Sex is for married heterosexual couples only, says Church of England

[Gordon]

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.

   

[Alan Burns]

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.

[Gordon]

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.   

[Outrider]

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.

[Enki]

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.

[Alan Burns]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Stranger]

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.

[Gordon]

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.   

[Spud]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[jeremyp]

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".

[Spud]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Gordon]

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. 

[Spud]

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]

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 

[Spud]

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.

[jeremyp]

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?

[Gordon]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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