Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: bluehillside Retd. on January 23, 2020, 03:55:54 PM
-
In case anyone needed reminding, the The C of E being as misguided and irrelevant as ever it was:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/23/sex-married-heterosexual-couples-church-of-england-christians
-
In case anyone needed reminding, the The C of E being as misguided and irrelevant as ever it was:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/23/sex-married-heterosexual-couples-church-of-england-christians
One of my continuing bugbears with the Guardian is the way it keeps feeling the need to give the oxygen of publicity to the Church of England - so it doesn't think Civil Partnerships constitute marriage within the Christian teaching, that was sort of the point. They were set up to give an option that kept the Church out of business that wasn't theirs, and here they are poking their beaks in as though they were in any way relevant to anything.
O.
-
Outy,
One of my continuing bugbears with the Guardian is the way it keeps feeling the need to give the oxygen of publicity to the Church of England - so it doesn't think Civil Partnerships constitute marriage within the Christian teaching, that was sort of the point. They were set up to give an option that kept the Church out of business that wasn't theirs, and here they are poking their beaks in as though they were in any way relevant to anything.
I agree, and not just the Grauniad either of course - "Thought for the Day" on the Today programme is (in)famously a religious thought only zone. Across the media in fact I look askance when a difficult moral issue arises and they wheel out a cleric as if he (and it almost always is a he) has some special expertise in the area. Why not instead the head of a hospital ethics department, or a professor of moral philosophy perhaps who actual has some qualifications in the subject?
Anyways, the C of E's latest unpleasant nonsense must be difficult to process for, say, a married gay couple that also happen to be members.
-
Really? I mean fucking really?
They have nothing better to do than to witter on in a slightly harmful way about gay relationships.
With all the shit in the world, that they even consider this important shows a lack of any moral compass.
-
Who cares, apart from its members, what the CofE thinks: their nauseating homophobic views aren't authoritative over society at large, hence marriage legislation was changed in spite of them, and it is about time the media recognised that the presumption that the CofE has any significant influence is false and they should stop giving them a public profile they don't merit - even in England, since they are utterly irrelevant here in Scotland.
A newsletter to their dwindling and increasingly aged regulars would surely suffice.
-
Trent,
Really? I mean fucking really?
They have nothing better to do than to witter on in a slightly harmful way about gay relationships.
With all the shit in the world, that they even consider this important shows a lack of any moral compass.
Quite so. I'm less relaxed about the "slightly" though - I'm aware fo the slippery slope fallacy, but it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to me from institutionalised homophobia like this to gay men getting beaten up on the street, especially when the institution concerned arrogates to itself rights to access to much of the media. Fortunately it seems to me that much of society has moved on from listening to these fuckwits, but it's insidious stuff nonetheless.
-
Trent,
Quite so. I'm less relaxed about the "slightly" though - I'm aware fo the slippery slope fallacy, but it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to me from institutionalised homophobia like this to gay men getting beaten up on the street, especially when the institution concerned arrogates to itself rights to access to much of the media. Fortunately it seems to me that much of society has moved on from listening to these fuckwits, but it's insidious stuff nonetheless.
It's interesting that they've said that any kind of sex homosexual or heterosexual outside of a proper marriage is basically wrong, but we've all immediately focussed in on the homosexual side. The reason for this is, of course, that we all know straight people who have sex outside of marriage (does it have to be a Christian marriage?) will not suffer any kind of abuses for it.
-
jeremy,
It's interesting that they've said that any kind of sex homosexual or heterosexual outside of a proper marriage is basically wrong, but we've all immediately focussed in on the homosexual side. The reason for this is, of course, that we all know straight people who have sex outside of marriage (does it have to be a Christian marriage?) will not suffer any kind of abuses for it.
No, the reason (or at least my reason) is that it's a rigged game. They won't permit equal marriage, but then say it's wrong for the people they've excluded from marriage to have sex when they're not married.
-
jeremy,
No, the reason (or at least my reason) is that it's a rigged game. They won't permit equal marriage, but then say it's wrong for the people they've excluded from marriage to have sex when they're not married.
That's not the point I'm making (although it is also a very valid point). Plenty of heterosexuals have sex outside of marriage but they don't get the same abuse as homosexuals. We focus on the consequences for gay people because we all know there will be none for everybody else, regardless of the fact that some of them could get married (some couldn't because they already are married, but not to the people with whom they are having sex).
-
[Civil partnerships] were set up to give an option that kept the Church out of business that wasn't theirs...
No, they weren't - they were set up to give gay couples the same legal rights as hetero married couples. It has long been possible to have a civil marriage in a registry office.
-
Register office or Registrar (me in pedant mode).
Yes it will be six years in March.
The CofE recognises register office weddings as 'proper' marriages for both homo and heterosexual couples. However they aren't supposed to do church weddings for homosexuals - some do anyway, discreetly, or blessings of civil weddings.
Anglicans churches vary so much in their interpretations of church rules. The evangelical wing hang on to old traditions more than middle of the road or high.
There are plenty of gay clergy in committed relationships.
-
Register office or Registrar (me in pedant mode).
Registry Office - a place where registration occurs. Registration is performed by a registrar.
A register is the formal cumulative record of individual registrations.
-
It's about time these irrelevances were written out of all of our UK public places, starting with the House of Lords including the Bishops that are given titles on retirement that entitle them to remain sitting in the House of Lords.
ippy.
-
In case anyone needed reminding, the The C of E being as misguided and irrelevant as ever it was:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/23/sex-married-heterosexual-couples-church-of-england-christians
Certainly not misguided or irrelevant.
The C of E is simply reminding Christians of the guidance and teachings contained in the Christian bible, which is totally relevant for people who choose to follow Christ.
It would only be irrelevant to those who have chosen to reject the teachings and guidance of the Christian bible.
-
Certainly not misguided or irrelevant. The C of E is simply reminding Christians of the guidance and teachings contained in the Christian bible, which is totally relevant for people who choose to follow Christ.
Surely the place to tell Christians things is in the Church, where the Christians are, rather than in the public forum of the media where everyone is? Surely, if you're addressing this to Christians, you make a point of explaining that it only applies to Christians if you do choose to do it in a public forum. Surely, if it's for Christians, what happens in a civil partnership is of no concern of theirs, because Christians will be having a Christian MarriageTM[/quote]
It would only be irrelevant to those who have chosen to reject the teachings and guidance of the Christian bible.
You're still misrepresenting that burden of proof idea. It's irrelevant to those who've heard the guidance of the Christian Bible and realised that it's insufficient evidence to base life choices on...
O.
-
Certainly not misguided or irrelevant.
The C of E is simply reminding Christians of the guidance and teachings contained in the Christian bible, which is totally relevant for people who choose to follow Christ.
It would only be irrelevant to those who have chosen to reject the teachings and guidance of the Christian bible.
Social changes impose changes in behavior. This experiment with rats shows how behavior changes in line with population and environmental pressures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink
Humans probably are not exceptions...
-
Surely the place to tell Christians things is in the Church, where the Christians are, rather than in the public forum of the media where everyone is? Surely, if you're addressing this to Christians, you make a point of explaining that it only applies to Christians if you do choose to do it in a public forum. Surely, if it's for Christians, what happens in a civil partnership is of no concern of theirs, because Christians will be having a Christian MarriageTM
But the CofE (and RCC) are terrible confused over this - tying themselves up in knots. It would be one thing if they only accepted christian marriage as marriage, but they don't. If you are married in a civil ceremony then both the CofE and RCC has historically considered you to be married - hence you wouldn't be allowed to marry again in a christian marriage ceremony and you'd be considered to be divorced if your civil marriage ended in divorce.
Now that civil marriage has been extended to same sex couples the churches are in a bind - effectively they only accept civil marriage for certain couples (heterosexual ones) but reject it for other couples (same sex couples).
-
Perhaps the CofE is trying to distract attention from Bishop Peter Ball, subject of a horrifying TV documentary a couple of weeks ago. Protected for 20 years by the Church and specifically the Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, who withheld evidence from the police. He continued grooming and abusing people during those 20 years.
"At Ball's trial in 2015 it was stated that a member of the royal family, a lord chief justice, JPs, cabinet ministers and public school headmasters—"many dozens" of people—had campaigned to support him in 1993."
The member of the royal family was Prince Charles. Hard to believe a member of the royal family being friends with a sex abuser, isn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ball_(bishop)
-
Perhaps the CofE is trying to distract attention from Bishop Peter Ball, subject of a horrifying TV documentary a couple of weeks ago. Protected for 20 years by the Church and specifically the Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, who withheld evidence from the police. He continued grooming and abusing people during those 20 years.
"At Ball's trial in 2015 it was stated that a member of the royal family, a lord chief justice, JPs, cabinet ministers and public school headmasters—"many dozens" of people—had campaigned to support him in 1993."
The member of the royal family was Prince Charles. Hard to believe a member of the royal family being friends with a sex abuser, isn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ball_(bishop)
The member of the royal family was Prince Charles. Hard to believe a member of the royal family being friends with a sex abuser, isn't it?
I've heard of a holy see Christine!
Love your post.
ippy.
-
Certainly not misguided or irrelevant.
The C of E is simply reminding Christians of the guidance and teachings contained in the Christian bible, which is totally relevant for people who choose to follow Christ.
It would only be irrelevant to those who have chosen to reject the teachings and guidance of the Christian bible.
There's no viable evidence that there is anything there like a god, gods, Unicorns or leprechauns in the first place to able to reject it or them, well anyway you've never managed to come up with anything remotely evidential to support your god idea.
Commiserations to you Alan, ippy.
-
AB,
The C of E is simply reminding Christians of the guidance and teachings contained in the Christian bible…
The irony will be lost on you, but the discussion right next to this one is titled “Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry”.
Funny that.
-
Certainly not misguided or irrelevant.
I'd have thought the reaction from CofE members and officials, who are reported as saying it makes the CofE out to be a 'laughing stock', suggests that misguided and irrelevant is perhaps being kinder than the CofE deserves.
The C of E is simply reminding Christians of the guidance and teachings contained in the Christian bible, which is totally relevant for people who choose to follow Christ.
Then surely a newsletter to their members, and perhaps an article on their website, would be sufficient reach their target audience. Instead all they have achieved is confirmation that they are indeed misguided and irrelevant - I reckon that score of 0 out of 10 on the 'how to encourage young people to join' scale would be excessive
It would only be irrelevant to those who have chosen to reject the teachings and guidance of the Christian bible.
Don't be silly - one can consider the position advanced by the CofE as being misguided and irrelevant without any reference to their club rules and manual. If the Institute of Telephone Sanitisers* pronounced that they considered the eating of chocolate on Tuesdays to be bad form we can dismiss their view as being misguided and irrelevant without reference to their 'How to Sanitise Telephones' pamphlet.
* borrowed from Douglas Adams.
-
I'd have thought the reaction from CofE members and officials, who are reported as saying it makes the CofE out to be a 'laughing stock', suggests that misguided and irrelevant is perhaps being kinder than the CofE deserves.
Following popular opinion rather than the teachings from divine revelations of scripture would indeed make such a take on "Christianity" a laughing stock.
-
Following popular opinion rather than the teachings from divine revelations of scripture would indeed make such a take on "Christianity" a laughing stock.
But they have already got into an awful pickle on this.
They used to claim that sex was only for married couples, and happily accepted that couples married in civil ceremonies were in fact married, even though the jurisdiction and definitions of who could me married in those civil ceremonies was entirely outside of their control and an entirely secular state matter.
Then all of a sudden the law is changed to allow same sex married couples and suddenly the CofE no longer believes (as it did) that sex between couples married in a civil ceremony is OK - only some couples.
-
Following popular opinion rather than the teachings from divine revelations of scripture would indeed make such a take on "Christianity" a laughing stock.
That would be fine except that Christians often ignore the so called teachings from "divine revelations" from scripture. For example, I don't know any non vegetarian Christian who is averse to bacon. None of them seem to observe the Sabbath either or care about all that two fibre bollocks.
-
Following popular opinion rather than the teachings from divine revelations of scripture would indeed make such a take on "Christianity" a laughing stock.
Bearing in mind that 'Christianity' presented itself as being discriminatory when it came to the social institution of legal marriage here in the UK I'd have thought they'd be well advised to keep quiet about these claimed 'divine revelations' since, as we've seen in respect of this recent pontification, all they've succeeded in doing is confirming that when it comes to matters of sexuality their views aren't authoritative as regards society at large, and that they are indeed misguided and irrelevant: a laughing stock right enough.
-
Bearing in mind that 'Christianity' presented itself as being discriminatory when it came to the social institution of legal marriage here in the UK I'd have thought they'd be well advised to keep quiet about these claimed 'divine revelations' since, as we've seen in respect of this recent pontification, all they've succeeded in doing is confirming that when it comes to matters of sexuality their views aren't authoritative as regards society at large, and that they are indeed misguided and irrelevant: a laughing stock right enough.
Not in the eyes of God are they a laughing stock. I put my trust and faith in God, not in the fickle ever changing outpourings of the human ideology in modern society.
-
Not in the eyes of God are they a laughing stock. I put my trust and faith in God, not in the fickle ever changing outpourings of the human ideology in modern society.
Breathtaking stuff, Alan: putting to one side your presumption of 'God', I'd have thought that 'the fickle ever changing outpourings of the human ideology in modern society' have throughout the history of our species produced 'outpourings' that have resulted in no end of Gods, religions and subsets of religions, along with the various social impacts and religious conflicts arising from these.
So you putting your 'trust and faith' in but one variant doesn't really convince that the views of this one branch of Christianity (which I realise isn't the one you subscribe to) is in any sense authoritative across society at large - especially when some if its own members and officials have reacted as they have, since it was some of them that used the term 'laughing stock'.
This is yet another example of organised religion, in the case the CofE, overestimating its influence and relevance.
-
Following popular opinion rather than the teachings from divine revelations of scripture would indeed make such a take on "Christianity" a laughing stock.
Believing that the Christian scripture shows any signs of 'divine' influence might well do that regardless.
O.
-
Not in the eyes of God are they a laughing stock. I put my trust and faith in God, not in the fickle ever changing outpourings of the human ideology in modern society.
Of course you do, Alan. I put my faith and trust in neither, one reason being because I find it hard, if not nigh on impossible, to distinguish between the two.
I do think, however, that the CofE(which is what this topic is about) is becoming less and less relevant to more and more people as time goes on, certainly in this country.
-
Breathtaking stuff, Alan: putting to one side your presumption of 'God', I'd have thought that 'the fickle ever changing outpourings of the human ideology in modern society' have throughout the history of our species produced 'outpourings' that have resulted in no end of Gods, religions and subsets of religions, along with the various social impacts and religious conflicts arising from these.
So you putting your 'trust and faith' in but one variant doesn't really convince that the views of this one branch of Christianity (which I realise isn't the one you subscribe to) is in any sense authoritative across society at large - especially when some if its own members and officials have reacted as they have, since it was some of them that used the term 'laughing stock'.
This is yet another example of organised religion, in the case the CofE, overestimating its influence and relevance.
The "Gods, religions and subsets of religions", as you put it, are evidence of mankind's extensive attempts to discover God. Such evidence cannot be used to indicate that God does not exist, or that some of us have not found the one true God. What it does indicate is our unique ability to perceive the truth of God's existence, and our need for Him.
No doubt some will claim that God should not hide Himself from us. But my understanding from scripture is that we have been separated from God by forces beyond our control, and God has shown through Jesus how we can we reconciled and reunited with Him. Which is why I, along with many other fellow Christians, would never choose to reject the teachings of scripture in favour of following trends of modern secular society.
-
The "Gods, religions and subsets of religions", as you put it, are evidence of mankind's extensive attempts to discover God.
Perhaps, or perhaps they are evidence of early man's attempts to explain the mechanisms of nature that were beyond their understanding at the time.
Such evidence cannot be used to indicate that God does not exist, or that some of us have not found the one true God.
Well, the continued lack of anything even vaguely definitive, the cultural dependency of stories of divinity and the vast breadth of competing accounts from geographically separated cultures can be assembled into evidence that at least most of the ideas are flawed.
What it does indicate is our unique ability to perceive the truth of God's existence, and our need for Him.
Or humanity's tendency towards presuming agency in the unexplained, quote possibly a facet of the survival benefit of type 1 errors when being hunted.
No doubt some will claim that God should not hide Himself from us.
Only as an tactic within the debate - they will claim ultimately that you don't have enough evidence to support the notion of a god, the fact that the story you do have is self-contradictory and nonsensical is additional but not fundamental to the case.
But my understanding from scripture is that we have been separated from God by forces beyond our control, and God has shown through Jesus how we can we reconciled and reunited with Him.
My understanding from the Silmarrillion is that the gems are still out there somewhere, and although Bilbo's snatched the Arkenstone off Thorin, there are still others for us to try and uncover - the fact that it's written in a book doesn't mean that it's true.
Which is why I, along with many other fellow Christians, would never choose to reject the teachings of scripture in favour of following trends of modern secular society.
If your opinion isn't open to alteration based upon new evidence then I can only refer you to the old aphorism that there are none so blind as those who will not see.
O.
-
The "Gods, religions and subsets of religions", as you put it, are evidence of mankind's extensive attempts to discover God.
Or our propensity to make up stories about unseen beings; our hyperactive agent detection - which has a good basis in evolution.
Such evidence cannot be used to indicate that God does not exist, or that some of us have not found the one true God.
However, it is totally incompatible with the idea of a just, fair, omnipotent, and omniscient god who has an important message for us that could affect our entire future state. Such a god would make itself and its message clear to everyone.
What it does indicate is our unique ability to perceive the truth of God's existence, and our need for Him.
Or hyperactive agent detection.
No doubt some will claim that God should not hide Himself from us. But my understanding from scripture is that we have been separated from God by forces beyond our control...
But not beyond the control of an omnipotent god - obviously.
...and God has shown through Jesus how we can we reconciled and reunited with Him.
Unfortunately that is just a story in an old book - if it's an attempt by a god to get its message across, it's truly pathetic.
Which is why I, along with many other fellow Christians, would never choose to reject the teachings of scripture in favour of following trends of modern secular society.
There are no "teachings of scripture" (singular) - the bible is a confused and disjointed mess. That's why there are endless denominations, cults, and sects, that all claim to be following the "teachings of scripture".
You are also reading the bible in the light "trends of modern secular society" which is why you reject slavery, for example, which the bible does not.
-
The "Gods, religions and subsets of religions", as you put it, are evidence of mankind's extensive attempts to discover God.
Or 'Gods' provide an explanation of sorts: the divine might have seemed like a credible explanation in antiquity but we are better informed now. For example, we now understand why we see the phenomenon of rainbows without reference to what is said in Genesis.
Such evidence cannot be used to indicate that God does not exist, or that some of us have not found the one true God. What it does indicate is our unique ability to perceive the truth of God's existence, and our need for Him.
It may well be that some have always felt a need for a divine narrative, of which there are a plethora - they can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. More is needed than personal convictions around the competing 'God' stories.
No doubt some will claim that God should not hide Himself from us. But my understanding from scripture is that we have been separated from God by forces beyond our control, and God has shown through Jesus how we can we reconciled and reunited with Him. Which is why I, along with many other fellow Christians, would never choose to reject the teachings of scripture in favour of following trends of modern secular society.
So the story you've signed up to goes - but you've yet to advance your case beyond this being just a particular story that you've aligned yourself with. No doubt the story aspect works for some like yourself, whether they see it as being literal or allegorical', but to get past the 'true for me' hurdle so that it is 'true for everyone' needs more work - and to date this hurdle seems a leap too far, especially since Christianity is a ragbag of beliefs and traditions based on an old book of largely uncertain provenance that is in many ways indistinguishable from fiction.
-
But they have already got into an awful pickle on this.
They used to claim that sex was only for married couples, and happily accepted that couples married in civil ceremonies were in fact married, even though the jurisdiction and definitions of who could me married in those civil ceremonies was entirely outside of their control and an entirely secular state matter.
That was when secular law was in line with God's law.
Then all of a sudden the law is changed to allow same sex married couples and suddenly the CofE no longer believes (as it did) that sex between couples married in a civil ceremony is OK - only some couples.
Because the law fell out of line with God's law.
You are also reading the bible in the light "trends of modern secular society" which is why you reject slavery, for example, which the bible does not.
The Bible does reject slavery. A bondservant could walk away from his master and would not be forced back, under Levitical law.
-
The Bible does reject slavery. A bondservant could walk away from his master and would not be forced back, under Levitical law.
You can't claim that the Bible is against slavery when it has regulations for exactly what treatments are and aren't permitted with regards to your slaves - that one of those regulations might, under some circumstances, permit an individual in a form of slavery to be freed is no more a rejection of slavery than the Fire Brigade being given dispensation during emergencies amounts to the Government rejecting speed limits.
O.
-
That was when secular law was in line with God's law.
Not really - there have always been aspects of what is permissible in a civil marriage ceremony that are not permissible in religious ceremonies, and also elements that are often required in religious ceremonies that don't exist in civil ones.
So a good example of the former are couples where one or both have been previously married and are now divorced.
An example of the latter is the requirement (certainly in RCC) that couples commit to be open to having children - this is not part of a civil marriage whatsoever.
While it is certainly true that the CofE view on marriage in recent years has become fairly closely aligned with civil marriage (allowing divorces to remarry not having anything about kids) but this hasn't always been the case and isn't the case for other christian denominations that accept that civil married couples are legitimately married.
Because the law fell out of line with God's law.
You can argue it the other way around - indeed the recent trajectory of the CofE has been to align itself with civil marriage (until marriage was extended to same sex couples) not the other way around.
Also in marriage the civil law always tales precedence - religious organisations typically accept that couples married in civil ceremonies are married - the reverse isn't the case - religious 'marriages' are only valid if they align with the civil law. So if you go through a religious ceremony that doesn't abide by the legal requirement for married under civil law then you are not married, regardless of what you or your religious organisation might think.
-
I do think, however, that the CofE(which is what this topic is about) is becoming less and less relevant to more and more people as time goes on, certainly in this country.
That is certainly true.
According to the latest figures the membership of the CofE (the so-called electoral roll) represents less than 2% of the population, with just a little over 1% of the population attending services on an average week. Numbers have declined by about 16% since 2008 and most worrying for the CofE the greatest declines (28%) are for children.
Sure the CofE remains important for the 'hatch, match and dispatch', but these have declined even more sharply - baptisms down 30%, marriages down 33% and funerals down 29% since 2008.
-
You can't claim that the Bible is against slavery when it has regulations for exactly what treatments are and aren't permitted with regards to your slaves - that one of those regulations might, under some circumstances, permit an individual in a form of slavery to be freed is no more a rejection of slavery than the Fire Brigade being given dispensation during emergencies amounts to the Government rejecting speed limits.
O.
I agree, my reasoning was wrong there.
-
That was when secular law was in line with God's law.
Because the law fell out of line with God's law.
Which god's law? The Christian god? The god of Islam's? Loki's? Can you give us any evidence why your god's laws are the right ones, as opposed to Odin's?
The Bible does reject slavery. A bondservant could walk away from his master and would not be forced back, under Levitical law.
Roman slaves were able to buy themselves out of slavery. The ability to escape the condition does not mean the condition doesn't exist.
Besides there were Hebrews who entered slavery and there were foreign slaves. The treatment of each was different. You were allowed to beat a slave without consequence as long as he took more than a week to die. If God didn't like slavery, he would unequivocally ban it. Your god didn't - or rather, the people who claimed to be writing God's laws claimed he didn't. Perhaps they owned slaves and would have been financially disadvantaged by the Eleventh Commandment: "thou shalt not treat other people as property".
-
So if you go through a religious ceremony that doesn't abide by the legal requirement for married under civil law then you are not married, regardless of what you or your religious organisation might think.
Isn't civil marriage (in this country) based on principles that originate in the Bible? No incest, no polygamy (not explicitly stated but taught through stories) etc. Hence religious organisations typically accept that couples married in civil ceremonies are married.
On the question of being open to having children. Not strictly true, since they can use natural birth control.
On the question of remarriage after divorce. Yes, I think I agree, the acceptance of this in the CofE has got it into a pickle. But the RCC and some CofE's still abstain from it, so they are not in a pickle.
-
Besides there were Hebrews who entered slavery and there were foreign slaves. The treatment of each was different. You were allowed to beat a slave without consequence as long as he took more than a week to die. ".
Probably it was this misinterpretation of what it says in Exodus that led to slavery being banned. As Bob Dylan said, "you're gonna have to serve somebody" - owning a servant isn't bad in itself, as long as all his/her needs are provided for.
A woman raped in the countryside where no one could hear her, was assumed to have called for help. She was assumed innocent, since she could not be proven guilty of adultery. Likewise, the above regulation concerning beating a slave assumed that you were innocent of mistreating your servant, since you'd paid for him from your pocket.
-
Probably it was this misinterpretation of what it says in Exodus that led to slavery being banned. As Bob Dylan said, "you're gonna have to serve somebody" - owning a servant isn't bad in itself, as long as all his/her needs are provided for.
That all sounds fine, Spud, provided of course the person being owned doesn't feel a need not to be owned, or that society at large is happy with people being classed as property.
A woman raped in the countryside where no one could hear her, was assumed to have called for help. She was assumed innocent, since she could not be proven guilty of adultery. Likewise, the above regulation concerning beating a slave assumed that you were innocent of mistreating your servant, since you'd paid for him from your pocket.
This is possibly the most nauseating paragraph ever posted here - I'm assuming these sentiments are biblical in origin, so it is no surprise to me that the bible hasn't worn well over the centuries and is, at best, a curiosity from antiquity.
-
Gordon,
Are you saying there are no circumstances in which it is ok to physically discipline someone? I once had a P.E. teacher who would give a boy a kick up the backside, if he was caught behaving badly.
I was referring to the context of Exodus 21:21, which says "for the slave is his money". It's case law, where the man is to be assumed innocent until proven guilty.
-
Gordon,
Are you saying there are no circumstances in which it is ok to physically discipline someone? I once had a P.E. teacher who would give a boy a kick up the backside, if he was caught behaving badly.
Aside from perhaps self-defence or the protection of the vulnerable, I'd would say there is no place for the physical abuse of anyone under the guise of 'discipline': it is assault, and I'd imagine if your P.E teacher tried that today he'd be in serious trouble.
As you may be aware, here in Scotland 'smacking' children is now illegal.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49908849
-
Aside from perhaps self-defence or the protection of the vulnerable, I'd would say there is no place for the physical abuse of anyone under the guise of 'discipline': it is assault, and I'd imagine if your P.E teacher tried that today he'd be in serious trouble.
As you may be aware, here in Scotland 'smacking' children is now illegal.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49908849
But is that not based on incidents in which smacking has led to permanent injury, rather than just 'soreness'? And hence in days gone by, before such injury had taken place, there would not be a case for banning it.
-
Probably it was this misinterpretation of what it says in Exodus that led to slavery being banned. As Bob Dylan said, "you're gonna have to serve somebody" - owning a servant isn't bad in itself, as long as all his/her needs are provided for.
Serving is not the same as being a slave.
A woman raped in the countryside where no one could hear her, was assumed to have called for help. She was assumed innocent, since she could not be proven guilty of adultery.
Ancient rape laws are a whole other topic.
Likewise, the above regulation concerning beating a slave assumed that you were innocent of mistreating your servant, since you'd paid for him from your pocket.
You've beaten a person to a point that they may well die. How can you be assumed not to have mistreated them?
-
But is that not based on incidents in which smacking has led to permanent injury, rather than just 'soreness'? And hence in days gone by, before such injury had taken place, there would not be a case for banning it.
So, are you suggesting physical assault is fine provided the level of discomfort is no worse than sore - is there a sliding scale of some sort?
What about the other aspects of physically assaulting people, including children, such as; fear, intimidation, loss of self-esteem by the person being assaulted, etc.
-
So, are you suggesting physical assault is fine provided the level of discomfort is no worse than sore - is there a sliding scale of some sort?
What about the other aspects of physically assaulting people, including children, such as; fear, intimidation, loss of self-esteem by the person being assaulted, etc.
It's possible, as far as I know, to inflict short term pain without causing harm. This can serve as a deterrent to misbehaviour; Proverbs talks about not sparing your son the rod. It's because it is exaggerated to the point of harm by people who don't know their strength that it has been associated with assault, and thus banned.
-
Isn't civil marriage (in this country) based on principles that originate in the Bible? No incest, no polygamy (not explicitly stated but taught through stories) etc.
No - that shows a deep misunderstanding of the relationship between christianity and marriage from the time of the early church. Indeed marriage in pre-christian times was a societal, legal, civic and cultural construct based on consent of the man and woman (or actually often the family of the woman) - this (except for the bit in brackets) is effectively what civil marriage is still today - you can see the clear connection to the roman and greek interpretations of marriage.
By contrast the early christian church was deeply sceptical about marriage, at best tolerating it and something that happened in broader society, and in some cases forbidding it from christian communities where marriage was seen as counter to the believer true commitment to faith christ the church etc. Indeed christianity largely saw marriage as something outside its interests or influence for hundreds of years. It wasn't perhaps until the middle ages that marriage because embedded in christian religious live, rather than just broader societal, cultural and legal context.
You might want to read the following - this is ultimately from a Episcopal Church context, but most of the early history is relevant much more broadly.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dfc_attachments/public/documents/3223195/Marriage_Report_Essay_3.pdf
-
Isn't civil marriage (in this country) based on principles that originate in the Bible? No incest, no polygamy (not explicitly stated but taught through stories) etc. Hence religious organisations typically accept that couples married in civil ceremonies are married.
Originate, or are included? Some of those rules were in place in various cultural practices before the Bible, and after it was written but in places it hadn't reached, and some of those rules aren't universal within the Bible (how does monogamy fit with concubinage?). It's almost as though there are a limited number of things that can be shown to provide stable relationships for a society to seek to reinforce?
On the question of being open to having children. Not strictly true, since they can use natural birth control.
Which is also known as 'No birth control' or 'abstinence' - certain Christian doctrines explicitly include the threat of children in the marriage vows, don't they?
On the question of remarriage after divorce. Yes, I think I agree, the acceptance of this in the CofE has got it into a pickle. But the RCC and some CofE's still abstain from it, so they are not in a pickle.
Except inasmuch as they alienate people living in the real world who realise that rules for forty year lifespans with little post-adolescent scope for personal growth probably aren't practical in the modern world.
O.
-
Probably it was this misinterpretation of what it says in Exodus that led to slavery being banned. As Bob Dylan said, "you're gonna have to serve somebody" - owning a servant isn't bad in itself, as long as all his/her needs are provided for.
Yes, it is bad in and of itself. People are not a commodity, people are not something with a financial value that can be traded, people are not a belonging to be discarded if no longer useful. People have intrinsic worth, and a right to self.
A woman raped in the countryside where no one could hear her, was assumed to have called for help. She was assumed innocent, since she could not be proven guilty of adultery.
It's not an uncommon view in the modern world, but the idea that a woman needs to have done anything at all in order for someone else's actions to constitute rape is problematic.
Likewise, the above regulation concerning beating a slave assumed that you were innocent of mistreating your servant, since you'd paid for him from your pocket.
And there's just one example of why owning people is wrong.
O.
-
Serving is not the same as being a slave.
Hebrew only has one word for both. The distinction comes when it mentions ruling over an 'ebed' harshly, the only explicit example I can think of being when (I think in Deuteronomy) the Israelites were told to put to forced labour inhabitants of those cities which surrendered. (Another example would be, not ruling over a fellow Hebrew harshly).
The underlying reason for this is that the Canaanite cities had fallen into idolatry, and forced labour was punishment. You might agree that it isn't wrong to force someone who has done something wrong to work?
IIRC a slave could convert to become an Israelite, and then God was the master of both the free and the slave.
Ancient rape laws are a whole other topic.
The principle is the same, see #43.
You've beaten a person to a point that they may well die.
In which case you would be required to free him, since there would be permanent bodily damage. It is not talking about bodily harm.
How can you be assumed not to have mistreated them?
The assumption may be, for legal purposes, that he is feigning injury. The person has exchanged the slave for silver, so the benefit of the doubt goes to the owner rather than the slave.
-
Hello Spud,
As you think this stuff to be the true written words of an inerrant god presumably you must think it’d be fine and dandy today too? So you’d support laws that said people could be bought and sold, anyone could visit violence on anyone else (provided it didn’t cause “lasting” damage, though how you’d measure the psychological effect is hard to guess) as a means of punishing or correcting them etc? What about the other stuff in the OT – killing people for gathering kindling on the sabbath etc? All good in da hood for you too?
-
Hebrew only has one word for both.
Well then, I suggest that you question your willingness to accept their writings as "law".
If I employ you, you serve me. Are you my slave? If I subsequently beat you up but you don't die in a week, should I be allowed to get away with it?
The distinction comes when it mentions ruling over an 'ebed' harshly, the only explicit example I can think of being when (I think in Deuteronomy) the Israelites were told to put to forced labour inhabitants of those cities which surrendered. (Another example would be, not ruling over a fellow Hebrew harshly).
The underlying reason for this is that the Canaanite cities had fallen into idolatry, and forced labour was punishment. You might agree that it isn't wrong to force someone who has done something wrong to work?
No I don't agree because it is slavery. Furthermore, the only thing they did wrong was worship the wrong gods. When people punish you for having the wrong religion today, we give them names like "Taliban" or "ISIS" and do our best to stop them.
IIRC a slave could convert to become an Israelite, and then God was the master of both the free and the slave.
Extortion: worship my god and I'll agree to treat you better.
In which case you would be required to free him, since there would be permanent bodily damage.
Holy fuck. Your punishment for permanently disabling your slave is to free him? A prison sentence is surely due.
The assumption may be, for legal purposes, that he is feigning injury.
There was a thing in medieval times called the ducking stool and it was used for determining witches. If you drowned, you were innocent, but you were also dead.
If you die in a week, you were not feigning but you are also dead.
The person has exchanged the slave for silver, so the benefit of the doubt goes to the owner rather than the slave.
And it doesn't occur to you that it is wrong to exchange a human being for silver as if they were livestock or that beating somebody is wrong whether they die or not?
You seriously need to take a look at the writings you are defending. If we were talking about ancient Rome rather than the Hebrews, you'd be condemning this just as hard as everybody else.
-
Hebrew only has one word for both.
Given they practiced both, do you not think it's indicative of a problem that they didn't have terms to differentiate between the two?
The distinction comes when it mentions ruling over an 'ebed' harshly, the only explicit example I can think of being when (I think in Deuteronomy) the Israelites were told to put to forced labour inhabitants of those cities which surrendered. (Another example would be, not ruling over a fellow Hebrew harshly).
Given that these practices were in place when your deity allegedly sent them instruction on moral behaviour, do you not think it something of an oversight that he didn't point out the significant difference between these two instutions?
The underlying reason for this is that the Canaanite cities had fallen into idolatry, and forced labour was punishment. You might agree that it isn't wrong to force someone who has done something wrong to work?
Forcing someone to do work is not the same as telling someone they are now a thing that is owned - stealing someone's self-ownership is an unforgiveable theft far, far beyond the mere restriction of freedoms that punishment entails.
O.
-
On the question of being open to having children. Not strictly true, since they can use natural birth control.
You are missing the point Spud.
Sure the RCC permits so-called natural birth control, while not allowing artificial contraception.
But that isn't the same as allowing couples to make a choice not to have kids - their RCC marriage vows doesn't allow that - being open to children (wording is actually 'Will you accept children lovingly from God') means that a permanent intention on the part of the couple not to have children will invalidate the marriage as far as the RCC as concerned. Sure you can use natural birth control to determine the number and timing of children, but the RCC expects you (and requires you to in their marriage vows) to try to have children at some point, or rather not to decide never to have children.
So for the RCC having children is required for marriage couples (unless of course that couple are unable to have children due to infertility etc).
-
The RCC wants its married members to produce new members to ensure its continuation.
The RCC's understanding/attitude to sex is not of scriptural origin, but dates back to Thomas Aquinas, a 13th century monk who tried to systhesise biblical teaching with that of Aristotle. Aristotle believed that the sole purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction. He also believed that the female role was to be an incubator of the seed inserted by the man,
The behaviour of the vast majority of animal species supports the idea that the purpose of sex is reproduction. Coitus only takes place when the female is fertile and emitting some kind of signal to this effect (it may be behavioural or chemical) which acts as a stimulus for a male reaction. Homo sapiens is unusual in that there are no overt signs of ovulation. The signals which result in coitus have little to do with ovulation, and anyway, women can enjoy rewarding sex lives long after menopause.
My speculation is that sexual behaviour in humans is a consequence of the extremely long maturation period of human offspring. It is about a dozen years before young humans become sexually mature and about as long again before the maturation process is complete. The purpose of sex is to constantly reward the couple for being together and for maintaining the family unit - which provides a constant and stable environment in which children can mature.
The RCC should be encouraging sexual activity among its members for its own sake and not just for breeding.
And the CofE should accept that same sex couples can be just as good at parenting as heterosexual couples. So same sex couples should receive similar encouragement to enjoy each other.
-
Welby and Sentamu backpedalling rapidly:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/30/church-of-england-apologises-over-sex-comments
-
The RCC wants its married members to produce new members to ensure its continuation.
Indeed and that is also backed up by their totally one sided approach to mixed faith marriages where they expect any children to be brought up as catholics and expect both members of the couple to commit to that - somewhat disrespectful of other faiths and non faith positions.
Not sure if you read the article on christianity and marriage that I linked to up thread. What it indicates was that the early church was completed dismissive or even hostile towards marriage. The first point at which the church became interested in marriage was as a mechanism to increase membership, both through children and also active conversion, with the christian partner in a marriage expected to try to convert the non christian.
-
Furthermore, the only thing they did wrong was worship the wrong gods. When people punish you for having the wrong religion today, we give them names like "Taliban" or "ISIS" and do our best to stop them.
Just to point out that Taliban and ISIS are the ones with the wrong religion, as proved by their lack of restraint.
We are told that Abraham had a servant who was in charge of his entire household and this is possibly the one who is referred to as Eliezer from Damascus, who would inherit his wealth if he had no offspring.
So here is a foreign manservant (Abram was from Chaldea) who is entrusted with weapons, inheritance, and later on, finding a wife for Abraham's son. This is how society worked in those days, and it was not slavery, which would be why the KJV and other ancient translations do not use the word slave.
-
Welby and Sentamu backpedalling rapidly:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/30/church-of-england-apologises-over-sex-comments
Someone asked, what was their statement doing in public media.
It tells Christians how they should be living, and tells non-Christians how they can expect Christians to live.
-
Someone asked, what was their statement doing in public media.
It tells Christians how they should be living, and tells non-Christians how they can expect Christians to live.
But I don't much care how Christians live, provided they are law-abiding, they don't frighten horses or small children, and they don't expect me (or society at large) to alter my approach simply to fit with their preferences.
-
Someone asked, what was their statement doing in public media.
It tells Christians how they should be living, and tells non-Christians how they can expect Christians to live.
The place for Christians to learn about Christianing, surely, is the Church. Why do non-Christians need to know how Christians are going to conduct their marital/non-marital sexual congresses?
O.
-
jeremy,
No, the reason (or at least my reason) is that it's a rigged game. They won't permit equal marriage, but then say it's wrong for the people they've excluded from marriage to have sex when they're not married.
This. Although why anyone cares what a cult says is beyond me.
-
and tells non-Christians how they can expect Christians to live.
I would observe that Christians seem to be just as susceptible to extra marital sex as non Christians. Not that it matters to me. The rules of your organisation are a matter for your organisation. There is no need to broadcast them to the World at large, unless you want to imply we should all adhere to them.
-
and tells non-Christians how they can expect Christians to live.
Nope - it tells non christians how the church thinks christians should be living. But as Jeremy points out many will chose to live in a different manner, and that's fine with me providing it is between consenting adults. Personally I take a rather negative view of organisations interfering in peoples personal lives and telling them how they should live.
-
This CofE stance reminds of this well known quote by Bertrand Russell; 'The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others.'
-
This CofE stance reminds of this well known quote by Bertrand Russell; 'The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others.'
Which, remarkably, fits very well with the earliest christian church's view on marriage, as outlined in the paper I linked to.
Effectively the early church considered celibacy to be the highest ideal for everyone. Having presumably recognised that this was not a particularly smart way to perpetuate a cult they determined that they should use marriage both to convert non christians who may be marrying a christian. But also to continue to make those who didn't have, as they would see it, the moral strength to be celibate that their natural desire to be sexually active must be completely controlled by the church.
And the church has been making people feel guilty (and therefore able to exert control) for their natural sexual desires for nigh on 2000 years from that point.
-
In case anyone needed reminding, the The C of E being as misguided and irrelevant as ever it was:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/23/sex-married-heterosexual-couples-church-of-england-christians
The Church of England have the right to say this more than any religion outside the Christian Religion,
You see marriage was ordained by the God of the Jews and modern day gentiles christian Jewsl.
In their beliefs marriage is an ordination by God for his people and has no definition outside that meaning for Christians.
What you cannot do is make a law by man for man and give it the same definition as marriage ordained by God for just a man and a woman.
I accept the definition of marriage of a man to a man or woman to woman in the worlds law way. But it will never be Gods definition as this is solely for a man and a woman becoming one body.
You can fit a nut and a bolt together naturally. But two nuts or two bolts can never become one in their natural condition of creation.
So given the fact that marriage only really had a definition in religion for Gods people it had no standing outside this tenet of belief.
Marriage for anyone outside the ways and definition of God for man and woman is a separate entity and has no resemblance or meaning to Gods own.
-
The Church of England have the right to say this more than any religion outside the Christian Religion,
No-one has more 'right' than anyone else to have an opinion.
You see marriage was ordained by the God of the Jews and modern day gentiles christian Jewsl.
The earliest record of marriage is from 2350 BC in Mesopotamia. There are records of marriage in regions of the world centuries before stories about Jewish gods got there. Marriage, as so many other things, was co-opted by religion to try to control people's lives.
In their beliefs marriage is an ordination by God for his people and has no definition outside that meaning for Christians.
Then they can believe god's word carries weight, but that doesn't give them any grounds to try to establish rules for anyone outside of their club.
What you cannot do is make a law by man for man and give it the same definition as marriage ordained by God for just a man and a woman.
You're right, you can't, because when you make a law by people, for people, you can then actually enforce it with people rather than relying in imaginary future other-worldly punishment.
I accept the definition of marriage of a man to a man or woman to woman in the worlds law way.
I presume by 'world's law' way you are asserting some sort of naturalistic fallacy, which fails to two grounds: one, it's a naturalistic fallacy and two, it actually fails to recognise the widespread incidence of homosexuality in the natural world. You can accept any definition that you like, no-one's stopping you; we're just suggesting that the Anglican Church doesn't have a mandate to try to tell the rest of humanity which 'definition' they should be accepting of things like marriage or acceptable sexual behaviour.
But it will never be Gods definition as this is solely for a man and a woman becoming one body.
I've had a quick look in the cupboard, but it turns out I can't find any shits to give about what your particular interpretation of a particular god's particular definition (this time) of acceptable behaviour might be.
You can fit a nut and a bolt together naturally.
That's not natural, that's by design.
But two nuts or two bolts can never become one in their natural condition of creation.
Maybe, maybe not, depends on how adventurous you are (and whether you have a welding kit handy) but I'm pretty sure from decades of playing with Lego and Meccano that you can have a lot of fun trying.
So given the fact that marriage only really had a definition in religion for Gods people it had no standing outside this tenet of belief.
If you're going to say 'given the fact' it's probably worth citing a fact.
O.
-
The Church of England have the right to say this more than any religion outside the Christian Religion,
You see marriage was ordained by the God of the Jews and modern day gentiles christian Jewsl.
In their beliefs marriage is an ordination by God for his people and has no definition outside that meaning for Christians.
What you cannot do is make a law by man for man and give it the same definition as marriage ordained by God for just a man and a woman.
I accept the definition of marriage of a man to a man or woman to woman in the worlds law way. But it will never be Gods definition as this is solely for a man and a woman becoming one body.
You can fit a nut and a bolt together naturally. But two nuts or two bolts can never become one in their natural condition of creation.
So given the fact that marriage only really had a definition in religion for Gods people it had no standing outside this tenet of belief.
Marriage for anyone outside the ways and definition of God for man and woman is a separate entity and has no resemblance or meaning to Gods own.
sassy
first of all show beyond doubt your god exists then show the bible is gods word . When you've done that I might (might) give what you say some credibility .
Until you do, ridicule is what you will encounter . Especially on here.