Why Bishop Nizar-Ali is an idiot, #32,472

[Cain]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/condemnation-for-bishop-who-called-for-gay-people-to-repent-1732755.html

The Bishop of Rochester has been accused of pandering to hate and homophobia after calling on homosexuals to repent. Michael Nazir-Ali provoked outrage among gay groups when he urged Church leaders to stick to traditional values instead of being swayed by "culture and trends".

While calling for the "traditional teaching" of the Bible to be upheld, the Bishop said of homosexuals: "We want them to repent and be changed."

His controversial remarks were published just hours after more than half a million people, including the Prime Minister's wife, Sarah, took part in the Gay Pride parade in London.

[...]

Peter Tatchell, the gay rights campaigner, said he was "shocked" at the level of anti-gay prejudice voiced by the bishop. "Homophobia is a social and moral evil, just like racism. Bigotry, even in the guise of religion, has no place in a compassionate, caring society," he said. "I call on the bishop to repent his homophobia. His prejudice goes against Christ's gospel of love and compassion."

Labour MEP Michael Cashman accused the Bishop of Rochester of being "selective" about which parts of the Bible he upheld. "When he calls for the closure of all the banks, finance houses and credit card companies because of what it says in the Bible about usury, then I'll take him seriously," he said. "Until then, unless he can say anything good, he should shut up."

In his comments, made to a Sunday newspaper, the bishop said homosexuals should be welcomed into the Church but that a person's sexual nature could only be correctly expressed in a heterosexual union within marriage. His remarks reopened the row over homosexuality that has for years threatened to tear the Anglican Church apart.

He made them on the eve of today's official launch of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans at Westminster Central Hall in London where he is expected to speak in support of the organisation. The UK branch of the Fellowship is regarded by many liberals within the Anglican movement as an attempt to create a church within a church with the aim of heading off moves to ease rules on homosexuality. Dr Nazir-Ali is to step down in the autumn and he is expected to play an important part in the Fellowship's activities.

I wonder how many Tories who snuggled up with the Bishop during his Muslim-baiting days are now shying away from him?

Oh, actually, its probably not that many, going by this article:  http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/07/i-dont-apologize-for-section-28.html

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I dunno... If someone is a Christian and believes the Bible to be the word of God, anti-gay sentiment is a necessary part of the equation. I think its bunk, but the Bible is pretty clear on the stand that should be taken by people who really, really for real believe it. I think it's ok for these idiots to tell us what they believe, rather than trying to hide their beliefs under some PC nonsense. People can see their beliefs for what they are, rather than being fooled because they mince words.

[Requia ☣]

Only if you also accept that the translation is accurate and that the cultural context at the time of the writing is irrelevant.

[Cain]

Who mentioned censoring him?

I'm merely pointing out, with the help of the press, that he's a bigot.

Again.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Who mentioned censoring him?

I'm merely pointing out, with the help of the press, that he's a bigot.

Again.

Only if you also accept that the translation is accurate and that the cultural context at the time of the writing is irrelevant.

If you believe that God never changes, the cultural context is irrelevant. As for the translation I have seen an alternate explanation proposed, but it's pretty iffy at best. It seems reasonable to conclude (based on the society as we know it) that homosexuality, just like any other sort of 'fornication' was a capitol offense for people that worshipped YHVH. Of course, the main error I find in the thinking of Christians... is that the Bible doesn't mark homosexuality as worse than any other sort of fornication... pretty much any cock play outside of the marriage bed was a big no-no.

Cognitive Dissonance, ITR (In This Religion)

[Requia ☣]

if it was capitol offense the bible would have said so, it wasn't shy about that.  The context is relevant because 'abomination' was used to refer to religious acts.

The disputed translation is from a different (new testament passage), though also the weaker of the two, since the case for the alternate translation isn't any stronger than the traditional translation.

[Kai]

I dunno... If someone is a Christian and believes the Bible to be the word of God, anti-gay sentiment is a necessary part of the equation. I think its bunk, but the Bible is pretty clear on the stand that should be taken by people who really, really for real believe it. I think it's ok for these idiots to tell us what they believe, rather than trying to hide their beliefs under some PC nonsense. People can see their beliefs for what they are, rather than being fooled because they mince words.

Its pretty clear, only if you live as a recluse away from modern society in a place where people don't wear clothing of several different threads, don't practice crop rotation, and stone rebelious children. Yes, pretty clear, especially when Jesus said "This is my blood, blood of the NEW covenant". This refers to the old covenant at Moses, which is then symbolically replaced with the new covenant. It made the old laws obsolete with the new covenant of love and compassion. THATS what Christians should get out of it. FFS, the catholics should get this, they've done the damn ritual every Sunday for hundreds of years. So even the historical context should be completely irrelevant, just like everything else about it.

So no, its not part of the equation.

[Requia ☣]

The Catholics do get it, with the downside that you still have papal/apostle infallibility.

[Cain]

Also the Catholic adoption of Aristotlean Natural Law ideas.

According to Natural Law, something is only good if it fulfills its purpose.  Since the purpose of sex is obviously reproduction (and has absolutely no other social or individual functions whatsoever) then gay sex is not good.  As is sex with condoms, while on the pill or indeed without the intent to reproduce at all.

Of course, Natural Law doesn't expressly say that something not good is evil, but I'm sure that the Catholics have some argument buried away somewhere which more or less asserts that, maybe from the Bible.

[Requia ☣]

So *thats* where the screwy ideas about sex came from.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I dunno... If someone is a Christian and believes the Bible to be the word of God, anti-gay sentiment is a necessary part of the equation. I think its bunk, but the Bible is pretty clear on the stand that should be taken by people who really, really for real believe it. I think it's ok for these idiots to tell us what they believe, rather than trying to hide their beliefs under some PC nonsense. People can see their beliefs for what they are, rather than being fooled because they mince words.

Its pretty clear, only if you live as a recluse away from modern society in a place where people don't wear clothing of several different threads, don't practice crop rotation, and stone rebelious children. Yes, pretty clear, especially when Jesus said "This is my blood, blood of the NEW covenant". This refers to the old covenant at Moses, which is then symbolically replaced with the new covenant. It made the old laws obsolete with the new covenant of love and compassion. THATS what Christians should get out of it. FFS, the catholics should get this, they've done the damn ritual every Sunday for hundreds of years. So even the historical context should be completely irrelevant, just like everything else about it.

So no, its not part of the equation.

Jesus did create a new covenant, however that was a covenant about salvation... it didn't nullify the positions taken in the Moasic Law about what was and was not acceptable to God, it only removed the Law Covenant from play... that is no more sacrificing, stoning etc.

That homosexuality and other forms of fornication were "bad" in God's eyes doesn't change... he just no longer has a nation on earth to rule by his laws (aka it is now the Gentile Times).

if it was capitol offense the bible would have said so, it wasn't shy about that.  The context is relevant because 'abomination' was used to refer to religious acts.

There is an argument that follows that line, however the argument is not terribly credible. For example, in the usual argument I've seen, the theory is put forth that Molech was another form of Satan, this is completely absurd. Molech was a deity from the tribes native to the Palestinian area and separate from the Jewish concept of Satan. Further, they claim Moses was speaking in riddles, yet the quote is from the Law section of the Pentateuch, which is generally considered to NOT be riddles, since it was the Law people were expected to follow and obey. The Mosaic Law wasn't just 10 Commandments, those were just the Talking Points Memo.

If Molech isn't Satan (and the Jewish view of Satan as adversary) then the argument loses a big section of 'logic'. If Leviticus isn't in riddles then it loses the rest of whatever its support structure is.

One of the reasons homosexuality is mentioned in line with worship of various Gods, is because homosexuality appears to have been part of the rituals being performed to various Gods, eve through the Greek and Roman time periods.

The disputed translation is from a different (new testament passage), though also the weaker of the two, since the case for the alternate translation isn't any stronger than the traditional translation.

In Timothy, Paul was pretty explicit and though there can be some question about 'pervert' vs. 'homosexual' in the translation, its still clear that the word 'pervert' would include ALL sexual acts outside of heterosexual acts as part of a marriage. At best, the issue is if 'homosexual' is too explicit and if, perhaps it should cover more than just that. (Which pervert would in that sense).

It still doesn't OK anything other than boinking your wife... which (as far as I've been able to tell in studying the damned system) appears to be ALL that YHVH ever really said... There's boinking your wife... and there's immorality. I don't see evidence that homosexuality, fornication, bestiality, etc are given varying degrees of unacceptable.

Personally, I'm glad I figured out that book was a con job

[Cain]

Yeah the Catholics are all down with that crazy Greek kid, Aristotle.

In theory, his purpose thing should be open to refuting, since, you know, science and research has taught us a lot more about the function of sex which would allow for those particular ideas to be changed...but dogma and change make poor bedfellows.  I remember my philosophy teacher once talking about St Thomas Aquinas, saying he was essentially the premier empiricist of his day, and had he lived now, he would probably be making use of all the available data to fit it into a Christian framework (perhaps by using evolutionary psychology to shine light on moral codes, for examples).

Plus the entire idea does bring teleology into everything, which can be troublesome.  Some things are accidents, or outmoded, after all.

[Requia ☣]

In Timothy, Paul was pretty explicit and though there can be some question about 'pervert' vs. 'homosexual' in the translation, its still clear that the word 'pervert' would include ALL sexual acts outside of heterosexual acts as part of a marriage. At best, the issue is if 'homosexual' is too explicit and if, perhaps it should cover more than just that. (Which pervert would in that sense).

If we're thinking about the same passage the literal word is man-bed, the disputed translation I heard is male prostitute, its tricky since the word is never used anywhere else in known antiquity, though the 'no hanky panky outside of marriage' thing was pretty much the point of the passage either way, it was part of a big list.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

In Timothy, Paul was pretty explicit and though there can be some question about 'pervert' vs. 'homosexual' in the translation, its still clear that the word 'pervert' would include ALL sexual acts outside of heterosexual acts as part of a marriage. At best, the issue is if 'homosexual' is too explicit and if, perhaps it should cover more than just that. (Which pervert would in that sense).

If we're thinking about the same passage the literal word is man-bed, the disputed translation I heard is male prostitute, its tricky since the word is never used anywhere else in known antiquity, though the 'no hanky panky outside of marriage' thing was pretty much the point of the passage either way, it was part of a big list.

Yep, I can agree here... this modern idea that Homosexuality is Bad, has been diluted from the original view, which would have seen Mark Sanford and Newt Gingrich as equally bad/wrong to any gay, goat-fucker or pedo. However, since so many Good Christians get a little on the side, they don't like to think about it too hard.

[Cain]

Which I believe Labour MEP Michael Cashman was kind of hinting at with his comments, though he's probably not that steeped in Biblical translations and so reached for another easy and contemporary issue which Nizar-Ali sees fit to ignore, despite certain Christian teachings applying to it.