The Kirk are doing it better

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Anchs,
 

You’re missing the point. You’ve never seen any scripture either that allows lots of other things too (like a sorceress being allowed to live for example), but you’re relaxed about those things. Indeed for all I know you’re chomping down even now on a prawn sandwich while trying to keep the crumbs off your cotton/polyester mix polo shirt.

This is the sort of uninformed tripe that you can get away with in this age of ignorance.
Christians have the New Testament I know about New Atheisms allergy to this but Peter had a vision which meant that he went along with the idea that non jewish Christians didn't have to follow jewish dietary rules.

I don't expect thanks for putting you straight on this since your post, in my humble opinion, appeals to the Red Necks in the gallery.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

This is the sort of uninformed tripe that you can get away with in this age of ignorance.

Ah, the old "I'll use insult when I have no argument to support me" ploy eh?

Christians have the New Testament I know about New Atheisms allergy to this but Peter had a vision which meant that he went along with the idea that non jewish Christians didn't have to follow jewish dietary rules.

That's nice. And where does the "equal marriage is a no-no" stuff to which Anchs refers come from?

I don't expect thanks for putting you straight on this since your post, in my humble opinion, appeals to the Red Necks in the gallery.

Just as well as you've done no such thing and, as always, your opinion on the matter turns out to be about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike.

[ad_orientem]

That's nice. And where does the "equal marriage is a no-no" stuff to which Anchs refers come from?

Because in the Gospel according to St. Matthew our Lord tells us how God intended marriage to be from the beginning saying amongst other things that "he who made man from the beginning made them male and female etc."

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

Because in the Gospel according to St. Matthew our Lord tells us how God intended marriage to be from the beginning saying amongst other things that "he who made man from the beginning made them male and female etc."

And presumably because of Leviticus too. Leaving aside for now the reification of "our Lord tells us", how though does the exegesis of any of these texts work if not for confirmation bias? What criteria in other words would you apply to select the bits to use as validation for your position, the bits to ignore, and the bits to flout?

[ad_orientem]

Our Lord is quite clear and leaves no room for doubt. Male and female he created them. End of.

[Anchorman]

Anchs,
 

You’re missing the point. You’ve never seen any scripture either that allows lots of other things too (like a sorceress being allowed to live for example), but you’re relaxed about those things. Indeed for all I know you’re chomping down even now on a prawn sandwich while trying to keep the crumbs off your cotton/polyester mix polo shirt.

The point here is that you’ve looked for scriptural authority for something of which you disapprove already (equal marriage), but turned a blind eye to the same “supreme rules” about other matters.

How then is this anything other than confirmation bias, and what use is a supposedly inerrant book of rules if it turns out that it’s more like a "pick what you fancy" buffet?

-
Who mentioned prawn sarnies (or wool and cotton shirts, for that matter)
We've just celebrated Easter - part of which is the institution of the 'New Covenant' - meaning that, while we note the stuff in Leviticus, we are not bound by it.
On the other hand, there are certain references to marriage in the NT - bioth in the Gospels and Pauline letters - which do mention the topic - in each case, a male-female bond - anf emphasise this as the norm for those walking the Christian path.

[Rhiannon]

And yet you conveniently forget the part about not judging.

What about me as a divorcee? Jesus was pretty explicit when it came to being against divorce. Unlike marriage equality which he didn't seem unduly taxed by.

[Anchorman]

And yet you conveniently forget the part about not judging.

What about me as a divorcee? Jesus was pretty explicit when it came to being against divorce. Unlike marriage equality which he didn't seem unduly taxed by.

-
I'm not judging anyone. We all fall short of God's glory.
As I posted, Scripture is part of the Kirk's "Supreme rule for faith and life" - sometimes we break the rules. The Kirk, however should not try to change them.

[Rhiannon]

-
I'm not judging anyone. We all fall short of God's glory.
As I posted, Scripture is part of the Kirk's "Supreme rule for faith and life" - sometimes we break the rules. The Kirk, however should not try to change them.

What does the Kirk teach about divorce?

[Aruntraveller]

I'm not judging anyone. We all fall short of God's glory.

Yes but do married, sexually active heterosexuals fall short of God's glory on the grounds that they are heterosexual?

You see that is always the problem I have had with the idea that we 'all fall short' or we are 'all sinners' type of argument.

You do not apply equivalence to heterosexual and homosexual relationships - instead another equivalence is drawn for homosexuals; usually with thieves or rapists or on occasions paedophiles.

But I have never, ever heard the argument that heterosexual of the sort I outlined above are sinners. Not once. And that is why it is bigoted thinking, I have no doubt in my mind that you are not bigoted, but it is thinking that is guided by bigotry.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

Our Lord is quite clear and leaves no room for doubt. Male and female he created them. End of.

I don't doubt that you believe that what you call "Our Lord" did that, presumably because it's written in a book. The question though concerned all the other rules and injunctions in the NT too, and specifically how you apply the exegesis necessary to decide which are "supreme" rules, which are kinda optional, and which you can flout entirely. If not for using your own biases and opinions to do the selecting, then what?

And while we're about it, as equal marriage has been lawful for a few years now and, so far as I can tell, the collapse of society hasn't happened as the result, could t be that this "Lord" of your was wrong about that in any case?   

[Spud]

Yes but do married, sexually active heterosexuals fall short of God's glory on the grounds that they are heterosexual?

You see that is always the problem I have had with the idea that we 'all fall short' or we are 'all sinners' type of argument.

You do not apply equivalence to heterosexual and homosexual relationships - instead another equivalence is drawn for homosexuals; usually with thieves or rapists or on occasions paedophiles.

But I have never, ever heard the argument that heterosexual of the sort I outlined above are sinners. Not once. And that is why it is bigoted thinking, I have no doubt in my mind that you are not bigoted, but it is thinking that is guided by bigotry.

TV,
I think the  answer to your question is that homosexual relationships go against God's created order for men and women - he made us male and female as ad_o pointed out.

[Nearly Sane]

TV,
I think the  answer to your question is that homosexual relationships go against God's created order for men and women - he made us male and female as ad_o pointed out.

Which just means your god, as you conceive it, is a bigot.

[Spud]

ad,

I don't doubt that you believe that what you call "Our Lord" did that, presumably because it's written in a book. The question though concerned all the other rules and injunctions in the NT too, and specifically how you apply the exegesis necessary to decide which are "supreme" rules, which are kinda optional, and which you can flout entirely. If not for using your own biases and opinions to do the selecting, then what?

And while we're about it, as equal marriage has been lawful for a few years now and, so far as I can tell, the collapse of society hasn't happened as the result, could t be that this "Lord" of your was wrong about that in any case?

How did the apostolic church decide which Levitical laws still applied to the new Gentile believers, in Acts 15?
Jim Jordan makes the case that the laws in Leviticus 17-18 apply not just to the priestly nation of Israel but also to any Gentile living among them. Whereas the laws about food etc only applied to Israelites. A careful reading of the text of Leviticus does support this.

[ad_orientem]

The Law is dead. It was nalied to the cross with our Lord, as the Apostle says. Not even Jewish Christians are required to follow it, indeed, they shouldn't.

[Rhiannon]

TV,
I think the  answer to your question is that homosexual relationships go against God's created order for men and women - he made us male and female as ad_o pointed out.

Why does God making people male and female mean that there can't be same sex relationships?

[Spud]

The Law is dead. It was nalied to the cross with our Lord, as the Apostle says. Not even Jewish Christians are required to follow it, indeed, they shouldn't.

Indeed, but when the laws in Leviticus 17-18 was written they applied to the Gentiles as well which means that they apply to all people for all time

[Spud]

The rest of the Levitical laws were temporary, being outward symbols of inner holiness. Their purpose was to set Israel apart from the other nations - in the sense that the other nations would see their outer purity and become aware of the need for inner purity. When Christ came he fulfilled the promise to Abram that all nations would be blessed. So the laws concerning ritual purity needed to be scrapped so that they would not hinder the Gentiles from receiving this blessing.

[Gordon]

Indeed, but when the laws in Leviticus 17-18 was written they applied to the Gentiles as well which means that they apply to all people for all time

Are you saying, Spud, that I am bound by Leviticus 17 - 18?

[floo]

Indeed, but when the laws in Leviticus 17-18 was written they applied to the Gentiles as well which means that they apply to all people for all time

How silly!

[Anchorman]

What does the Kirk teach about divorce?

-
Standard Christian doctrine - that marriage is a serious commitment, not to be taken lightly; that divorce is a last resort - and that it's frowned upon unless there is irretrievable breakdown - as in adultery or some other criminal activity.
There are no sanctions, no barring from sacraments or anything of the sort.

[Anchorman]

Yes but do married, sexually active heterosexuals fall short of God's glory on the grounds that they are heterosexual?

You see that is always the problem I have had with the idea that we 'all fall short' or we are 'all sinners' type of argument.

You do not apply equivalence to heterosexual and homosexual relationships - instead another equivalence is drawn for homosexuals; usually with thieves or rapists or on occasions paedophiles.

But I have never, ever heard the argument that heterosexual of the sort I outlined above are sinners. Not once. And that is why it is bigoted thinking, I have no doubt in my mind that you are not bigoted, but it is thinking that is guided by bigotry.

-
Sorry, TV, but I can only argue from my interpretation of the NT Scriptures - and they say that, for those commited to Christ, marriage is between a man and a woman and UI can't see any get-out clause.
The key words there being 'for the Christian'.
That's why I have no issues with gay secular marriage.

[Aruntraveller]

-
Sorry, TV, but I can only argue from my interpretation of the NT Scriptures - and they say that, for those commited to Christ, marriage is between a man and a woman and UI can't see any get-out clause.
The key words there being 'for the Christian'.
That's why I have no issues with gay secular marriage.

And because you can't see any get out clause you are therefore backing religious bigotry.

What about the gay Christian? It doesn't matter for a cold-hearted atheist like me - but what about your fellow Christians?

Can you not see that you are indulging in judgment where none should apply. Goodness me, Christians have changed their minds over other issues down the centuries.

I know from previous chats on this issue that you are not bigoted but I cannot for the life of me see how you can face in two different directions at the same time which is essentially what your position currently is.

It's as if you have erected a box around your religion and said those rules apply within the religion - but you then accept the rules applied outwith in the secular world. How can that be correct?

I don't understand how you can put up with the cognitive dissonance that you seem to bear.

[Spud]

Are you saying, Spud, that I am bound by Leviticus 17 - 18?

According to the Bible these laws are universal (the obvious one being no adultery) but not everyone​ would agree, thus in a democracy like ours you would not be legally 'bound' by them.

[Gordon]

According to the Bible these laws are universal (the obvious one being no adultery) but not everyone​ would agree, thus in a democracy like ours you would not be legally 'bound' by them.

Since these biblical laws aren't legal here in the UK - adultery isn't illegal - so I can't be legally bound by them in any event. As such I'm free to ignore them, and since you note we live in a democracy would you agree that society at large is free to ignore them too?