This just in - Church of England urged to offer same-sex blessings

If this happens, it would be a major change in the official stance of the CoE, could it drive a change in what 'ordinary' Christians believe? The Bishop of Birkenhead, who refused to sign the report, is quoted as worrying that it will lead the church into a 'cultural captivity'. The Vatican also seems to be responding to public attitudes, trying to 'stay current and relevant' by changing or adapting long standing official policies. Just how far will religious institutions go to retain their followers? As an aside, this is something that I simply can't imagine Islam doing. I don't think it's the way that Islam works.

I guess this has turned into a bit of a 'what does it mean to be christian' thread and that's fine, I like the way threads evolve.

Jesus didn't speak about homosexuality directly, but he did mention sexual immorality, adultery, fornication, marriage, etc. Homosexuality was seen as a sin before Jesus, and then after Jesus, just because Jesus didn't mention it directly doesn't necessarily mean that it is not sinful.

The main principles in my opinion are the deity of Christ (who God is) and salvation (How to get to God/What does God want)

Sure there is some debate as to how exactly one is saved, or who God is, undoubtedly, but you'd be surprised how many denominations agree, at least in the basics of these tenets. I'm not sure what denomination you're referring to that don't believe Jesus was the son of God, but 9 out of 10 believe this.


Some denominations may disagree on whether or not some things are sinful, like "liberal Christians", but they still believe in Christ and salvation through Him.

Evangelicals and catholics are probably the furthest apart in their theologies, but they don't argue in who Christ is and that you are saved through Him, even though their is debate as to how exactly that takes place, they still have the same foundation.

I'm not saying that there is 100% agreement within every denominations, those denominations exist because there isn't a full accord. I'm only suggesting for the most part, denominations will agree on the foundation of Christianity, and disagree on things that are not as important.

Thanks, that's a good attitude, this evolution did not occur maliciously.

So? The fact that Jesus talked about other sexual activities as sinful doesn't mean that he regarded homosexuality as sinful. As for the prevailing views of the time about homosexuality--surely you don't think that means that Jesus must have condemned it as well (also the actual views at the time were more complex than just a simple condemnation). After all, Jesus condemned some things that were generally allowed and allowed others that were generally condemned.

And while you're right that something could still be sinful (on Christian grounds) even if Jesus doesn't mention it--that would mean going beyond your criterion of a Christain being someone who follows Christ.

Note that I didn't deny that Christianity doesn't have main principles. What I said is that there is a wide variance of views around these principles. For instance, in the early Church, the Arians, which were widespread--even including a couple of emperors--saw Jesus as a divine but subordinate entity to God the Father--and someone who was created by God the Father. Today, Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians and other Christians do not regard Jesus as God in the orthodox fashion.


Okay? I think if you look at what this "salvation" means to these different denominations you'll get very different views. For instance, evangelical Protestants usually think that in order to be saved you must be "born again," where you have a conversion experience of accepting Jesus as your lord and savior. On the other hand, Catholics do not typically think of salvation as being the effect of a special conversion experience, but rather as a state of being in relation to God--thus as an ongoing process that can be severed by sin in a way that the faith alone salvation of Protestants cannot.

They agree about some things, disagree about others. I'll note that these disagreements were considered significant enough to contribute to malicious religious wars that lasted decades.

Okay, but your suggestion is just a trivial result of how you define Christianity rather than a result of a sociological/historical study of Christianity. If we were to include everyone that considered themselves Christians--such as Mormons and other so-called heretical groups--then this agreement about the foundation of Christianity would disappear. Instead, you define Christianity in such a way that if someone does reject those foundational beliefs, then even if they still consider themselves Christians, you won't, so you'll be able to claim a general agreement among actual Christians. But that is exactly what I was talking about--defining "Christian" by theology rather than by the actual beliefs and practices of those who claim to be following Christ.

The problem with "defending" Christianity, is that if you don't believe in the authority of the bible, then everything becomes subjective. I can't prove to you logically what is or is not sinful if I can't rely on scripture, because that is where most of my theology comes from.

This can never be an argument with a final resolution. If you believe that you can discover Christian principles by deciphering opinions of Christians throughout the centuries, then that's your prerogative. I can't offer any rebuttals as to why I'm right and why you're wrong, I can only explain what I believe.

Biblically, homosexuality is seen as sinful. I can't prove that it is outside of this. If the bible is inaccurate then I could be entirely wrong.

To follow Jesus would generally mean to follow his principles. I would personally say these principles are primarily discovered biblically.

If you deny Christ as being God then I would not classify you as a Christian by definition. Although I believe Oneness Pentecostal do believe Christ is God, just not that He is 3 separate persons, but is One with 3 forms. Again, I'm not sure about this, but no doubt there are groups who don't believe this, I personally disagree.

I agree, but there is a lot of semantics here too. Being born again is really just the description of salvation, you don't need to say you're born again to follow the necessary steps. There are differences here, I can't deny that, but my point was that it's all in the same vein, salvation through belief in Christ.

This is true, disagreements will always arise.

I can't define Christianity with anything that is not biblical, but I would sum up the entire bible with the principles I stated earlier. I'm not saying that the bible says that "these are the principles" but there is nothing more important than who God is, and how you find Him.

I personally don't recognize any group that claims to be Christian but doesn't believe in those principles. What is sinful on the other hand is not a deal breaker necessarily, but I do question their sincerity in being willing to follow Christ wholeheartedly.


I can respect your view, even though I think it's subjective, and I can't really offer any evidence to confirm my view, which is why I say it's impossible to come to an agreement here, and why there are so many disputes and denominations to begin with.

When we say that something is subjective in these kinds of contexts, generally what we are complaining of is that whatever opinion is held is ultimately without ground and arbitrary. It is an implication of my claim about Christianity here that your own "biblical approach" to Christianity is just as much without ground and arbitrary, just as subjective, as any other.

Specifically, what books we include in the Bible, how to interpret these books, and what kind of authority we grant these books, are all matters about which there is no general agreement, and furthermore are questions that end up being determined by your prior theological principles. But since these theological principles are themselves arbitrary without ground, your entire biblical basis for understanding Christianity is also arbitrary and without ground.

The difference here is that I don't pretend to be discovering some a priori truth about Christianity. Rather, I am simply attempting to accurately describe the actual beliefs and practices of those who call themselves Christian. Since I don't see a principled distinction between different sects of Christianity, such that some are "true" Christians and others not (I am a nominalist about "Christianity"), I don't privilege any of as being closer to the truth than the others.

Indeed, it seems to me that the intellectually honest way to respond to a situation where you can't offer any rebuttal (reasons?) to those who disagree with your view of Christianity is to give up that view.

I don't regard this as a morally justifying reason to hold negative views towards homosexuals, but I recognize that you do. It seems to me that our moral views (especially on something as important as this) should be grounded in more than a few throw-away mentions in the Bible. Personally, I think you should change your understanding of the Bible so that you can discern that this view of homosexuality is not consistent with the more central and important teachings of Jesus.

Fine, but since Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, this doesn't help you resolve this question. Basically, you need to stop trying to justify your moral beliefs by appeal to Jesus, when you really are relying on the fallible men who followed him.

Sure, but this is just what I have been describing from the beginning. You have an understanding of what it means to be a Christian based in theological principles rather than sociological or historical research. You say that it is a necessary condition of being a Christian that you believe Jesus is God, even though millions of people who consider themselves Christians do not regard Jesus as God (at least, not as you understand God). Thus, your appeal to Christian agreement on these principles is meaningless.

Here it is in argument form.

1) By definition, a Christian believes that Jesus is God.
2) Therefore, all Christians believe that Jesus is God.

Surely you can't mean to be using (2) as evidence of some universal agreement by Christians on some point of dogma. You have said that all those who disagree with this doctrine are not Christians by definition. So of course it'll end up that they all agree here. My point is that if you take a sociological/historical viewpoint, where you don't begin by assuming that what it means to be Christian is determined by your acceptance of certain aspects of Christian dogma, but rather by your membership and participation in Christian institutions, by your identification and self-understanding as a Christian, and by other aspects of the social background in which you live, then you'll find a much wider range of views identified as Christian.

Frankly, I am skeptical of the whole idea of using theology and belief as constitutive of religion at all. We focus a lot on those aspects here because we are primarily a discussion forum, but I don't think they are nearly so central to the practice of religion as this focus would seem to indicate.

Nah, this is not right. There is a huge disagreement between Protestants and Catholics on this point. Remember sola fide, one of the rallying cries of the Reformation? As a general rule, Catholic theology doesn't really recognize something akin to being "born again" or "converted" to Christianity, something that evangelicals think is necessary for all who are saved through Jesus.

Yeah, to me this is just another example of how actual Christian practice and beliefs differ from what they claim they are. When I read the Bible, I don't find that the deity of Jesus is nearly so central as you claim here. In fact, the entire Old Testament has no awareness of Jesus at all, and the most direct record of Jesus--the gospels--do not make this nearly so central as other features of his ministry.

That seems pretty prejudiced. Why would you question their sincerity since you are so obviously unable to defend your own view and recognize that there is wide disagreement on these issues. I mean, I think you are wrong here, but I don't think you are lying about what you believe.

If you are unable to offer any evidence to confirm your view, you should examine to see whether it also is subjective...

Before I go "point for point" I want to say that it seems like you're implying that I'm wrong in my theology because I can't prove anything, but you're right because your approach is more logical. Is this right, or did I misunderstand your message as a whole?

I've already conceded that I can't prove that I'm right, nor that I can even know that I'm right, but I don't believe you can either. Am I coming off as arrogant or something? because I thought I was pretty open to other beliefs, since I've said that these are just unprovable opinions.

Anyhow, I'll respond to your points. Just an fyi, that I'm not implying I'm privileged to the truth, it's just what I believe.

What I mean by subjective is that each person interprets it for themselves, it's not arbitrary. I don't arbitrarily believe in the Jesus and the bible, I just can't prove these things to be accurate. Believing the bible was the last of many steps for me, whether right or wrong my beliefs are not without ground, I just can't prove them, there is a big difference there. To get into how I arrived here is somewhat pointless I think, as I cannot prove any of the steps along the way, but I've discussed them with MB in other threads. I concede that they are subjective, but not arbitrary and without ground.

I would say there is no unanimous agreement, but the canonized bible, the NT especially is 99% agreed with. The OT is far less. Yes, no one fully agrees on how to interpret it, it's authority etc. that much is true, but the fact is that we can't prove anything anyway. Even if I could go back in time and see Paul writing the epistles I still could not know if what he was writing is true. There is no way to know the truth with certainty.

I don't see how you surveying christianity is any better at proving your theology. I think your methods will turn out to be flawed as well, as will anyones.

I will acknowledge that your approach is more appealing scholastically and logically speaking, but I think you will still fall short of certainty at the end of the day. You are studying the works of people just like you or I who are just as fallible and privilege to the same information.

Or by "accurately describe" do you mean that you're not actually attempting to form a belief, but are just studying different views?

I admit I take things on faith, much like I told MB in a previous thread, I cannot be certain the Lord has ever spoken to me, I could simply be deluded, but at this point it is easier for me to believe that He speaks. If it was easier to believe that these things were false, I would not be a Christian, as you suggest.

If you're suggesting I think I'm better than homosexuals because I'm heterosexual you're wrong. I just believe it's a sin (the act of having a sex with someone of the same gender), no worse than any other sin. I'm just as guilty. But if you begin to take things out of the bible it will reduce into nonsense quite quickly since all scripture hinges on each other. Paul wrote extensively on homosexuality, if you take that out, you give permission to take out the rest of his teachings, including the "important teachings of Jesus" which he also speaks extensively on.

Now don't get me wrong here. I'm saying I believe the bible is true, and that you either have to take or leave the entire book, or you will eventually run into problems. That is just my opinion, if you want to examine the scripture yourself and judge it on what people have said, that's your perspective, I simply disagree.

The entire bible and church is based on fallible men, the bible may be just as fallible as the generations of Christians who you study as well, there is no information available that hasn't been touched by people, which is why my point is that neither of us, or anyone, can prove their beliefs. I'm not saying I absolutely know what is sinful, but that I believe in the bible (maybe unjustifiably so according to your definitions) and it describes these things quite plainly. What I don't understand is the distinction you make between the fallible people who wrote the bible, and those whom you study. Aren't they just as fallible?

The bible is largely historical, especially the OT. Studying the bible is not just theological.

It doesn't bother me if people call themselves Christians and think Jesus was just a man, I simply disagree. I believe that Christians should believe that Christ is Lord and Saviour. No one is ever going to agree on these things, this is just my opinion, it's biblical.


Here is a good opportunity to ask you to repeat your beliefs, and to explain why you believe them, and how you reached these conclusions. I think you will find it's not very easy to give a logical account of religious beliefs.

Yes Catholics and Pentecostals don't exactly agree, I just don't think they are that far off on the things that are most important.

What does it mean to be born again? To be "born of the spirit." Most denominations will say that it means to "give your life to Christ" to make him your "Lord and saviour" and I'm saying that you can do that without committing to the phrase. But that's all moot, there isn't a unanimous verdict on salvation, I understand that, but many do agree.


The jews were waiting for the Messiah, and those who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah are still waiting for Him now. If salvation is not found in Christ, the entire NT is worthless.


Well maybe I misspoke here. I guess one could be sincere and be mistaken. Not to say that they are absolutely mistaken, that's just what I believe. I had in mind Christians who believe in the bible and deny certain passages, but not everyone believes the scriptures, so I can see I'm wrong here.


I understand there are disagreements, that's why there are so many denominations. As for not being able to defend my views, who can? No one can prove they know anything. I don't see why me basing my theology largely on the bible is more fallacious than anyone else basing it on any other teachings or opinions.

If you don't believe the bible I can't defend my theology to you, it's impossible. I can't prove to you that the Lord has spoken to me. I can't really even be sure of it myself.

I don't believe you can offer any substantial evidence either, which is why I originally said that these debates never reach any agreement. But I'm curious to hear your personal views and how you defend them based on how dismiss my own views as being completely fallacious and arbitrary.

I don't expect you to reply point-by-point, reply to what you think is most important, but if nothing else, please give a brief account of your views and how you perceive them to be solidly rooted, and just a final apology in case I came off rude or worse, I can't perceive tone at this point in the early morning.

First, thanks for the detailed reply. And just to clarify, by criticizing you I don't mean to imply that you are arrogant--much the opposite in fact.

Second, this doesn't really put the right emphasis on what I'm trying to say here. My point isn't really so much that your theology is wrong (although I do think it is wrong), or that my theology is right (although I think that as well), or that my approach is more logical (again, something I think). Rather, I'm arguing for a different conception of religion, one that I think is closer to how it's actually practiced. In order to do that I'm pointing out problems in your own conception of Christianity.

Throughout your post you emphasize this point: that you are just stating your opinion and can't prove that it is true. To me, this sounds like an attempt to inoculate your viewpoint against criticism. You realize that you are unable to defend your view (which is certainly an advance over those who don't even realize this much) and so attempt to weaken the epistemic burden that usually follows from accepting some claim as true. I'm going to still push though. While that burden might be lower, it is still there and significant as you should still be able to justify this claim to yourself.


I am confused here. You said that the problem with rejecting the authority of the Bible is that then everything becomes subjective. I assumed from this that you thought that if we accept the authority of the Bible then things are not subjective (otherwise why bring this up as an objection?). My response to this argument was to point out that accepting the authority of the Bible ends up being subjective as well. You seem to be disagreeing with me here, but yet you actually acknowledge that I'm right that it is also subjective. So where is your argument then?

This is another example where you exaggerate the actual agreement between Christians. So of course among early Christians there were many different canons of accepted books. Among modern Christians, there are still many differences. For instance, the Syrian Orthodox Church rejects 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. The Mormons famously add new books to the canon, while the Catholics have a different canon from Protestants (not to mention the councils and the pope as sources of authority). So claiming that there is 99% agreement is not accurate.

Second, I've said nothing about proof or certainty here. I am not asking you to either prove or show why you are certain that your beliefs are correct. Rather, I am asking you to provide reasons to think they are more likely to be true than not.

I'm not really sure what you are referring to here by my theology. I'm not really pushing any particular theological conception of Christianity. If all Christians believed that Jesus is fully divine, then I would describe this as a universally accepted part of Christian theology. Instead, I am arguing for an approach to understanding what it means to be Christian.

Definitely--everyone here is fallible and I won't achieve certainty at the end. But so what? As you acknowledge, no one is going to achieve certainty here. What I'm going for is something closer to: most likely given our current information to be accurate. Or, since I am arguing for a particular conception of religion--most useful in analysis.

Yes, this is very close to what I'm saying. I am trying to bring the definition of "Christian" outside of a theological context and into a sociological/historical context.

Again, certainty is a bugaboo here, that I am not interested in. What I am interested in is why you find it easier to believe that Jesus has spoken to you.

This is weird. You say that it is a sin--no worse than any other sin. That is fine, but of course according to traditional Christian theology, sin is what separates us from God, and so a very serious thing indeed. I am not trying to prove that you are homophobic, I am trying to persuade you to realize that there is nothing sinful or immoral about homosexual relations.

So, a few points here. First, Paul did not write extensively on homosexuality--I don't know where you get that idea. Instead, he mentioned it 2 or 3 times, usually just as one in a list of other sinful things. There is no larger theological or moral point to the view that homosexuality is sinful than a particular view of how we should interpret the Bible. As a matter of moral theology, this view of homosexuality can be given up quite easily.

Second, no one is suggesting that we take something "out" of the Bible (I don't even know what that would mean). Instead, I am saying that we should approach the Bible as adults who read it not just as magical words, but for understanding and analysis. We can read Paul's message and take the heart of it as true and godly while still acknowledging that some of the assumptions he held, because he was like all of us was still a prisoner of his own time, should be examined for their applicability to the contemporary world. We do this with other aspects of his teachings (aspects which he emphasizes more than homosexuality), such as when he says that women shouldn't be allowed to teach men and should keep their head covered, or when he says that slaves should obey their masters.

Why would you think the bolded? I find many moral philosophers to be very insightful on some things and baldly wrong on others. I think this is true of the Bible as well. When you say that you either have to take or leave the entire book, you are stating a theological doctrine about the authority of Scripture, not a fact about its value or usefulness as a piece of literature that speaks to the human condition. Even as a theological doctrine, though, this is wrong.

Here you are again, trying to defend your own view by appealing to a global skepticism about knowledge. It is true that we cannot be absolutely certain about anything, but that doesn't mean that we can't distinguish between things being more or less likely to be true.

So, my point is that you claim to be a follower of Jesus. Fine. Follow Jesus then, not Paul, not the councils of the Church or the theological dictates of later theologians. Since Jesus nowhere says that homosexuality is sinful, you can't appeal to his authority to justify your belief that it is.

Okay? This makes me think that you don't understand what I'm saying. The discussion I'm having is about what makes someone a Christian. I think your view isn't a good one, and so think you should reject it.

I'm happy to do this, but I don't know what beliefs you want me to state. Just so we're clear, I'm not a Christian, but something closer to a secular humanist.

This is confused. The Jews were, and are, waiting for the Messiah, but they don't (and didn't) think the Messiah was God. That would be a heretical claim. Also, you sell the New Testament short here, because of theological priors here.

Nope. It isn't a matter of "believing the scriptures" but of your theological assumptions about the authority of the Bible. That theological doctrine is rejected by many who still accept the authority of the Bible.

I can.

Some Christians, of which you seem to perhaps be one, like to claim that they get they all their theology from the Bible. This is false. Even a theology which is largely based on the Bible must start with claims about the authority of the Bible for setting theology. These claims are themselves theological claims that must be defended, and can't be adequately defended by appeal to the authority of the Bible. So that is the thread I am pulling on here. I think your views about the authority of the Bible are wrong and you should re-examine them. I am not necessarily suggesting that you need to completely reject this authority, but that you should re-examine the nature of it. Many Christians accept the authority of the Bible, but not in the manner you do. Why should your conception of this authority be the correct one?

Again, I am happy to do this, but can you be more specific about which views you want me to tell you about?

OrP, Okay, I think I'm starting to understand where you are coming from now, I misunderstood some of your earlier points. I don't have time to fully reply atm, but I will in the next day or so. Cheers.

Understood.

Since I understand that any spiritual or supernatural claims are not logical (scientifically speaking), nor will they satisfy any of your questions, I don't include them in my explanations, which leaves my theology extremely naked. Although, even if I did rely on these to push forward my opinions, I would still include the caveat that "I'm unable to prove it" to which you could still reply that "I'm trying to inoculate my views against criticisms." This is not a scheme of mine to make my point of view impenetrable, it is just the result of relying on spiritualism, which I understand is highly subjective and not logical in a materialistic perspective, but to abandon my view at this time would itself be illogical to me, since it would involve me ignoring and deceiving myself.

The one thing I am trying to explain is that I am aware that my viewpoint is subjective, I'm not trying to deny this, my apologies if I implied this.

My point about the bible is a separate criticism, which is if you decide to use the bible as a source of knowledge but don't accept all of it, then what you decide to use is subjective, since you are able to select what you find appealing and discard that which you don't. That's not to say that one's decision to rely on the bible in the first place is not subjective, because it is, I was merely saying that at the point you decide to rely on the bible, it would make more sense to embrace or discard the entire thing or else you're not relying on the bible as much as you're using it to affirm your existing values.

I can concede that someone could use the bible as a collection of works, not divinely inspired, some of which are agreed with while others dismissed, as a possible scenario, but given that the nature of the bible is highly spiritual, it doesn't strike me as the most logical approach, but I will admit that since I do believe God determined the bible to take this shape I am biased to see how anyone could approach it differently and still maintain a logically consistent viewpoint.

My point here was that despite a lack of agreement, the "Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians as well as Protestants generally agree on the canon of the New Testament." (from wiki). But I understand that this is not a good defense to prove a particular point of view, I was defending the implication (apparent?) that every church believes in a different bible. The NT is largely agreed upon, and even those who do not agree, only differ in a small percentage of it.

Again, I'm unable to provide you with reasons you will find adequate, especially as a humanist, but I do see biblical principles play out in my life.

I think it would be more adequate (yet equally fruitless) for you to question my spiritual/supernatural dependency, which is really the elephant in the room that points me to a set of beliefs, and which makes you question these beliefs.

Well, since it means different things to different people I'm not sure an agreement can be reached. I personally don't believe you can come to a logical conclusion, since Christianity contains a spiritual component, but I can also concede that acknowledging that Christianity is spiritual is also a particular belief, although I think it's difficult to deny this.

"most likely" is, I think, more of a romantic ideology since there will never be a consensus, and this will be subjective to whomever decides to undertake this task. I also think this depends on which lens your are looking through. If I were to ignore all "spiritual evidence" from my perspective, I would not be a Christian. So for me to defend my view without relying on spirituality is an impossible task. Although, there are some ideas that overlap, like morality, which I personally believe is completely subjective in a moral nihilistic manner, that without God it is not inherent.

I see.

Well, this will drag us into spiritual waters. There is a number of possibilities here apart from spirituality, I've discussed this at length in the "prayer" thread. I could be delusional. My brain could be deceiving me into believing this as a "safety mechanism" to avoid me doing some -EV activity. There could be a deity who enjoys deceiving me into believing what I do (Evil Genius), or Jesus could be real and He could be communicating as the Bible describes. I acknowledge that all these are possible, some more likely than others, but personally I believe that Jesus being real is the most logical. I believe this to the extent that my entire life is focused on believing this, and living in this way. This is not me trying to sound pious, but to convey that I am living according to my convictions and that this isn't merely a casual decision I made with other options equally as compelling, but that in believing in something else would involve some sort of self-deception.

I don't like to continually push the view that homosexuality is a sin, even though I believe it is, because it does that which I don't believe, makes this sin more serious than others. Paul does mention it enough times to acknowledge that he believes it, as did many of the apostles. Jesus does imply it, especially in Matthew where he mentions Sodom and Gomorrah.

It is difficult for me to drop this view given that I believe in the bible, even though I do acknowledge that things should be taken in context. Women covering their heads for instance was more likely spoken to that particular church at that particular time, as it was only mentioned this single instance, but it's more difficult to apply that to homosexuality, since it is described in many areas of scriptures, and discouraged by many of the biblical authors.

As for sin separating us from God, I do agree with this, but it is not my job to categorize their severity. I have sinned and struggled with sin, I personally can't judge anyone as being worse than myself.

This is fair enough if you view the bible as a collection of works. I still think this somewhat strange since there is an underlying theme of spirituality across the collective text.

This is fair I guess. This seems more of a way to confirm your already existing views by seeing what the bible says, instead of looking at the bible as a source of knowledge. That's where I objected, but I understand that looking at it as a source of knowledge is also problematic.

I understand what you're saying, you're right about "total skepticism" to a degree, I'm not sure if you can simply put things down on paper and add up the points to get the "most likely to be true" ideology. I think there would be a greater accord if that were true.

This is difficult to do, because to know Jesus (aside from personal relationship) means learning about Him from what is written about Him, which is done by fallible men. The things Jesus allegedly said are written by His followers, so it's difficult to separate the two. That is, I follow the Jesus who people wrote about, who also wrote other things which (in my opinion) I should likewise agree with.

If I could genuinely reject this view, I would.

Gotcha.

I meant that the parallels between the OT and NT are visible. The OT spoke of a coming Messiah, not only metaphorically, but also literally. This is why the Jews were expecting a Messiah. Those who believed Jesus was the savior, followed Him, while others did not accept Him, and thus are still waiting for the promised Messiah, the present day Jews.

Fair enough, anyone can decide how they want to look at scripture.

I meant this more to those defending a religious belief. To prove theism on paper has never been accomplished.

I see what you're saying here. It is impossible to defend the divinity of the bible without at some point begging the question. "The bible is right because the bible says so." Unfortunately the only explanations I have here are spiritual, although there are some more sophisticated biblical scholars than myself who do attempt to prove this, much of which I agree with.

I'm not that familiar with secular humanism, from what I've quickly read, I believe it involves in the complete denial of spirtualism, and insists that morality need not be tied to a deity. If this is true, what is your opinion of the moral nihilist rejecting good and bad for that of simple choice, that is, why should morality exist, and who decides what is "right" when there is not a consensus.

Replying to you has become a part time job, hopefully we can hone in on some specifics to make this communication easier.

I cut and pasted your response in an effort to make my responses more thematic: hopefully it helps.

This all seems terribly vague to me. You say many times something about a spiritual perspective and how it makes sense on that view, but not on materialism. How so? What are the spiritual reasons to think that we should accept the verbal plenary inspiration doctrine of Scripture? Or, what are the spiritual reasons to think that, say liberal Christians aren't real Christians? Don't worry about whether I accept your starting place--I'm an adult and fully capable of hypothetical reasoning (If I accepted spiritual things, then would this make sense?). The point here is not to persuade me that your views are correct so much as that they make sense in light of your starting place.

Just as a note, since this seems to confuse a lot of people, sure I am a materialist (I prefer the term naturalist, or physicalist, but whatever). But this really isn't that important in my reasoning. For instance, I don't really ever reason like this: Only material things exist, angels aren't material things, therefore angels don't exist. Instead, it is just the case that I haven't found any sufficiently good reasons to think that some immaterial thing actually exists (numbers probably come closest). After all, finding out about the existence of such a thing would seem to be difficult, since the ordinary of perceiving that something exists through our senses won't work for such things. But that is all--it doesn't really factor more than that in my thinking about the world.

Let's say the Bible says that the cosmos was created a few thousand years ago in the space of a week. However, we know from science that the cosmos existed for billions of years before that. Is it subjective to reject that part of the Bible as true while accepting other parts? I don't think so. I think what you would be doing is using a standard of truth.

I think the real point here is that you seem to think that accepting the authority of the Bible means that you aren't allowed to even question whether what the Bible says is true.

The discussion of head coverings in 1Corinthians 11 is more extensive than anything said about homosexuality in the New Testament. Furthermore, my other example (women teaching in the church) has more than one reference. Anyway, there are many such examples I could have given.

Again, you are exaggerating here. There is no indication that any of the apostles other than Paul said anything about homosexuality. Jesus didn't imply anything about homosexuality in Matthew (I think the context pretty clearly indicates that he is talking about a lack of hospitality rather than homosexuality). Even the passages in Paul are controversial, as it is not clear if the translation is correct. I would myself find it worrying, a sign of probable bias, if I were just factually wrong on the Biblical support for this view if that support is the only reason I hold it.

Anyway, you aren't really dealing with my response. Say you take the Bible as authoritative. Even so, you would still distinguish between those parts of the Bible that apply directly to our lives today and other passages that are more specific to the cultural situation in which they were written. For instance, do you want to argue that slavery is supported by the Bible, or would you rather argue that the Biblical teachings about slavery--which nowhere condemn it--were rather directed to that specific situation, and how to act in a Christian manner in a society where slavery is already an institution.

Thus, even those who accept the authority of the Bible are relying on theological and moral ideas in their interpretation of the text. For example, if you believe that God is opposed to the kind of domination of others that slavery typically entails, then you'll interpret the passages in the Bible that refer to slavery in that light. Similarly, I am arguing that if you believe that God doesn't wouldn't condemn people to lives of unhappiness because of a morally irrelevant feature of who they are, such as homosexual desire, then you would interpret the Bible with that view in the background as well. Thus, it isn't really an issue of whether or not you accept the authority of the Bible, but whether there is a way of interpreting the Bible that is consistent with a view that is accepting of homosexuals.

So I guess we should revise your definition of Christian to: a follower of Jesus and people who followed Jesus and wrote about him.

I've written about this topic as much as anything on this forum, and if you want to get the full flavor of my view, you should probably read one of those threads. But here is a summary.

I am not a nihilist. However, I do reject certain aspects of the traditional Christian view of morality. Generally speaking, Christian theologians talk about morality as a kind of Platonic Form, as an absolute that is wholly apart from the natural universe and set instead by God. While I do think that some versions of this kind of rationalistic approach to morality are consistent with atheism, that is not my view.

I would take instead a (non-original) saying of Jesus as a nice entry point. He said, "Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man." This encapsulates my view of morality. I don't think moral rules and ideas come before humans, or should be followed just because. Rather, I think of them as ways that humans have developed to try to accomplish certain goals, or acquire certain goods. Morality (of the kind I'm interested in) is primarily about cooperation, and is a foundation for social life. Thus, insofar as we care about civilization, social goods, and other positive features of the modern world, we need to pay attention to the behaviors that increase and decrease cooperation--i.e. we need to pay attention to morality. Thus, I want to take a strongly empirical approach to morality--I want to see if the moral attitudes and rules we have are actually effective in the modern world in encouraging cooperation of the right kind. And just because we've always looked a particular way at the morality of something doesn't in itself justify continuing to do so.

There are of course other things that go on with morality, things such as honor, or our standing in society, disgust, or our avoidance of certain kinds of behaviors or people, and so on. I think these kinds of emotions (especially disgust and a desire for a kind of purity) lie at the foundation of the conservative cultural attitudes towards homosexuals. I tend to be skeptical that these are good reasons to morally disapprove of behaviors or people.

The idea that Jesus didn't address homosexuality is ludicrous.

"So, did Jesus condemn, speak of, or even mention homosexuality? The one who espouses this false teaching usually begins by saying that he discounts both the Old Testament and the writings of Paul and adheres only to the four Gospels. In so doing, they think they have found a convenient way to justify the homosexual lifestyle. First, the gyrations one must use to reach this illogical conclusion are astounding and ought to be the first dead giveaway of the falsehood of the proposition. But, secondly, let’s simply examine the question on its face – did Jesus ever say anything in the four Gospels that would condemn the homosexual lifestyle or homosexual marriage?

As it turns out, yes, He did. As a matter of fact, He spoke very clearly and directly about the issue. Let me begin with Matthew 19:4. Here Jesus is answering a question from the Pharisees regarding divorce. However, his answer is very telling concerning the entire issue of sexuality, the purpose of sexuality, marriage and the proper form of marriage. Here are the words of Jesus:

“And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”?’” (Matthew 19:4)

Here Jesus upholds creation, male and female sexual relationships (in marriage), male and female marriage, procreation as a part of male and female marriage, and the sanctity of male and female marriage and sexual relationships. His answer is a blanket ignoring (thus condemnation as perversion) of anything outside God’s standard for sexuality and marriage. This truth cannot be legitimately explained away.

But, Jesus gets even more direct concerning the issue of homosexuality. In John 5:46-47, Jesus tells his detractors that unless one holds to the writings of Moses (the first five books of the Bible), one cannot fully know or understand truth or Jesus Himself. “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:46-47) Of course, in the first five books of the Bible we read of the days of Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis) and the blanket condemnation of homosexuality as perversion (Leviticus). Oh well, so much for throwing out the Old Testament to legitimize homosexuality. But wait – Jesus gets even more direct with the matter.

Jesus also spoke of the destruction of the Sodomite (openly celebrating homosexuality) cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Luke 17:28-32; Matthew 10:15; 11:24; Mark 6:11.) The presenting sin that brought about the destruction of those cultures was homosexuality. Consider these words found in the book of Jude:

“Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.” (Jude 1:7-8)

Three of the four gospels contain quotes from Jesus about the sinful condition of Sodom and Gomorrah and the destruction that the celebration of the presenting sin of homosexuality wrought upon them. One of those quotes equates the sins of Sodom (homosexuality) to the same type of pervasive perversion of Noah’s day (Luke 17:26-30). So, as it turns out … YES, Jesus did speak rather forthrightly, and often, about the sin of homosexuality and the judgment that it brings upon societies that celebrate it.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/did-jesus-condemn-homosexuality/#HPrhe5f4t7SaAcGg.99"

To answer your question is extremely difficult, as to why I believe in the authority of the bible through spiritual evidence. This difficulty is not so much because I cannot explain it, but because I have no way to assure you I'm being honest. I liken this to having a headache, where the doctors can't find a reason for it and eventually need to accept that I'm either being forthright or that I'm not. I can't prove that God communicates with us once we surrender control of our lives and acknowledge Him as God, no more than I can prove to you that I have a headache. The only thing I can say is that biblical principles are often confirmed through prayer and meditation, which itself is also biblical.

You definitely need to read, study and meditate on it to even attempt to understand it. People spend their entire lives deciphering portions of text. Some things like fornication, to switch from the gay-debate, are easier to confirm because they are found in so many areas and spoken plainly about. It is true that people interpret things differently, some with or without hidden agendas, which is where disagreements arise. What I will say is that the bible says that the Holy Spirit aids with truth and understanding, which somewhat begs the question, but which I agree with. Again, this is highly subjective and impossible to prove, and like you pointed out earlier gives an apparent licence for my view to be criticism-proof, which is why I don't like to "debate" these things, as I understand my view does not satisfy a scientific approach.

As far as I know, the head covering verse is only found in one passage, and many scholars have explained that at that time it was a sign of submission to their husbands, especially in a period where women were being disruptive in church settings.

There is no doubt that some things need to be taken into the context of the culture and period of the scripture, which some people used to dismiss anything they don't approve of, but I think an honest examination of these topics can find honest answers. The women teaching in church and slave debate both have been misunderstood in my opinion, there are great explanations for both, which are still are somewhat controversial. We can speak about these, but this is an entirely different conversation.

I think it's somewhat misleading to say only Paul wrote about homosexuality in the NT, given that he wrote the majority of the NT, as many as 14 books by some estimates, but no less than 7. As far as controversial, I think that depends on how you personally want to interpret these passages, but I think it's a stretch to say that the bible doesn't teach that sexual relationships between same genders is sinful. As far as whether Jesus implied it or not, I can concede that is subjective, although I believe it.

Also, since God was not pleased with homosexuality in the OT, it doesn't mean that He is suddenly okay with it, Jesus did not make all things that were previously sinful, a righteous act because He died for sins. While some laws were done away with because they were no longer necessary by Jesus' death, laws about sacrifice, or rituals, for instance, other things like murder is still wrong.

Slavery become a pejorative concept because people abused the relationship, namely Europeans buying black people and treating them inhumanely, but the concept itself is not evil. If you have a boss, you are his slave. The bible describes Christians as slaves to Christ. The bible also gives a guideline on how to properly treat people in this relationship, from both perspectives. This word itself was not negative, it only became negative because of misuse.

I'm not sure I understand this objection, since we learn about who Jesus was, that is, who we follow, by Paul's writings. It doesn't mean I follow Paul, I follow the Jesus Paul wrote about, who I believe was given understanding from God.

I'll have to do a little more reading to be fully acquainted with this view.

I see you focus on cooperation, would this mean that you are more sympathetic to a socialist society rather than a capitalist one, politically speaking?

What if the "modern" world changes, would that mean that morality also changes, adapting to a different world, where cooperation could be seen differently than today?

Also, I'm not sure you explained how your view of morality distinguishes two separate ideas of right and wrong? For instance, how does your view conclude if marijuana should be legal or not given that some people are in favor while others are not, where both parties have subjective and selfish interests at hand?

The sad thing about the inerrancy doctrine is how it causes those who supposedly hold the Bible in the highest esteem to so often do a poor job of reading it.

Basically the entire so-called anti-homosexual work being done in this passage comes in the silence noted in the bolded. Evidently the idea is that if Jesus thought that homosexual relations were okay he would have noted it here. But why? Jesus was responding to a point of Jewish law about divorce from the Torah. There is no reason to think that he was proclaiming the exclusive moral nature of the marriage for all people at all times. You even get an indication of this when he says that Moses permitted divorce because the Jews were "hard-hearted," suggesting that the laws in question are attempts to make the best of the situation when they were given, but not necessarily for other situations.

Anyway, this is a common, but bad kind of hermeneutics. If we want to know what Jesus thought on a topic, we should read his words for sense--like we read other people--we shouldn't build these theological edifices from out of context passages. Maybe Jesus really did condemn homosexuality (I don't know his beliefs), but this is not sufficient evidence to make that claim.

This is also bad interpretation. Jesus, and the later Christians even more so, rejected significant portions of the Torah as no longer relevant for their lives. Thus, unless you think that we should be keeping the laws of kosher, you can't use this as a justification for thinking that Jesus condemned homosexuality.

I've already dealt with this. Jesus is concerned in these passages with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of God's punishment on those who do evil. The evil of the Sodomites was in wanting to rape Lot's visitors, violating common decency and the rules of hospitality. It nowhere says that these cities were destroyed because they were filled with homosexuals (a pretty horrible claim if that is indeed what you think).

Yeah, this wasn't written by Jesus.

This is a lie.

So basically, as I said before, there are no recorded statements by Jesus about homosexuality. This inclines me to think that the condemnation of homosexuality was not an important part of his ministry, and so shouldn't be an important part of the ministry of those who follow him.

it is worth noting that after begging the villagers not to be wicked, he offers up his virgin daughters for their gangrape. This was relatively more acceptable than raping the male angels. Iirc, there are also references when describing the story later to "strange flesh". Seems like a pretty reasonable interpretation that homosexuality was at least part of the wickedness of the Sodomites

Yeah. I know that the liberal interpretation wishes to remove homosexuality from the matter completely, but I don't think it's possible to do that.

The particular argument that OrP has put forth suggests that "violating common decency and the rules of hospitality" is a capital offense. I think this position is more difficult to defend.

As in the case with many Old Testament narratives, the moral perspective is implied and meant to have already been understood by the hearer (not "reader" as many times these were meant to be told as oral stories). That is, the narrative does not spend time elaborating on things that the hearer would already be expected to know.

The bolded view is consistent with contemporary progressive views of sexuality, but would be highly inconsistent with views of sexuality within the Hebrew/Jewish worldview even up through the time of Jesus and beyond. For this reason, it is especially difficult to defend the idea that the passage did not include a commentary on homosexuality from an exegetical perspective.

Jesus didn't mention the word rape either, but I'm pretty sure he was (and is)
against it.

Sigh. So, I'm guessing that you just throw Paul's words in the garbage?

He didn't mention Phishing scams either, I suppose that using his lack of pronouncements on the issue, and how we feel about them (we hate them and they're immoral), we can be 'pretty sure' that he's 'against' those too?

What else can we justify our own opinions about, because we think Jesus didn't mention them?

Let me clear. I have not attempted to argue that Jesus didn't view homosexuality as immoral. I think you can construct an argument to this effect based on some of the general principles ascribed to him. However, mostly the argument I've been making here is that the Christian view of homosexuality being immoral doesn't come from a teaching of Jesus. That is, we have no record of Jesus condemning homosexuality, so if we think that he did do so it is on the basis of an inference from the prevailing attitudes of the time (a standard I think Christians would reject in other cases).

This is not to say that some of the other founders of Christianity, e.g Paul, didn't themselves condemn homosexuality. I think a lot of Christians have a bad tendency to read all of the Bible as if it came directly from Jesus' lips, when it was generally written by people who never met him. It does seem to me that Christians should regard the words of Jesus as of higher authority than those of Paul, but that is a different discussion.
No.

I think that holding the position that the bible is simply written by people and is not at all inspired by God is entirely valid, (although as a Christian I disagree) but to suggest that biblically, homosexuality is not frowned upon is a far greater task which in my opinion is impossible to do.

If you take the premise that the bible reads as God wants it to, then such things being sin become obvious, whereas if you reject the premise, you are entitled to dismiss any claims made my the authors as their own biased opinions.
After all, these authors are not claiming they are prejudiced against these acts, but that God considers these acts sinful.

I believe this should be the point of debate, but since the burden of proof would lie on the Christian to explain why the bible is divinely inspired, there can't be an end to the argument, because I don't believe this can be proved. While I disagree with the view that people wrote the bible without being influenced by God, I understand it is a valid premise (scientifically more sound than it's counter) but I don't agree that the bible itself is ambiguous about homosexuality being sinful, whether it actually is or not.

A local politician of mine has the distinction of being the first minister in Canada to perform same sex weddings at her church (United). She has said much the same kinda of thing trying to pass off the story as being nothing more than "the great Christian doctrine of hospitality". I can see why it would be very nice to be able to gloss over the story, and the leviticus rule, and perhaps Paul's ramblings as well, but I don't think it really helps. I think it is much better to try and put the pretty small number of mentions of homosexuality, negative though they are, in context such as the way Original Position did, or in other ways that allow a gay friendly ministry.

If it is obvious, and unambigious that Homosexuality is a sin, why is there so much disagreement about it amongst Christians?

I would say that the high level of disagreement is evidence enough that it is not obvious and that the bible actually is ambiguous on the subject, no?

In the bible it is clearly written that homosexuality is a sin, but that doesn't mean that people, A, take the premise that the bible is the word of God, and B, believe that this still applies to us today in the 21st Century. (And possibly, C, that Jesus didn't adhere to those views, although this view is more difficult to hold, imo)

OrP, for instance, if I understood him correctly, didn't argue that the bible didn't say it, but rather that it was the notion of writers themselves, perhaps applied to a different time than our own.

I see nothing wrong with views A,B, and less so, C, but given the transparency of the verses in question, I believe you would need to be disingenuous to say the bible doesn't call it sinful.

Like I said earlier, the bible itself is clear about homosexuality being sinful, whether it actually is sinful or not may be a different question altogether.

Where is this 'clearly' written? To you it seems obvious and unambiguous, and yet to me, and many other people, this is not the case. I'm confused by your certainty, where is it coming from?



I believe the exact opposite, but that doesn't really get us anywhere.

MB, I could pull out some verses if you want, I'm not sure if that would help. Even Christian liberals don't really argue that the bible doesn't say it, but rather that it's not significant. Surely you've heard the verses before.