Leading evangelical bishop is now pro-gay
I am still wondering what to make of this story, published in today's Guardian. Apparenty, one of the Anglican Communion's best-known evangelical leaders has changed his mind on the legitimacy of same-sex relationships. In a new book, A Fallible Church, of Liverpool argues that there are "authoritative biblical examples of love between two people of the same gender most notably in the relationship of Jesus and his beloved [John] and David and Jonathan". Bishop Jones also apologises for opposing the appointment of the gay cleric Dr Jeffrey John as bishop of Reading.
Clearly, I would like to see the book in question, because if this report is accurate, this represents a remarkable change of mind by a leading conservative evangelical leader. Bishop Jones, you may recall, has been involved in the recent dispute at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, where a theological ground war has been fought between conservative evangelical staff and more progessive evangelical fellows. He is chairman of this evangelical school's governing Council. Presumably, if this story is accurate, the bishop's new stance will not be welcomed by the college's controversial principal, Dr Richard Turnbull. We await to see how Bishop Jones's Damascene Road conversion will be interpreted by his erstwhile conservative colleagues across the Anglican world. Since the bishop also broadcasts frequently on Radio 4's "Thought for the Day", perhaps we can expect him to address the issue on the Today programme in the very near future.
Comments
errr. sorry bishop and william, nowhere does the record suggest the relationships between Jesus and John or David and Jonathan were sexual. never nada nowhere.
This is taking texts out of context... the entire record shows man and woman created for each in eden and the marriage of the bride and groom in revelation.
everything else in between follows this theme very closely. there is no serious debate about this.
anything else is introducing ideas from outside the text which contradict it.
This has been traditional judeo christian belief for some 6000 years.
it is quite normal for same sex friendships relationships in the east to be physcial without ever being sexual.
Christ fully redeems everyone from sexual sin, myself included.
Hey pb. I don't know you or your background, but I can tell you that many biblical scholars have raised questions about Jonathan's relationship with David. They seem obviously to have stripped naked with each other, according to the Bible, and David's father was nervous about the kind of relationship they had. I think they were probably young men experimenting with same-sex intimacy. As for Jesus, the text is strange I grant you but Jesus was peculiarly close to John and when Jesus died, he gave him into his mother's keeping, telling her to treat him as her new son. I don't know if that was a sexual relationship but it was certainly a level of intimacy crying out for comment.
The Bishop isnt basing his case on this speculation, by the way. This is just part of the large body of evidence that now persuades the bishop to revise his views.
ahhh someone tell me this a joke!
i completely agree that he is taking the text out of context, like that doesnt get done enough with scripture
I'm with comment #2. It seems to me that there may well have been more to those relationships than traditionally thought, and of course the reasons for that are obvious: until very recently it just wasn't appropriate to raise such possibilities. Men (or women) finding longterm intimacy with people of the same sex isn't a new thing by any means, though traditional Christian scholars wouldn't have known or desired to engage that dynamic in their scholarship.
Yes, John, there鈥檚 a suppressed part of the Gospel of Mark quoted in a letter from Clement, Bishop of Alexandria, to Theodore, the priest of an early Christian community, c.95 AD, and discovered by the US Biblical scholar, Morton Smith, of Columbia University, at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in 1958, that refers to the relationship between Jesus and a youth in Bethany: 鈥淎nd after six days, Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth came to him, wearing a linen cloth over nakedness. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan鈥.
Jonathan鈥檚 Friend refers to the Gospel of John, where the disciple John frequently refers to himself in the third person as 鈥榯he disciple whom Jesus loved鈥. For example, during the Last Supper before Jesus鈥檚 crucifixion, he describes how the 鈥榖eloved鈥 disciple laid himself on Jesus's breast (John 13: 23 and 25 and 21:20). Jesus and the beloved disciple eat together, side by side. Is what is being portrayed here an intimate relationship between an older and a younger man? Jesus appears to have loved all of his male and female followers in a close, trusting, non-erotic manner. However, the 鈥榖eloved鈥 disciple appears to be in a special relationship with Jesus; the disciple was the beloved. He was in a class by himself.聽
During the crucifixion itself, in John 19:26-28, Jesus is described as seeing his mother and an unidentified man, 鈥榯he disciple standing by, whom he loved鈥. Yet again this particular disciple is identified as the disciple whom Jesus loved. The Gospel references to 鈥榯he disciple whom Jesus loved鈥 use the word 鈥榓gape鈥 (spiritual, unconditional love).聽 Whether they originally used 鈥榚ros鈥 and were subsequently changed is open to speculation.
If Jesus was gay, many aspects of the New Testament begin to make sense. Jesus never married. He preached love, tolerance, and forgiveness of sins. He did not condemn and vilify as his so-called followers do today. He surrounded himself with men whom he loved. The Bible says nothing of Jesus鈥檚 sexuality, yet we are taught that he was both divine and fully man. Why did he never marry? Why is the New Testament silent about his sexuality? Was he gay and therefore understood bigotry and hatred first-hand?
So the possibility of a gay Jesus cannot be ruled out. Large chunks of his life are missing from the Biblical accounts. This has fuelled speculation that the early Church sanitised the gospels, removing references to his sexuality that were not in accord with the heterosexual morality that it wanted to promote.
Bishop James Jones is to be applauded for his change of heart on this matter. But in the end it is the message of Jesus and not his sexuality or absence of it that matters: a message largely of love and tolerance. Homophobia is a contradiction of this message. That is is the crucial point.
Brian
You must be reading different gospels to me because I dont see that Christ is in any way tolerant or even diplomatic.
What he was was gracious towards those who came to him in humility and repentance.
He was normally painfully direct with his own followers.
He also affirmed the historicty of the story of Sodom and Gomoorah.
Post 2 is totally an argument from authority; there are no such suggestsion in any of the texts.
Anyone who wants to make a complete fool of me can cut and paste them into this thread easily....
PB
The less you have to do with either the one or the other, the better
for your peace of mind. Be deaf with one ear, and blind with one
eye. Some things it is well neither to hear nor see. Discretion will
tell us when to be observantly blind, and forgetfully deaf.
Hi Pb,
Jesus certainly wasn鈥檛 fully tolerant because he wasn鈥檛 perfect. What I said was: 鈥渁 message largely of love and tolerance鈥. I stick by that.
LOVE
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus tells the crowd to 鈥榯urn the other cheek and 鈥榣ove your enemies鈥 (Matthew 5). And, of course, he also says: 鈥淔irst be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift鈥 (Matthew 5:24). Then again: 鈥淭hou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself鈥 (Matthew 23:39). Also, when a disciple draws a sword to defend Jesus, he is told: 鈥淧ut up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword鈥. (Matthew 26:52).
On the other hand, he cursed the fig tree because it wouldn鈥檛 bear fruit and he made statements like: 鈥淭hink not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace but a sword鈥 (Matthew 10:34); 鈥淗e that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one鈥; and 鈥淏ut those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me鈥 (the last was spoken in a parable in Luke).
And how about this: 鈥淚f a man abide not in me, he is cast forth...and men gather them into the fire, and they are burned鈥 (a verse cited by the Inquisition). I think, though, that the former messages in the previous paragraph are more powerful and enduring. They are the ones that civilisation remembers and that is a good thing.
TOLERANCE
Toleration is forebearance: putting up with words and actions of which we do not approve. Jesus showed tolerance to the lepers, the paralytics, the deaf and blind, to Zachaeus the tax collector who was ripping the people off, to his disciples even when they lacked faith, to Peter when he denied him three times, and to the thief on the cross. In John 8:3-11 we also read about the woman caught in adultery who was brought to Jesus.聽He showed tolerance and love by not condemning her, telling the crowd: 鈥淗e that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her鈥 (vs 7); and then telling her: 鈥淕o and sin no more鈥 (vs. 11). In the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) he taught tolerance of difference.
Last, but not least, he showed tolerance to those who arrested him, tried him and crucified him. He prayed, 鈥淔ather forgive them; for they know not what they do鈥 (Luke 23:34).
The people to whom he was intolerant were rival religious leaders and doubters. He condemned the former for their hypocrisy and he certainly wasn鈥檛 afraid to get in their face.聽In Matthew chapter 23 he laid into them in no uncertain terms, calling them hypocrites who 鈥榞o over land and sea to make a single proselyte and then make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves鈥 (Matthew 23:15) and who聽 are 鈥榣ike unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men鈥檚 bones鈥 (Matthew 23:27).
He even went as far as to condemn them to eternal hellfire: 鈥淵e serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?鈥 (Matthew 23:33). And, of course, there was also the occasion when he went into the temple and turned over the tables of the moneychangers (John 2).
As for the doubters, Jesus continually threatened them with eternal burning in hell for not believing in him: 鈥淗e that is not with me is against me鈥 (Matthew 12:30). In his view, you were either a sheep or a goat, and to the latter he showed no mercy: 鈥淒epart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels鈥 (Matthew 25:41). A similar point is made in Mark鈥檚 Gospel: 鈥淗e that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned鈥 (Mark 16:16).
What emerges here is a very mixed picture. The Jesus depicted in the Gospels was both tolerant and intolerant, and in this respect he was not much different from the majority of the human race. However, his animosity towards the religious and sceptical elites suggests someone who wanted to make a populist appeal.
So what I say is this, Pb: why not pick out the good bits and forgive Jesus for the bad bits?
James Jones' reported comments have been seized upon with glee by the 'anti-evangelical brigade'(Does this include William?), but a number of things need to be said in response:-
Reject the clear teaching of the Bible, and you lose all claim to be called 'evangelical'.
On homosexuality, the Bible is very clear - always spoken of as sinful and a perversion of natural sexual desire. Refuse to accept God's view of it, and you turn homosexuals away from the possibilty of forgiveness and a changed lifestyle. This is hardly the loving Christian thing to do.
The ongoing 'pro-gay' campaign may appear to have a lot of support in the media, but people with decency and common sense will recognise it for what it is. A lie on the 91热爆 may be believed by many people, but it is still a lie.
Brain
Why would Jesus have to "tolerate"
lepers and other disease sufferers?
He didnt show tolerance of the woman caught in adultery (women are never caught in adultery alone!) he forgive her and told her to sin no more; like I said, grace for repentant sinners.
I cannot see anywhere that Jesus put up with actions of which he did not approve ie your definition of tolerance; you certainly havent shown any such examples.
The word tolerance never appears in the bible, the word you are confusing it with is grace ie unmerited favour.
What you actually see is God made man, here to show us the way to salvation, and indeed pointing to himself and his resurrection as that salvation.
The unconditional love he showed his enemies and friends was qualified by the fact that he warned us all that we needed to come to him for that salvation and that ultimately to refuse could only result in isolation from God and just punishment.
The whole story is within this context.
However, seeing as you are personally offering to "forgive" Christ yourself for his supposed sins I think we should just end the converstion here.
sincerely
PB
Philip and PB,
According to you, Philip, the loving, Christian thing to do is to condemn homosexuals as sinful perverts! This is what people with 鈥榙ecency鈥 and common sense do! You are surely twisting the meaning of words here. Love becomes its opposite (it sounds like the Biblical version of 1984). PB: 鈥榰nconditional love鈥 is by definition 鈥榰nqualified鈥.
鈥楾he Bible鈥 is a collection of books decided by churches. It is entirely possible that churchmen omitted references to Jesus鈥檚 sexuality by other writers, as has been suggested by many scholars.
PB: what on earth do you mean by tolerance? And are you trying to suggest that the word is meaningless because it isn鈥檛 in the Bible?
Definitions of tolerance, toleration: 鈥淭he power or capacity of enduring; the act of enduring; endurance; the endurance of the presence or actions of objectionable persons, or of the expression of offensive opinions; toleration鈥 (Websters); 鈥渁llowance of what is not approved鈥 (Chambers); 鈥渆ndure, permit (practice, action, person's doing); allow (Person, religious sect, opinion) n.to exist without interference or molestation; endure with forebearance, sustain, endure (suffering etc.)鈥 (Concise Oxford); 鈥渢he deliberate decision to refrain from prohibiting, hindering or otherwise coercively interfering with conduct of which one disapproves鈥 (Routlege Encyclopedia of Philosophy); 鈥渢o coexist peacefully with others who have fundamentally different beliefs and values鈥 (Oxford Companion to Philosophy)
It seems to me, you two, that Jesus was tolerant of difference (though certainly not always) and to suggest that he wasn鈥檛 is untrue. Moreover, if you are going to maintain that Jesus was intolerant, then you are on a very sticky wicket indeed because you are in conflict with an important value of western civilisation and one which is esssential to human progress. To say that Jesus was intolerant is to render him irrelevant to the good society.
PS There was a profile of Rev James Jones in today's Guardian. Simon Barrow from Ekklesia is quoted as saying that "the bishop of Liverpool has made an honest, brave and thoughtful contribution to the painful Anglican about sexuality, authority and Scripture".
I don't think it's at all bizarre to suggest that Jesus might have been gay!
What we have here is a Bishop who is caught in a burning building and he is trying to escape for 鈥渉is life鈥 regardless of everyone else that he is leaving behind. Instead of pouring water onto the flames, what does he do instead of alerting all the inhabitants of the fire so that they can escape for their lives he pours petrol onto the burning house creating more pain and misery leaving sinners for 鈥淭he wrath to come鈥. Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; hope the Bishop has an asbestos suit.
How I wish that those who engage in the gay debate in the churches would carefully read through all that the Scriptures have to say about marriage. Any teaching that undermines marriage between a man and woman who strive to honour God, to reflect His faithful love and to establish a new family that serves Him, can surely not be tolerated. I simply cannot see how a pro-gay position can be reconciled with the Biblical teaching on Christian marriage.
Brian
Please keep your personal attacks to yourself.
You think you are attacking me but you dont know me at all; you are really attacking the traditional judeo christian stance on this matter for some 6000 years.
And you do have quite a track record of attacking Christianity (see your
hyperlink).
That is why William asked you guys before if you couldnt get a positive message of your own rather than an exclusivly antiChristian message
Just dont blame me for reminding you about real history please.
If you read my post carefully you will understand that unconditional love IS unconditional. It is not 1984 at all.
It is just that it goes hand in hand with judgement.
Lets put it another way. A father loves his son unconditionally but his son turns into a drunkard party animal and wastes all his fathers wealth with prostitutes and spongers.
Unless his son turns his life around he is heading for self inflicted disaster. But his father's love is great enough to forgive and forget everything - if only the son will return.
If you think this is hate you are missing the apex of history - God became man for a span and gave his all to rescue us from our rebellion against him.
Ergo, God's love is greater than every sin and every just punishment for that sin.
The only question is, how many of us will seriously consider it?
PB
Hi PB,
So you have changed your mind about ending the conversation. I can assure you that my remarks are not directed towards you as a person, only your opinions, which, I have to say, are nonsense.
You refer to my link, and its alleged 鈥榚xclusively anti-Christian鈥 message. If you actually read the material there, you will see that I have written on: the case for a united Ireland; integrated education; women鈥檚 rights; animal rights; gay rights; inequality; euthanasia; Jonathan Swift; Samuel Beckett; Louis MacNeice; films; music; and sport 鈥 to name but a few. On this blog in recent weeks I have argued for a Bill of Rights for NI and for the Embryology Bill. You will find a similar pattern with other Humanist writers.
You fail to see that the 鈥楢nti-Christian鈥 message to which you refer is fuelled by the kind of fundamentalist Christianity which you are espousing. Your analogy with the loving father and his son doesn鈥檛 work here because no father would want to see his son 鈥榩ut to death鈥 as Leviticus (20:13) advocates. In any case, you are assuming that what gays do is wrong. I have news for you: sex itself is not wrong unless it is done with someone who is a minor or who does not consent. You lump gays with drunkards etc. as if homosexuality was some sort of harmful addition. Quite wrong. It is normal and healthy for a percentage of the human race.
Moreover, how can my message be 鈥榓nti-christian鈥 when I was defending Jesus? I said he was tolerant; it was you who said he was intolerant!! I was trying to rescue Christianity from those who adhere to a foolish and unscholarly fundamentalism, thus giving it a bad name.
Brian
why is over half the humanist handbook you wrote attacking the christian faith (very amatuerishly)?
It seems to be the common thread on everything for you.
May I ask again, why did even Will Crawley suggest you guys get a positive message of your own instead of a jarring reactionary one?
You wanted to give a book to every MLA and the best you could come up with was the God Delusion by Dawkins.
Fundamentalists also come in the foaming at the mouth secualr variety too Brian, in case you didnt realise.
As for labelling me a fundamentalist, "foolish and unscholarly" etc etc.
Can you begin to differentiate between a a faith which attempts loyalty to a consensus of traditional judeo christian thought over some 6000 years and tried gain a complete biblical worldview on issues.......
and...
.... a north amercian creation of about 100 years pedigree which will not and cannot critique its beliefs beyond a strict interpretation of a handful of proof texts?
I think you need to do a little more reading Brian before you could understand the difference.
Hearing you talk about "rescuing" Jesus reminds of what has happened to St Patrick.
He was a welsh slave and a dedicated, serious missionary of deep faith, according to his own writings and serious historical appreciation.
However today many people seem to consider he was an Irish man who encouraged people to get drunk and wear green wigs.
So why exactly do you think Jesus needs you to rescue him again? (and forgive him of course?)
While you are thinking about it, I am also really curious as to what authority an athiest calls on when he lectures me about right and wrong, in this case in regards sex.
It seems quite incredible - which authority do you use to call me to account?
The christain faith says all men are sinners (me included).
That all men have fallen sexualities (me included).
That all men require repentance and faith in Christ for salvation.
That only lifelong monogamy is the context for sexual relations.
Amazing how many liberal theologians want to cosy up to homosexuality and gloss over these basic issues to get there. And that is even before they dicuss anything controversial.
On the face of it, you take the default W&T position, which is simply a non-church going liberal who professes that real Christianity is clearly seen in those proof texts of the bible they arbitrarily pull out to support their cause (just like Christian fundamentalists in fact).
This of course has no consistent method for choosing which verses to pick out and which to leave alone.
As for stoning yobs in Leviticus, Romans Galations and Hebrews makes it clear this law does not apply to the church, which does not make civil laws.
I wouldnt advocate importing Leviticuys into 21st century uk law, but you tell me which would be a bigger hit with the ordinary voter;-
1) A public execution of an outright yob once every ten years to send out a clear deterent message.
2) Gangs of yobs running wild in our towns kicking pensioners to death every week with no fear for the consequences.
The fact that Leviticus calls upon the father of yobs to lead the execution would put some serious parental responsibility on fathers and doubtless have worked wonders in ensuring fathers worked hard to ensure their son never got to the place where this was required.
result; problem nipped in the bud before it started and hundreds of millions of taxpayers money saved in prisons, probation, courts, police etc etc.
To be honest, if this was put to a referendum in the UK I feel you might be quite surprised by the outcome.
However it is clear that politicians of all hues are adamant that they will never allow the public to have their own say on such matters that they feel the most passioniate about.
PB
Hi PB,
You want to stone gays; I think they should have equality of rights. So, who's the reactionary?
You want to adhere to strict biblical literalism over 6,000 years (actually, that's wrong; probably about half that period covers the Bible); I want to interpret it in the light of modern times. So, who's being reactionary?
You want to bring back public executions; I am opposed to capital punishment. So, who's being reactionary?
You want Jesus in all his fiery intolerance; i want a Jesus who has some relevance to a decent, humane world. so, who's being negative and who's being positive?
I don't refer to you as 'foolish and unscholarly' but your religious opinions. Please maintain the distinction.
Hi PB,
You want to stone gays; I think they should have equality of rights. So, who's the reactionary?
You want to adhere to strict biblical literalism over 6,000 years (actually, that's wrong; probably about half that period covers the Bible); I want to interpret it in the light of modern times. So, who's being reactionary?
You want to bring back public executions; I am opposed to capital punishment. So, who's being reactionary?
You want Jesus in all his fiery intolerance; i want a Jesus who has some relevance to a decent, humane world. so, who's being negative and who's being positive?
I don't refer to you as 'foolish and unscholarly' but your religious opinions. Please maintain the distinction.
err Brian
1) If you read my post again you will see I expressly said I would not advocate dropping the laws of leviticus into the 21st century uk.
...did you miss that bit?
2) and can you show me exactly where I said we should stone people on account of their sexuality identification? nope!
...again, where are you getting this stuff from?
3) errr.... and who said I was in favour of "strict biblical literalism"????
that sounds exactly like what I was chiding Christian fundamentalism for.
...........really Brian, did someone say you were a schoolteacher??????
anyway...........
the primary meaning of reactionary (merriam webster dictionary) is that you are defined by reacting against something... in your case traditional christianity.
I hate to mention it again, but this is what Will Crawley admonished you guys for and he is hardly a conservative, but you refuse to acknowledge this happened. why?
You also duck why reacting against the Christian faith is the major feature of your humanist handbook.
What I did say was that I thought if the electorate had a free vote on capital punishment for serious crime it might surprise you. Personally I wouldnt advocate introducing a death sentence to the uk.
You really have no interest in what the evidence actually says about what sort of person Christ is, you simply want to remake him in your own image. very worrying Brian.
But it does demonstrate why the rants about Christian faith on your website are so detached from reality, even on a simply textual basis and perhaps why you seem to have so much difficulty in reading and understanding a simply blog entry in front of you.
I notice you also duck the question about what authority an athiest uses to lecture others about right and wrong.
You will also notice the whole point of my argument is that I am not actually reflecting "opinions" but attempting to reflect a consensus of traditional judeo christian thought as it actually happened.
If you look at it this way, without the record of God's word and man's study of it, my opinions would be worth about as much as an athiest lecturing on morality....
PB
Peab,
talking about what the Bible says...
The Bible says explicitly *not* to tell lies, nor to bear false witness, nor to deceive.
This has never stopped you PB!(do you want that looonnngg list again?-still waiting on an apology!)
But then again, one area in which I do agree with Jesus wholeheartedly is that he like myself really disliked sanctimonious, self-righteous, finger-pointing, holier than thou, religious hypocrites-white-walled tombs and all that...
What Brian(I think) and myself have in common with intelligent Christains is we really can't stand these dishonest fundamentalists.
You should read the Bible some day...you might actually learn something PB.
PS. why can't an atheist lecture on morality? you can't really talk given your record defending "Bible-believing" Christianity (sic) can you old chap?
Go and have a lie down PB, I think you are going to lose it again just like you did on the other thread and that just wasn't pretty was it!
In any case try and have a cold shower and get over your obsession with gays!
Hi PB
You say that the primary meaning of 鈥榬eactionary鈥 is to react against something and then proceed to tell me what I鈥檓 reacting against, i.e. traditional Christianity. I鈥檒l have you know that historically you are talking tripe. Christianity was a reaction against Judaism and other philosophies/ideologies that preceded it. Indeed, if you bother to read the Handbook to which you refer, you will see that Humanism predates Christianity. Protagoras, sometimes called the 鈥榝ather of Humanism鈥, lived nearly 500 years before Jesus and the Buddha and Confucius also lived in a similar period. I refer you to the article 鈥楾he First Humanists鈥 at
www.nireland.humanists.net/handbk/1sthumanists.html
You will discover that Christianity stole some of its ideas from these earlier Humanists, including the Golden Rule. So, who is 鈥榬eacting鈥 to whom?
Your interpretation of the word 鈥榬eactionary鈥 actually divests it of any significant meaning because almost anything can be seen as a reaction to something else. 鈥楻eactionary鈥 in my book in reference to opinions means wanting to revert to past conditions, being reluctant to accept change or new ideas etc. That, I think, sums up your position on gays. You haven鈥檛 progressed beyond an ancient Middle Eastern homophobia. As I have said, your attitude to gays is entirely negative, whereas mine is entirely positive.
You say that you wouldn鈥檛 advocate importing Leviticus into 21st century laws, but then spill ink making an appeal to what THE PEOPLE want: namely, a public execution every 10 years or so. Why do you mention this if you yourself don鈥檛 advocate it? What鈥檚 the point you are making here?
Why do you talk about 鈥榶obs鈥 when the thread is about gays? A yob is a 鈥榖ully鈥 but since your understanding of the meaning of words is, to put it mildly, queer, you could mean anything by it. Leviticus 20: 13 which I cited does not refer to 鈥榶obs鈥 but to homosexual activity. We are told that the Lord spake unto Moses and said: 鈥淚f a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death鈥 . Would you have gays piunished, PB, and how? Or would you 'tolerate' them?
The authority for my moral code derives from reason, compassion and common sense. Yours derives from obedience to alleged divine commands: might is right. But Epicurus, long before Christianity and another Humanist, wrote: 鈥淚s God willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence comes evil? Is he neither willing nor able? Then why call him God?鈥
Basically, belief in a God provides no basis for morality. But at least many Christians are prepared to take a liberal interpretation of primitive writings, and adapt them to more modern circumstances. In other words, they are intelligent enough to realise that it is a negative and ultimately destructive practice to adhere rigidly to ancient dogma. The ethic and our common humanity are what matter. What kind of God would care whether you believed that the best route to his favour was the Mass or the Hot Gospel? It鈥檚 really ridiculous.
鈥淕od gave his all to rescue us from our rebellion against him鈥. This is frankly gobbledigook. It makes no sense whatsoever. Sure, we are all 鈥榮inners鈥, if by this you mean we are all flawed creatures and perhaps even do bad things, but we can learn from our mistakes and from the example of others.
Thousands of years ago, the vast majority of the world鈥檚 people had no rights and were enslaved and abused at will by a minority of the wealthy and powerful. Governments were either the same people or their servants. Kings and princes boasted of their cruelty, as is clearly seen on cuneiform tablets and in holy books like the Bible. The change has been a slow process. In the Middle Ages it was seen as a Utopian idea. Philosophers such as Locke began to write about rights in the 17th century but it is only since the second half of the 20th century that the idea has been taken seriously.
Humanists believe in a humane philosophy of life and therefore the business of Humanism is in no small part the business of rights, not only of oppressed humans such as women or gays but also of animals and other living creatures with whom we share this planet. Is that positive enough for you, PB.
fyi the golden rule in the Christian faith was adapted from the OT, btw.
Leviticus 19:18.
Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
Hi PB,
Now, this is an interesting development. All along you have been arguing that loving gays is not the same as treating them equally. Now, apparently, you have changed your mind.
The earliest surviving written record of a Golden Rule statement goes back nearly 4,000 years 鈥 to the ancient Egyptian civilisation of about 1700 BC: "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Rig Veda, the oldest of the four Vedas, also contains a similar statement. it was composed about 1500 BC. Leviticus was written about 1400 BC.
However, Leviticus does not state the Golden Rule in its normal, inclusive formulation. It refers to loving your neighbour of 鈥榯hy people鈥, i.e. the Jewish people, who were the 鈥榗hosen people of God鈥 at that time. So it is rather exclusive. It didn鈥檛 imply loving all those other tribes whom God encouraged Jews to slaughter. It was not meant to apply to all those out-groups. Jesus, however universalises it : 鈥淵ou have heard that it hath been said, thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies...鈥 (Matthew 5:43-44).
Also, Leviticus talks of thoughts - of 鈥榣oving鈥 rather than acting. So, it allows you, PB, to say what you have been saying: 鈥淚 love gays but I want to punish them as a loving father鈥. In short, it permits you to embrace an Old Testament rather than a New Testament ethic.
The later formulation in terms of actions derives from Thales, Lao Tzu, Confucius and other humanists: don鈥檛 treat others as you would not like to be treated yourself (negative: Confucius, Hillel etc), or treat others as you would like to be treated yourself (Jesus, Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31). The writers of the Gospels probably stole the idea from Hillel who in turn stole it from a tradition going back 500 years to the ancient Greeks.
One thing should be clear: most philosophies, including Humanism, and most religions, including Christianity, contain the golden rule, or the principle of reciprocity, as an essential feature of their ethic. To discriminate against gays is therefore a complete travesty of that ethic.