be a truly brilliant organisation but this is obviously not the case and to be honest, prejudice against homosexuals is really just the tip of the iceberg.

Can you please explain your middle two paragraphs again please as I don't really understand what you're getting at. In science, nothing is 100%. There is always an element of doubt even if it is absolutely minuscule. All I am saying that it appears so obvious to me that god doesn't exist because of the evidence we have. I stated that if I'm at the pearly gates I will revise my opinions. However, nobody on this thread has been able to offer me reasonable evidence that he does exist. It seems so obvious to me that god is man made and not other way about.

I'm not particularly familiar with Kuhn but don't really understand what you're getting at here either. Science is very slow moving so we should give up on it and just hope we get the major breakthroughs? It doesn't really work like that. Science as we know it now has been built on years and years of research. These major breakthroughs happen unexpectedly and very often can arise through the previous research. At that point, new departments can literally be created at universities. If we look 200 years from now, some of our scientific views now will almost certainly be thought of as ridiculous but therein lies the beauty of science. It is innately sceptical and as soon as your able to demonstrate progression within a particular field, theories will be revised.

[The Green Goblin]

I'll say it again; the OP is very conspicuous by his absence.

GG

[Beefster]

More of a Popper man myself...

Meh, I wasn't so much of a fan, especially when it came to swans!

[Beefster]

Ridiculous views and beliefs deserve ridicule. No subject is immune from it and quite rightly so. It just so happens that this particular belief is so ingrained in our society that any word against it is offensive to them. They have the right to believe in whatever fictitious character they want, however, I have the right to show them why I think their beliefs are absurd. This thread is about explaining why I think that.

There is no vendetta against the small congregation who for the most part, are incredibly caring. The vendetta is against religion as a whole and what it represents. If all Christians were like my Gran it would be a truly brilliant organisation but this is obviously not the case and to be honest, prejudice against homosexuals is really just the tip of the iceberg.

Can you please explain your middle two paragraphs again please as I don't really understand what you're getting at. In science, nothing is 100%. There is always an element of doubt even if it is absolutely minuscule. All I am saying that it appears so obvious to me that god doesn't exist because of the evidence we have. I stated that if I'm at the pearly gates I will revise my opinions. However, nobody on this thread has been able to offer me reasonable evidence that he does exist. It seems so obvious to me that god is man made and not other way about.

I'm not particularly familiar with Kuhn but don't really understand what you're getting at here either. Science is very slow moving so we should give up on it and just hope we get the major breakthroughs? It doesn't really work like that. Science as we know it now has been built on years and years of research. These major breakthroughs happen unexpectedly and very often can arise through the previous research. At that point, new departments can literally be created at universities. If we look 200 years from now, some of our scientific views now will almost certainly be thought of as ridiculous but therein lies the beauty of science. It is innately sceptical and as soon as your able to demonstrate progression within a particular field, theories will be revised.

I have absolutely no objection to someone saying God does / doesn't exist. What gets my goat is the way that the debate dumbs down to, effectively, taking the piss out of the other side's view/belief. I'm guilty of it myself sometimes.

Anyway, my apologies for what was, rather, a stream of consciousness rather than any sort of coherent argument.

[97hills]

I have absolutely no objection to someone saying God does / doesn't exist. What gets my goat is the way that the debate dumbs down to, effectively, taking the piss out of the other side's view/belief. I'm guilty of it myself sometimes.

Anyway, my apologies for what was, rather, a stream of consciousness rather than any sort of coherent argument.

Fair enough.

I have tried to stay above taking the piss but it is hard to say that you're totally disillusioned and you have based your entire life on a fictitious book without seeming like you are taking the piss. I have tried to be constructive in my arguments and always tried to back it up with evidence rather than dogma. It's quite hard to make flattering comparisons to god when you believe he's a myth.

[hibsbollah]

I'll say it again; the OP is very conspicuous by his absence.

GG

Ive already raised this. His existence is now seriously in doubt IMO. Either that or hes omnipresent.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Hmm, maybe the Bonnybridge triangle has claimed another victim. Either that or he is off on holiday to visist Old Trafford or something.

Always believe in God.

[One Day Soon]

One way of looking at things is designed to be challenged and developed and changed in the light of discovery and evidence. The other isnt because it is fundamentally rooted in a boxed set of rules that dont allow themselves to be challenged without adopting the most tortuous apologist stance.
Reductionist


Its pointless bcuas it means that everyone just makes up what they want as being divine guidance. Why not just decide whats right and wrong all by yourself?
Unless of course it IS divine guidance. How do you know it isn't?

You cant join, you don't believe therefore you have no right to comment :wink:
Well do you mind then if I defend your right to think what you want? :wink:


I see what you did there.
But I'd ask you to think about it a bit further. Take our library full of keen, but blank minds. All the things which are tangible, real and for want of a better word, do-able, they'll say, "oh, yeh, I see that", because it happening is not contingent upon them having faith in it happening. If you give them the Koran, the Talmud, the Bible or any other holy book, they wil have absolutely nothing to base an opinion on of which is right. They cant test what they say. They cant experience the truth of them.
That's right, because it is based in faith, not science.


If belief is a hard wired requirement, and I had no direction from anyone, I think you'd be hard pushed to see past regarding the sun as the thing worthy of worship.
People over generation upon generation seem to have managed to see past the sun as the thing worthy of worship - before they had a bible to tell them what to do.


You started it with the people believing God talks to them.
You turned that into voices in your head. Is your idea a voice in your head?



Do the people come out of church after the service? Do they interact with other people in the community?
That's desperately thin. There's a world of difference between the rules they decide to operate their church by and the implications for its members on the one hand and their interaction with people outside of the CoS on the other. The rules of the golf club aren't packed into the back of the volvo and imposed in the supermarket, library or strip club.


Views on marriage, homosexuality, divorce, blasphemy. I think you'd be hard pushed to claim the opposite.
Marriage is in decline and civil partnerships are now legal - no win for the church there.
Divorce is as easy as falling over and regarded as acceptable as Sky television - no win for the Church there.
Homosexuality is legal, gay people live as equals in the community and from Julian Clary to Dale Winton it is celebrated on national television. the country's most prominent soap features a gay man and couple as a core strand of its plot. - no win for the church there.
Blasphemy - takes place openly every day and on television routinely - no win for the church there.
Is there a parallel CoS in a parallel Scotland that I'm not aware of? Feel free to set out where and how the Church has imposed its views on the government though.



They do lay down guidelines for members of government, network rail, doctors and taxi drivers. some of the guidelines are good, others not so hot. The good ones to me tend to be basic human qualities, the bad ones the sanctification of prejudice.
No they don't. All of the regulatory bodies for these agencies set out their own rules irrespective of the CoS. The views of the church have nil impact upon the employment practices of these types of organisation or indeed the ways in which services are offered or delivered by these organisations. You are misleadingly extrapolating their internal debate on their own rules into a claim that those who are CoS members then apply these rules in their own professional lives. That is not the case and in fact to do so would be illegal.



It is the point as I read it.
Well either you read it wrong or I expressed my point poorly. In any event my point stands and it is daft to expect a church act in the same way as a non-faith organisation. Its like expecting an apple tree to grow carrots and then being bizarrely disappointed when it doesn't.

It should be judged on what it stands for, regardless of what it is.
Well if you are going to judge it on what it stands for are you going to judge it on its fundamental faith purpose or on its wider doctrine or both? And presumably you will come to a balanced rather than an absolute view since it has positives and negatives Though for consistency I should probably restate that in objective terms it really doesn't matter how any of its non members judge it since they are outside the faith.

And yes, Exodus 22:18
Interesting. That seems pretty unequivocal. Better hide the sticks and firelighters.

Youre correct. Different societies tolerate the influenc eof religion in different ways. In the west, the church has had to keep up with society or risk being marginalised. In many muslim countries, the refusal to allow change in what are effectively theocracies has caused repression and stunted progress.
But that's just not accurate. The Mormon Church is in the west, the Catholic church is way out of step with society on abortion, contraception and homosexuality and the evangelist christians are not exactly modern liberals.

[One Day Soon]

Right so the fact that Church leaders have access to 10 downing street, the Scottsh 1st Minister and the ability to have their views and thoughts published in a wide variety of media proves to you that they only have influence on their own congregations. Must admit I simply don't get that :confused:

Have you any idea how many groups have access to No 10 every week? Its a photo stunt done to send laser guided massage messages to the constituent audiences of the groups concerned. It has no influence whatever on government or government policy. Getting your views and thoughts published in a wide variety of media is absolutely straightforward if you have a half decent press officer. In the run up to elections for example there are manifestos published by every organisation under the sun - especially the umberella groups - and they are a complete non-event. But they generate print copy if press released properly.

[hibs0666]

Have you any idea how many groups have access to No 10 every week? Its a photo stunt done to send laser guided massage messages to the constituent audiences of the groups concerned. It has no influence whatever on government or government policy. Getting your views and thoughts published in a wide variety of media is absolutely straightforward if you have a half decent press officer. In the run up to elections for example there are manifestos published by every organisation under the sun - especially the umberella groups - and they are a complete non-event. But they generate print copy if press released properly.

With 25 bishops and archbishops sitting in the House of Lords the clergy are directly involved in law and policy-making in this country.

There is no separation of church and state in this country and that is nothing short of disgraceful.

[RyeSloan]

Have you any idea how many groups have access to No 10 every week? Its a photo stunt done to send laser guided massage messages to the constituent audiences of the groups concerned. It has no influence whatever on government or government policy. Getting your views and thoughts published in a wide variety of media is absolutely straightforward if you have a half decent press officer. In the run up to elections for example there are manifestos published by every organisation under the sun - especially the umberella groups - and they are a complete non-event. But they generate print copy if press released properly.

OK so turning your argument on it's head you seem to be suggesting that NOT having access to number 10 and the scottish first minister and being able to have your views published and aired via mainstream media is a better way of influencing policy. Strange.

You seem pretty certian that what goes on in Church stays in Church with no wider impact on the wider world. Fair enough. Considering the access church leaders have to major political figures, the fact that they are head of state and take seats in the house of lords and the substantial media coverage their views and beliefs get I disagree entirely... sure it might not be as great an influence as it once was (in the UK at least) but to support the idea that the major churches in the UK have no influence on wider society or it's government seems untenable to me but there you go.

One question before we agree to disagree on this...would a church going prime minister let the teachings and beliefs of the church impact his political values and goals or do you believe that they will be completely disregarded?

[Twa Cairpets]

ReductionistIf you look back through the how this point arised, your dismissal of anything on this topic as "reductionist" is just a cop-out. The fact that you can label it with a term that you appear to use somewhat pejoratively does not mean that the arguments contained within it are not valid as answers to your specific questions.


Unless of course it IS divine guidance. How do you know it isn't? Not biting


I see what you did there.
But I'd ask you to think about it a bit further. Take our library full of keen, but blank minds. All the things which are tangible, real and for want of a better word, do-able, they'll say, "oh, yeh, I see that", because it happening is not contingent upon them having faith in it happening. If you give them the Koran, the Talmud, the Bible or any other holy book, they wil have absolutely nothing to base an opinion on of which is right. They cant test what they say. They cant experience the truth of them.
That's right, because it is based in faith, not science.
Circular reasoning here ODS. Its a good thought process because they would, in this scenario, have no reason without external guidance to place their faith in one particular set of religious work compared to another.


People over generation upon generation seem to have managed to see past the sun as the thing worthy of worship - before they had a bible to tell them what to do. Yep, so people modelled other Gods - both monotheistic and pantheistic - and placed their faith in them. The strength of faith of the Mayans and the Norsemen and the Celts and the Greeks and the Romans and the Persians was presumably equal to that of the most fervent Christian. They fitted their Gods to their circumstances, and took, one would imagine, an idea of moral guidance from their holy people acting on the Gods behalf.



You started it with the people believing God talks to them.
You turned that into voices in your head. Is your idea a voice in your head?
So is it God talking to them through a megaphone? Come on now.


Do the people come out of church after the service? Do they interact with other people in the community?
That's desperately thin. There's a world of difference between the rules they decide to operate their church by and the implications for its members on the one hand and their interaction with people outside of the CoS on the other. The rules of the golf club aren't packed into the back of the volvo and imposed in the supermarket, library or strip club. The golf club don't try to claim divine guidance for the morality of behaviour of its members though do they? Are you seriously suggesting that people with faith leave it at the door of the church when they leave?


Views on marriage, homosexuality, divorce, blasphemy. I think you'd be hard pushed to claim the opposite.
Marriage is in decline and civil partnerships are now legal - no win for the church there.
Divorce is as easy as falling over and regarded as acceptable as Sky television - no win for the Church there.
Homosexuality is legal, gay people live as equals in the community and from Julian Clary to Dale Winton it is celebrated on national television. the country's most prominent soap features a gay man and couple as a core strand of its plot. - no win for the church there.
Blasphemy - takes place openly every day and on television routinely - no win for the church there.
Is there a parallel CoS in a parallel Scotland that I'm not aware of? Feel free to set out where and how the Church has imposed its views on the government though. You are mistaking the prevalence of the things listed with the churches view of them and their desire to change them. I know from personal experience that churches of all denominations have input on decision making at local level. On a national as several other posters have pointed out if you believe they have no voice or influence then I believe you are simply mistaken.



They do lay down guidelines for members of government, network rail, doctors and taxi drivers. some of the guidelines are good, others not so hot. The good ones to me tend to be basic human qualities, the bad ones the sanctification of prejudice.
No they don't. All of the regulatory bodies for these agencies set out their own rules irrespective of the CoS. The views of the church have nil impact upon the employment practices of these types of organisation or indeed the ways in which services are offered or delivered by these organisations. You are misleadingly extrapolating their internal debate on their own rules into a claim that those who are CoS members then apply these rules in their own professional lives. That is not the case and in fact to do so would be illegal. Missing my point. The churches beliefs in areas of personal morality are preached to their congregations. The congregations take these beliefs out into the big bad world.


Well either you read it wrong or I expressed my point poorly. In any event my point stands and it is daft to expect a church act in the same way as a non-faith organisation. Its like expecting an apple tree to grow carrots and then being bizarrely disappointed when it doesn't.
You expressed you point poorly :greengrin


It should be judged on what it stands for, regardless of what it is.
Well if you are going to judge it on what it stands for are you going to judge it on its fundamental faith purpose or on its wider doctrine or both? And presumably you will come to a balanced rather than an absolute view since it has positives and negatives Though for consistency I should probably restate that in objective terms it really doesn't matter how any of its non members judge it since they are outside the faith.
Both. Lots of people believe and do good in the name of their faith, lots of people believe and do morally repugnant things (to me) in the name of their faith. So yes, a balanced view. On balance, my view is that people can do all the good things they do without the need of their faith, and that (for consistency) faith in any God reduces the capacity for skeptical thought. Not for everybody, and not all the time, but on balance. I disagree with your last sentence for all the reasons we've been through in the thread - it is not an organisation which limits its views to its members. You disagree with this, and I think you're wrong.



But that's just not accurate. The Mormon Church is in the west, the Catholic church is way out of step with society on abortion, contraception and homosexuality and the evangelist christians are not exactly modern liberals.[/B]
Mormons dont promote or allow polygamy anymore (and haven't for a hundred years I think).
The other two examples are interesting - catholicism is having to work very hard to drag itself finto this millenium precisely becuase of societal intolerance inthe west of many of its fundamental tenets. Evangelism, especially US style, is showboating money making justified bigotry to the hard of thinking

[ancienthibby]

With 25 bishops and archbishops sitting in the House of Lords the clergy are directly involved in law and policy-making in this country.

There is no separation of church and state in this country and that is nothing short of disgraceful.



Sorry, but that's something that only applies south of the border!!:agree:

[ancienthibby]

My Dad was an expert in the Bible, almost knew it verse for verse and could discuss the Biblical hind legs off a donkey if the need arose.

He told me that the Old Testament was basically a set of folk lore stories all lumped together in a sort of “The Works of Hans Christian Anderson” style. These were stories that had been handed down through the generations, most by word of mouth as few could write, by people of different faiths and beliefs, so a bit been had lost, and probably added, over the centuries.

The New Testament was a bit like pulling together a series of articles from [today's] newspapers sometime after the event. So they were kind of questionable as to their accuracy.

If you add to this the Bible, as a collection of books, wasn’t written in English and so the interpretation of what was written was up to the interpreter, or more likely hundreds of interpreters, throughout the centuries, it suggests to me what was there even at the start wasn’t very accurate as a prime document and it went downhill from there.

So to take this as “The Word of God” and to quote down to verse level on individual subjects, when almost every subject written about has an equal and opposite point of view somewhere else, IMO, is somewhat questionable.

If that's the view your good Dad passed on to you, then fair enough.

But it's a million miles away from what Christian believe. To them (and me) the Bible is not just the inspired Word of God, it is The Word, that is God-breathed. That means that if God wants to breathe His Words/Spirit into what might be existing folk stories which were common amongst people, then His Spirit will lead the reader to what he wants to say.

God still speaks every day through his inspired Word.

[ancienthibby]

One way of looking at things is designed to be challenged and developed and changed in the light of discovery and evidence. The other isnt because it is fundamentally rooted in a boxed set of rules that dont allow themselves to be challenged without adopting the most tortuous apologist stance.


Its pointless bcuas it means that everyone just makes up what they want as being divine guidance. Why not just decide whats right and wrong all by yourself?


You cant join, you don't believe therefore you have no right to comment :wink:


I see what you did there.
But I'd ask you to think about it a bit further. Take our library full of keen, but blank minds. All the things which are tangible, real and for want of a better word, do-able, they'll say, "oh, yeh, I see that", because it happening is not contingent upon them having faith in it happening. If you give them the Koran, the Talmud, the Bible or any other holy book, they wil have absolutely nothing to base an opinion on of which is right. They cant test what they say. They cant experience the truth of them.


If belief is a hard wired requirement, and I had no direction from anyone, I think you'd be hard pushed to see past regarding the sun as the thing worthy of worship.


You started it with the people believing God talks to them.



Do the people come out of church after the service? Do they interact with other people in the community?


Views on marriage, homosexuality, divorce, blasphemy. I think you'd be hard pushed to claim the opposite.


They do lay down guidelines for members of government, network rail, doctors and taxi drivers. some of the guidelines are good, others not so hot. The good ones to me tend to be basic human qualities, the bad ones the sanctification of prejudice.




It is the point as I read it.

It should be judged on what it stands for, regardless of what it is.

And yes, Exodus 22:18

Youre correct. Different societies tolerate the influenc eof religion in different ways. In the west, the church has had to keep up with society or risk being marginalised. In many muslim countries, the refusal to allow change in what are effectively theocracies has caused repression and stunted progress.

Ah Yes, Exodus 22:18.

Still stuck in the past, TC??

The New Testament tells us that the key point of the Old Testament was to point the way forward to the Messiah (the Lord Jesus Christ) who is eloquently described and discovered in the New Testament. The New Testament also tells us that the Messiah, on the Cross, made the one and only sacrifice for all human sin that God required!!

Why do you, and others, continue to live in the past??

[RyeSloan]

Ah Yes, Exodus 22:18.

Still stuck in the past, TC??

The New Testament tells us that the key point of the Old Testament was to point the way forward to the Messiah (the Lord Jesus Christ) who is eloquently described and discovered in the New Testament. The New Testament also tells us that the Messiah, on the Cross, made the one and only sacrifice for all human sin that God required!!

Why do you, and others, continue to live in the past?

Ancient don't know if you meant it or not but that is one of the funniest lines I have read on here for a long time!! :greengrin

[ancienthibby]

Ancient don't know if you meant it or not but that is one of the funniest lines I have read on here for a long time!! :greengrin

SiMar,

Job (almost) done!!

[Twa Cairpets]

Ah Yes, Exodus 22:18.

Still stuck in the past, TC??

The New Testament tells us that the key point of the Old Testament was to point the way forward to the Messiah (the Lord Jesus Christ) who is eloquently described and discovered in the New Testament. The New Testament also tells us that the Messiah, on the Cross, made the one and only sacrifice for all human sin that God required!!

Why do you, and others, continue to live in the past??

Have a look at the context ancient. I was asked if witches were mentioned in the bible, and they are in Exodus 22:18, which last time I looked was part of the bible.

I'm assuming you regard the ten commandments as somewhat passe then as well ancient, what with them being OT and all?

Also, to keep very much on the track of the OP, if you care to look back there are plenty of NT references as to the unacceptableness of homosexuality.

[Dinkydoo]

Ah Yes, Exodus 22:18.

Still stuck in the past, TC??

The New Testament tells us that the key point of the Old Testament was to point the way forward to the Messiah (the Lord Jesus Christ) who is eloquently described and discovered in the New Testament. The New Testament also tells us that the Messiah, on the Cross, made the one and only sacrifice for all human sin that God required!!

Why do you, and others, continue to live in the past??

....and what is to say that an even newer testament, one thousand years from now, is released rubbishing the majority of content within the new testament?

The books were written relative to society at that time; it's quite obvious to me that the old testament was more extreme and primative (for lack of a better word) because society at that time were such.

Nobody knows what is going to happen in five hundred years time but unless the Holy text (which generally speaking is the foundation of the religion) bears at least some relevance to the people of that time, surely the religion would die.

[ancienthibby]

[QUOTE=TwoCarpets;2820039]Have a look at the context ancient. I was asked if witches were mentioned in the bible, and they are in Exodus 22:18, which last time I looked was part of the bible.


They are, of course, but Christ's sacrifice on the Cross rendered all other a=sacrifices redundant! You need to start dealing with the NT!!


I'm assuming you regard the ten commandments as somewhat passe then as well ancient, what with them being OT and all?

On the contrary, I love the Spirit of these OT commandments, but would see them in the light of the Sermon on ther Mount. You still need to get to grips with this:

The coming of the |Lord Jesus changed the OT forever!!
]Also, to keep very much on the track of the OP, if you care to look back there are plenty of NT references as to the unacceptableness of homosexuality

[B]As I have said before, the Lord created Woman for Man - no other assemblage was so blessed - anywhere in Scripture!!

[hibsbollah]

The Sermon on the Mount represents the best bits of Christianity. I agree with ancient in this respect. Its like JS Mill and Karl Marx got to work on religious teaching.

[Twa Cairpets]

They are, of course, but Christ's sacrifice on the Cross rendered all other a=sacrifices redundant! You need to start dealing with the NT!!


On the contrary, I love the Spirit of these OT commandments, but would see them in the light of the Sermon on ther Mount. You still need to get to grips with this:

The coming of the |Lord Jesus changed the OT forever!!

[B]As I have said before, the Lord created Woman for Man - no other assemblage was so blessed - anywhere in Scripture!!


Matthew 5-17-20 must be a bit of a tricky one then ancient then, eh?

Anyway, as we have been over before, your approach of just asserting everything with the liberal addition of exclamation marks as being the absolute truth is one that just cant be argued with, so I won't try.

But in reference to the question of homosexuality, your stance is that as it is "not blessed", it is not acceptable in the eyes of your God. Have I go that right?

[HibsMax]

Thoughts anyone?
Too many posts to go through them all now but my thoughts are that this is an example of what happens if you don't move / change with the times. One of my arguments about Science versus Religion has been that the Scientific community has the balls to recognise mistakes and change opinions based on new information as it becomes available. The Church isn't quite so maneuverable. I don't know what needs to happen but something akin to revising the Bible so that those who want / need to take it literally can do so without effectively living their lives in accordance with 2000-year old scripture.

Homosexuality is a dilemma for Christians I think. On one hand the Bible tells them in no uncertain terms what is and isn't acceptable behaviour between two people. However, when that was written I doubt anyone considered that homosexuality would be widely accepted at any point in the future. Now that it has done.......oops, what now?

Homosexuality exists in nature, not just amongst humans, so it's not like anyone can say this is some man-made issue.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

For the record, no Christians or Homosexuals were harmed during the writing of this post.

[bighairyfaeleith]

[QUOTE=TwoCarpets;2820039]

As I have said before, the Lord created Woman for Man - no other assemblage was so blessed - anywhere in Scripture!!


Yeah but he disnae exist:na na::wink:

[Greentinted]

As I have said before, the Lord created Woman for Man - no other assemblage was so blessed - anywhere in Scripture!!
[/QUOTE]

I've refrained from commentary thus far on this thread as it is the usual I believe/ I dinnae believe circular argument which generally goes nowhere but each to their own and all that.

The quote above says it all for me anyhow. What is one mans 'scripture' is another's book of fairy tales and fantasy (and no this is not a pejorative assertion - both these sub-genres are accepted literary types and thus are descriptive - if offence is taken then that is the problem of a supersensitive offendee) containing allegoric twaddle to which too much credence and reverence is attached.

Bottom line - if you believe in and are comforted by an imaginary, omniscient, omnipotent, invisible friend, thats fine, but keep it to yourself and do not expect it to be afforded a disproportionate amount of respect purely as it falls into the category of 'religion'.

As I have said before, The Bible, Q'ran, Talmud, etc are not Holy books - they are merely books (or anthologies of the fantastic and fabulous) written by men (and maybe women). What the religious devotees consider the 'truth' is their truth - not THE truth!

[steakbake]

I wonder when FH is going to check in to comment?

[Pete]

I wonder when FH is going to check in to comment?

It's obvious he isn't and I don't see why so many people are bothered.

He's shoved a stink bomb into a crowded room then bolted but it's produced a thread that other posters are getting their teeth into which makes good reading.

[bighairyfaeleith]

On a slight tangent from the discussion, but can any church actually not recruit a gay person because they are gay?

Surely being a reverand/minister/priest etc is a job, you are employed by the church and paid a salary, so surely employment law and discrimination laws would all cover this area, does the church have some special exemption or is it just that no one has challenged them?

[tony higgins]

On a slight tangent from the discussion, but can any church actually not recruit a gay person because they are gay?

Surely being a reverand/minister/priest etc is a job, you are employed by the church and paid a salary, so surely employment law and discrimination laws would all cover this area, does the church have some special exemption or is it just that no one has challenged them?

Not too sure if you are employed as such, thought it was more of a vocation........like supporting Hibs.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Not too sure if you are employed as such, thought it was more of a vocation........like supporting Hibs.

But they receive a salary do they not?

Hibs aint a vocation mate, it's a bloody life sentence most of time:greengrin

[Sir David Gray]

I'll say it again; the OP is very conspicuous by his absence.

GG


Ive already raised this. His existence is now seriously in doubt IMO. Either that or hes omnipresent.


I wonder when FH is going to check in to comment?

I looked in a couple of days ago to see some of the replies that I had got and there were so many that I thought it was best to allow myself a couple of days to think of a response that this kind of discussion deserves.

I made this thread on the eve of a 4 day trip so that explains why I didn't make any more posts initially.

I now intend to post a few things in response to some of the things that I have read and that should be appearing in the near future.

[Sir David Gray]

I`ll start with the part in bold. My response is to ask you: what has the bit in bold got to do with anything whatsoever?

If that is your definition of what it is to be homosexual, then you are truly lost and out of your depth. It is - forgive me - a terribly ignorant comment to make. To judge anyone on the basis of their sexuality - never mind in those terms - is shallow at worst, but to see it only in those terms only confirms your lack of awareness of the truth of many such relationships, which are loving, respectful, happy and are committed to by individuals who uphold the highest moral standards in all areas of their daily lives, in the same way that many heterosexual couples also do.

Look around you. Would you say that the sacred union between man and woman never fails to bring about the best moral standards in either them or their children? I think not. There`s no guarantee, regardless of the nature of the union.

I would say, that if the Church of Scotland is equally as narrow-minded as to share your view of the world in relation to this subject, then it doesn`t deserve to survive. Who are they, and who are you, to bring such shallow and ill-informed judgements down upon the lives of others?

GG

Thank you for your response and I appreciate what you have to say.

Of course homosexual people are no less likely to be law abiding citizens than a heterosexual person. I am just talking purely about a sexual relationship.

It is my honest opinion that the primary reason for people getting together and getting married is so that they can start a family and bring up children. This can only be done, naturally, by a man and a woman. Not by two women and not by two men. This was how humans were created and I believe that this was done for a reason.

What consenting adults do behind closed doors, in their own home, is of absolutely no concern to me and they should be quite entitled to do whatever they want, provided that they aren't hurting anyone else.

I just cannot agree with same sex relationships and I certainly do not agree with homosexual marriage.

Sexual relationships are supposed to produce offspring. Now there are obviously examples of heterosexual couples who are infertile but two people of the same sex having sexual intercourse can never reproduce and therefore, in my opinion, it is a completely unnatural act and, yes, I stand by my original statement that watching two people of the same sex being intimate with one another does make me uncomfortable.

I apologise if that upsets or offends some people but I think it's good to be open and completely honest in debates like this.

Perhaps that makes me a horrible person, I don't know, but that is how I feel and I will always put forward my opinions on topics like this.


The church should be about celebrating your god, not about peoples sexuality. If your church doesn't get into this century and quick it will lose a lot more than 20% of it's people.

The country has changed greatly in the last fifty years and the church has not, unless it does you might as well just close the doors.

I genuinely think you need to wake up.

What makes anyone think that change is necessarily for the better?

I would describe myself as a 'socially conservative' person so I'm unlikely to support many changes in areas like this. I think it's good that we have organisations who represent established moral standards because I believe that there are many things (not just related to homosexuality) coming into society nowadays which are just wrong and because they're occurring so often, they're now thought of as accepted.

I think it's good that we have organisations which look at things from a different perspective and say when they think something is wrong.

As for the church losing more than 20% of its members if they don't get into this century, the UK is one of the most atheistic countries in Europe, with many people in the country declaring that they do not believe in the existence of God, so I'm not sure that it has much to lose.


Don't want to offend Falkirk but this probably will and I feel it has to be said so I make no apology for doing so.

I sincerely hope that in the not too distant future we can be saying the same about your judgmental views of people and their lifestyle as you say in the part of your post that I've highlighted.

It doesn't offend me in the slightest. What you have said in your post is entirely what I expected when I started this thread.

You are also quite correct in not making any apology for what you have said. I make no apologies for the opinions and beliefs which I hold so I don't see why anyone else should do the same.

This is a highly divisive issue and there are strong beliefs on both sides.


My question is why are you sitting around watching gay people get passionate with each other?

It's not something I do through choice. It's something that is now readily available throughout the media nowadays. The country's biggest soap, Coronation Street, showed quite detailed homosexual content recently and this was at 7.30pm in the evening.


That folk that hide behind a literal interpretation of the Bible, a book written almost two millenia ago, in order to justify their own prejudices don't have the courage to come out and say "yup, I just hate them and what they do". Good on the C of S for having the courage to consider the matter. One day, even the Vatican will have to deal with it.

Btw, the fact that you find two gay people 'uncomfortable' to see says more about you that it does about the behaviour of anyone else. I'd like to say I'm surprised that you hold this view but I'm not.

PS Good to see that you don't think we should stone the gays to death any longer though.

Thanks for your input.

I do take exception to part of what you have written though. I do not hate individual homosexual people. I never have done and never will do. I have a problem with homosexual relationships and with other aspects relating to the wider issue of homosexuality but I do not hate individuals who declare themselves as homosexual.

With regards to the bit that you put at the bottom of your post about being glad that I do not agree with homosexual people being stoned to death. I think that it's important to make that very clear distinction between accepting the legality of people being in a homosexual relationship but disagreeing with those relationships and homosexual marriage etc.

I disagree with capital punishment being handed out to even the most evil people who have ever walked the planet so I'm hardly going to agree that adults who engage in activities that I just happen to disagree with should be executed.

It's one thing to state your opposition to a particular activity or a lifestyle and something quite different to state that those people who engage in those activities should be executed.


You have clearly never read the bible if you are looking at it for moral instruction and a guide for what is or isn't acceptable behaviour.

As Hibsbollah very eloquently points out, do you have the same detestation of any of the other areas of bonkersness spouted in Leviticus? Just go an have a read of it, and then come back and tell me if your view is based on biblical teaching or on personal prejudice? I somewhat suspect it has to be the latter, unless you are happy picking and choosing which of Gods instructions you are happy working with.

I have never stated, on any thread on here, that I am a literalist when it comes to the Bible.

I mentioned the Bible's teachings on the issues surrounding homosexuality because we are talking about the Church of Scotland's decision to allow the ordination of homosexual ministers.

The Bible's teachings on other issues and also my opinions on those teachings are completely and utterly irrelevant to the issues that are dealt with in this thread.


What truly weasel words these are. I don't believe you for an instant.

Whether you believe me or not is neither here nor there, I am telling you how I feel. It's up to you if you believe me or not.

I do not hate individual people because they are homosexual and I have never abused anyone because they are homosexual. That kind of behaviour is unacceptable and it is totally wrong. I have issues with homosexuality and I don't agree with same sex marriage but I believe that I put forward those opinions in the proper manner.


You don't agree with "exceptions or variations".
Here's a few things I'd like you to consider and respond to.
Is a loving same sex partnership better or worse from your moral standpoint than an abusive heterosexual one?
Is a sexual relationship between heterosexuals outwith marriage better or worse than a homosexual one within a marriage?
What do you see as the reason for marriage in the first place? I see it as a way of declaring publicly (and officaly) a persons love for their partner - you may see it differently.

I will answer your final question first, although I have already answered it in an earlier reply.

My view is that people should get married so that they can be in a settled relationship, which is appropriate to start a family and bring up children.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but it's just how I feel about things.

With regards to your other questions, I have never pretended that all heterosexual relationships are perfect, in actual fact many are far from it.

However, I just believe that the definition of marriage should always be the union of one man and one woman.

I'm sorry if that offends anyone but I just do not accept any other definition.

[The Green Goblin]

I looked in a couple of days ago to see some of the replies that I had got and there were so many that I thought it was best to allow myself a couple of days to think of a response that this kind of discussion deserves.

I made this thread on the eve of a 4 day trip so that explains why I didn't make any more posts initially.

I now intend to post a few things in response to some of the things that I have read and that should be appearing in the near future.


Fair enough. :agree: And you should be flattered; the people were clamouring to hear your views. :greengrin

GG

[Greentinted]

Wow!!!

Proving homophobia is alive and kicking. Some fairly ******ed and abhorrent views on display.

[ArabHibee]

Wow!!!

Proving homophobia is alive and kicking. Some fairly ******ed and abhorrent views on display.

Everyone's entitled to their opinions though. That's the whole point of a forum.

[Twa Cairpets]

It is my honest opinion that the primary reason for people getting together and getting married is so that they can start a family and bring up children. This can only be done, naturally, by a man and a woman. Not by two women and not by two men. This was how humans were created and I believe that this was done for a reason.

What consenting adults do behind closed doors, in their own home, is of absolutely no concern to me and they should be quite entitled to do whatever they want, provided that they aren't hurting anyone else.

I just cannot agree with same sex relationships and I certainly do not agree with homosexual marriage.

Your last two paragraphs here are directly contradictory. It's of no concern but you dont agree with it? That would describe unfounded prejudice wouldn't it?



Sexual relationships are supposed to produce offspring. Now there are obviously examples of heterosexual couples who are infertile but two people of the same sex having sexual intercourse can never reproduce and therefore, in my opinion, it is a completely unnatural act and, yes, I stand by my original statement that watching two people of the same sex being intimate with one another does make me uncomfortable.

I apologise if that upsets or offends some people but I think it's good to be open and completely honest in debates like this.

Its not a question of offense for me, more of a concern and anger that this type of view is still prevalent with no reason other than "it's unnatural" (which it isn't) or the "bible says it", which is a cop out.

What do you think of people who choose not to have children - what right do they have to be married if "the primary reason of marriage is to produce children"? People who have every right to be offended by your position are those who want kids but cant - do they suddenly not have the right to be married? If one member of the couple is fertiel and the pther isn't, should the fertile one leave to find someone to breed with?

I truly hope you answer is no. Assuming it is, it immediately puts your "marriage for procretion" argument in the bin. If heterosexuals are allowed in your view to be married for love, then so surely must homosexuals. The ONLY argument you have is that you dont like the physical act. But as youve already said that what people do in private doesnt concern you, you're left with a very weak defence of "God says it's bad". Or you're a bigot.



I would describe myself as a 'socially conservative' person so I'm unlikely to support many changes in areas like this. I think it's good that we have organisations who represent established moral standards because I believe that there are many things (not just related to homosexuality) coming into society nowadays which are just wrong and because they're occurring so often, they're now thought of as accepted.

I think it's good that we have organisations which look at things from a different perspective and say when they think something is wrong.

An affirmation position of "it's just wrong" doesn't wash I'm afraid. Different perspectives is good, as long as when they are pretty horrible they are flagged up as such.



It's not something I do through choice. It's something that is now readily available throughout the media nowadays. The country's biggest soap, Coronation Street, showed quite detailed homosexual content recently and this was at 7.30pm in the evening.

Laughable hand wringing



I have never stated, on any thread on here, that I am a literalist when it comes to the Bible.

I mentioned the Bible's teachings on the issues surrounding homosexuality because we are talking about the Church of Scotland's decision to allow the ordination of homosexual ministers.

The Bible's teachings on other issues and also my opinions on those teachings are completely and utterly irrelevant to the issues that are dealt with in this thread.

No, they aren't. It is reasonable for me to infer from your original post that your take most, if not all, of your position from what it says in the bible. I have never once suggested you are a bible literalist, my point is that if you choose to accept that the bible has some fundamental truth in it's writing in this area, it's pretty arrogant for you not to agree with any of the other less than savoury or unusual instructions within its pages too. If you choose to cherry pick the bits that match with your views, it's really just a mask for prejudice.



Whether you believe me or not is neither here nor there, I am telling you how I feel. It's up to you if you believe me or not.

I do not hate individual people because they are homosexual and I have never abused anyone because they are homosexual. That kind of behaviour is unacceptable and it is totally wrong. I have issues with homosexuality and I don't agree with same sex marriage but I believe that I put forward those opinions in the proper manner.

I don't believe you. You have issues with the act that certain individuals do that has no impact on your life. You view it and their behaviour as unnatural and against God. Would you be comfortable sharing an office or workspace with a gay man? Would you be happy to play sport with a gay man? Would you be happy to live next door to a lesbian couple?



I will answer your final question first, although I have already answered it in an earlier reply.

My view is that people should get married so that they can be in a settled relationship, which is appropriate to start a family and bring up children.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but it's just how I feel about things.

With regards to your other questions, I have never pretended that all heterosexual relationships are perfect, in actual fact many are far from it.

However, I just believe that the definition of marriage should always be the union of one man and one woman.

I'm sorry if that offends anyone but I just do not accept any other definition.

You didn't really answer any of the questions did you? I didnt ask you if you thought all heterosexual relations are perfect, I asked if you thought an abusive heterosexual relationship was moraly better than a loving homosexual one.

Again, your position doesnt generate any feeling of offence in me, but it does make me angry because it perpetuates the alienation of a sector of the society with blind prejudice based on the bible.

[97hills]

Thank you for your response and I appreciate what you have to say.

Of course homosexual people are no less likely to be law abiding citizens than a heterosexual person. I am just talking purely about a sexual relationship.

It is my honest opinion that the primary reason for people getting together and getting married is so that they can start a family and bring up children. This can only be done, naturally, by a man and a woman. Not by two women and not by two men. This was how humans were created and I believe that this was done for a reason.

What consenting adults do behind closed doors, in their own home, is of absolutely no concern to me and they should be quite entitled to do whatever they want, provided that they aren't hurting anyone else.

I just cannot agree with same sex relationships and I certainly do not agree with homosexual marriage.

Sexual relationships are supposed to produce offspring. Now there are obviously examples of heterosexual couples who are infertile but two people of the same sex having sexual intercourse can never reproduce and therefore, in my opinion, it is a completely unnatural act and, yes, I stand by my original statement that watching two people of the same sex being intimate with one another does make me uncomfortable.

I apologise if that upsets or offends some people but I think it's good to be open and completely honest in debates like this.

Perhaps that makes me a horrible person, I don't know, but that is how I feel and I will always put forward my opinions on topics like this.



What makes anyone think that change is necessarily for the better?

I would describe myself as a 'socially conservative' person so I'm unlikely to support many changes in areas like this. I think it's good that we have organisations who represent established moral standards because I believe that there are many things (not just related to homosexuality) coming into society nowadays which are just wrong and because they're occurring so often, they're now thought of as accepted.

I think it's good that we have organisations which look at things from a different perspective and say when they think something is wrong.

As for the church losing more than 20% of its members if they don't get into this century, the UK is one of the most atheistic countries in Europe, with many people in the country declaring that they do not believe in the existence of God, so I'm not sure that it has much to lose.



It doesn't offend me in the slightest. What you have said in your post is entirely what I expected when I started this thread.

You are also quite correct in not making any apology for what you have said. I make no apologies for the opinions and beliefs which I hold so I don't see why anyone else should do the same.

This is a highly divisive issue and there are strong beliefs on both sides.



It's not something I do through choice. It's something that is now readily available throughout the media nowadays. The country's biggest soap, Coronation Street, showed quite detailed homosexual content recently and this was at 7.30pm in the evening.



Thanks for your input.

I do take exception to part of what you have written though. I do not hate individual homosexual people. I never have done and never will do. I have a problem with homosexual relationships and with other aspects relating to the wider issue of homosexuality but I do not hate individuals who declare themselves as homosexual.

With regards to the bit that you put at the bottom of your post about being glad that I do not agree with homosexual people being stoned to death. I think that it's important to make that very clear distinction between accepting the legality of people being in a homosexual relationship but disagreeing with those relationships and homosexual marriage etc.

I disagree with capital punishment being handed out to even the most evil people who have ever walked the planet so I'm hardly going to agree that adults who engage in activities that I just happen to disagree with should be executed.

It's one thing to state your opposition to a particular activity or a lifestyle and something quite different to state that those people who engage in those activities should be executed.



I have never stated, on any thread on here, that I am a literalist when it comes to the Bible.

I mentioned the Bible's teachings on the issues surrounding homosexuality because we are talking about the Church of Scotland's decision to allow the ordination of homosexual ministers.

The Bible's teachings on other issues and also my opinions on those teachings are completely and utterly irrelevant to the issues that are dealt with in this thread.



Whether you believe me or not is neither here nor there, I am telling you how I feel. It's up to you if you believe me or not.

I do not hate individual people because they are homosexual and I have never abused anyone because they are homosexual. That kind of behaviour is unacceptable and it is totally wrong. I have issues with homosexuality and I don't agree with same sex marriage but I believe that I put forward those opinions in the proper manner.



I will answer your final question first, although I have already answered it in an earlier reply.

My view is that people should get married so that they can be in a settled relationship, which is appropriate to start a family and bring up children.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but it's just how I feel about things.

With regards to your other questions, I have never pretended that all heterosexual relationships are perfect, in actual fact many are far from it.

However, I just believe that the definition of marriage should always be the union of one man and one woman.

I'm sorry if that offends anyone but I just do not accept any other definition.


What a horrible post.

You make one small point that you believe marriage is purely for the creation of offspring which is so easily disproved and ridiculous that I don't even feel as if I need to point out why it is so and I'm sure the vast majority of people on this board can see that anyway.

To paraphrase your only other argument it is "I believe it because I believe it". That pretty much ends any discussion or debate because there's nothing that can be said to that. It is essentially saying that there isn't really much reason behind your beliefs other than blind faith and you are immune to any logic or reason that may be thrown your way. If I've missed something important in your argument please say but otherwise I don't really wish to waste my time with such a prejudiced view of the world

[SRHibs]

It is my honest opinion that the primary reason for people getting together and getting married is so that they can start a family and bring up children. This can only be done, naturally, by a man and a woman. Not by two women and not by two men. This was how humans were created and I believe that this was done for a reason.

Just out of interest then, do you condone heterosexual relationships in which neither of the couple are interested in reproduction, and instead are just having sex due to the pleasure that derives from it?

[--------]

What a horrible post.

You make one small point that you believe marriage is purely for the creation of offspring which is so easily disproved and ridiculous that I don't even feel as if I need to point out why it is so and I'm sure the vast majority of people on this board can see that anyway.

To paraphrase your only other argument it is "I believe it because I believe it". That pretty much ends any discussion or debate because there's nothing that can be said to that. It is essentially saying that there isn't really much reason behind your beliefs other than blind faith and you are immune to any logic or reason that may be thrown your way. If I've missed something important in your argument please say but otherwise I don't really wish to waste my time with such a prejudiced view of the world


I'm aware that you probably wouldn't take a Biblical perspective yourself, but as a point of information, my understanding of the Bible's position on marriage/human sexuality is that in God's scheme of things "it was not good for the man to be alone" (Genesis 2) - in other words, solitary celibate living isn't good for us, so we enter into relationships with women to provide support and mutual love and care for one another.

Gotta go.

[Twa Cairpets]

I'm aware that you probably wouldn't take a Biblical perspective yourself, but as a point of information, my understanding of the Bible's position on marriage/human sexuality is that in God's scheme of things "it was not good for the man to be alone" (Genesis 2) - in other words, solitary celibate living isn't good for us, so we enter into relationships with people to provide support and mutual love and care for one another.Gotta go.

Which is how I, from a non-biblical viewpoint, would view it precisely (allowing for the one small edit in the sentence above).

[97hills]

I'm aware that you probably wouldn't take a Biblical perspective yourself, but as a point of information, my understanding of the Bible's position on marriage/human sexuality is that in God's scheme of things "it was not good for the man to be alone" (Genesis 2) - in other words, solitary celibate living isn't good for us, so we enter into relationships with women to provide support and mutual love and care for one another.

Gotta go.

I'm assuming you're playing devil's advocate here? Heterosexuals do not have a monopoly on relationships that provide support, care and love

[--------]

Which is how I, from a non-biblical viewpoint, would view it precisely (allowing for the one small edit in the sentence above).


Well, I was kinda thinking personally there, TC, but it's a fair point that commitment, companionship and mutual support is more important in any relationship than (to put it crudely) getting one's end away or perpetuating the species...

Whatever one's opinion in principle on the right or wrong of homosexual relationships (and on the individual level I tend to consider that other people's intimate relationships are none of my immediate business unless THEY decide to confide in me) I find it utterly abhorrent that two people can share a life together for 20 or 30 years (whatever the precise nature of their relationship) and then when one dies the other can be shut out by a family who disapproved of that shared life and are now in a position to inflict vengeance on the surviving partner by excluding them from the formal grieving process.

Which I have known to happen. :grr:

[Twa Cairpets]

Well, I was kinda thinking personally there, TC, but it's a fair point that commitment, companionship and mutual support is more important in any relationship than (to put it crudely) getting one's end away or perpetuating the species...

Whatever one's opinion in principle on the right or wrong of homosexual relationships (and on the individual level I tend to consider that other people's intimate relationships are none of my immediate business unless THEY decide to confide in me) I find it utterly abhorrent that two people can share a life together for 20 or 30 years (whatever the precise nature of their relationship) and then when one dies the other can be shut out by a family who disapproved of that shared life and are now in a position to inflict vengeance on the surviving partner by excluding them from the formal grieving process.

Which I have known to happen. :grr:

I'm starting to believe that you're some kind of liberal, maverick minister with more decency than is witnessed in this area by a lot of your colleagues of various denominations.

Your last couple of paragraphs are what should be read and considered by FH and those within the CoS who approve of any kind of discrimination.

[ancienthibby]

Looks like there is some substance to the Original Poster's original point.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-13708804

[Twa Cairpets]

Looks like there is some substance to the Original Poster's original point.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-13708804

Which is interesting in the light of the OP and the way the thread developed.

There are 400 people in the congregation apparently. So there are 400 people who will have their prejudice against homosexuality affirmed by their church, and will take that prejudice with them when they live their everyday lives.

The lines that stuck out for me in the report are:

Gilcomston South's minister Reverend Dominic Smart told BBC Scotland: "The thing we disagree with is the way in which the Bible seems to have been marginalised."

He added in a statement: "Our decision is not a knee-jerk reaction. It is the culmination of careful study, sincere discussion and prayer over the past two-and-a-half years.

"We have weighed up many different options and believe the decision we have reached has the most integrity.

"Our decision comes from a view shared by most Christians."

Within the framework of his logical assumptions, he is right. The decision thay have reached does have the most integrity as their core goal is the de-marginalisation of the bible.

Their decision making process is somewhat questionable. I'd love to see what their careful study is. If its of the bible, they're mighty slow readers if it's taken them 2 1/2 years. "Sincere discussion and prayers"? Yeh, right.

[--------]

I'm starting to believe that you're some kind of liberal, maverick minister with more decency than is witnessed in this area by a lot of your colleagues of various denominations.

Your last couple of paragraphs are what should be read and considered by FH and those within the CoS who approve of any kind of discrimination.


Liberal???????????? :party:

I guess I take the Bible seriously, but try to let it speak to me rather than reading in my own hang-ups, which I'm afraid a lot of my colleagues do.

A church door has to be wide open so that anyone who wants to can come in. I see nothing in the Gospels to suggest that Jesus ever turned anyone away - those who couldn't stomach what he taught walked of their own volition. And THEY were almost always the really really religious types - the Pharisees and legalists and judgmentalists who got off on putting other people down.

There's all sorts of literature in the Boble - history, genealogy, legal codes, poetry, prophecy, family history, eye-witness accounts, people passing on eye-witness accounts, pastoral letters, personal letters, apocalyptic visions, even detailed instructions for carpentry or building work - see the instructions for the construction of the Ark of the Covenant or the Tabernacle in Exodus, for example. All of it is historically conditioned, and none of it can really be understood except in relation to the rest of it. And people need to differentiate between the different types of writing - don't read prophecy as if it's theology, don't read history as if it's law, don't read apocalyptic as if it's a personal letter. But a lot of people read the Bible as if it's all the one type of writing. Bad choice.

Then trouble starts when people look at Leviticus or the Book of Daniel, for example, take a few verses out at random, and decide to use those verses as the starting-point and underpinning of their theology, rather than starting at the real focus, which is the person, work and wisdom of Jesus Christ. Start with him, and you start a life-journey that slowly but surely makes more and more sense as time passes. Start anywhere else, and you get dry religion or a cult.

Not that I would want to get dogmatic about the Bible, mind....

Just my opinion. :greengrin


PS: Speaking of colleagues, I would far rather work with Dominic Smart than Scott Rennie, for reasons that go much deeper than their respective sexualities. But that's another story, and one I'd rather not go into on a public forum.

[hibsbollah]

The Archbishop of Canterbury is trying to find a purpose for the modern church, judging from todays New Statesman article. Debate the moral and ethical vacuum of 21st century Britain and people might see a point to the C of E (S?) again.

[ancienthibby]

Which is interesting in the light of the OP and the way the thread developed.

There are 400 people in the congregation apparently. So there are 400 people who will have their prejudice against homosexuality affirmed by their church, and will take that prejudice with them when they live their everyday lives.

The lines that stuck out for me in the report are:

Gilcomston South's minister Reverend Dominic Smart told BBC Scotland: "The thing we disagree with is the way in which the Bible seems to have been marginalised."

He added in a statement: "Our decision is not a knee-jerk reaction. It is the culmination of careful study, sincere discussion and prayer over the past two-and-a-half years.

"We have weighed up many different options and believe the decision we have reached has the most integrity.

"Our decision comes from a view shared by most Christians."

Within the framework of his logical assumptions, he is right. The decision thay have reached does have the most integrity as their core goal is the de-marginalisation of the bible.

Their decision making process is somewhat questionable. I'd love to see what their careful study is. If its of the bible, they're mighty slow readers if it's taken them 2 1/2 years. "Sincere discussion and prayers"? Yeh, right.

Wow - talk about sweeping generalisations!!

Maybe just a touch of prejudice there, TC??

The people of Gilmaston South will be those who have known the impact of the Lord Jesus on their lives. As Doddie says in post 170 -

'Then trouble starts when people look at Leviticus or the Book of Daniel, for example, take a few verses out at random, and decide to use those verses as the starting-point and underpinning of their theology, rather than starting at the real focus, which is the person, work and wisdom of Jesus Christ. Start with him, and you start a life-journey that slowly but surely makes more and more sense as time passes. Start anywhere else, and you get dry religion or a cult'.

That quote is the nub of the issue which you constantly by-pass.

By the way, I have heard Dominic Smart preach in person - he is a wonderful expositor of the Gospel.

[--------]

Their decision making process is somewhat questionable. I'd love to see what their careful study is. If its of the bible, they're mighty slow readers if it's taken them 2 1/2 years. "Sincere discussion and prayers"? Yeh, right.




I know a few people in Gilcomston, TC, and they won't have made this decision lightly. I can also assure you that Dominic Smart isn't a homophobe. I can't speak for his whole congregation, of course.

The question of Scott Rennie's move to Aberdeen is a fraught one, and there are more questions about it than just the question of his sexuality. Again, whatever one's opinion about him or his call to his present charge, the business has been in the courts of the church for two and a half years now, and a lot of congregations have been doing a lot of discussing, thinking, praying and studying over it. We've been doing the same in the Caldera.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Looks like there is some substance to the Original Poster's original point.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-13708804

I love the way the chuck in the prayer bit in there decision making, aye cos god spoke to them and told them to do this:faf:

[Twa Cairpets]

Wow - talk about sweeping generalisations!!

Maybe just a touch of prejudice there, TC??

No, no prejudice at all, not from me at any rate. I'll give you bad maths though. It's not 400, but it is a mininimum of 201 if they leave the church in protest about the acceptance of homosexuality.


The people of Gilmaston South will be those who have known the impact of the Lord Jesus on their lives. As Doddie says in post 170 -

'Then trouble starts when people look at Leviticus or the Book of Daniel, for example, take a few verses out at random, and decide to use those verses as the starting-point and underpinning of their theology, rather than starting at the real focus, which is the person, work and wisdom of Jesus Christ. Start with him, and you start a life-journey that slowly but surely makes more and more sense as time passes. Start anywhere else, and you get dry religion or a cult'.

That quote is the nub of the issue which you constantly by-pass.

By the way, I have heard Dominic Smart preach in person - he is a wonderful expositor of the Gospel.

How is it that you get to quote scripture to support your stance "In fact, if anyone wants to check, Scripture is abundantly clear about the whole matter - and I mean the full male/female thing not just the male/male thing.

God, in Genesis, is quite clear, He blessed one human relationship alone, and that was in creating the female as a companion for the male. And as Scripture further tells us, 'God saw what He had created and it was good'. but if someone from my side of the fence tries to use it we're accused of not really getting it because we need to let all of Jesus into our lives.

My understanding is that Jesus didn't say anything explicit about homosexuality one way or the other, so you seem to me to wanting to have your cake and eat it.



I know a few people in Gilcomston, TC, and they won't have made this decision lightly. I can also assure you that Dominic Smart isn't a homophobe. I can't speak for his whole congregation, of course.

The question of Scott Rennie's move to Aberdeen is a fraught one, and there are more questions about it than just the question of his sexuality. Again, whatever one's opinion about him or his call to his present charge, the business has been in the courts of the church for two and a half years now, and a lot of congregations have been doing a lot of discussing, thinking, praying and studying over it. We've been doing the same in the Caldera.

I have no opinion on either minister in question - I expect that Rennie will be required to reflect the views of his congregations. However, if his quote is correct, it certainly suggests and anti-gay stance, if not direct homophobia - it is hard to come to a different conclusion. I may be entirely wrong, and I dont have the benefit you have of knowing him, but if they are looking to leave the parent church over the issue of homosexuality it doesnt suggest a liberal stance.

Is there an element of personalisation of the issue with the individual in the church? I'm getting the feeling that he's not your favourite colleague - is this part of the issue within the wider CoS?

[One Day Soon]

Which is interesting in the light of the OP and the way the thread developed.

There are 400 people in the congregation apparently. So there are 400 people who will have their prejudice against homosexuality affirmed by their church, and will take that prejudice with them when they live their everyday lives.

The lines that stuck out for me in the report are:

Gilcomston South's minister Reverend Dominic Smart told BBC Scotland: "The thing we disagree with is the way in which the Bible seems to have been marginalised."

He added in a statement: "Our decision is not a knee-jerk reaction. It is the culmination of careful study, sincere discussion and prayer over the past two-and-a-half years.

"We have weighed up many different options and believe the decision we have reached has the most integrity.

"Our decision comes from a view shared by most Christians."

Within the framework of his logical assumptions, he is right. The decision thay have reached does have the most integrity as their core goal is the de-marginalisation of the bible.

Their decision making process is somewhat questionable. I'd love to see what their careful study is. If its of the bible, they're mighty slow readers if it's taken them 2 1/2 years. "Sincere discussion and prayers"? Yeh, right.

I'm sure it must be possible to be more sneering and dismissive than this, but you have set quite a high bar.

[Twa Cairpets]

I'm sure it must be possible to be more sneering and dismissive than this, but you have set quite a high bar.

The first bit you highlighted is pretty much a lift from the article where the Minister says "The thing we disagree with is the way in which the Bible seems to have been marginalised."

The second bit, well, yes, maybe it is dismissive. I dont personally regard prayer as a valid decision making process, and I would query the depth and breadth of discussion. But to take your argument from earlier in the thread I suppose thats up to them within their organisation to come to conclusions through whichever means they want. It doesnt mean I cant regard it with some skepticism though.

[Lucius Apuleius]

I think people pray for things, not expecting God to answer them directly but merely to help them make the correct decision.

[--------]

The first bit you highlighted is pretty much a lift from the article where the Minister says "The thing we disagree with is the way in which the Bible seems to have been marginalised."

The second bit, well, yes, maybe it is dismissive. I dont personally regard prayer as a valid decision making process, and I would query the depth and breadth of discussion. But to take your argument from earlier in the thread I suppose thats up to them within their organisation to come to conclusions through whichever means they want. It doesnt mean I cant regard it with some skepticism though.

"De-marginalising the Bible" is exactly what DS and his folks want to do. It's what I want to do too.

I have no problem with someone who says, "I don't believe the Bible, so I'm going to live my life ignoring it." That's logical.

I DO have a problem with folks who assume that just because I believe the Bible (however you want to interpret the word 'believe') I must be either stupid, deluded, or a con-man. Rejecting another person's considered beliefs simply because you don't agree with him or her is bigotry. (Be aware that I don't level that accusation against you, TC - our exchanges tend to be both courteous AND stimulating, though I confess I did get a bit waxy with you about two years ago....)

I also have a problem with folks who claim to be Christian, but either adopt such a distorted view of the Bible that what they believe and do bears little or no relation to what Jesus said and did. They tout the Scriptures as 'inerrant' but actually what's inerrant is THEIR interpretation of the Scriptures. At worst, these guys are cultists.

Then there are the other folks who claim to be Christians but decide (on what appears to me to be no more than the authority of their own intellect) that they can summarily discount and ignore large tracts of what the Bible says, either because it's 'culturally conditioned' or because it's 'historically compromised' or (most likely, IMO) because it just doesn't suit their personal life-styles.

To understand the cultural and historical context in which a document was created is essential to the proper understanding of the document - that's Biblical Studies 101, and people who haven't learned that have learned nothing.

But to seek to understand context in order to comprehend meaning is one thing. To use context as a tool by which the reader can then reject out of hand whole great chunks of the meaning is something else. In fact, many people who claim to be influenced by 'context' are actually reading the text through their own unstated or unacknowledged preconceptions. they've made up their minds about what they're reading long before they ever opened the book.

I can understand an agnostic or atheist doing this - or rather, someone doing this and arriving at a position of either agnosticism or atheism. This I can respect - though I disagree with their conclusions.

To reject whole books of the Bible as entirely irrelevant but then to insist on taking up or holding on to a position as a minister of Word and Sacrament - the Word one has already rejected in great part, and Sacraments one doesn't really believe in - is to say the least, irrational.

Actually, I'd go farther and say it was deeply dishonest.

[Twa Cairpets]

I think people pray for things, not expecting God to answer them directly but merely to help them make the correct decision.

At the risk of ODS thinking me sneering ad dismissive again, isn't this what people without faith would just call thinking things through?

Assuming you start with a position on something, in this case the acceptability of homosexuality within the church. The act of prayer is unlikely to change your opinion. I'm all for thought and reflection, I just don't see the need to cloak it in an appeal to help from a deity - even the most cursory of glances at what people are led to do through prayer or divine direction would show that the guidance is very, very closely matched to what people want.

In fact, I'd go as far to say that prayer is less likely to lead to a balanced "right" conclusion being reached than a disinterested weighing-up of facors, as it has, almost by definition, conditions/restrictions put in place from the outset.

[Lucius Apuleius]

At the risk of ODS thinking me sneering ad dismissive again, isn't this what people without faith would just call thinking things through?

Assuming you start with a position on something, in this case the acceptability of homosexuality within the church. The act of prayer is unlikely to change your opinion. I'm all for thought and reflection, I just don't see the need to cloak it in an appeal to help from a deity - even the most cursory of glances at what people are led to do through prayer or divine direction would show that the guidance is very, very closely matched to what people want.

In fact, I'd go as far to say that prayer is less likely to lead to a balanced "right" conclusion being reached than a disinterested weighing-up of facors, as it has, almost by definition, conditions/restrictions put in place from the outset.

Quite possibly and that is fine in my opinion. I have the faith to pray for something knowing God is not going to come out and say "OK Big G this is what your gonna do". It does allow me to reflect on something in a different way. However, I think what I said (or was meaning to say in probably not a very good way)was they were praying they would make the right decision whether it was their belief or not. Obviously I can see where you are coming from. If you have a deep felt belief in something then nothing is going to change your mind. We all hold some sort of feelings for something or someone that we know deep down is wrong (irrational hatred of hertz, huns, celtc perhaps). Do they get classed as hertzophobia or something? Obviously not. Whilst not comfortable with FH's viewpoints I can understand where he comes from. Now, nobody in their wildest dreams could call me homophobic. I was a steward on passenger ships for gawd's sake!!! However the sight of any two persons, but more especially two guys standing kissing does not sit comfortable with me either. The CoS has proven in the past it can change without too much trouble. Did the remarriage of divorcees not go against the bible as well? Anyway, a great believer of each to their own but not in front of me thank you.

[ancienthibby]

No, no prejudice at all, not from me at any rate. I'll give you bad maths though. It's not 400, but it is a mininimum of 201 if they leave the church in protest about the acceptance of homosexuality.



How is it that you get to quote scripture to support your stance "In fact, if anyone wants to check, Scripture is abundantly clear about the whole matter - and I mean the full male/female thing not just the male/male thing.

God, in Genesis, is quite clear, He blessed one human relationship alone, and that was in creating the female as a companion for the male. And as Scripture further tells us, 'God saw what He had created and it was good'. but if someone from my side of the fence tries to use it we're accused of not really getting it because we need to let all of Jesus into our lives.

My understanding is that Jesus didn't say anything explicit about homosexuality one way or the other, so you seem to me to wanting to have your cake and eat it.



I have no opinion on either minister in question - I expect that Rennie will be required to reflect the views of his congregations. However, if his quote is correct, it certainly suggests and anti-gay stance, if not direct homophobia - it is hard to come to a different conclusion. I may be entirely wrong, and I dont have the benefit you have of knowing him, but if they are looking to leave the parent church over the issue of homosexuality it doesnt suggest a liberal stance.

Is there an element of personalisation of the issue with the individual in the church? I'm getting the feeling that he's not your favourite colleague - is this part of the issue within the wider CoS?


Steady now, TC, you well know that I abhor the quotation of single verses/even chapters of Scripture, especially the OT, when, as I have said numerous times before, Scripture is an entity which leads from the OT to the NT with the Christ of the NT being the crowning glory of all Scriptures!

My reference to Genesis is not repeated anywhere in Scripture, so it's a bit devious to accuse me of quoting selected verses!! (and apologies for the exclamation marks!!).

To revert to the original position, Genesis is very clear that God made woman for man and no other variation, and the Lord Jesus never deviated from that, since He Himself was born into a normal (but poor) heterosexual family with a number of brothers and sisters, and He Himself never chose to endorse anything but what His divine Father had ordained. How could He since He is divine God made human??

I don't doubt that you have major problems with divinely ordained truth. That's your view. It's not the view of believers who know the hand of God on their lives!

[hibsbollah]

http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2011/06/long-term-government-democracy

Its a bit off topic, but i return to this again. Williams is a really articulate spokesman for his religion, and has stimulated political debate in a time when its gone out of fashion.

[Twa Cairpets]

Steady now, TC, you well know that I abhor the quotation of single verses/even chapters of Scripture, especially the OT, when, as I have said numerous times before, Scripture is an entity which leads from the OT to the NT with the Christ of the NT being the crowning glory of all Scriptures!

My reference to Genesis is not repeated anywhere in Scripture, so it's a bit devious to accuse me of quoting selected verses!! (and apologies for the exclamation marks!!).

To revert to the original position, Genesis is very clear that God made woman for man and no other variation, and the Lord Jesus never deviated from that, since He Himself was born into a normal (but poor) heterosexual family with a number of brothers and sisters, and He Himself never chose to endorse anything but what His divine Father had ordained. How could He since He is divine God made human??

So, to distill it down to bare bones, you believe what you believe because various bits of the Bible (or indeed the story of Jesus in its totality) tell you what is what is "right", according to your personal interpretation. You bow to the Lords will in all things, so in cases where you believe you have a specific biblical direction, you are entirely happy to be subservient to that will and direction. You decide to shoehorn different bits of the bible into your personal belief system - apparently entirely uncritically - and are happy with it. That's fine by me, but I think that my (presumably God given) ability to think independantly is every bit as valid as your faith, but actually even better because it involves no subservience.


I don't doubt that you have major problems with divinely ordained truth. That's your view. It's not the view of believers who know the hand of God on their lives!

I have no problems with truth. Your position of saying "this is truth" I do have issues with. Just asserting something to be true does not make it so. I do believe your statement relating to "knowing the hand of God" is, in the context of this thread, monumentally arrogant.

[J-C]

The big problem I have with all religions is the fact there are so many to choose from and which infact is the correct one. We have Christianity/Islam/Buddhism/Jews/Hindus/Sikhs/ etc etc all proclaiming to be the true religion, with varient teachings but which is right ??

Does this not prove that due to the size of the Earth and that many thousands of years ago mankind were seperated by waters and land so therefore man created these varied religions to answer the great questions of the time and bring direction and laws to their peoples.

Infact the ancient Greeks/Romans and Egyptians worshiped a large amount of gods as this was their way, who's to say that they were wrong, just because some guy 2 thousand years ago decided he was the son of god, then we all must believe in him and his teachings. Even his own people turned their back on him and are still waiting for the Messiah to arrive and bring them salvation.

Or possibly the Aboriginal people of Australia are right, they are still following their ancient ways of living and dying by the gods of the land/air/wind etc similar to small tribes in the S American rainforests, now how come different peoples from different land masses have the same idea about their religion but have never infact met??

I find it very hard that in todays society with the huge advantages of scientific research that people still take the word of the bible, or infact any religious book as gospel, these books were written to guide the people and to keep them under order. Think about this, who were the educated people all those years ago, certainly not the masses who were basic workers, it was the rich and the church leaders, they were the scribes who penned these books, books to keep the common man in his place and fearing of the worst should he overstep his mark. The ancient books all have God saying, thou shant do this and that etc etc was this not meant to keep him in fear and in his place??

We are all better educated nowadays and more and more are questioning the so called words of god, whatever religion it is, we are now realising that we are all insignificant animals on an insignificant rock hurtling through space round a big giant ball of flames and somewhere out there is another rock with creatures like us doing the same thing.

[ancienthibby]

So, to distill it down to bare bones, you believe what you believe because various bits of the Bible (or indeed the story of Jesus in its totality) tell you what is what is "right", according to your personal interpretation. You bow to the Lords will in all things, so in cases where you believe you have a specific biblical direction, you are entirely happy to be subservient to that will and direction. You decide to shoehorn different bits of the bible into your personal belief system - apparently entirely uncritically - and are happy with it. That's fine by me, but I think that my (presumably God given) ability to think independantly is every bit as valid as your faith, but actually even better because it involves no subservience.



I have no problems with truth. Your position of saying "this is truth" I do have issues with. Just asserting something to be true does not make it so. I do believe your statement relating to "knowing the hand of God" is, in the context of this thread, monumentally arrogant.

No, no and absolutely no.

Knowing the hand of God on my life is monumentally humbling - and I marvel every day at how God is active in my life.

I am also monumentally ashamed at the complete inadequacy of my own response to such blessing.

[Twa Cairpets]

[/B]

No, no and absolutely no.

Knowing the hand of God on my life is monumentally humbling - and I marvel every day at how God is active in my life.

I am also monumentally ashamed at the complete inadequacy of my own response to such blessing.

We could go off on a significant tangent here, but let's avoid that. I am not saying you're arrogant, but that your position is.

Your absolute faith brooks no discussion, as regardless of any argument your fall back position is immutable: "God, through Jesus/The Bible, has declared that being gay is wrong, therefore it is". From your position, sure, this isn't arrogance, but driven from your internal certainty. From a wider persepctive, JC50's post above is a nce summation of why this certainty might be worth questioning.

If you step back and examine your opinion on homosexuality/same sex partnership, and can come up with any valid reason other than the bible for why you would wish to believe that two consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to make a commitment to each other to allow them to be happy and fulfilled, I'd be interested in seeing what you come up with.

[Dinkydoo]

The big problem I have with all religions is the fact there are so many to choose from and which infact is the correct one. We have Christianity/Islam/Buddhism/Jews/Hindus/Sikhs/ etc etc all proclaiming to be the true religion, with varient teachings but which is right ??

Does this not prove that due to the size of the Earth and that many thousands of years ago mankind were seperated by waters and land so therefore man created these varied religions to answer the great questions of the time and bring direction and laws to their peoples.

Infact the ancient Greeks/Romans and Egyptians worshiped a large amount of gods as this was their way, who's to say that they were wrong, just because some guy 2 thousand years ago decided he was the son of god, then we all must believe in him and his teachings. Even his own people turned their back on him and are still waiting for the Messiah to arrive and bring them salvation.

Or possibly the Aboriginal people of Australia are right, they are still following their ancient ways of living and dying by the gods of the land/air/wind etc similar to small tribes in the S American rainforests, now how come different peoples from different land masses have the same idea about their religion but have never infact met??

I find it very hard that in todays society with the huge advantages of scientific research that people still take the word of the bible, or infact any religious book as gospel, these books were written to guide the people and to keep them under order. Think about this, who were the educated people all those years ago, certainly not the masses who were basic workers, it was the rich and the church leaders, they were the scribes who penned these books, books to keep the common man in his place and fearing of the worst should he overstep his mark. The ancient books all have God saying, thou shant do this and that etc etc was this not meant to keep him in fear and in his place??

We are all better educated nowadays and more and more are questioning the so called words of god, whatever religion it is, we are now realising that we are all insignificant animals on an insignificant rock hurtling through space round a big giant ball of flames and somewhere out there is another rock with creatures like us doing the same thing.

Nail on head there. :agree:

IMO, religion was used as a tool to educate, civilise and ultimately control people hundreds and thousands of years ago when let's face it, we were a much more primative people.

Now that most of us can independantly think through each decision we make and weigh up the potential consequences of our actions, we shouldn't have to live in fear of spending an eternity in hell, blindly following the (somewhat inaccurate) teachings of people thousands of years ago - not one part of what we know as the "New Testament" was written within one hundred years of Jesus's death btw.

We now realise, in todays world, that human beings are complicated creatures. In birth some of us are brought into this world with genetic abnormalities caused by a whole host of known and in many cases, unknown factors. We don't just throw these people into 'loony bins' anymore and label them as 'crazy' because we have a greater understanding of what some disabilities are and 'these people', are bloody human too.

Similary, left handed people aren't branded as the spawn of satan any more.

Getting back to the OP, thousands of years ago due to the ignorance of society, it probably was acceptable to think that you were 'not right' if a man had sexual feelings towards a man, or a woman towards a woman.

We now know that it isn't acceptable to have slaves, woman and men deserve to be treated equally and people with learning and physical disabilities have human rights too.

What I fail to understand is if we can learn and move on from some of the ignorant points of view I've highlighted above, why are we still living in the 'dark ages' when it comes to sexuality. :confused:

[--------]

I find it very hard that in todays society with the huge advantages of scientific research that people still take the word of the bible, or infact any religious book as gospel, these books were written to guide the people and to keep them under order. Think about this, who were the educated people all those years ago, certainly not the masses who were basic workers, it was the rich and the church leaders, they were the scribes who penned these books, books to keep the common man in his place and fearing of the worst should he overstep his mark. The ancient books all have God saying, thou shant do this and that etc etc was this not meant to keep him in fear and in his place??

We are all better educated nowadays and more and more are questioning the so called words of god, whatever religion it is, we are now realising that we are all insignificant animals on an insignificant rock hurtling through space round a big giant ball of flames and somewhere out there is another rock with creatures like us doing the same thing.




I don't think that your idea of where "religious books" come from is anywhere near the mark, frankly. Even if it were, in the case of the Bible it hasn't worked.

In the antebellum Southern States of the USA the slaveholders used a few verses in Genesis to justify the practice and institution of black chattel slavery. Ministers and preachers(especially Methodists and Baptists) weren't welcome on the plantations because they preached the full Gospel, which includes the highly seditious and revolutionary idea that in the face of God ALL men and women are absolutely, irrevocably, and eternally EQUAL.

Far from supporting and condoning slavery or the oppression of the poor by the rich, the NT consistently portrays Jesus (God's Anointed Son, remember) as positively favouring the poor and disadvantaged. The apostolic church as portrayed in the early chapters of Acts was a church where rich men disposed of their property so that their poorer brothers and sisters could be provided for.

Even the Big Bad Nasty Apostle Paul wrote a letter to his rich friend Philemon along the lines of: "Hey, Philemon, you'll never guess who's visiting me in jail here - that useless slave of yours, Onesimus. Remember him? A bit of a waste of space, right? Well, I have to tell you that he got converted - he's a Christian now. So that makes him MY brother and YOUR brother. He's coming to meet you - he wants to ask forgiveness for the trouble he caused you. Now, you're well within your legal rights to punish him, but since he's a brother and an equal in Christ, and since he's been ever so helpful to me and I can really use him here, you MIGHT just consider setting him free and sending him back to me? Of course it's all up to you - just let your conscience guide you. After all, you and I have been so blessed by God, it would be a pity not to share the blessing with Onesimus. But whatever you think yourself..."

What do YOU think Philemon did?

As long as Martin Luther King (as a black Christian) and Malcolm X (as a Black Muslim) were content to attack discrimination against middle-class educated blacks, a large proportion of the white population of the US were prepared to tolerate them. As soon as they began to point out that poor whites - blue-collar and unskilled working-class - had more in common with poor blacks than they had with middle- and upper-class educated, well-heeled whites, they were in the body-bags.

It's a crashing generalisation that "religion was designed by the rich to keep the poor man down". That's one of the many things Karl Marx got very wrong. Yes, it can be, and often has been. But if you really knew the history of the Christian Church and how many totally awkward pains in the backside have been inspired by the Bible to upset the big guys' applecarts ...

BTW, I'm not sure about your claim that "we're all much better educated these days". We certainly know more - or at least those people who've actually done the work of study and experiment do - but most people nowadays derive their world-view from the TV and Internet, which means they have some very strange and inaccurate ideas indeed, sometimes. (Even stranger than my belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God.)

Anyone can amass a lot of unrelated and half-understood "facts" - many of which on closer examination turn out not to be "facts" at all. Real education, leading to wisdom, which seems to me to be sadly lacking in the present day, is the acquisition of the capacity to examine and know oneself and one's place in the world, and the ability to distinguish between real facts and assumptions that turn out to be delusions.

IMHO, religion accounts for a VERY VERY small proportion of the delusion in the modern world - CNN, Fox, and the Discovery Channel and American TV sitcoms and cop-shows account for far more.

Oh, and trashy mags like "Hello" and folks who believe all they read on the Internet.

[BEEJ]

- not one part of what we know as the "New Testament" was written within one hundred years of Jesus's death btw.

Just so fundamentally wrong and ill-informed it demands a response. :rolleyes:

The NT was written between 45AD and 95AD. Jesus Christ was crucified in 33AD.

[--------]

Nail on head there. :agree:

IMO, religion was used as a tool to educate, civilise and ultimately control people hundreds and thousands of years ago when let's face it, we were a much more primative people.

Now that most of us can independantly think through each decision we make and weigh up the potential consequences of our actions, we shouldn't have to live in fear of spending an eternity in hell, blindly following the (somewhat inaccurate) teachings of people thousands of years ago - not one part of what we know as the "New Testament" was written within one hundred years of Jesus's death btw.

We now realise, in todays world, that human beings are complicated creatures. In birth some of us are brought into this world with genetic abnormalities caused by a whole host of known and in many cases, unknown factors. We don't just throw these people into 'loony bins' anymore and label them as 'crazy' because we have a greater understanding of what some disabilities are and 'these people', are bloody human too.

Similary, left handed people aren't branded as the spawn of satan any more.

Getting back to the OP, thousands of years ago due to the ignorance of society, it probably was acceptable to think that you were 'not right' if a man had sexual feelings towards a man, or a woman towards a woman.

We now know that it isn't acceptable to have slaves, woman and men deserve to be treated equally and people with learning and physical disabilities have human rights too.

What I fail to understand is if we can learn and move on from some of the ignorant points of view I've highlighted above, why are we still living in the 'dark ages' when it comes to sexuality. :confused:


Are you serious? We were much more primitive people 2,000 years ago than we are now?

REALLY??????????????

Think seriously about the last 100 years of human history and then tell me you still think we're more civilised now than the inhabitants of the Roman Empire around 30AD.

We're just as primitive, just as cruel, just as depraved, just as degenerate now as we were then - only modern technology allows us to be ever so much more versatile and sophisticated in the way we go about our dirty business.

Do you seriously think that most human beings consciously and deliberately think through the decisions they make? That we weigh up the consequences of our actions? I don't think so. If we did, the entire media industry would collapse, and media moguls like Rupert Murdoch would have no more power than you or I.

We are all of us influenced by the media, by the people around us, by the culture in which we live, in ways we never become aware of. All I can say is that you have a very strange idea of yourself and the rest of the human race.

You say we're complicated people - I agree. But you DO realise that ideas like the utter injustice of human chattel slavery was first challenged by religious people - Christians in fact, like Wilberforce and Livingston? That the decent treatment of people with mental illnesses and physical disabilities was also something that came about thanks in great part to the consciences of Christian doctors and nurses? That the idea that lefties are somehow 'sinister' is about superstition, not religion? (Ever read the story of Ehud in the Book of Judges in the OT?)

Do you really think that people of the intellectual stature of Augustine of Hippo, John Calvin, John Wesley, John Henry Newman, Thomas Chalmers or Jonathan Edwards didn't realise that human beings are "complicated"?

As said, whether you credit them or not, the NT documents were ALL written within 100 years of Jesus' death - the latest is probably the Book of Revelation, which most responsible scholars date to around the time of the Emperor Domitian, 81-96 AD. Some folks date it maybe 20 years or so later, around 110-120. Augustine knew that in the 4/5th centuries AD. Calvin knew it in the 16th century. Wesley knew it in the 18th century AD. What were you saying about us being so much better educated these days?

[LiverpoolHibs]

I don't think that your idea of where "religious books" come from is anywhere near the mark, frankly. Even if it were, in the case of the Bible it hasn't worked.

In the antebellum Southern States of the USA the slaveholders used a few verses in Genesis to justify the practice and institution of black chattel slavery. Ministers and preachers(especially Methodists and Baptists) weren't welcome on the plantations because they preached the full Gospel, which includes the highly seditious and revolutionary idea that in the face of God ALL men and women are absolutely, irrevocably, and eternally EQUAL.

Far from supporting and condoning slavery or the oppression of the poor by the rich, the NT consistently portrays Jesus (God's Anointed Son, remember) as positively favouring the poor and disadvantaged. The apostolic church as portrayed in the early chapters of Acts was a church where rich men disposed of their property so that their poorer brothers and sisters could be provided for.

Even the Big Bad Nasty Apostle Paul wrote a letter to his rich friend Philemon along the lines of: "Hey, Philemon, you'll never guess who's visiting me in jail here - that useless slave of yours, Onesimus. Remember him? A bit of a waste of space, right? Well, I have to tell you that he got converted - he's a Christian now. So that makes him MY brother and YOUR brother. He's coming to meet you - he wants to ask forgiveness for the trouble he caused you. Now, you're well within your legal rights to punish him, but since he's a brother and an equal in Christ, and since he's been ever so helpful to me and I can really use him here, you MIGHT just consider setting him free and sending him back to me? Of course it's all up to you - just let your conscience guide you. After all, you and I have been so blessed by God, it would be a pity not to share the blessing with Onesimus. But whatever you think yourself..."

What do YOU think Philemon did?

As long as Martin Luther King (as a black Christian) and Malcolm X (as a Black Muslim) were content to attack discrimination against middle-class educated blacks, a large proportion of the white population of the US were prepared to tolerate them. As soon as they began to point out that poor whites - blue-collar and unskilled working-class - had more in common with poor blacks than they had with middle- and upper-class educated, well-heeled whites, they were in the body-bags.

It's a crashing generalisation that "religion was designed by the rich to keep the poor man down". That's one of the many things Karl Marx got very wrong. Yes, it can be, and often has been. But if you really knew the history of the Christian Church and how many totally awkward pains in the backside have been inspired by the Bible to upset the big guys' applecarts ...

BTW, I'm not sure about your claim that "we're all much better educated these days". We certainly know more - or at least those people who've actually done the work of study and experiment do - but most people nowadays derive their world-view from the TV and Internet, which means they have some very strange and inaccurate ideas indeed, sometimes. (Even stranger than my belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God.)

Anyone can amass a lot of unrelated and half-understood "facts" - many of which on closer examination turn out not to be "facts" at all. Real education, leading to wisdom, which seems to me to be sadly lacking in the present day, is the acquisition of the capacity to examine and know oneself and one's place in the world, and the ability to distinguish between real facts and assumptions that turn out to be delusions.

IMHO, religion accounts for a VERY VERY small proportion of the delusion in the modern world - CNN, Fox, and the Discovery Channel and American TV sitcoms and cop-shows account for far more.

Oh, and trashy mags like "Hello" and folks who believe all they read on the Internet.

Some excellent posts in this thread Doddie, this one included. But I do have to take issue with the emboldened bit. Marx had a much better analysis of religion as a social manifestation than he's ever really given credit for - largely due to Lenin's writings on the subject and people fundamentally misunderstanding the 'opium of the people' line.

He was an atheist but, as he said, his, "...criticism of religion is in embryo the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."

[--------]

Some excellent posts in this thread Doddie, this one included. But I do have to take issue with the emboldened bit. Marx had a much better analysis of religion as a social manifestation than he's ever really given credit for - largely due to Lenin's writings on the subject and people fundamentally misunderstanding the 'opium of the people' line.

He was an atheist but, as he said, his, "...criticism of religion is in embryo the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."


I think I inadvertently overlooked the difference between organised religion - things WE have to do to satisfy an angry and vengeful God - and the "faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3) which is all about what God has done for us once and for all in the Person and Work of our Lord Jesus Christ.

"But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." (Ephesians 2:2-10; NIV)

The faith that saves, as taught in the NT, is faith in the person and work of Christ - the acceptance of what HE has already done on our behalf on the Cross and in His resurrection. This is the free gift of God to all who believe. Faith, through the work of the Holy Spirit, changes us, and our "good works" aren't ways of earning God's favour - they're the natural outcome of the change that God has made in our hearts and lives.

I suppose that Marx WAS right enough about "religion" - religion can be a REAL 'downer' and no mistake. All I can say is that the faith I have ain't no 'downer' - it's the best 'upper' I've ever tried (and I've tried a few in my younger, stupider days).

[J-C]

I don't think that your idea of where "religious books" come from is anywhere near the mark, frankly. Even if it were, in the case of the Bible it hasn't worked.

In the antebellum Southern States of the USA the slaveholders used a few verses in Genesis to justify the practice and institution of black chattel slavery. Ministers and preachers(especially Methodists and Baptists) weren't welcome on the plantations because they preached the full Gospel, which includes the highly seditious and revolutionary idea that in the face of God ALL men and women are absolutely, irrevocably, and eternally EQUAL.

Far from supporting and condoning slavery or the oppression of the poor by the rich, the NT consistently portrays Jesus (God's Anointed Son, remember) as positively favouring the poor and disadvantaged. The apostolic church as portrayed in the early chapters of Acts was a church where rich men disposed of their property so that their poorer brothers and sisters could be provided for.

Even the Big Bad Nasty Apostle Paul wrote a letter to his rich friend Philemon along the lines of: "Hey, Philemon, you'll never guess who's visiting me in jail here - that useless slave of yours, Onesimus. Remember him? A bit of a waste of space, right? Well, I have to tell you that he got converted - he's a Christian now. So that makes him MY brother and YOUR brother. He's coming to meet you - he wants to ask forgiveness for the trouble he caused you. Now, you're well within your legal rights to punish him, but since he's a brother and an equal in Christ, and since he's been ever so helpful to me and I can really use him here, you MIGHT just consider setting him free and sending him back to me? Of course it's all up to you - just let your conscience guide you. After all, you and I have been so blessed by God, it would be a pity not to share the blessing with Onesimus. But whatever you think yourself..."

What do YOU think Philemon did?

As long as Martin Luther King (as a black Christian) and Malcolm X (as a Black Muslim) were content to attack discrimination against middle-class educated blacks, a large proportion of the white population of the US were prepared to tolerate them. As soon as they began to point out that poor whites - blue-collar and unskilled working-class - had more in common with poor blacks than they had with middle- and upper-class educated, well-heeled whites, they were in the body-bags.

It's a crashing generalisation that "religion was designed by the rich to keep the poor man down". That's one of the many things Karl Marx got very wrong. Yes, it can be, and often has been. But if you really knew the history of the Christian Church and how many totally awkward pains in the backside have been inspired by the Bible to upset the big guys' applecarts ...

BTW, I'm not sure about your claim that "we're all much better educated these days". We certainly know more - or at least those people who've actually done the work of study and experiment do - but most people nowadays derive their world-view from the TV and Internet, which means they have some very strange and inaccurate ideas indeed, sometimes. (Even stranger than my belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God.)

Anyone can amass a lot of unrelated and half-understood "facts" - many of which on closer examination turn out not to be "facts" at all. Real education, leading to wisdom, which seems to me to be sadly lacking in the present day, is the acquisition of the capacity to examine and know oneself and one's place in the world, and the ability to distinguish between real facts and assumptions that turn out to be delusions.

IMHO, religion accounts for a VERY VERY small proportion of the delusion in the modern world - CNN, Fox, and the Discovery Channel and American TV sitcoms and cop-shows account for far more.

Oh, and trashy mags like "Hello" and folks who believe all they read on the Internet.


If God is all knowing then tell me why he doesn't do something about other religions, such as Hindu/Buddhism/Scientology etc, surely their teachings go against the teachings of your God, how come he doesn't just come down and say" Hey! what do you lot think you're doing, I created all this, so why are you worshiping someoen else?"

Even in the days of the Romans/Greeks and Egyptians whao worshipped other deities( infact quite a few ) God did little about it, oh and the Vikings not too long ago were still worshiping Thor and Odin, not your God Almighty.

If there is only one God, then explain the vast numbers of varied religions, the way I see it if there is only one, then surely it follows tat there should only be one religion, God's religion.

Surely the teachings of Jesus went against the Hebrew teachings of his time, hence the reason he was shunned by his forefathers and eventually executed on the cross at their behest.
The OT was in fact the oldHebrew Scriptures or the Tanakh.

When looking at all the religions, I'd say the Sikh was probably the closest I've seen to proper Chritianity but hey! we've got that already so why look alsewhere, or indeed why not just use our well read and intelligent brains and realise that being a good/honest/upstanding person is the same as being a Christian without having the hassle of belonging to a group. I, like many others don't need to go into a big building to be a good person, my brain tells me it's the proper thing to do and I just get on with it but if someone feels the need to join a religious group, well that's for them and I for one have nothing against that at all.

[--------]

If God is all knowing then tell me why he doesn't do something about other religions, such as Hindu/Buddhism/Scientology etc, surely their teachings go against the teachings of your God, how come he doesn't just come down and say" Hey! what do you lot think you're doing, I created all this, so why are you worshiping someoen else?"

Even in the days of the Romans/Greeks and Egyptians whao worshipped other deities( infact quite a few ) God did little about it, oh and the Vikings not too long ago were still worshiping Thor and Odin, not your God Almighty.

If there is only one God, then explain the vast numbers of varied religions, the way I see it if there is only one, then surely it follows tat there should only be one religion, God's religion.

Surely the teachings of Jesus went against the Hebrew teachings of his time, hence the reason he was shunned by his forefathers and eventually executed on the cross at their behest.
The OT was in fact the oldHebrew Scriptures or the Tanakh.

When looking at all the religions, I'd say the Sikh was probably the closest I've seen to proper Chritianity but hey! we've got that already so why look alsewhere, or indeed why not just use our well read and intelligent brains and realise that being a good/honest/upstanding person is the same as being a Christian without having the hassle of belonging to a group. I, like many others don't need to go into a big building to be a good person, my brain tells me it's the proper thing to do and I just get on with it but if someone feels the need to join a religious group, well that's for them and I for one have nothing against that at all.


I believe He did - that's what the Gospel is about. God breaking into the world and showing us Who He is by living among us, reconciling us to Himself through His death on the Cross, and demonstrating His absolute sovereignty in His resurrection from the dead.

I don't "need to go into a big building to be a good person"; it's not about being "a good person". It's about me, as a very far from "good person", being reconciled to the God Who created me and gave me life and living in close fellowship with Him as I make my way through the world.

Christ's teachings didn't "go against the Hebrew teachings of His time" - everything He taught was the fulfilment and putting into a proper focus of the teachings of the OT. For those who had eyes to see, it was as clear as daylight that He was who He said He was. Sadly, most of us would rather settle for the limitations of our own twisted, turned-in-on-ourselves lives than allow God to transform us and change us into the people we were created to be.

Last point - "belonging to a group" isn't in my experience "a hassle". Right now I find myself in circumstances where the support and concern of my congregation have been the difference between coping and living a manageable life on the one hand, and crashing and burning on the other.

"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God..." (2 Corinthians 1:3,4; NIV)

[Twa Cairpets]

Are you serious? We were much more primitive people 2,000 years ago than we are now?

REALLY??????????????

Think seriously about the last 100 years of human history and then tell me you still think we're more civilised now than the inhabitants of the Roman Empire around 30AD.

We're just as primitive, just as cruel, just as depraved, just as degenerate now as we were then - only modern technology allows us to be ever so much more versatile and sophisticated in the way we go about our dirty business.

Do you seriously think that most human beings consciously and deliberately think through the decisions they make? That we weigh up the consequences of our actions? I don't think so. If we did, the entire media industry would collapse, and media moguls like Rupert Murdoch would have no more power than you or I.

We are all of us influenced by the media, by the people around us, by the culture in which we live, in ways we never become aware of. All I can say is that you have a very strange idea of yourself and the rest of the human race.

You say we're complicated people - I agree. But you DO realise that ideas like the utter injustice of human chattel slavery was first challenged by religious people - Christians in fact, like Wilberforce and Livingston? That the decent treatment of people with mental illnesses and physical disabilities was also something that came about thanks in great part to the consciences of Christian doctors and nurses? That the idea that lefties are somehow 'sinister' is about superstition, not religion? (Ever read the story of Ehud in the Book of Judges in the OT?)

Do you really think that people of the intellectual stature of Augustine of Hippo, John Calvin, John Wesley, John Henry Newman, Thomas Chalmers or Jonathan Edwards didn't realise that human beings are "complicated"?

As said, whether you credit them or not, the NT documents were ALL written within 100 years of Jesus' death - the latest is probably the Book of Revelation, which most responsible scholars date to around the time of the Emperor Domitian, 81-96 AD. Some folks date it maybe 20 years or so later, around 110-120. Augustine knew that in the 4/5th centuries AD. Calvin knew it in the 16th century. Wesley knew it in the 18th century AD. What were you saying about us being so much better educated these days?

I think it is very clear that we are significantly more advanced as both a society as a whole and as a collection of individuals living within that society.

The reason for this is that, in the Western World at least, our life focus is now (in general) less focused on finding shelter, warmth, protection from harm and food than it has been through any time in history. Life expectancy, infant mortality, literacy, access to information (regardless of whether or not is is accessed), attitude to slavery/women/human rights, freedom from myriad illnesses and diseases all point towards us being more civilised (by pretty much any criteria you care to choose).

Of course we are still developing and evolving as a society. The atrocities of the 20th century were appaling, but you also have to remember ultimately who won and what the reaction of the world to the atrocities was.

As people have more time and more access to learning, views and morals change and advance. This is to a large degree how the industrial revolution happened - "gentlemen scholars" or "natural philosphers" (many of them christians, I agree) - drove the development of science. Christians also played as you say a big role in the bettering of society. However, while this is undeniably true, there will have been many christians equally concerned to keep the status quo at whatever point of history you care to look at.

The slavery situation you mention is one that is often raised as an example of the good of christians, and the indivduals involved seen as a kind of embodiment of thw power of christianity. Its hard, for me at least, to square this with the biblical teaching regarding slavery, and the behaviour of christians up to the point that abolition happened. It cant just be airbrushed out of history, despite the efforts of apologists to explain it.

If it is a case of religion developing in line with society, its hard to see how it can't happen with the subject of the OP.

[hibsbollah]

The impact of protestant religious fervour on the American slave trade is complicated, as im sure Doddie well knows. On one hand, the abolitionist movement did come from liberal-minded protestants both in England and in the US itself. On the other, the Atlantic slave trade (and the genocide of the indigenous indian population) would never have happened without concepts of 'manifest destiny' and genetic superiority based on warped biblical
interpretations in the 19th century, influenced by the puritans,eugenicists and others driven by protestant zeal.

Scripture, as has been observed already, can be used to justify any side of any argument.

[--------]

The impact of protestant religious fervour on the American slave trade is complicated, as im sure Doddie well knows. On one hand, the abolitionist movement did come from liberal-minded protestants both in England and in the US itself. On the other, the Atlantic slave trade (and the genocide of the indigenous indian population) would never have happened without concepts of 'manifest destiny' and genetic superiority based on warped biblical
interpretations in the 19th century, influenced by the puritans,eugenicists and others driven by protestant zeal.

Scripture, as has been observed already, can be used to justify any side of any argument.


Totally agree. You find the slave-holders quoting the passage in Genesis about Ham seeing his father Noah's nakedness and being cursed for it, and abolitionists quoting Paul in Galatians about freedom in Christ and all being one in Christ regardless of race. Academic careers have been built on the study of the place of the Bible in the abolition struggles antebellum, Christianity and the Civil Rights movement, and, of course, the 'invisible empire in the West' aka the KKK.

And those who regarded the First Peoples as incarnate demons from hell, and people (not many, I admit) like, for example, David Brainerd who went as a missionary to them, lived among them, cared very deeply for them, and eventually died at a very young age still working among them.

[Dinkydoo]

Just so fundamentally wrong and ill-informed it demands a response. :rolleyes:

The NT was written between 45AD and 95AD. Jesus Christ was crucified in 33AD.

My apologies, after doing a bit of research it does appear as though the whole NT was written between 50 and 100AD - everything I've read in the past couple of hours suggests that the NT being written over 100 years after Jesus's death is somewhat of a myth, spread by skeptics over the accuracy of the NT.

I'll certainly be more questioning of the bollocks some try to feed me in future. :greengrin


Are you serious? We were much more primitive people 2,000 years ago than we are now?

REALLY??????????????

Think seriously about the last 100 years of human history and then tell me you still think we're more civilised now than the inhabitants of the Roman Empire around 30AD.


Of course I'm serious.

We are much more advanced medically and scientifically and have a far greater level of general intelligence as a society than we were 2,000 years ago. This has a massive impact on what society consider to be right morally and as such we've successfully stood up to racists, sexists and people who think disabled people are lesser humans than the "normal" folk and said no, this behaviour is not acceptable and will bne punished by law.



We're just as primitive, just as cruel, just as depraved, just as degenerate now as we were then - only modern technology allows us to be ever so much more versatile and sophisticated in the way we go about our dirty business.

I never said anything about being cruel but an example of how we've developed in terms of state sponsered cruelty would be the fact that stoning, lynching and other public floggings have been long abolished in the West.

I don't really understand where people being depraved comes into all of this but would be interested to hear an example of how you think we are "just as depraved" as we were two thousand years ago....



Do you seriously think that most human beings consciously and deliberately think through the decisions they make? That we weigh up the consequences of our actions? I don't think so. If we did, the entire media industry would collapse, and media moguls like Rupert Murdoch would have no more power than you or I.

We are all of us influenced by the media, by the people around us, by the culture in which we live, in ways we never become aware of. All I can say is that you have a very strange idea of yourself and the rest of the human race.


Honestly, yes. I'd like to think so. If we didn't ever consciously and deliberately think through the consequences of our actions then there would be absolute chaos on the streets.

People stealing, raping and murdering on a much, much larger scale than is happening now - everyone would be looking out for number one, doing anything and everything in thier power to improve thier quality of living, without ever thinking of anyone else.

I am under no illusion that we live in some perfect utopia but to suggest that nobody deliberatly thinks through the consequences of thier actions is worrying.

On the contrary Doddie, this to me seems like a very strange and cynical perception of the human race.



You say we're complicated people - I agree. But you DO realise that ideas like the utter injustice of human chattel slavery was first challenged by religious people - Christians in fact, like Wilberforce and Livingston? That the decent treatment of people with mental illnesses and physical disabilities was also something that came about thanks in great part to the consciences of Christian doctors and nurses? That the idea that lefties are somehow 'sinister' is about superstition, not religion? (Ever read the story of Ehud in the Book of Judges in the OT?)

So what? :confused:

I'm not looking to point score on what benefits Christianity has had on society over the years and do realise and understand that the basic teachings of goodwill in the Bible are exactly how we should be living our lives.

The point I was trying to make was that we've come a long, long way since the OT - abolishment of slavery, equal rights for women, recognition of rights for disabled people were only a few examples of this - and if we as a society have managed to learn, develop and move on from these narrow-minded ways of thinking then why are we still talking about the relationship between man and woman being the only "blessed" sexual bond.



Do you really think that people of the intellectual stature of Augustine of Hippo, John Calvin, John Wesley, John Henry Newman, Thomas Chalmers or Jonathan Edwards didn't realise that human beings are "complicated"?


I didn't state or intentionally imply this.



As said, whether you credit them or not, the NT documents were ALL written within 100 years of Jesus' death - the latest is probably the Book of Revelation, which most responsible scholars date to around the time of the Emperor Domitian, 81-96 AD. Some folks date it maybe 20 years or so later, around 110-120. Augustine knew that in the 4/5th centuries AD. Calvin knew it in the 16th century. Wesley knew it in the 18th century AD. What were you saying about us being so much better educated these days?

Fair enough, I've done a bit of research and have found that the NT was apparently written within 100 years of Jesus's death.

[J-C]

I believe He did - that's what the Gospel is about. God breaking into the world and showing us Who He is by living among us, reconciling us to Himself through His death on the Cross, and demonstrating His absolute sovereignty in His resurrection from the dead.

I don't "need to go into a big building to be a good person"; it's not about being "a good person". It's about me, as a very far from "good person", being reconciled to the God Who created me and gave me life and living in close fellowship with Him as I make my way through the world.

Christ's teachings didn't "go against the Hebrew teachings of His time" - everything He taught was the fulfilment and putting into a proper focus of the teachings of the OT. For those who had eyes to see, it was as clear as daylight that He was who He said He was. Sadly, most of us would rather settle for the limitations of our own twisted, turned-in-on-ourselves lives than allow God to transform us and change us into the people we were created to be.
JOHN 19:7-11 7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.” 8 Therefore, when Pilate heard that saying, he was the more afraid, 9 and went again into the Praetorium, and said to Jesus, “Where are You from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 Then Pilate said to Him, “Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?” 11 Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”



Last point - "belonging to a group" isn't in my experience "a hassle". Right now I find myself in circumstances where the support and concern of my congregation have been the difference between coping and living a manageable life on the one hand, and crashing and burning on the other.

"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God..." (2 Corinthians 1:3,4; NIV)

Again you do not and cannot show any answer to Gods existance, just because scriptures were written a few thousand years ago does not prove the existance of the almighty. This is where you and your brethren of the christian or indeed any of the other religions let yourselves down, you say there is a God as it all written down by men in books but you cannot prove such a thing, no matter how zealot you are proof of such a being must be given to counter any discussion. Unlike the scientific world where proof is essential to any discussion or argument, we can prove the Earth is older than what the Bible says, prove we came from a species of ape and show that swow that evolution has taken place and is still taking place to this day.

Also by finishing off at the bottom with a passage from the Bible does absolutely nothing but annoy the dickens out of me, why on earth would that help me understand your viewpoint in any discussion is beyond me.

[BEEJ]

My apologies, after doing a bit of research it does appear as though the whole NT was written between 50 and 100AD - everything I've read in the past couple of hours suggests that the NT being written over 100 years after Jesus's death is somewhat of a myth, spread by skeptics over the accuracy of the NT.

I'll certainly be more questioning of the bollocks some try to feed me in future. :greengrin
:aok:

:greengrin

[lapsedhibee]

Sadly, most of us would rather settle for the limitations of our own twisted, turned-in-on-ourselves lives than allow God to transform us and change us into the people we were created to be.


Not sure if you're meaning to imply this at all, and wary of making something trite of your thoughtful post, but if there's even a hint of a suspicion of a slight suggestion here that irreligious people are somehow twisted and inward-looking, have to disagree violently. Would personally find it easier to make a case that certain sorts of religious people are twisted (extreme example: Islamist suicide bombers) and inward-looking (not so extreme: those folk who appear to spend most of their waking day contemplating the relationship between their self and their Lord).

[Hibs Class]

Again you do not and cannot show any answer to Gods existance, just because scriptures were written a few thousand years ago does not prove the existance of the almighty. This is where you and your brethren of the christian or indeed any of the other religions let yourselves down, you say there is a God as it all written down by men in books but you cannot prove such a thing, no matter how zealot you are proof of such a being must be given to counter any discussion. Unlike the scientific world where proof is essential to any discussion or argument, we can prove the Earth is older than what the Bible says, prove we came from a species of ape and show that swow that evolution has taken place and is still taking place to this day.

Also by finishing off at the bottom with a passage from the Bible does absolutely nothing but annoy the dickens out of me, why on earth would that help me understand your viewpoint in any discussion is beyond me.

Is the essence of this post that because proof cannot be offered that God exists, that such a situation proves that God does not exist? Religion is based on faith not proof, and that is equally the case for atheism - you cannot offer any proof that God does not exist.

[J-C]

Is the essence of this post that because proof cannot be offered that God exists, that such a situation proves that God does not exist? Religion is based on faith not proof, and that is equally the case for atheism - you cannot offer any proof that God does not exist.


Very hard to always get over exactly what one means, I was attempting to show that although people have their faith, you cannot say to others that we are all sinners/heathens/etc etc and that God's will is the be all and end all of everything in this world. As there is no proof of God, then all you can have is faith, unlike science where proof is the essence, sometimes typing after a shift in the cab in the early hours isn't the best as the brain is a bit scrambled. As an Athiest I don't believe in a God due to there being no evidence, similar to all other religions like Hindu/Buddhism and Sikhism, we do have scientific evidence showing that the earth is very much older than the Bible states and proof that we are an intelligent ape, related to other ape families.

What would be good to see on this thread is why some people have their faith in God, the reasoning behind it, what they get out of the church and not to preach to us at every opertunity.

[Hibrandenburg]

Is the essence of this post that because proof cannot be offered that God exists, that such a situation proves that God does not exist? Religion is based on faith not proof, and that is equally the case for atheism - you cannot offer any proof that God does not exist.
We can also not prove that dragons, unicorns or nessie existed. However like religion we can piece together where these fables have their roots.

[BEEJ]

We are much more advanced medically and scientifically and have a far greater level of general intelligence as a society than we were 2,000 years ago.
Indeed. :agree:


This has a massive impact on what society consider to be right morally
Not at all sure that connection applies.


and as such we've successfully stood up to racists, sexists and people who think disabled people are lesser humans than the "normal" folk and said no, this behaviour is not acceptable and will bne punished by law.
Hold that thought! :wink:


If we didn't ever consciously and deliberately think through the consequences of our actions then there would be absolute chaos on the streets.

People stealing, raping and murdering on a much, much larger scale than is happening now - everyone would be looking out for number one, doing anything and everything in thier power to improve thier quality of living, without ever thinking of anyone else.

I don't really understand where people being depraved comes into all of this but would be interested to hear an example of how you think we are "just as depraved" as we were two thousand years ago....
I would offer you the many examples of rampant looting that have occurred in modern civilisations in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster. As law and order have broken down, we have seen on our TV screens people taking to the streets in large numbers to steal anything of value they can lay their hands on with plenty of violence thrown in for good measure. In fact, just the kind of image of a horror society that you have described above.

So I would argue that what we see by way of 'reasoned order' in western civilisations is driven as much if not moreso by the understanding of the consequences or punishment that will follow if we step out of line and are caught doing so
.

I am under no illusion that we live in some perfect utopia but to suggest that nobody deliberatly thinks through the consequences of thier actions is worrying.
You can certainly speak for yourself and how your own moral compass aids your decision making in life. Sadly, you cannot speak for western society as a whole.

That we are a more technically advanced society is without doubt. That human nature (or the human heart) is any different to what it was hundreds or thousands of years ago is highly debatable.

[J-C]

Thousands of years ago no matter where in the world you were, the elders and educated among the people were the ones with power and the ability to control their people by telling them that their God will be vengeful and was to be feared if the laws written down by said God wasn't obeyed. The people being mostly ignorant and illiterate cowered and did as the elders and educated told them for fear, this could be said about the Romans/Greeks/Egyptians etc who didn't believe in 1 God but in many gods ??
We are more educated as has been said and thus we question those so called better educated and powerful amongst us, we no longer fear something that we generally know to be untrue, we are more realistic and fear being mugged/raped/evicted etc.

[Twa Cairpets]

Is the essence of this post that because proof cannot be offered that God exists, that such a situation proves that God does not exist? Religion is based on faith not proof, and that is equally the case for atheism - you cannot offer any proof that God does not exist.

As Hiberlin has commented, the burden of proof for extraordinary claims rests with those making the claim.

Esentially, it isn't possible to prove a negative. Christians can no more prove Allah doesnt exist or that Odin had no part in creation than I can that the Christian God doesnt exist. Read about Bertrand Russell and the cosmic teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot)for that particular thought process.

The more that I've dicussed this type of topic, the more the question of proof or otherwise of a deity of any particular variety seems to lead to a dead-end: "Prove It". "Can't". End of discussion. Google Douglas Adams and Babel Fish for a much funnier explanation.

From my perception, the more I read and watch on the topic, the more I am convinced that there isn't a God. I can't prove there isn't, but then I dont have to. There is an oft-quoted atheist phrase is that as a Christian, you don't believe in thousands and thousands of Gods, and that we only believe in one fewer than you.

What is much more critical are the beliefs re-inforced and morality claimed to be held as a result of religious belief. Both FH and ancienthibby in this thread have claimed a divine justification for believing what they do about homosexuality, and the CoS are at the point, apparently, of losing congergations as a result of this biblical direction. (ODS would claim this has nothing to do with the rest of us, but it is if it perpetuates to even a small degree intolerance and condemnation of individuals)

Where religion becomes dangerous and impacts individual believers is the rejection of critical thinking or questioning of dogma because of what any given holy book says. It's very hard to come up with objections to gay people marrying or being together if you strip out religion.

[bighairyfaeleith]

For me, denying someone the right to be what they are is probably the most un-christian thing you can do, if someone is gay and a minister then so be it. The attempts to justify it through the bible and prayer are really quite ludicrous, but then religion also appears ludicrous to me so I'm probably not the best person to comment.

[Dinkydoo]

Indeed. :agree:


Not at all sure that connection applies.


The way I see it, the more we understand ourselves and the world we live in, the easier it becomes to define what is 'right and wrong'.

Due to our greater understanding of the implications passive smoking can have one's health, we in this country have in the past few years implemented a series of no smoking laws which are designed to protect non smokers - this IMO is an example of exactly how our understanding of science can impact our morals.

I bet there are far fewer parents exposing thier children to 2nd hand smoke inhalation now that we know this can be just as bad (or even worse), for the person not smoking as physically taking a draw on a fag.

Although there will always be inconsiderate people in this world, this doesn't mean that the vast majority of us don't seriously consider the consequences of our actions. It's far more indicative of how much of a dick that person is, again imo.




Hold that thought! :wink:



I would offer you the many examples of rampant looting that have occurred in modern civilisations in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster. As law and order have broken down, we have seen on our TV screens people taking to the streets in large numbers to steal anything of value they can lay their hands on with plenty of violence thrown in for good measure. In fact, just the kind of image of a horror society that you have described above.

So I would argue that what we see by way of 'reasoned order' in western civilisations is driven as much if not moreso by the understanding of the consequences or punishment that will follow if we step out of line and are caught doing so
.

Unfortunately I can't really argue with that however, I would say that governements implementing new laws as the 'rule setters' are in many cases driven by a greater understanding of the given subject. But you're probably right in saying that more people actually fear getting caught more than how thier actions will impact on others.

I myself remember getting caught 'bagging it' (skiving) once at school. One of the teachers said to me in the subsequent meeting I had with my parents, "So, what have you learned from this experience" and I replied, "getting caught really, really sucks". :wink:



You can certainly speak for yourself and how your own moral compass aids your decision making in life. Sadly, you cannot speak for western society as a whole.


I wasn't trying to say that the whole of western society consciously and deliberatly thinks through the consequences of each and every action - a lot of the issues we face today wouldn't be present if we did.

What I meant was that it seems even more ridiculous to me, to suggest that we as human beings don't do this at all, or the number of people doing so is far less than the number who generall couldn't give a ****.

Even if we only think about what will happen if we get caught comitting a crime, we are still thinking about the consequences, just the ones which may impact on yourself personally.



That we are a more technically advanced society is without doubt. That human nature (or the human heart) is any different to what it was hundreds or thousands of years ago is highly debatable.

It certainly is. :greengrin

[BEEJ]

I myself remember getting caught 'bagging it' (skiving) once at school. One of the teachers said to me in the subsequent meeting I had with my parents, "So, what have you learned from this experience" and I replied, "getting caught really, really sucks". :wink:
:tee hee:

Now that is true wisdom!

[Hibs Class]

As Hiberlin has commented, the burden of proof for extraordinary claims rests with those making the claim.

Esentially, it isn't possible to prove a negative. Christians can no more prove Allah doesnt exist or that Odin had no part in creation than I can that the Christian God doesnt exist. Read about Bertrand Russell and the cosmic teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot)for that particular thought process.

The more that I've dicussed this type of topic, the more the question of proof or otherwise of a deity of any particular variety seems to lead to a dead-end: "Prove It". "Can't". End of discussion. Google Douglas Adams and Babel Fish for a much funnier explanation.

From my perception, the more I read and watch on the topic, the more I am convinced that there isn't a God. I can't prove there isn't, but then I dont have to. There is an oft-quoted atheist phrase is that as a Christian, you don't believe in thousands and thousands of Gods, and that we only believe in one fewer than you.

What is much more critical are the beliefs re-inforced and morality claimed to be held as a result of religious belief. Both FH and ancienthibby in this thread have claimed a divine justification for believing what they do about homosexuality, and the CoS are at the point, apparently, of losing congergations as a result of this biblical direction. (ODS would claim this has nothing to do with the rest of us, but it is if it perpetuates to even a small degree intolerance and condemnation of individuals)

Where religion becomes dangerous and impacts individual believers is the rejection of critical thinking or questioning of dogma because of what any given holy book says. It's very hard to come up with objections to gay people marrying or being together if you strip out religion.

I don't feel the need to prove anything to others in this regard, which is just as well as it's unproveable! My point was that it's also unreasonable for anyone else to say "there is no God" because it's equally unproveable. JC50 referred earlier to being preached at; I think there's as much preaching about atheism as there is about Christianity.

[Twa Cairpets]

So I would argue that what we see by way of 'reasoned order' in western civilisations is driven as much if not moreso by the understanding of the consequences or punishment that will follow if we step out of line and are caught doing so.

BEEJ, I don't know if this is intentional, but the irony is magnificent.

The consequence of getting caught for, say, theft for a sinner is an eternity of torment and damnation in the fire of hell (unless of course you repent). The consequence of getting caught for an atheist is some time in chokey, no matter how often you say you're truly sorry.

[Twa Cairpets]

I don't feel the need to prove anything to others in this regard, which is just as well as it's unproveable! My point was that it's also unreasonable for anyone else to say "there is no God" because it's equally unproveable. JC50 referred earlier to being preached at; I think there's as much preaching about atheism as there is about Christianity.

No, sorry, this is not unreasonable. Fruitless, maybe, but unreasonable - no.

You're putting the burden of proof on the same evidential level as the burden of disproof, which it clearly isn't. Your position is of a somewhat huge claim being made, mine is of skepticism of that claim. It's up to you to provide evidence or support of that claim, otherwise it is chalked up to faith (which is fine if that's what you choose to believe, but is not fine if you claim its justified because my inability to disprove is equaivalent to your ability to prove). If it's just faith we'll just move on.

The old canard about atheism being preached (or, as is often claimed, being a faith or religion in itself) is nonsense. On this thread, with a few exceptions, there has been very little preaching from either side of the fence, I think. Atheists are often accused of preaching because they challenge people on what has, until relatively recently, been a taboo subject to broach. I suspect it is very difficult for people of faith to have their innermost beliefs dismissed, sometimes derisively, as a collection of iron-age fairy tales.

However, I also believe that challenging people on their beliefs, and trying to do it with some courtesy, is entirely valid and fair. If someones faith is strong enough, they will be able to take it and respond equally with challenges to my opinions/moral code/ethics etc, which is also absolutely fine (Doddie is a prime example. We aren't ever going to agree, but I like reading his opinions).

Some people of faith cry "preaching" when they are challenged by strong opinions. It's not. Try actually reading Dawkins or Daniel Dennett or Sam Harris or watching YouTube to see Matt Dillahunty or AronRa or Potholer54 or Thunderf00t and it's intelligent, reasoned stuff. They all react vehemently to the extremes of religion, but also make very good cases for atheism when considering the main stream religions.

What none of them want to do is convert anyone to atheism, because that's an oxymoron. What they all want to do is get people to think for themselves, and not accept uncritically the received wisdom of religion.

[BEEJ]

BEEJ, I don't know if this is intentional, but the irony is magnificent.

The consequence of getting caught for, say, theft for a sinner is an eternity of torment and damnation in the fire of hell (unless of course you repent). The consequence of getting caught for an atheist is some time in chokey, no matter how often you say you're truly sorry.
:confused: In that unique style of yours, you extract a comment from a post and offer up an observation quite tangential to its original context.

For what its worth (and assuming I understand your point) I don't think you'll find many folks who profess faith suggesting that those amongst them caught transgressing the laws of the land should somehow get off scot free and escape prison, fines or whatever punishment the courts hand down.

You serve your sentence in this life in order that justice is seen to be done. So 'people of religious faith' if they transgress will and should spend the same 'time in chokey' as those of any secular belief system.

Whatever judgment God hands down for eternity is an entirely different matter.

(Weird. :greengrin)

[Hibs Class]

No, sorry, this is not unreasonable. Fruitless, maybe, but unreasonable - no.

You're putting the burden of proof on the same evidential level as the burden of disproof, which it clearly isn't. Your position is of a somewhat huge claim being made, mine is of skepticism of that claim. It's up to you to provide evidence or support of that claim, otherwise it is chalked up to faith (which is fine if that's what you choose to believe, but is not fine if you claim its justified because my inability to disprove is equaivalent to your ability to prove). If it's just faith we'll just move on.

The old canard about atheism being preached (or, as is often claimed, being a faith or religion in itself) is nonsense. On this thread, with a few exceptions, there has been very little preaching from either side of the fence, I think. Atheists are often accused of preaching because they challenge people on what has, until relatively recently, been a taboo subject to broach. I suspect it is very difficult for people of faith to have their innermost beliefs dismissed, sometimes derisively, as a collection of iron-age fairy tales.

However, I also believe that challenging people on their beliefs, and trying to do it with some courtesy, is entirely valid and fair. If someones faith is strong enough, they will be able to take it and respond equally with challenges to my opinions/moral code/ethics etc, which is also absolutely fine (Doddie is a prime example. We aren't ever going to agree, but I like reading his opinions).

Some people of faith cry "preaching" when they are challenged by strong opinions. It's not. Try actually reading Dawkins or Daniel Dennett or Sam Harris or watching YouTube to see Matt Dillahunty or AronRa or Potholer54 or Thunderf00t and it's intelligent, reasoned stuff. They all react vehemently to the extremes of religion, but also make very good cases for atheism when considering the main stream religions.

What none of them want to do is convert anyone to atheism, because that's an oxymoron. What they all want to do is get people to think for themselves, and not accept uncritically the received wisdom of religion.

I'd sum it up like this:

It's reasonable and unarguably accurate for a Christian to say "I believe in God" and for an atheist to say "I believe there is no God". "I believe" is the key element of each statement as it represents a personal conviction.

It is less reasonable for a Christian to say "there is no doubt that God exists" and also less reasonable for an atheist to say "there is no doubt that God does not exist".

Christians don't have to prove that God exists. Atheists don't have to prove that God doesn't exist. Each believes what they believe.

[Twa Cairpets]

:confused: In that unique style of yours, you extract a comment from a post and offer up an observation quite tangential to its original context.

For what its worth (and assuming I understand your point) I don't think you'll find many folks who profess faith suggesting that those amongst them caught transgressing the laws of the land should somehow get off scot free and escape prison, fines or whatever punishment the courts hand down.

You serve your sentence in this life in order that justice is seen to be done. So 'people of religious faith' if they transgress will and should spend the same 'time in chokey' as those of any secular belief system.

Whatever judgment God hands down for eternity is an entirely different matter.

(Weird. :greengrin)

Cool - love the idea of a having a unique style. :wink:

I was being maybe a wee bit flippantly tongue in cheek with the crime/punishment thing.

I read your post as being that punished was the main reason people acted well. Christianity has had this as one of the cores of its teaching, hence the irony.

Apologies if I read it incorrectly.

[J-C]

I'd sum it up like this:

It's reasonable and unarguably accurate for a Christian to say "I believe in God" and for an atheist to say "I believe there is no God". "I believe" is the key element of each statement as it represents a personal conviction.

It is less reasonable for a Christian to say "there is no doubt that God exists" and also less reasonable for an atheist to say "there is no doubt that God does not exist".

Christians don't have to prove that God exists. Atheists don't have to prove that God doesn't exist. Each believes what they believe.

This a more reasonable argument for this thread, unfortunately there are one or two on here who like to preach their faith at you as if it was immoral and wrong not to believe in a great deity up in the heavens somewhere, I wonder if I was a scientologist would they act that way, it's a faith but not theirs, or even Hindu/Sikh/Buddhism etc, would they still preach at me??

[Twa Cairpets]

I'd sum it up like this:

It's reasonable and unarguably accurate for a Christian to say "I believe in God" and for an atheist to say "I believe there is no God". "I believe" is the key element of each statement as it represents a personal conviction.

It is less reasonable for a Christian to say "there is no doubt that God exists" and also less reasonable for an atheist to say "there is no doubt that God does not exist".

Christians don't have to prove that God exists. Atheists don't have to prove that God doesn't exist. Each believes what they believe.

First paragraph - yes, but you have a very short conversation

Second paragraph - very few atheists will say "there is no doubt there is no God " (or more accurately there are no Gods). It may be claimed that there is no evidence for a God, but that's a different thing. If anyone shows me evidence of a God or he pops up and does a miracle or two, or even show's himself just to me, I'll evangelise to a degree that makes ancienthibee look like Ricahrd Dawkins' more militant brother.

Third paragraph - I'm infering that you mean that everyone is entitled to believe what they want and all beliefs have equal validity. I dont think that is true. Do you think people who believe in fairies or Wicca or Druidism have equally valid belief sets? I don't. They're entitled to believe it of course, but belief does not equal truth, and thats of much more interest to me.

[Hibs Class]

First paragraph - yes, but you have a very short conversation

Second paragraph - very few atheists will say "there is no doubt there is no God " (or more accurately there are no Gods). It may be claimed that there is no evidence for a God, but that's a different thing. If anyone shows me evidence of a God or he pops up and does a miracle or two, or even show's himself just to me, I'll evangelise to a degree that makes ancienthibee look like Ricahrd Dawkins' more militant brother.

Third paragraph - I'm infering that you mean that everyone is entitled to believe what they want and all beliefs have equal validity. I dont think that is true. Do you think people who believe in fairies or Wicca or Druidism have equally valid belief sets? I don't. They're entitled to believe it of course, but belief does not equal truth, and thats of much more interest to me.

I do mean that people can believe what they want. I'm not inferring that all beliefs have equal validity. I'm making an observation in relation to Christianity. I agree that belief does not equal truth (although bringing truth into it is opening another can of worms, being as truth can either be fact or can be stating what one believes to be true!)

[Twa Cairpets]

I do mean that people can believe what they want. I'm not inferring that all beliefs have equal validity. I'm making an observation in relation to Christianity. I agree that belief does not equal truth (although bringing truth into it is opening another can of worms, being as truth can either be fact or can be stating what one believes to be true!)

The fact you are making your observation in relation to christianity is irrelevant. If you believe something, that's fine, but that belief needs, presumably, to be based on something.

I'm questioning what that basis for belief is, and more particularly how people come to the conclusion that some things are immoral (as per the OP) on the basis of this belief/faith. I believe killing is wrong, theft is wrong, and any other number of things that christians believe are wrong as well without any faith, and arrive at that conclusion because, I think, I'm a decent enough person.

The question of truth can I agree be contentious. I define truth in this instance as being "does the bible accurately describe how the world came into being and was, essentially, managed by a God, and do I believe the story of Jesus as being the son of God sent to absolve our sins". I personally do not believe either of these things to be factually true because there is nothing whatsoever to support them. You can believe the teachings written down to be true, but that doesnt mean the stories they came from are literally true.

When people base an opinion that to my mind is immoral on something that is, as far as I'm concerned simply not true, then I will challenge the validity of that belief system.

[Dashing Bob S]

I don't think that your idea of where "religious books" come from is anywhere near the mark, frankly. Even if it were, in the case of the Bible it hasn't worked.

In the antebellum Southern States of the USA the slaveholders used a few verses in Genesis to justify the practice and institution of black chattel slavery. Ministers and preachers(especially Methodists and Baptists) weren't welcome on the plantations because they preached the full Gospel, which includes the highly seditious and revolutionary idea that in the face of God ALL men and women are absolutely, irrevocably, and eternally EQUAL.

Far from supporting and condoning slavery or the oppression of the poor by the rich, the NT consistently portrays Jesus (God's Anointed Son, remember) as positively favouring the poor and disadvantaged. The apostolic church as portrayed in the early chapters of Acts was a church where rich men disposed of their property so that their poorer brothers and sisters could be provided for.

Even the Big Bad Nasty Apostle Paul wrote a letter to his rich friend Philemon along the lines of: "Hey, Philemon, you'll never guess who's visiting me in jail here - that useless slave of yours, Onesimus. Remember him? A bit of a waste of space, right? Well, I have to tell you that he got converted - he's a Christian now. So that makes him MY brother and YOUR brother. He's coming to meet you - he wants to ask forgiveness for the trouble he caused you. Now, you're well within your legal rights to punish him, but since he's a brother and an equal in Christ, and since he's been ever so helpful to me and I can really use him here, you MIGHT just consider setting him free and sending him back to me? Of course it's all up to you - just let your conscience guide you. After all, you and I have been so blessed by God, it would be a pity not to share the blessing with Onesimus. But whatever you think yourself..."

What do YOU think Philemon did?

As long as Martin Luther King (as a black Christian) and Malcolm X (as a Black Muslim) were content to attack discrimination against middle-class educated blacks, a large proportion of the white population of the US were prepared to tolerate them. As soon as they began to point out that poor whites - blue-collar and unskilled working-class - had more in common with poor blacks than they had with middle- and upper-class educated, well-heeled whites, they were in the body-bags.

It's a crashing generalisation that "religion was designed by the rich to keep the poor man down". That's one of the many things Karl Marx got very wrong. Yes, it can be, and often has been. But if you really knew the history of the Christian Church and how many totally awkward pains in the backside have been inspired by the Bible to upset the big guys' applecarts ...

BTW, I'm not sure about your claim that "we're all much better educated these days". We certainly know more - or at least those people who've actually done the work of study and experiment do - but most people nowadays derive their world-view from the TV and Internet, which means they have some very strange and inaccurate ideas indeed, sometimes. (Even stranger than my belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God.)

Anyone can amass a lot of unrelated and half-understood "facts" - many of which on closer examination turn out not to be "facts" at all. Real education, leading to wisdom, which seems to me to be sadly lacking in the present day, is the acquisition of the capacity to examine and know oneself and one's place in the world, and the ability to distinguish between real facts and assumptions that turn out to be delusions.

IMHO, religion accounts for a VERY VERY small proportion of the delusion in the modern world - CNN, Fox, and the Discovery Channel and American TV sitcoms and cop-shows account for far more.

Oh, and trashy mags like "Hello" and folks who believe all they read on the Internet.

Stop all this common sense, compassion and concern for the underdog nonsense Doddie, you're giving Christianity a good name!

[Hibs Class]

The fact you are making your observation in relation to christianity is irrelevant. If you believe something, that's fine, but that belief needs, presumably, to be based on something.

I'm questioning what that basis for belief is, and more particularly how people come to the conclusion that some things are immoral (as per the OP) on the basis of this belief/faith. I believe killing is wrong, theft is wrong, and any other number of things that christians believe are wrong as well without any faith, and arrive at that conclusion because, I think, I'm a decent enough person.

The question of truth can I agree be contentious. I define truth in this instance as being "does the bible accurately describe how the world came into being and was, essentially, managed by a God, and do I believe the story of Jesus as being the son of God sent to absolve our sins". I personally do not believe either of these things to be factually true because there is nothing whatsoever to support them. You can believe the teachings written down to be true, but that doesnt mean the stories they came from are literally true.

When people base an opinion that to my mind is immoral on something that is, as far as I'm concerned simply not true, then I will challenge the validity of that belief system.

Re your first para, you think it's irrelevant. I am comfortable to disagree. I don't find it easy to explain why I believe what I do- I suspect it's partly because I want to believe, but I also know it's more than merely that.

Re your last para, I'm not quite sure what you're saying. It reads as though you're suggesting that you find my opinion immoral (i.e. wicked or devoid of morality rather than simply wrong and one that you disagree with). I doubt that's what you actually mean?

[Twa Cairpets]

Re your first para, you think it's irrelevant. I am comfortable to disagree. I don't find it easy to explain why I believe what I do- I suspect it's partly because I want to believe, but I also know it's more than merely that.

Nothing wrong with wanting to believe - it's a very honest reason. The "I know it's more than that" would be the bit that lends itself to a bit more examination.


Re your last para, I'm not quite sure what you're saying. It reads as though you're suggesting that you find my opinion immoral (i.e. wicked or devoid of morality rather than simply wrong and one that you disagree with). I doubt that's what you actually mean?

Sorry, it wasnt written clearly. The OP and others have come up with no reason other than the bible for their objections to homosexuality. I find homophobia pretty immoral and abhorrent, and it both baffles and angers me that people are willing to take a strong stance on this position on the say so of something which is, from everything I can see, has no basis in fact.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Sorry, it wasnt written clearly. The OP and others have come up with no reason other than the bible for their objections to homosexuality. I find homophobia pretty immoral and abhorrent, and it both baffles and angers me that people are willing to take a strong stance on this position on the say so of something which is, from everything I can see, has no basis in fact.

Not quite sure about that statement to be honest TC. You find homophobia immoral and abhorrent, some people find homosexuality immoral and abhorrent. OK, the bible has been used on here to justify their feelings. I personally do not believe that the bible is the sole reason for this abhorrence. People have different beliefs. I personally feel, abhorrent is possibly too strong a word, unease possibly better, with the homosexual act, however I don't think it is immoral. Having been probed frequently over the last 18 months or so I cannot see how anyone can derive pleasure from it, but that is another matter. Why the unease? I have not a clue. As I stated earlier I am not particularly comfortable watching hetereosexual canoodling in public either so maybe I am just an old prude. Some things should be done in private. I am not going to waste (IMO) my life analyzing and questioning every feeling I have. I am comfortable with my beliefs, and whilst never the greatest debater in life, unable to put great convoluted words together (not saying you do incidentally), I am happy with that.

One thing I feel about the bible. People hark on as to when it was written etc. and it being a tool to constrain the masses. I don't really see it like that at all. We all know it is a collection of various manuscripts put together. None of the masses before 100 AD would have been able to read. Why then write something down to beat them up over when each minister/priest whatever could just make up whatever they wanted to achieve their own ends?

Religion is a fascinating subject and one that I wish was debated more. It won't change my views on it but it is nice to have reasoned discussion without the hysterics (though there are some on this thread). The CoS should do what their members want totally unrepentantly and without fear of what anyone outside of the CoS thinks or says. It is their (our) organization and, just as I feel it is nobody else's business what two guys or gals get up to in their own home, neither should it be the business of anyone else what the CoS does.

[Beefster]

Not quite sure about that statement to be honest TC. You find homophobia immoral and abhorrent, some people find homosexuality immoral and abhorrent. OK, the bible has been used on here to justify their feelings. I personally do not believe that the bible is the sole reason for this abhorrence. People have different beliefs. I personally feel, abhorrent is possibly too strong a word, unease possibly better, with the homosexual act, however I don't think it is immoral. Having been probed frequently over the last 18 months or so I cannot see how anyone can derive pleasure from it, but that is another matter. Why the unease? I have not a clue. As I stated earlier I am not particularly comfortable watching hetereosexual canoodling in public either so maybe I am just an old prude. Some things should be done in private. I am not going to waste (IMO) my life analyzing and questioning every feeling I have. I am comfortable with my beliefs, and whilst never the greatest debater in life, unable to put great convoluted words together (not saying you do incidentally), I am happy with that.

One thing I feel about the bible. People hark on as to when it was written etc. and it being a tool to constrain the masses. I don't really see it like that at all. We all know it is a collection of various manuscripts put together. None of the masses before 100 AD would have been able to read. Why then write something down to beat them up over when each minister/priest whatever could just make up whatever they wanted to achieve their own ends?

Religion is a fascinating subject and one that I wish was debated more. It won't change my views on it but it is nice to have reasoned discussion without the hysterics (though there are some on this thread). The CoS should do what their members want totally unrepentantly and without fear of what anyone outside of the CoS thinks or says. It is their (our) organization and, just as I feel it is nobody else's business what two guys or gals get up to in their own home, neither should it be the business of anyone else what the CoS does.

You might say the same if some old, cantankerous doctor had been violently yanking on your plums for the last 18 months too - if you, presumably, didn't know different!

Different strokes for different folks.

[Twa Cairpets]

Not quite sure about that statement to be honest TC. You find homophobia immoral and abhorrent, some people find homosexuality immoral and abhorrent. OK, the bible has been used on here to justify their feelings. I personally do not believe that the bible is the sole reason for this abhorrence. People have different beliefs. I personally feel, abhorrent is possibly too strong a word, unease possibly better, with the homosexual act, however I don't think it is immoral. Having been probed frequently over the last 18 months or so I cannot see how anyone can derive pleasure from it, but that is another matter. Why the unease? I have not a clue. As I stated earlier I am not particularly comfortable watching hetereosexual canoodling in public either so maybe I am just an old prude. Some things should be done in private. I am not going to waste (IMO) my life analyzing and questioning every feeling I have. I am comfortable with my beliefs, and whilst never the greatest debater in life, unable to put great convoluted words together (not saying you do incidentally), I am happy with that.

Good response LA. I'm heterosexual, and therefore the mechanics hold no appeal or interest to me. However, from the relatively limited number of of gay couples I know, that seems to be a pretty small element of the relationship.

Being uncomfortable is entirely understandable too, its a human reaction when exposed to behaviour that is unusual, and it is unusual in the sense that it is infrequently seen.

Your line about being a prude is just a reflection of where society is - if you'd been born 150 years ago the sight of a womans ankle would have been seen as the height of debauchery - ludocrous when we look back now, but very real at the time, with no justification for it.

And you're right, people do have different beliefs, but using a belief to provide divine justification for homophobia, or bigotry of any kind is to my mind absolutely and fundamentally wrong, especially as the belief is, to me, based on something that is clearly factually untrue.


One thing I feel about the bible. People hark on as to when it was written etc. and it being a tool to constrain the masses. I don't really see it like that at all. We all know it is a collection of various manuscripts put together. None of the masses before 100 AD would have been able to read. Why then write something down to beat them up over when each minister/priest whatever could just make up whatever they wanted to achieve their own ends?
When a religion is collated into a single set of beliefs, and taught and disseminated through a clercal hierarchy, it clearly has much more impact if the message is generally consistent. People diverging from the party line were heretical, with pretty unpleasnat consequences.


Religion is a fascinating subject and one that I wish was debated more. It won't change my views on it but it is nice to have reasoned discussion without the hysterics (though there are some on this thread). The CoS should do what their members want totally unrepentantly and without fear of what anyone outside of the CoS thinks or says. It is their (our) organization and, just as I feel it is nobody else's business what two guys or gals get up to in their own home, neither should it be the business of anyone else what the CoS does.
One Day Soon had the same view, and I'd agree if their opinions were strictly kept internally within the Church then it's be less of a problem. However, they aren't, and the impact is pernicious.

[J-C]

Good response LA. I'm heterosexual, and therefore the mechanics hold no appeal or interest to me. However, from the relatively limited number of of gay couples I know, that seems to be a pretty small element of the relationship.

Being uncomfortable is entirely understandable too, its a human reaction when exposed to behaviour that is unusual, and it is unusual in the sense that it is infrequently seen.

Your line about being a prude is just a reflection of where society is - if you'd been born 150 years ago the sight of a womans ankle would have been seen as the height of debauchery - ludocrous when we look back now, but very real at the time, with no justification for it.

And you're right, people do have different beliefs, but using a belief to provide divine justification for homophobia, or bigotry of any kind is to my mind absolutely and fundamentally wrong, especially as the belief is, to me, based on something that is clearly factually untrue.


When a religion is collated into a single set of beliefs, and taught and disseminated through a clercal hierarchy, it clearly has much more impact if the message is generally consistent. People diverging from the party line were heretical, with pretty unpleasnat consequences.


One Day Soon had the same view, and I'd agree if their opinions were strictly kept internally within the Church then it's be less of a problem. However, they aren't, and the impact is pernicious.


I agree TC, the Spanish inquisition is a pefect example of the churchshowing their power by torturing and killing all in the name of their god because people dare to question and disagree, remember this was just over 500 years ago. Even in the bible there was stonings, crusifictions etc all in the name of god, if god was was all goodness and light why encourage this, even the crusades just around a 1,000 yrs ago were fought against Muslims, Greek Orthodox Christians, Pagans and Mongols all in the name of God under the banner of the Roman Catholic Church, why??

Are these not examples of the leaders of the church implimenting the will on man through fear.

[Lucius Apuleius]

You might say the same if some old, cantankerous doctor had been violently yanking on your plums for the last 18 months too - if you, presumably, didn't know different!

Different strokes for different folks.

:agree: Absolutely, but it wasn't, it was my butt they were interested in.





One Day Soon had the same view, and I'd agree if their opinions were strictly kept internally within the Church then it's be less of a problem. However, they aren't, and the impact is pernicious.

But is that just because of the media TC. Are the CoS actively shouting from the rooftops what they are going to do? I remember a few years ago when there was wall to wall coverage of the General Assembly on TV, that seems to have changed in recent years as well. Symptomatic of people's feelings towards the church?


I agree TC, the Spanish inquisition is a pefect example of the churchshowing their power by torturing and killing all in the name of their god because people dare to question and disagree, remember this was just over 500 years ago. Even in the bible there was stonings, crusifictions etc all in the name of god, if god was was all goodness and light why encourage this, even the crusades just around a 1,000 yrs ago were fought against Muslims, Greek Orthodox Christians, Pagans and Mongols all in the name of God under the banner of the Roman Catholic Church, why??

Are these not examples of the leaders of the church implimenting the will on man through fear.

I could be extremely facetious here and say that is the Roman Catholic Church for you but I won't. :greengrin. It is a good point, but surely if we say the bible and those who use it have to move on and modernize their thinking then surely those who use it to illustrate the bad things that happened in its name as you are need to move on as well. Again, these things might have been done in the church's name but I don't think anyone would say they were Christ's teachings. Love your initials by the way!!! :greengrin. Bit like Marx surely. Communism is great, however the interpretation by Stalin, Mao and all the rest kind of veered away from the principals.

[lapsedhibee]

I am not particularly comfortable watching hetereosexual canoodling in public either so maybe I am just an old prude. Some things should be done in private.

:agree: Two Germans were at this on the train the other day, sitting immediately opposite. Wouldn't have happened if Hitler and Mussolini had prevailed. Damn that HOMFC! :grr:

[Twa Cairpets]

But is that just because of the media TC. Are the CoS actively shouting from the rooftops what they are going to do? I remember a few years ago when there was wall to wall coverage of the General Assembly on TV, that seems to have changed in recent years as well. Symptomatic of people's feelings towards the church?

Maybe the media are guilty of misrepresenting and shoddy reporting. In fact no maybe about it, they are, which is why opinion broadcast as fact should be taken with a pinch of salt.

The point I was making earlier in the thread is that a minister is seen by their congregation to be a voice of authority and guidance. For the most part, when it comes to morality and theology, individual members of a congregation will bow to the word of their minister as being, literally in this case, gospel truth.

Whether or not one word is ever reported via news media, a view of opposition to homosexuality promulgated either implicitly or by inference by an organisation such as the CoS - or any church for that matter - will cause the faithful to take that opinion as being valid out into their everyday lives and interactions. I think this is wrong. I have the same feelings absolutely, by the way, about the RC's views on contraception for example - a biblically derived position which when the religion is stripped out, is impossible to justify by any other means.

[hibsbollah]

I agree TC, the Spanish inquisition is a pefect example of the churchshowing their power by torturing and killing all in the name of their god because people dare to question and disagree, remember this was just over 500 years ago. Even in the bible there was stonings, crusifictions etc all in the name of god, if god was was all goodness and light why encourage this, even the crusades just around a 1,000 yrs ago were fought against Muslims, Greek Orthodox Christians, Pagans and Mongols all in the name of God under the banner of the Roman Catholic Church, why??

Are these not examples of the leaders of the church implimenting the will on man through fear.

The Spanish inquisition (and other restorative movements of the medieval period) was actually less repressive and harsh than the prevailing justice systems that secular governments used. There was a system of appeals, for a start.

Brutality was a product of the times people lived in, not the fault of organised religion. The crusades were of course incredibly brutal and inspired by religious zeal but they had just as much to do with grabbing the richest trading centres and raw materials in the world at that time (in modern day syria, lebanon, and israel, although fergus would have us believe that land was desert prior to 1948...whoops wrong thread ;-)...and were therefore more about money than God.

(i cant believe im taking the side of religion in this debate!)

[Lucius Apuleius]

[QUOTE=TwoCarpets;2827042]
The point I was making earlier in the thread is that a minister is seen by their congregation to be a voice of authority and guidance. For the most part, when it comes to morality and theology, individual members of a congregation will bow to the word of their minister as being, literally in this case, gospel truth.

Whether or not one word is ever reported via news media, a view of opposition to homosexuality promulgated either implicitly or by inference by an organisation such as the CoS - or any church for that matter - will cause the faithful to take that opinion as being valid out into their everyday lives and interactions. QUOTE]

I think this is wrong to be honest mate. I take out of church what I have decided to take. If the sermon was a load of keech and I disagree with it, I will tell him on the way out :greengrin. I don't think we are giving the congregations enough credit with regard to their intelligence. I have to say, my minister gave us a rundown on what happened at the General Assembly and never once put his own feelings or thoughts into it. It would have been interesting if he had as purely from a nosey point of view it would have been interesting to know what he thought on it, however, he reported and that was it. It was left to the Kirk members to decide how they felt. Good in my opinion. In fact, the more I think about it, I cannot remember him ever trying to be the final word or arbiter on any contentious issues.

[Twa Cairpets]

The Spanish inquisition (and other restorative movements of the medieval period) was actually less repressive and harsh than the prevailing justice systems that secular governments used. There was a system of appeals, for a start.

Brutality was a product of the times people lived in, not the fault of organised religion. The crusades were of course incredibly brutal and inspired by religious zeal but they had just as much to do with grabbing the richest trading centres and raw materials in the world at that time (in modern day syria, lebanon, and israel, although fergus would have us believe that land was desert prior to 1948...whoops wrong thread ;-)...and were therefore more about money than God.

(i cant believe im taking the side of religion in this debate!)

From a geo-political stance, you are right to a degree (or at least would equate to geo-politics in medieval times) - the reasons behind the crusades were not solely religious, but I think for the most part they were, certainly for the rank-and-file knights who volunteered. I recently read a great book - "A Great and Terrible King" about Edward I (Marc Morris). It would be fair to say that that both he and his immediate forebears were driven to a great degree by religious fervour and were extremely devout, for example.

But that is way, way off topic.

I agree with you though that to measure religion by the acts of ancient history, unless they are taken into the context of the time, can be a misleading road to go down.

[hibsbollah]

From a geo-political stance, you are right to a degree (or at least would equate to geo-politics in medieval times) - the reasons behind the crusades were not solely religious, but I think for the most part they were, certainly for the rank-and-file knights who volunteered. I recently read a great book - "A Great and Terrible King" about Edward I (Marc Morris). It would be fair to say that that both he and his immediate forebears were driven to a great degree by religious fervour and were extremely devout, for example.

But that is way, way off topic.

I agree with you though that to measure religion by the acts of ancient history, unless they are taken into the context of the time, can be a misleading road to go down.

Yep. You may as well say that areligious movements like Maos Cultural Revolution were so brutal and murderous because they had NO religious element (now i think about it, the evangelical right in the States DID say this about Mao).

A wee bit off-topic is good :-)

[J-C]

The Spanish inquisition (and other restorative movements of the medieval period) was actually less repressive and harsh than the prevailing justice systems that secular governments used. There was a system of appeals, for a start.

Brutality was a product of the times people lived in, not the fault of organised religion. The crusades were of course incredibly brutal and inspired by religious zeal but they had just as much to do with grabbing the richest trading centres and raw materials in the world at that time (in modern day syria, lebanon, and israel, although fergus would have us believe that land was desert prior to 1948...whoops wrong thread ;-)...and were therefore more about money than God.

(i cant believe im taking the side of religion in this debate!)


I was showing an example of the brutality of the church, yes it was a long time ago and religion was not the only thing on their minds as wealth had a major part to ply in it. It was to point out how the word of God and the holy scriptures were used to control people, these acts of brutality was done for this purpose, yes it doesn't happen nowadays but surely by saying that if it's in the bible then you can or cannot do certain things.

Homosexuality was a no no many years ago as it was against the churches teachings, as we have surely moved forward with our ways of thinking and have become a more knowledgable society the ancient words of any scripture must be taken to task, hence we don't put people on the rack or stone them to death. Religion has to come into the modern world (I mean all religions) and start to have a long hard look at themselves, congregations are dwindling due to them being out of touch with todays world and more are becoming athiest or agnostics as we become better educated in science, so they start to question religion.

[Twa Cairpets]

I think this is wrong to be honest mate. I take out of church what I have decided to take. If the sermon was a load of keech and I disagree with it, I will tell him on the way out :greengrin. I don't think we are giving the congregations enough credit with regard to their intelligence. I have to say, my minister gave us a rundown on what happened at the General Assembly and never once put his own feelings or thoughts into it. It would have been interesting if he had as purely from a nosey point of view it would have been interesting to know what he thought on it, however, he reported and that was it. It was left to the Kirk members to decide how they felt. Good in my opinion. In fact, the more I think about it, I cannot remember him ever trying to be the final word or arbiter on any contentious issues.

Which is fair enough, but difficult for me to get my head around in itself.

If you get out of church solace, comradeship, fellowship, an ability to reflect, then all these are undeniably good things. If you take the less controversial teachings as being a good way to model your life, then again that's more than ok by me.

I find it hard to understand how people can reconcile views that are not in line with biblical teaching and still remain convinced that the document is describing events that really happened, at least as it relates to the New Testament, never mind the Old. Although I suppose that's why there are in the region of 34,000 varieties of christian denomination around.

I realise my stance is something of a heads I win, tails you lose position. Believe dogmatically and you're a nodding dog without the ability to make up your own mind, or believe and agree with just the bits you like and you're a wishy-washy accomodationist who sees The Word as being infinitely malleable to a persons own pre-existing views, while dipping your neck ostrich like at the contradictions this creates.

I am entirely aware that this is an unfair and somewhat black and white interpretation, but at the root of it is this mild obsession I have with belief (of either a religious or moral or scientific nature) needing to be based on things that are true.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Which is fair enough, but difficult for me to get my head around in itself.

If you get out of church solace, comradeship, fellowship, an ability to reflect, then all these are undeniably good things. If you take the less controversial teachings as being a good way to model your life, then again that's more than ok by me.

I find it hard to understand how people can reconcile views that are not in line with biblical teaching and still remain convinced that the document is describing events that really happened, at least as it relates to the New Testament, never mind the Old. Although I suppose that's why there are in the region of 34,000 varieties of Christian denomination around.

I realise my stance is something of a heads I win, tails you lose position. Believe dogmatically and you're a nodding dog without the ability to make up your own mind, or believe and agree with just the bits you like and you're a wishy-washy accomodationist who sees The Word as being infinitely malleable to a persons own pre-existing views, while dipping your neck ostrich like at the contradictions this creates.

I am entirely aware that this is an unfair and somewhat black and white interpretation, but at the root of it is this mild obsession I have with belief (of either a religious or moral or scientific nature) needing to be based on things that are true.

Reflection on life, what it means to me and those around me and where it is leading are probably my greatest "take outs". Is this an insurance policy for afterlife? I really don't think so as I think I said before on another thread, I really hope the afterlife is just analogous. Simply because I can think of a hell of a lot of people I do not want to spend eternity with:greengrin. (That is obviously meant tongue in cheek as the whole point of Jesus was the promise of afterlife). Regards morality. I have always tried to live my life as a morally upstanding person regardless of bible teachings (not always succeeded though). I hear what you are saying regarding proof and science mate, but why is it so many intelligent people also go to church regularly? My doctor, high school teachers etc etc. Now, even when I was small I would go to Sunday School, then on to the church, I was in the choir, then Sunday School in the evening. Nobody forced me to go. In fact I was the only one in my family who went regularly. My Mum would go every so often, the rest, never. Why did I go? I have honestly not a clue, it just felt right to do it. I have had spells in between where I have been missing for a while, especially when the kids were younger and playing football on Sunday mornings but faith has never left me. Events over the last year or so have me examine and come to terms with my own mortality. Something, at 55, I had never before considered. It does comfort me somehow and I still think the Church does more good than bad in the greater scheme of things.

[ancienthibby]

Which is fair enough, but difficult for me to get my head around in itself.

If you get out of church solace, comradeship, fellowship, an ability to reflect, then all these are undeniably good things. If you take the less controversial teachings as being a good way to model your life, then again that's more than ok by me.

I find it hard to understand how people can reconcile views that are not in line with biblical teaching and still remain convinced that the document is describing events that really happened, at least as it relates to the New Testament, never mind the Old. Although I suppose that's why there are in the region of 34,000 varieties of christian denomination around.

I realise my stance is something of a heads I win, tails you lose position. Believe dogmatically and you're a nodding dog without the ability to make up your own mind, or believe and agree with just the bits you like and you're a wishy-washy accomodationist who sees The Word as being infinitely malleable to a persons own pre-existing views, while dipping your neck ostrich like at the contradictions this creates.

I am entirely aware that this is an unfair and somewhat black and white interpretation, but at the root of it is this mild obsession I have with belief (of either a religious or moral or scientific nature) needing to be based on things that are true.


But you are asking what cannot be delivered of a belief system, so your current position can never accept a faith and a faith system. For most faith believers (as for me) one of the keys is that it had to be 'experiential', that is the Lord touches an individual live in some way that either causes faith or reinforces it. In my own case, the latter was dramatic and, through a terminal medical condition, has been strengthened in leaps and bounds.

You keep ignoring the historical Lord Jesus, though I have tried to take you in this direction. It is my view, that since God made all human beings in His image, He has implanted in them all, his 'quiet call' and at some point of your life I trust that this will break through.

[Twa Cairpets]

Reflection on life, what it means to me and those around me and where it is leading are probably my greatest "take outs". Is this an insurance policy for afterlife? I really don't think so as I think I said before on another thread, I really hope the afterlife is just analogous. Simply because I can think of a hell of a lot of people I do not want to spend eternity with:greengrin. (That is obviously meant tongue in cheek as the whole point of Jesus was the promise of afterlife). Regards morality. I have always tried to live my life as a morally upstanding person regardless of bible teachings (not always succeeded though). I hear what you are saying regarding proof and science mate, but why is it so many intelligent people also go to church regularly? My doctor, high school teachers etc etc. Now, even when I was small I would go to Sunday School, then on to the church, I was in the choir, then Sunday School in the evening. Nobody forced me to go. In fact I was the only one in my family who went regularly. My Mum would go every so often, the rest, never. Why did I go? I have honestly not a clue, it just felt right to do it. I have had spells in between where I have been missing for a while, especially when the kids were younger and playing football on Sunday mornings but faith has never left me. Events over the last year or so have me examine and come to terms with my own mortality. Something, at 55, I had never before considered. It does comfort me somehow and I still think the Church does more good than bad in the greater scheme of things.

Faith has little to so with intelligence. Stupid people can be atheists, intelligent people christians. (Although in the US, where belief in God runs at a much higher rate than anywhere at around 87%, there is a statistically significant correlation between intelligence and faith, with the more intelligent tending towards agnosticism or atheism. There are countless examples of exceptions, so I won't bang that drum here).

As regards morality, science has nothing to do with it. There is no "theory of sexuality" for example - it's something that isn't covered by the scope of any menaingful scientific investigation, so it stays mute on the point.

If you enjoy going to a church and being part of its life, as you clearly have and do, then great. For most people, it's something they start when they're young, where they make friends and where they feel a sense of belonging. I just wish they wouldnt shroud the good things that come from that fellowship in mysticism and the teaching of myth as fact.

As for the church doing more good than bad, its a difficult one. You look at individual acts of kindness carried out by christians, the provision of food for the homeless for example or providing comfort for the families of the deceased and its difficult to do anything other than put a tick in the box. However, there is not a single behaviour that christians do that cannot be done by atheists or those of different religions - a good christian to my mind is good because they're good, not because they're a christian.

Because of this, I think that on a wider scale, certainly in the USA and to a lesser extent here, churches of all denominations are a brake on development and progress for both individuals and society. By definition they have to be. The sole point of reference for all the Abrahamic religions is a book written a long time ago, which does not change. It becomes increasingly harder as mankind develops and changes to shoehorn and tortuously accomodate the words in the books into fitting what reality is like.

I also think that for people to truly believe, they have to disengage their mind from all the evidence there is to the contrary regarding almost everything that is written in the books - I guess this is what faith is. Why people would want to do this is beyond me. I just cannot believe that a supernatural creator created a son (who was also, somehow, himself) to die fairly horribly, in what was even then a backwater of civilisation, and then resurrect him three days later as an atonement for the sins of all the people he created.

Even allowing for people accepting this, the fact that a Creator with this massive and incredible ability to change the nature of matter and life can only convince 1/3 of the population of the world - people he created, mind - to have any faith in the story whatsoever should surely ring alarm bells.

I'm at the risk of going off on a wee rant here, so I'll pull myself back in. The point is if you actually read the bible - all of it, not just the fluffy bits - it's so full of stuff that is contradictory, offensive, insane or just downright incorrect it is a truly astonishing leap of faith to use it as the basis of moral direction (and at this stage I'll even allow for it being dictated word-for-word by God himself). The people who belong to a church may all be good people, but to me, they're just plain wrong in what they believe to be true.

[ancienthibby]

Nothing wrong with wanting to believe - it's a very honest reason. The "I know it's more than that" would be the bit that lends itself to a bit more examination.



Sorry, it wasnt written clearly. The OP and others have come up with no reason other than the bible for their objections to homosexuality. I find homophobia pretty immoral and abhorrent, and it both baffles and angers me that people are willing to take a strong stance on this position on the say so of something which is, from everything I can see, has no basis in fact.

Your own position is inconsistent here, TC, since you say elsewhere that you think that, aside from Scrpiture, the case against is very limited. But that concedes the point that it can be made. I'd then refer you to another post where you say you are not interested in the 'mechanics' of a homosexual relationship.

Well, I think you need to be, since every homosexual act demeans your own heterosexual existence.

[Twa Cairpets]

But you are asking what cannot be delivered of a belief system, so your current position can never accept a faith and a faith system. For most faith believers (as for me) one of the keys is that it had to be 'experiential', that is the Lord touches an individual live in some way that either causes faith or reinforces it. In my own case, the latter was dramatic and, through a terminal medical condition, has been strengthened in leaps and bounds.

Yep.

I dont know the details of your situation and would not be so rude as to enquire, but I expect the faith reinforcing experience is something that could be demonstrated by people of different faiths and no faiths by looking at statistics. But if its made you happy, great. I just think you're wrong in your conclusions, as you can't or won't give me anything other than affirmation of your belief to consider.



You keep ignoring the historical Lord Jesus, though I have tried to take you in this direction. It is my view, that since God made all human beings in His image, He has implanted in them all, his 'quiet call' and at some point of your life I trust that this will break through.

Tell me something about the historical Lord Jesus. Something that isn't from bible.

When the bible is demonstrably wrong with such historical "facts" as Jesus being born under the rule of Herod (who died nine years before) or the (completely uncorroborated) census being undertaken by Cyrenius (who didnt pitch up to the Holy Land until 6 years after JC was born), I'm not willing to trust it as a source of historical accuracy. Unless of course all the other corroborating evidence to show these (and many other historical inaccuracies) are wrong.

[Twa Cairpets]

Your own position is inconsistent here, TC, since you say elsewhere that you think that, aside from Scrpiture, the case against is very limited. But that concedes the point that it can be made. I'd then refer you to another post where you say you are not interested in the 'mechanics' of a homosexual relationship.

OK, I'll change it to "there is no case", unless you care to make one.



Well, I think you need to be, since every homosexual act demeans your own heterosexual existence.

That is one of the most revealing lines anyone on this thread has written.

Go on then. Tell me why it demeans me. Becuase it really, really doesnt you know.

[ancienthibby]

OK, I'll change it to "there is no case", unless you care to make one.



That is one of the most revealing lines anyone on this thread has written.

Go on then. Tell me why it demeans me. Becuase it really, really doesnt you know.


You need to get a grip, TC.

Want me to draw you some pictures of the male and female anatomy?

Would not even get past the first Admin.

Grow up - you know perfectly well what is being said.

[ancienthibby]

Yep.

I dont know the details of your situation and would not be so rude as to enquire, but I expect the faith reinforcing experience is something that could be demonstrated by people of different faiths and no faiths by looking at statistics. But if its made you happy, great. I just think you're wrong in your conclusions, as you can't or won't give me anything other than affirmation of your belief to consider.



Tell me something about the historical Lord Jesus. Something that isn't from bible.

When the bible is demonstrably wrong with such historical "facts" as Jesus being born under the rule of Herod (who died nine years before) or the (completely uncorroborated) census being undertaken by Cyrenius (who didnt pitch up to the Holy Land until 6 years after JC was born), I'm not willing to trust it as a source of historical accuracy. Unless of course all the other corroborating evidence to show these (and many other historical inaccuracies) are wrong.


Bait.

Not taken.

You should know by now that I believe that experiential faith transcends your own self-imposed boundaries.

By the way, the evangelical church in Scotland may be in sad historical decline, but it is being substantially increased in countries such as India and Africa.

Why?

Because the Western Christian churches have continually allowed over recent decades 'modernism' to deflect the truth of what they are supposed to be preaching - the unadulterated Gospel!

[Hibs Class]

You need to get a grip, TC.

Want me to draw you some pictures of the male and female anatomy?

Would not even get past the first Admin.

Grow up - you know perfectly well what is being said.

I have to say I am with TC on this one and I certainly don't know what point you're making. On much of what has been said on this thread TC and I have opposite positions but I really don't see how a homosexual act demeans my heterosexual existence. (I take demean to mean lower the status, reputation or dignity of me / my existence.)

[Twa Cairpets]

You need to get a grip, TC.

Want me to draw you some pictures of the male and female anatomy?

Would not even get past the first Admin.

Grow up - you know perfectly well what is being said.

No, seriously, I haven't a clue why you think a homosexual act is demeaning to me as a heterosexual. Genuinely not a scooby.

There are heterosexual acts that people get up to that don't particularly appeal to me on a personal level either - do people who carry out such acts demean me. Erm, no. What they do together is up to them.

If it makes them happy - and I'm guessing it does, because the same chemicals will be released in the body - then great. I'm happy for them. It doesn't appeal to me, but so what? Also, I'm guessing that as with heterosexual couples, sex is only an element. Companionship, trust, sharing - all these highly christian virtues - will be equally important I'm sure. It's a shame that you appear to want to deny them the right to demonstrate their affection physically.

You still haven't given any reason why other than scripture as to why this should be the case.

[CropleyWasGod]

[/B]

Your own position is inconsistent here, TC, since you say elsewhere that you think that, aside from Scrpiture, the case against is very limited. But that concedes the point that it can be made. I'd then refer you to another post where you say you are not interested in the 'mechanics' of a homosexual relationship.

Well, I think you need to be, since every homosexual act demeans your own heterosexual existence.

As one who has a great respect for the Bible,and its teachings, and has many gay friends of both sexes, I find that statement grossly offensive.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I'm no lover of the gays, however I must admit I would rather sit beside a bunch of gays on a saturday at ER than some of the folks on this thread!!

Hopefully our games next season will all be on a sunday and you can be in your gay free churches:wink:

[Twa Cairpets]

Bait.

Not taken.

You should know by now that I believe that experiential faith transcends your own self-imposed boundaries.

By the way, the evangelical church in Scotland may be in sad historical decline, but it is being substantially increased in countries such as India and Africa.

Why?

Because the Western Christian churches have continually allowed over recent decades 'modernism' to deflect the truth of what they are supposed to be preaching - the unadulterated Gospel!

What bait? You asked me to consider a historical Jesus and I did. It took about 15 seconds. I gave you a couple of quick historical references which are clearly wrong in the bible, and youve made no comment. The issues with timings of Herod and Cyrenius are both NT, both Luke 2. There is no record of a census. These are matters of historical fact that dispute directly and unequivocally the accuracy of the bible.

Here's another one for you. What were Jesus's last words on the cross. As this has been described by yourself as the centre of the christian faith, you'd have thought it would be important to get it right.

"My God, My God, why have you forsaken me" Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34
"Father, into your hand I commit my spirirt" Luke 23:46
"It is finished" John 19:30

Which one is it, and why does only Matthew, a few verses after, describes how "...The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection went into the holy city and appeared to many people"? At the risk of sounding flippant, you would have thought that the appearance of zombies would have been mentioned by at least the other gospel writers or other people? How does your experiential faith transcend these contradictions?

So no, I don't believe in the historical figure of Jesus, and no, I dont regard the bible as proof of his existence. Anything you can direct me towards to offer corroborating back up to the contrary I promise I'll look at.

I've no idea why you've gone out on the evangelist branch either, but its always going to be easier to persuade people with less access to education and information and a much more fragile hold on life itself that there is a salvation awaiting them - it must appeal to them. Doesn't mean for a second it's necessarily true though. Which last words of christ should be preached as the unadulterated truth?