h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

If certain laws could be done away with then why can others not be done away with now? It's been 2,000 years since a guy who was massively radical for his time tried to make the world a nicer and more inclusive place and got nailed to a bit of wood for his troubles... I sincerely believe that if Jesus could see how stagnant and set in its ways much of Christianity is now He'd be horrified. The world we live in now is simply not the same as the one people lived in then. Yes, keep stuff like the prohibition against murder and theft but as long as nobody is harmed by it prohibiting things like homosexuality and non-monogamy (to drag out one of my personal bugbears) is simply ludicrous and can only serve to ultimately make people see how irrelevant the church is to the modern world and I'd much rather have religion be relevant than there be no religion at all.

Mr E



I think I speak for alot of us: we rarely take anything like that from a religious book.

Simply dropping in a quote from a religious book adds nothing to a discussion.

OMG was that a quote from Cor6:11?
Arghhh my eyes, my eyes! I read it
and have been exposed to the Light.
Will I go blind now?


"It's only words and
words are all I have
to take your heart away."

~jwf~

jwf



I assume so...I only read upto 'Cor 6:11' and I think I got away with it...although my astigmatism might have got a bit worse just by reading that bit...

Just to clarify, Corrinthians was written by Saul of Tarsus?

I presume he was voicing his concerns regarding what he perceived to be an outbreak of homosexuality amongst the Corrinthians - otherwise why would he mention all that?

It also seems that Saul of Tarsus wrote Timothy and Romans. It therefore seems that it is only Saul of Tarsus' comments (epistles Romans, Timothy, Corrinthians) that there is any mention of homosexuality. Is there any other mention of homosexuality in the new testament separate from the concerns of Saul of Tarsus?

We also know that some of the laws in the Bible were added at a later date to reflect the prejudices and fears of the people in charge (cf. KJV and "suffer not a witch to live"), so I don't think there's any reason to assume that mentions of homosexuality in the NT are original to the text.

It's vanishingly unlikely that over several thousand years the text and tales in the Bible (both OT and NT) are the same as they were originally. Apart from wilfully changing things there will be mistranslations and misinterpretations.

Regardless of your opinion on my quotations from Scripture, we have gotten away from the original point. I gave you my reasoning for being an 'opponent of gay marriage' (though, not a bigot). I do not expect to change anyone else's opinion, nor is that my intent.

It would be a fruitless conversation, though, if you all were to agree among each other. I'm merely that opposing opinion that gives a defense for those of us who could have been called bigots unjustly.

I cannot answer every single question raised against me. I cannot answer every accusation against the veracity of Scripture. There will ALWAYS be opinions/arguments/debates for and against its truthfulness.

If you'd like, we could start a separate topic. Should we consider this one concluded?

"we have gotten away from the original point."

Welcome to h2g2!

Here conversations tend to flow naturally rather than remaining rigidly 'on topic' as with other fora... hence we will drift into related issues such as the veracity of scripture and whatnot and may eventually get back to the original topic.

>>the veracity of Scripture<<

For my part Scripture is as defined, while interpretation falls into viewpoints (with supporting arguments). In addition to this there is historiography - looking into the development of the text, its compilation etc.

Now it seems to me that in the New Testament the components dealing with homosexuality is generally agreed by Christian clergy to have been written by Paul / Saul of Tarsus, who they also call Saint Paul.

So it seems to me that this text from Paul of Tarsus can be interpreted in several different ways.
a) It was his opinion, a mans opinion, perhaps influenced by what he learnt as he grew up from his local culture.
b) he had the spirit of God / Gabriel running through him, and his words can be attributed to Angel Gabriel or God.

I assume that the majority of Christian Clergy are of the b) viewpoint, because otherwise I don't think the argument against homosexuality is sustainable on grounds of interpretation of the written text. If Christian Clergy took the a) viewpoint, then because it is accepted that "man" is fallible, they wouldn't be able to take as literal truth the text of Paul of Tarsus.

Would that be how you see it?

Ps I know, as you, that ultimate this will fall into two opinions/ beliefs. I am just interested in knowing as precisely as possible where those opinions / beliefs fall.

I know for certain that some Anglican Churches and some other Christian Churches are of the a) viewpoint, as some churches do ordain and marry homosexual people already. That is they take a contextual viewpoint rather than a literal viewpoint of the New Testament. For these churches open homosexuals can be considered as "full christians". In other Christian churches homosexuals are considered as "being tested" by God etc.

ps I tend to argue civilly with everyone - the militant atheist mostly on this forum.

debate rather than argue. I don't think I am arguing with you Mr E, just debating. I don't have the answers just a curiosity to understand.

Mr. E.


Well, you might have a better informed view if you looked at real 'peer-reviewed' history rather than just tunnel-visioning on Scripture, as you have said you 'aren't interested in the historical basis of marriage' it would be safe to assume you aren't bothered about the historical basis of anything in your scripture.

I try to go by what Harlan Ellison has said:

"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant."

(Oh and topic drift is part of h2g2...as is heated debate and robust challenging on one thread with someone and backing that same person on another thread... we try to be as fair as possible...and when under 16year olds on debating with us we give more quarter than when we are debating with adults.)

Lard Fed Rum - Mod - Participating in NaNoWriMo 2012 One of the joys of hootoo. The simple thread title "HaReading/Read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins? is still going strong after 5 and a half years and is over 30000posts long and has drifted further than the continents... http://www.h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/brunel/F19585?thread=4005961&skip=30280&show=20

Mr E: You might find this thread interesting:- http://www.h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/brunel/F19585?thread=8297539 Would be interesting to know how you got your faith or whether it was a Fait accompli due to your upbringing.

I guess there may be an argument for using a term other than 'bigot' or 'homophobe' for someone who:

(a) doesn't cling to crude and ignorant beliefs about homosexuality
(b) doesn't pick out homosexuals or homosexuality for criticism above and beyond all of the other practices that their religion condemns
(c) would unreservedly oppose homophobia in all its forms (bullying, violence, discrimination in employment/goods and services, Clause 28 etc)

I think there's something to say in favour of people like that. Fine, they believe something irrational about homosexuality which isn't supported by any good reasons or common sense, but at least they've taken the trouble to educate themselves. It's an odd one, though, because a lot of religious moral guidance is very sensible, and clearly justified by good reasons (either universal good reasons, or context-specific good reasons).

But people who nevertheless would seek to use the apparatus of state power to impose at least some aspects of their religion (and the consequences of that religion) onto others who don't share their view, do - I'm sorry to say - deserve a rather unflattering name in a modern, pluralist, democratic society.

I'm just not sure what that name is. Illiberal? Theocrat? Authoritarian?

There appears to have been failure to render issues with regard to Alfsters last two post. Mr E you would be welcome to contribute to the following thread which concerns how people "found" or "lost" their faith. http://www.h2g2.com/forums/A148907/conversation/view/F19585/T8297539/

Mr E there is a thread on askh2g2 called "Losing or Gaining Religious Faith"

You are welcome to contribute to it

I see that after an intial scrap everyone is returning
to their respective corners, regrouping and hoping for
another more successful round.

So perhaps I can suggest a new tangent of consideration
that would allow for more science and reason and less
Faith-based preaching of ancient and quite likely corrupted
Holy Writ.

The whole idea that there are two camps - the straight
heterosexual marriage types and the newly hopeful gay
rights advocates - is just too simplistic.

Even a cursory understanding of the mechanics of Evolution
suggests there is a full range of shades of grey in human
types. This is not only possible but probably the only way
to view our condition.

On that basis alone any attempt to legislate a standard
of conformity, a one-rule fits all society is a hopelessly
naive posture. Any attempt to enforce such narrow minded
Laws and values will (as it always has) end in tears.

There are no THEMs, just an infinite variety of USs.

~jwf~