³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

Last time I looked, the bible suggested we all had to answer to God. So apparently the Archbishop of Middle Earth won't be alone.

There is no scientific evidence to suggest that there is a God,no proof at all.

If for one moment there was a God,what sort of person would sit back and let all these atrocities that are going on in the world go on and on and on,and has been since time began.

wonderfulbobbyjim

post 2

quite correct

wonderfulbobbyjim

If there wasn't a god, what sort of person would sit back and let all these atrocities that are going on in the world go on and on and on,and has been since time began?

Peter:
One simple answer is that the Christian 'God' is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent and could have prevented all these atrocities, whereas we mere mortals are all too fallible.

Hi Brian

The point I am making is that there are too many people sitting back watching man's inhumanity to man and doing nothing about it. No we can't solve all the problems, but we could solve a lot lot with a little more compassion.

Peter:
Agreed, but God has nothing to do with it.

Returning to the topic, it seems as if Williams wants to reach out to Muslims, even to the extent of having elements of Sharia law in the UK, but is not welcoming towards bishops in his own church who are gay.

It seems that Robinson is the one name missing from the invitation list to the Lambeth Conference in July. This is a deliberate slight to Robinson and a sop to the Akinola faction.

Rowan Williams has acted disgracefully. He should have done what was right ethically and theologically. I both cases, that would mean standing by Gene Robinson. H e hasn't done that for political reasons. History will judge him.

Gene Robinson is a truly dimented person, possibly possessed, who is setting out to destroy the last remnants of the Anglican communion.

Let's state it in the simplest terms - homosexual sexual activity is regarded by Christians as sinful. It is not the only sin, it is not even the worst of sins, but it is sinful. What raises it above the level of other sins is that people like Robinson parade around proud of it, wallowing in it, and wanting everyone else to change their beliefs to suit him. Well we won't - ever. Rowan Williams's mistake is attempt to pander to the likes of him in any shape or form.

Having homosexual inclinations is not like being black, or disabled, or an ethnic minority, or a woman.

Ah Smasher:

So you are back again to personalise and trivialise issues and spread yet more poisonous homophobia. You say that Gene Robinson is a 'truly demented person' (I take it you mean 'e', not 'i'), who is setting out to 'destroy' the Anglican communion. Are you not a tad prone to hyberbole, old chap? Is there any more evidence for his demented state than yours?

You imply here that Robinson is deliberately trying to destroy Anglicanism. Do you mean that he acquired a gay partner specifically for that purpose? Oh, what a cunning plan! Bet you wish you'd thought of that one, becoming a priest to split the Catholic Church. But then, it looks like lots of others got there before you.

You also say that homosexual sexual activity is regarded as sinful by Christians. All Christians?
What about the homosexuals who regard themselves as Christians?
Presumably, they misunderstand the true nature of Christianity. Well, Smasher, if you are its harbinger, thank the Lord I'm an atheist.

I've been away for a while, Brian, reading your painfully dull website - marvelling at the contorted arguments of a humanist who thinks a chicken more important than an unborn human, and astounded by the prices you humanists charge for your home-made ceremonies. £300 for a wedding that isn't even legal! You guys must be raking it in. How much do you gouge for a funeral cos the website didn't say?

Can a homosexual be a Christian? Of course! Christ came for sinners after all and the first to enter paradise was a thief. But of course Christ called sinners to repentence, not to Pride marches - the good thief didn't parade up and down wearing a rainbow and demanding the right to break into your house.

Now back to Gene - I commented on Gene and on his homosexuality which was the topic of the article - how can this be personalising or trivialising the topic?

I don't think he acquired a gay partner as part of a plan - but I do think he became a gay bishop, wrote a book, and toured the world promoting his views as part of a plan, yes. He wants the Anglican Communion to change its traditional Christian views on homosexual acts and if it does that will be another step in its destruction.

The great majority of Christians, indeed humans, have for the last two thousand years regarded homosexual acts as wrong. Perhaps you, the humanist, should joint that consensus, since you have no other basis for your morality.

Hi Smasher:

I am gonna tell you a story. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin. It's the love story of John and Dave.

1. The soul of John was knit to the soul of Dave.

2. John loved Dave as his own soul.

3. John made a pledge with Dave because he loved him as his own soul.

4. John stripped himself naked and gave his coat to Dave.

5. John greatly delighted in Dave.

6. John and Dave kissed one another until Dave exceeded, i.e. became large.

7. John told Dave that God will be between his seed and Dave's forever.

8. When John dies, Dave cries out: "Your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women".

John was of of course Jonathan and Dave was David.

The references are:

1. 1 Samuel 18:1
2. 1 Samuel 18:1
3. 1 Samuel 18:3
4. 1 Samuel 18:4
5. 1 Samuel 19:2
6. 1 Samuel 20:41
7. 1 Samuel 20:42
8. 2 Samuel 1:26

The devil misquoting scriptures again for his own purposes.

I think you'll find that your "David exceeded" line in your para 6 is usally translated as suggesting he cried more than Jonathan, not that he had an erection.

I think you'll also find that the reference to descendents in your para 7 would be precluded if they were homosexual.

And I think you'll find, if you live a full life, that it is possible for men to love each other without wanting to have sex with each other. Their is such a thing as friendship you know.

So how much is it for a gay wedding in your church of humanism, 300 quid the same as heteros? or is it dearer to take account of the pink pound?

Smasher:

Ah, I thought you would respond. I deliberately omitted some other references and also the question of the significance of the word of the Hebrew word 'gadal' which the KJV translates as 'exceeded'.

First of all, in 1 Samuel 20:30-31 Saul, rather like the Marquess of Queensberry with Oscar Wilde, threatens to kill David because of his son’s relationship with him. He tells Jonathan: "I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness". This sounds like a sexual insult. Reference to the nakedness of one's parents is one of the methods used in the Bible to refer to a sexual relationship. Chrsysostom, the 4th century Bishop of Constantinople, interpreted Saul's outburst as condemning Jonathan 'as weak and effeminate and having nothing of a man'.

Edward 11, who definitely had a homosexual affair with Piers Gaveston, entered into a covenant of constancy with him, just as David and Jonathan did. In his Life of Edward 11, written about 1326, the Monk of Malmesbury compared Edward's love for Piers to that of Jonathan for David.

David Mace, a theologian, writing in 1953, called their relationship a good example of the 'comparatively harmless homosexual attachments of adolescence'.

George Henry, the American psychiatrist, wrote (1955) that Jonathan and David definitely had a sexual relationship in which the prince Jonathan was the aggressor and the ambitious David the willing seducee, 'unreservedly responsive'.

In Jonathan Loved David (1978) Tom Horner points out that the story followed the tradition established in 'the world’s first great love story', that between Gilgamesh and Enkidu. The latter, like Jonathan, had an untimely death, and david in his expression of love, surpassing that of women, falls into this category.

In First and Second Samuel Walter Brueggemann, Professor of the OT at Columbia Theological Seminary, writes (1990) that the attention given to David's unusual beauty (1 Samuel 16:12: "Now he was ruddy and withal of a beautiful countenance and goodly to look at"), may be noted 'in anticipation of the enormous attraction David is to have in the coming narratives for both men and women'.

Danna Fewell (Perkins School of Theology) and David Gunn (1993) note that, until recently, most writing on the Jonathan and David story has come out of a strong homophobic tradition and argue that a homosexual reading finds many anchors in the text.

David Halpern, Professor of literature at MIT, notes (1990) that "As in the Gilgamesh epic, so in the Books of Samuel the relationship between friends is constructed as both fraternal (like between brothers) and conjugal (like between husband and wife).

Of course, the story is not going to make the possible sexual aspect of their relationship explicit (the culture was clearly against it). But it does say that they kissed, they made a covenant, Jonathan strips off his clothing, their souls were knit together, and the love 'surpassed that of women'.

Now, turn to the bit where they fall to the ground, continually kissing each other and crying. Then we have the phrase 'David exceeded'. According to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, the Hebrew word translated exceeded in the KJV was 'gadal', and its meaning includes the following:Ìý a prim. root; prop. to twist, i.e. to be (caus. make) large (in various senses, as in body, mind, estate or honour). It is human nature that when situations of great emotional upheaval occur between people who love each other, sexual passions are ignited. this could be what the author intended to point out, but I agree that it is open to another interpretation. The word 'gadal' is flexible enough to refer in I Samuel 20:41 to David's great and overwhelming emotions.

Brian, is that a giant post in your pocket or were you just pleased to see me.

Clearly you have obsessed about this relationship a lot. This seems to be a common trait of atheists, to obsess about God and the bible.

Have you convinced me David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship - no. Perhaps Saul thought they had - that might explain something of his paranoia.

Smasher:

You're a hard man and a hard man is good to find. My posts are generally long because if anything is worth doing, it's worth doing slowly.

I see you concede that Saul might have thought that David and Jonathan were gay lovers. Is there not a possibility that he was right. Let us apply Riley's duck test. If it waddles like a duck and looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then just maybe it is a duck. But does it matter whether or not they were lovers or not? Did they even exist, or is it just a story?

I see you resort to the usual Christian riposte. If someone pursues an argument to its logical conclusion and seems to be getting the upper hand, out comes the typical defence that they are obsessed. No, Smasher, it is you who are homophobic and therefore it is you who are the obsessive. Stop projecting your own failings onto others yet again.

And don't come up and see me sometime.

There is a certain type of homophobia, to use an overused and often inaccurate term, that sees homosexual relationships in any form of friendship or display of affection between people of the same sex. And interestingly it happens on both sides of the debate with both "liberals" and "conservatives" guilty of it.

Your duck test only works if you use the rather contorted evidence you have produced in which anyone who takes their clothes off, or cries or hugs someone must be gay.

Suggesting you may be obsessed is merely using the Riley test on you. And in such circumstances there is no point going through each of your points from some biblical "scholar". It is impossible to prove from the text that the relationship was homosexual and probably impossible to disprove. We know that David committed adultery and murder so perhaps he committed other sins as well.

Does it matter? It matters in the sense that the truth always matters, but I don't think it is important in terms of the Christian teaching that homosexual acts are sinful. The existence of sinners doesn't lessen the fact of sin. Christian teaching is that sexual acts are a gift from God when used in the context of a committed marriage that is open to life. Otherwise sex is a curse.

It's a bit like opium - used appropriately it has been a wonderful help in relieving pain; used inappropriately it has destroyed people's lives. The same is true of sex.

"We know that David committed adultery and murder so perhaps he committed other sins as well".

It is a sure sign of an antediluvian, killjoy, repressive attitude to sexuality to put gay love and even adultery on a par with murder. You are effectively saying that they are no different from an IRA bomb or a loyalist death squad. If that is what you mean by referring to them all as 'sins', then your Church has done an appalling job of teaching you the real difference between right and wrong.

If there is scale of 'sins', Smasher, where does gay sex come on it? High or low? Is it a minor misdemeanour or a major sin? How does it compare to an IRA bomb? What is God's punishment for for these sins? What is a 'sin'? If sex is a curse, is it the curse of God? Or the Devil?

Of course, your approach is typical of traditional Irish 'morality' which is totally obsessed with the matter of putting down sex to the detriment of more important issues, such as political corruption and dishonesty, backhanders, brown envelopes, banknote-laden suitcases, cute hoorism, oppression of women, repression of the young, maltreatment of animals and clandestine support for murder and mayhem.

The Irish, north and south, have a habit of fighting the wrong battles over the wrong issues. We had 30 years of it and over 3,000 dead in NI. For what? For slow learners indeed!

Rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant.

I didn't think humanists could use words like "antediluvian". Does this mean you believe in the Flood and Noah's ark?

Brian, you seem to keep forgetting that the post was about Gene Robinson and his homosexuality. I didn't start the post. I didn't say homosexual sins were the worst, in fact I said they weren't.

Of course in your list of important issues you forgot to mention killing unborn children. But then, of course, you support that, don't you?

Hi Smasher,

You say you didn't start the post. Well, you have willingly contributed to it and referred to homosexual sex as sinful. But apparently it is only a minor sin? Or a middling sin? How many Hail Marys does it invoke? Where does it rank? You haven't answered my question. Come on, how serious a sin is homosexuality? and is lay gayness worse than clerical gayness? Is it a bigger sin for gays like Robinson to preach the Christian message? Or even to form a 'civil union'? Be clear and specific for a change.

For a sin to be mortal there must be grave matter, full knowledge and deliberate consent. This means the degree of guilt may vary from person to person. Certainly the matter would be regarded as grave. A young man may not be acting with full knowledge, particularly if his conscience is formed by modern media and humanists. And, in common with many sins of an addictive nature, the consent may not be fully deliberate.

I would expect that an anglican bishop of his age would have full knowledge and consent.

For a bishop to promote it as he does adds to the sin, since he is leading others astray. Similarly entering into formalised unions merely attempts to convey rightness to the act. It would suggest a high degree of knowledge and consent.

In short, unless such a person repents, I would absolutely fear for their soul.

Hi Smasher,

Do you seriously believe this guilt garbage, or are you pulling our leg?

I have no fear for Robinson's 'soul', nor should he, for he ain't got one, any more than you or I have. It's a load of twaddle.

Frankly, I think the real immorality here lies in the threats issued by you and your church to people whose only crime is to love each other. This is the kind of bigoted, nasty Christianity that gives it a bad name.

I hope his civil partnership ceremony goes well.

Briain, I will remember you in my prayers.

Hi Smasher:
How sweet of you! But maybe, instead of talking to yourself, you should save your breath for real communication. Alternatively, you might say an atheist prayer. Here is one:

"That our reason will subjugate our superstition, that our intelligence will check our illusions, that we will be able to hold at bay the evil temptation of faith".

Or another:
"Our Nothing, which art Nowhere, give us this day our daily bread, and deliver us from priests, bishops and biblical Christians".

Ah, Brian,

An invocation to a god who is not there - intriguing!

You have more faith than me, or should I say that it appears that you want to have your 'bread', and eat it!