http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/condemnation-for-bishop-who-called-for-gay-people-to-repent-1732755.html
QuoteThe 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
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.
Only if you also accept that the translation is accurate and that the cultural context at the time of the writing is irrelevant.
Who mentioned censoring him?
I'm merely pointing out, with the help of the press, that he's a bigot.
Again.
Quote from: Cain on July 06, 2009, 04:25:11 PM
Who mentioned censoring him?
I'm merely pointing out, with the help of the press, that he's a bigot.
Again.
:lulz:
Quote from: Requia on July 06, 2009, 04:24:56 PM
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)
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.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 06, 2009, 04:18:39 PM
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.
The Catholics do get it, with the downside that you still have papal/apostle infallibility.
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.
So *thats* where the screwy ideas about sex came from.
Quote from: Kai on July 06, 2009, 04:40:56 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 06, 2009, 04:18:39 PM
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).
Quote from: Requia on July 06, 2009, 04:37:16 PM
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.
Quote
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 ;-)
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.
QuoteIn 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.
Quote from: Requia on July 06, 2009, 05:15:12 PM
QuoteIn 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.
:lulz:
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.
damn. fuck the bible and fuck Paul.
Quote from: Kai on July 06, 2009, 05:31:12 PM
damn. fuck the bible and fuck Paul.
TITCM
Preferably, use a big purple strapon to do it.
The Marxist philosopher and cultural critic Slavoj Zizek actually has quite a good defence of Paul, his social views aside.
Here we go:
http://www.believermag.com/issues/200407/?read=interview_zizek
QuoteToday, spirituality is fashionable. Either some pagan spirituality of tolerance, feminine principle, holistic approach against phallocentric Western imperialist logic or, within the Western tradition, we have a certain kind of rehabilitation of Judaism, respect for otherness, and so on. Or you are allowed to do Christianity, but you must do a couple of things which are permitted. One is to be for these repressed traditions, the early Gnostic gospels or some mystical sects where a different nonhegemonic/patriarchal line was discernible. Or you return to the original Christ, which is against St. Paul. The idea is that St. Paul was really bad, he changed Christianity into this patriarchal state, but Jesus, himself, was something different.
What I like is to see the emancipatory potential in institutionalized Christianity. Of course, I don't mean state religion, but I mean the moment of St. Paul. I find a couple of things in it. The idea of the Gospel, or good news, was a totally different logic of emancipation, of justice, of freedom. For example, within a pagan attitude, injustice means a disturbance of the natural order. In ancient Hinduism, or even with Plato, justice was defined in what today we would call almost fascistic terms, each in his or her place in a just order. Man is the benevolent father of the family, women do their job taking care of the family, worker does his work and so on. Each at his post; then injustice means this hubris when one of the elements wants to be born, i.e. instead of in a paternal way, taking care of his population, the king just thinks about his power and how to exploit it. And then in a violent way, balance should be reestablished, or to put it in more abstract cosmological terms, you have cosmic principles like yin and yang. Again, it is the imbalance that needs to establish organic unities. Connected with this is the idea of justice as paying the price as the preexisting established order is balanced.
But the message that the Gospel sends is precisely the radical abandonment of this idea of some kind of natural balance; the idea of Gospels and the part of sins is that freedom is zero. We begin from the zero point, which is at least originally the point of radical equality. Look at what St. Paul is writing and the metaphors he used. It is messianic, the end of time, differences are suspended. It's a totally different world whose formal structure is that of radical revolution. Even in ancient Greece, you don't find that—this idea that the world can be turned on its head, that we are not irreducibly bound by the chains of our past. The past can be erased; we can start from the zero point and establish radical justice, so this logic is basically the logic of emancipation. Which is again why I find any flirting with so-called new-age spiritualities extremely dangerous. It is good to know the other side of the story, at least, when you speak about Buddhism and all of these spiritualities. I am sorry, but Nazis did it all. For Hitler, the Bhagavad Gita was a sacred book; he carried it in his pocket all the time. In Nazi Germany there were three institutes for Tibetan studies and five for the study of different sects of Buddhism.
So despite the damage he has done, perhaps he wasn't a
complete jerk.
Maybe.
The first sentence sounds like something out of MW that we might put in our news.
QuoteOne is to be for these repressed traditions, the early Gnostic gospels or some mystical sects where a different nonhegemonic/patriarchal line was discernible.
I think he's attacking my religion here. I'll refrain from commenting on anything else he says since I don't think I can give him a fair hearing after that.
QuoteNow In regard to the matters about which you wrote: "It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman." but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband... A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body.. This is by way of concession, however, not as a command. Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am... Now to the unmarried and to the widows I say: It is good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it better to marry than to be on fire. To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I but the Lord): a wife should not separate from her husband - if she does she must either remain single or come reconciled to her husband... To the rest I say(not the Lord): if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she is willing to go on living with him, he should not divorce her, and if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he is willing to go on living with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, whereas in fact they are holy...
If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman if she marries... I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, he he may please his wife, and he is divided...
If anyone things he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical movement has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married. The one who strands firm in his resolve, however, who is not under compulsion but has power over his own will, and as made up his mind to keep his virgin, will be doing better. So than, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better.
Corinthians 7 - Marriage and Virginity
Ok if Paul was the great teacher that he's said to be then let them follow this commandment on marriage.
Yes some apologists say he was talking about evangelism, but that is putting words into the text that ain't there. He is specifically talking to Christians on marriage and sexuality, and by my reading he is saying, "Listen there's a lot of you condemning marriage. It's not a sin, and if you feel your passions will lead to sin its a good alternative. But those who do not marry, or do not give their daughters in marriage
will do better, because they are not concerned with earthly matters but spiritual.
I say let them follow this as well.
My two things are 1) most Christians actually don't follow the bible but follow some interpretation of it, ie. putting words into the text that aren't there
2) Most never read from cover to cover, instead just bits of it to keep their interpretation coherent
3) and I said this in IRC when I was reading it, Why are Christians so taken by this book if they are going to import whatever they want into the actual text?
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 06, 2009, 06:28:49 PM
QuoteNow In regard to the matters about which you wrote: "It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman." but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband... A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body.. This is by way of concession, however, not as a command. Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am... Now to the unmarried and to the widows I say: It is good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it better to marry than to be on fire. To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I but the Lord): a wife should not separate from her husband - if she does she must either remain single or come reconciled to her husband... To the rest I say(not the Lord): if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she is willing to go on living with him, he should not divorce her, and if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he is willing to go on living with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, whereas in fact they are holy...
If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman if she marries... I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, he he may please his wife, and he is divided...
If anyone things he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical movement has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married. The one who strands firm in his resolve, however, who is not under compulsion but has power over his own will, and as made up his mind to keep his virgin, will be doing better. So than, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better.
Corinthians 7 - Marriage and Virginity
Ok if Paul was the great teacher that he's said to be then let them follow this commandment on marriage.
Yes some apologists say he was talking about evangelism, but that is putting words into the text that ain't there. He is specifically talking to Christians on marriage and sexuality, and by my reading he is saying, "Listen there's a lot of you condemning marriage. It's not a sin, and if you feel your passions will lead to sin its a good alternative. But those who do not marry, or do not give their daughters in marriage will do better, because they are not concerned with earthly matters but spiritual.
I say let them follow this as well.
My two things are 1) most Christians actually don't follow the bible but follow some interpretation of it, ie. putting words into the text that aren't there
2) Most never read from cover to cover, instead just bits of it to keep their interpretation coherent
3) and I said this in IRC when I was reading it, Why are Christians so taken by this book if they are going to import whatever they want into the actual text?
:mittens:
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 06, 2009, 04:32:20 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 06, 2009, 04:25:11 PM
Who mentioned censoring him?
I'm merely pointing out, with the help of the press, that he's a bigot.
Again.
:lulz:
Quote from: Requia on July 06, 2009, 04:24:56 PM
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)
Also any sort of sexual activity which could not lead to childbirth was sodomy.