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

[Outrider]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[jeremyp]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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).

[Harrowby Hall]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Welby and Sentamu backpedalling rapidly:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/30/church-of-england-apologises-over-sex-comments

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

 

[Outrider]

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.

[splashscuba]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Gordon]

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.'

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Sassy]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Walter]

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.