Co-operating with Satan
Charity blackmailer Stephen Green’s sense of self-righteous persecution received a boost when the Co-operative Bank asked Christian Voice to close its account because of its anti-homosexual views.
According to the PA (reported in the Guardian), Green has 30 days from June 6 to close the account.
A spokesman for the bank said,
It has come to the bank’s attention that Christian Voice is engaged in discriminatory pronouncements based on the grounds of sexual orientation.
This public stance is incompatible with the position of the Co-operative Bank, which publicly supports diversity and dignity in all its forms for our staff, customers and other stakeholders.
Speaking from his closet in Carmarthen, Green said,
The Co-op bank, for all its fine words, is discriminating against us on the grounds of conscience and religion.
Never mind. CV may not have any money left to bank soon, as it is still pursuing an expensive blasphemy action against the BBC, claiming that Jerry Springer: The Opera portrayed Jesus as a “sexual deviant”, when in fact it portrayed a sexual deviant as Jesus.
UPDATE: Contact details of the Co-op bank, should you wish to express an opinion on their decision.
(Thanks to Scaryduck)
Good to see a financial organisation with some morals for a change.
Did not Stephen Green learn from the parable of the man who buried all his money in a big hole in his garden? He ought to be burying all his money in a big hole in his garden. Or, better still, inside a mattress, as long as the mattress has NOT been used for deviant acts of fornication.
Glad to be of help.
Somebody from Christian Voice (probably Stephen Green, as they seem to have no other spokesperson) is going to be on the Jeremy Vine Show on Radio 2 at 12 noon today. Could be worth a listen.
It was Stephen Gree, surprise surprise. He didn’t come across very well, especially at the end when he couldn’t answer a simple question from Vine, asking what good things Christian Voice do. He also revealed himself as the bigot he is by saying that if Co-op support gay rights then they don’t want to bank with them anyway. Not only bigotted, but also incredibly childish. Like taking your ball away when your’re losing isn’t it?
The guy from the co-op, although a little nervous got his point across very well, unlike Stephen Green.
[…] loyees are allowed to flirt… If they’re working in Germany. Christian Bigots: The Co-Op takes a stand.
Posted by Paul in Civil Liberties and Human Rights, European and W […]
I don’t like the idea of banks withdrawing services from customers whose opinions they disagree with. Isn’t there an important principle at stake here?
It amounts to people not being able to state facts. I don’t know, without checking, SG’s precise views, and they may include non-factual and/or rhetorical ones. In which case the Co-op would be right. In general, however, the Co-op’s stand is not a good one, because they are paying no attention to whether or not what CV says is factually true. Truth is the least of their concerns (and where’s the sense in that?). They are only concerned with how it might make people feel.
They are therefore denying the obviously true fact that there are bound to be some facts in the world that make people feel bad, but are, none the less, facts. Their factual status is changed not one jot by how people do or dont ‘feel’ about them. How can feelings be the main issue?
These facts include:
(a) the level of STD-susceptibility of a given ‘active’ homosexual (as compared to heterosexual) on average;
(b) the life-expectancy of a given ‘active’ homosexual (as compared to heterosexual) on average;
(c) the average promiscuity of a given ‘active’ homosexual (as opposed to heterosexual);
(d) the fact that homosexuality is clearly less biologically obvious than heterosexuality. For 2 different reasons: (1) relative productivity, and (2) physical ‘fit’ or compatibility (re: anal intercourse, it’s worth bearing in mind that even for the uncontroversial practice of heterosexual intercourse this is often warned against as unhygienic, dubiously natural, and increasing the chances of disease. How much more, then, would this be the case when we come to the more controversial practice of homosexual intercourse? Yet anal intercourse is the staple here; practised by 90%. How often does anyone discuss the -presumably fairly clear – connection between this and the disease-rate? Why don’t they? Social pressure? Which is the more important? – one’s cool image or the lives and deaths of people?)
(e) the fact that people generally go along with what is fashionable in their own culture and time-period, often with little understanding of any other culture or time-period, or their relative merits and demerits;
(f) the fact that people’s stances and views are so often the result of wishful thinking (or, alternatively, a fear of seeming fuddyduddy) rather than research. This can be demonstrated by asking two questions:
(i) ‘Are your views any different from the views you would ideally/emotionally wish to hold?’
(ii) ‘Have you ever researched the topic with an open mind?’.
Those who answer ‘No’ to both are not yet in a position to speak with any authority on the topic.
This is the point where ppl habitually fall silent, change the subject, make amusing remarks. Anything rather than address the point?!
But this time Im expecting ppl will address the 6 points in order, just to prove me wrong. So fire away!
As far as I am concerned they are BOTH wrong.
Much as I completely disagree with Stephen Green’s view, as a seasoned anti- (unjustified) censorship campaigner, I’d be a hypocrite, if I said he wasn’t entitled to express them, and the Co-Op bank clearly shouldn’t try to censor Green, by denying him access to their finanacial services. That makes them, as bad as he is.
It is my opinion that Mr. Green is completely misguided in his beliefs. That does not mean that the bank should do what they have done.
Shell, religious people seem to have a pathalogical obsession with what others do in bed, especially when it comes to exactly where the active male introduces his sexual equipment.
This obsession is clearly harmful, and religious people ought to concentrate on being nice, which according to their dieties, and prophets, is what they are supposed to be doing.
BTW it is said that 20% of the heterosexual population indulge in the pratice of which you so vociferiously disapprove. Or was it simply rampant homophobia becoming manifest ?
Some questions for YOU “doctor” Shell:
Do you really think that sensible sane people would choose:
1: To be gay and have their lives end early, (if what you say is true) because of their homosexuality ?
2: To be gay and risk the ridicule and repression of (in my opinion) narrow minded bigoted types like your “good” self ?
3: To be gay and isolated from parenthood, because their sexual situation prevents them from reproducing ?
4: To be gay and in many cases, have to live in constant fear of their family finding out the truth about them, and facing complete rejection in many cases, if ever they do ?
Have you ever spoken to any gay people Shell ? Do you know any ? Have you any in your family ? Have you any of them in your circle of friends ? Have you talked to *them* yourself about their sexuality, and why they are like they are ? If not I’d ask by what authority (and please don’t say god’s)gives you the right to condemn them other than as an apparent homophobic bigot ?
I know MANY gay people, though I am not gay myself. Every one of them I’ve been close enough to discuss this with, has told me the same thing: That being gay is not something they CHOSE to be. It is something they ARE.
Just as I was born with ginger hair, and loads of freckles. Along with the price I had to pay, in ridicule and bigotry, just for being that. I think the percentage of ginger haired freckle faced people is about the same as gay ones. Some are both of course.
{sorry about the spelling error of ‘pathological’ in my other post. Is there any way these can be edited ?}
I’ll gladly answer all those questions. But I dont want anyone avoiding answering mine, since they were asked first. So we’ll answer mine first, and then give our full attention to yours. Good – some proper debate.
I will try to answer Dr Shell’s questions, briefly.
Questions (a), and (b) are effectively the same question, and are an attempt to persuade those who answer it, to accept a justification for restriciton on gay lifestyles for health reasons. But it isn’t the gayness itself, which would cause any health problem. I know gays who have lived to their ninties… Again it is not their sexual orientation, but what they do with it, and exactly the same applies to heterosexuals too.
(c)
Aids aside, I don’t think there’s much difference between promiscious gays and promiscuous straights. Again, it boils down to one thing – Have lots of sex with different people, and fail to protect yourself, and you are likely to catch something. Gays are more likely to be promiscous simply because they are MALE, not because they are gay. Males are genetically programmed to be so. Many straight men would be MUCH more promiscuous if they could get away with it.. It is hardly surprising that males are more promiscuous in a relationship where there is no female influence.. Again it all depends on how many risks you take what happens to you, on average.
(d)
[anal sex question cut for brevity]
The quesitons here, are borne from the religious person’s obsession with the act of anal intercourse. I have covered this in another post where I assert that 20% of straights also indulgle in this. They are the only ones who admit to it too…
“(e) the fact that people generally go along with what is fashionable in their own culture and time-period, often with little understanding of any other culture or time-period, or their relative merits and demerits;”
Other cultures and time periods have little relevance to most people. In the past, they were not born, and in the future, they will be dead. For most, the past is a curiosity and the future, is unknown. We cannot tell what will happen in time periods in the future. But sexualty has become more liberated, because of contraception, and modern ways of communicating. People are simply more honest about what they really think, and do not fear saying so. As you go back in time, so the repression increased.
Given the advances in science, in communications, and in any generally free and open society, this was bound to happen. Only in societies which are ruled with an iron fist, does it fail to happen. Even then history has shown their leaders to often be hypocrites. There has always been gays. There WILL always be gays. No amount of ridicule, persecution, repression, or hate prevents this.
In my other post I say people do not choose to be gay. They just ARE. If they did choose it, I would question their sanity for doing so even in today’s world. I would certainly question it in yesterdays culture, or in Iran, and other similar countries where they EXECUTE you for it. Perhaps Dr. Shell agrees with them ? Yet despite that, it is still found there.
(f) the fact that people’s stances and views are so often the result of wishful thinking (or, alternatively, a fear of seeming fuddyduddy) rather than research. This can be demonstrated by asking two questions:
(i) ‘Are your views any different from the views you would ideally/emotionally wish to hold?’
My views are the ones I choose to hold. Nothing to do with fashion. Or religious dogma. Only common sense based on logical reasoning, and a proper analysis of the facts, lead me to my beliefs. Unlike Dr. Shell who seems to rely on a supernatural influence, which I have reason to believe either does not exist, or if it does, it doesn’t care all that much.
(ii) ‘Have you ever researched the topic with an open mind?’.
Of course. But have you I wonder ? (and I in fact doubt..)
I wonder Dr. Shell, if your aparrent hatred of homosexual people simply comes from your religious beliefs ? You go on about the fact that people die and all that. People die, from rock climbing. They die motoring. They die, flying ligh aeroplanes, like a chap a few doors down the road from us did. Nowhere do you condemn such activities. People having sex with other people involves a certain amount of risk, as does many other things one can do. The people involved should be free to choose, for themselves. Not to have it imposed upon them, by religious repression, which happens all too often, even in this (so called) free society of ours.
It’s true – one can’t talk about every topic at once. This post is about homosexuals and that’s therefore what Im talking about. But there are other risky activities too, and there comes a point where they are too risky to be justified. Especially where other people’s lives are involved – which, come to think of it, they always are.
Hatred – no. Attention to facts & stats – very much so. We all know which societies wanted to suppress facts.
Now, Shaun, I would give your points more and deeper attention were I convinced of your openness & even-handedness; the rhetorical content of your comment 11 is not helpful – almost as if you have prejudged the issue. Even prejudged the issue of my character without having met me. But where issues are prejudged that is not a proper debate. On teh other hand, the factual content is well worth commenting on.
I agree with you that my (a) and (b) are closely related. What I want to stress is that these are serious points involving the lives of real people. Every person and society wants to minimise anything that leads to disease or earlier death. Supposing that even homosexual orientation were, on average, such a thing. It might be – there is no logical reason why not.
(Leaving aside the questions of the sources & permanency of such orientation. Everyone is ‘oriented’ to many things – some helpful and some harmful. The idea that the orientation itself is sufficient is obviously a non-starter. We have first to see whether the thing is helpful or harmful. What if someone were ‘oriented’ towards bashing old ladies? They wouldnt be helped to overcome this by a society that approved this – quite the reverse: it would give them justification for their activities, and possibly confuse them.)
I agree with your point that promiscuity is central. That is why Christians regard homosexual and heterosexual promiscuity in the same light and on the same level.
I agree with your point that maleness is central. Whether this is genetic I am not competent to say; common sense might indicate that social reasons alone (males having more power than women to do as they pleased) might be sufficient. After all, as soon as women have had more power, they have become more promiscuous – ie sunk to males’ level in this regard. But let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that the genetic thing is true as well. What better reason could there be for societies seeking to minimise and not normalise male-male sexual congress, knowing the possible consequences of a whole subculture of human beings untrammelled by the superior sexual conscience of women? Recipe for chaos. If promiscuity is always or generally bad news, it’s scarcely likely that the community whcih head-for-head produces most of it is going to be good news.
(d) One mention of a highly relevant topic qualifies as obsession? It is central to the whole debate that people call a spade a spade. Like it or not, what homosexuals actually get up to is bound to be central. You’re not suggesting that it is peripheral?
(e) I think is important, since limited historical perspective is bound to mean limited understanding. Especially in this case, when our society has already progressed such a distance from barbarism and towards civilisation that the stable family became normal – only to sink back in the direction of barbarism when it became less normal again. Obviously we will learn from societies and historical periods whose stats were better than ours – in some cases, much better. There cant be any argument about that.
(f) Im puzzled about, since I dont think I referred to supernatural influence once. Indeed, I called for a debate based on the common ground of reason.
Hope this is clear – and I welcome future contributions.
Perhaps “hatred” of homosexuals was too strong a term. “Complete condemnation” of them, might be better. I don’t need to have “met” you, I have read enough of your posts to realise where you come from and how you arrive at your views. What I’ve never read about you, I can predict reasonably accurately, because of your strong Christian faith. From what I’ve read, you are part of the same mindset and belief system as the rest of them.
If you really want to call a spade a spade, then I will: You Christian people clearly have an obsession with the fact that some people fuck other people up the arse [*] now and then, and believe something ought to be done about it ™ most likely with a prohibition. But your desire to interfere in the goings on in the bedrooms of other freeborn people, or to comdemn them, well that is both unwarrented, and unnecessary. Not everyone wants to minimise early death.
Some are happy to take that risk. Which is why I mentioned rock climbing etc. I’d sooner have fify years as a freeborn person without unwarrent repression, than to live my life for seventy years, as a repressed Iranian, or be subject to unchecked fundamentalist Christian authority all my life. Do not claim to know what we all want, or to know our minds. You clearly do not.
If someone is disposed to bashing old ladies, then they need to be monitored to protect the public, and separated if need be. The same would apply to paedophiles who sexually assault children, which cannot be tolerated. Old ladies do not consent to be bashed, and young children do not consent to be screwed or otherwise sexually assaulted by adults.
Gays are another matter. They do not hurt me, and they do not hurt you. What thet do to each other is by consent. If they want to bum each other off, every night of the week, that’s up to them. The same as if the straight couple across the road are into a bit of bum bashing now and then, well that’s also their OWN business, not mine, and certainly not yours.
On obsession: I meant that religious people in general are obsessed with other people’s anal activities. Obsessed with controlling it, hating it, and condemning it whenever they can. You appear to be just the same as the rest of them… I have no reason whatsoever from what you have written to presume you are any different.
Family stability has been eroded for many reasons. Sexual freedom is very little to do with anything. You can learn this, by studying other countries. Denmark, and Sweden both have lower divorce rates than us, at 2.81, and 2.79 divorces/1000 with Britain at 3.08. America, generally held to be sexually more conservative than we are, and certainly more puritan, stands at nearly FIVE! Indeed I see an slope contrary to your expectations here!
Spain which has no media censorship, and is far more open about sexuality than Britain, and has a significantly LOWER age of consent than we do (was 12, but might be 13 now) has ONLY 0.88 divorces/1000 Less than a THIRD of our rate. In the old days – divorce rates were lower. Women could get beaten up, or even raped by their husbands, and could not do a think about it. They could get thrown out of their homes, and be made virtually destitute.
Forcing a narrow mindend sense of morality on others will not aid you in your quest for “family values” I’m afraid. Do you think a husband and wife should seperate and be happy, or stay together and be miserable ?
[*] I make no apology for the mode of expression which was clearly invited, with reference to calling a spade a spade.
Ok, a few points:
(1) Suppose that the facts of the matter tended to point to the actual practices of homosexuals being central to the issue as a whole. One can’t deny that this is a possibility. What does one do? To mention this at all is to be accused to being obsessed by it. But such an accusation sidesteps the main issue: namely, maybe these practices, of dubious hygiene & biology, are a weak link in the homosexual argument. What we should all ask is that such issues be addressed head-on. Changing the subject to obsessions is just a red herring.
Analysis of the whole western world, I think, supports my big picture: namely, that the moral sea-change of the sixties (which was never properly argued for rationally, just imposed carnally by popular demand) has led to sexual/divorce/abortion stats becoming overwhelmingly more negative. Small regional variations are a secondary issue.
On quality/quantity of life, I agree with you. Actually, they are both important in their own way, and overwhelmingly the best option is to have both. After all, it’s not as though we have to make a choice between EITHER quality OR quantity, as you seem to imply.
Re: what homosexuals get up to in private, I guess you are a victim of your own culture and its presuppositions, which is why I emphasised historical perspective. All sorts of dodgy presuppositions here:
(1) The whole private/public ‘divide’, as though one did not affect the other, and as though the edges were not blurred; (2) The whole idea that one can approve something that ‘does no harm’ as opposed to something that does positive good. Doing no harm is not a good reason for doing anything. In any case, I have already detailed the harm that this particular thing does do, so it does not qualify.
(3) The whole consent principle. No man is an island – and the guy who aimed to disprove that, Hugh Grant in ‘Man and Boy’ (what was the title? that Nick Hornby one), was about as selfish an expletives-deleted as you can get!! You don’t seriously think that our lives can be in isolation from family, from those who care for us, from our future children and the ‘us’ whom they will have to live with etc etc. No doubt the two burglars ‘consented’ to the robbery – but were they the only interested parties? Hallo? Christians are always interested parties, because Christians – and all good people – care for everyone’s welfare. It’s only selfish people who don’t. (So Boo!!!)
Looking forward to continuing the debate.
It amazes me that you think that there are Christians everywhere making the same points as me. I wish there were! So far as I can see, I am a pretty typical Christian in my stances; a pretty atypical one in the way I arrive at those stances; and also a pretty atypical one re how much I speak up about it. Why, for example, do you think I am the only one to comment regularly on this blog?
What the Co-Op did would have been wrong if it were dealing simply with a private individual, but CV is (allegedly) an organisation, with publicly stated policies on assorted issues. It is quite within its rights to deny itself profit by refusing to conduct business with any given organisation, for whatever reason it sees fit. Good on them!
What can one do about the actual practices of homosexuals ?
One can simply forget all about them, and get on with your own life, and leave them, to live theirs, as they wish provided it is consensual. Just as the government, have in fact decided to do.
I dont think Christians care for everyones welfare. They seem to think the world would be a better place if everyone was legally forced to adopt their so called standards.
It wouldn’t.
Don’t you know how fundamentally rotten it is to impose narrow minded notions of how to live on others, without the strictest of justification for doing it ?
Having anal sex, isn’t so fundamentally bad as to justify the kind of controls you want. People have been doing it, since there’s been humans. They will do it whilst ever there are humans. They will do it, whether it is legal or not. They will do it EVEN if you threaten them with death. Now leave them be. They cause you no harm.
Unlike religion which is the cause of so much chaos in the world….
PS: Dr Shell –
Have you ever considered that there might be many people, in this world, who actually like taking it/giving it up the arse, who otherwise are very decent, well behaved people ? People who have contributed so much (and probably more than you’ll ever do) to mankind, and to culture ?
It was your sort of attitude, which brought about the persecution of Oscar Wilde for example. The originator of satire, in the theatre, and a fine author and playwright, who happened to be one of those gay human beings you seem to despise… There are many others who contributed so much who were gay. I can say nothing about their preferences in this area. Piotr Ilyitch Tchaikovsky was persecuted for his sexuality.
Look what we’d have lost there, had his persecutors been wholly successful. W. Somerset Maugham was gay. So was Leonardo daVinci. Elton John, George Micheal, Frankie Howard, Nigel Hawthorne (A favourite of Mrs Thatcher, apart from section 28 issues), Michelangelo,Justin Fashanu (a famous black footballer, persecuted because of his sexuality),Franz Schubert (it is said), the brilliant (Sir) John Gielgud (prosecuted for homosexulity), Liberace, Sir Alec Guinness(who was prosecuted for it) and many many more…
You “christians” who are supposed to “care” about people have a bloody lot of misery to answer for.
You know, Christopher, the arguments you deploy here would appear to be, mutatis mutandis, indistinguishable from the arguments advanced by eugenicists for the elimination of ‘certain classes’ of person.
You mentioned before that you’re more a New Testament person than OT. How about you share Jesus’s teachings on homosexuality with us?
What I find interesting is that virtually all debates regarding homosexuality, especially those where religion is brought into the mix, concern only male homosexuality and in particular a certain act. Lesbians tend to be left out of the discussion all together. This tends to add weight to the view that the anti-gay zealots have a pathological fascination with anal sex that they seem unable to see past.
Indeed Kate. Like I suggested. It’s an obsession with them.
Maybe it’s because, like a lot of men they actually quite like the idea of two women having sex, so they don’t mind it too much. Reminds me of someone I used to work with, who was capable of the most sickening homophobia, but was eventually fired as porn was found on his computer. The vast majority of the porn was of the variety featuring two women.
Hypocrites the lot of them.
Queen Victoria omitted to make lesbianism illegal because she had a mental block re believing such things could happen at all. (Or so I heard!)
By the ‘unproductiv-ity’ barometer it obviously rates the same as male. By the promiscuity barometer it obviously rates less bad. So I suppose that makes it rate overall less bad (as opposed to actually good, which would be more to the point).
1st paragraph is true.
But the 2nd paragraph…. what the hell are you on about?
To translate:
Lesbians have no more offspring than male homosexuals to show for their claim to biological authenticity.
However, they have the saving grace (by comparison) of being somewhat less promiscuous.
So that makes them rate higher (or less low) overall – unless other relevant criteria are cited.
Shaun-
Absolutely true – and boy, do I appreciate Tschaikovsky. But how is it relevant? Every great person – indeed, every great person – has weaknesses of idfferent kinds. The fact that they were great does not mean that this characteristic/orientation was a strength rather than a weakness. That would need to be shown on independent grounds.
Hi Joe-
Jesus’s teachings on homosexuality:
(1) For all I know, he may never have mentioned it. It was not a controversial topic among any other of his contemporary Jews whose voluminous writings/sayings we have, and the fact that we have no recorded sayings of his about it suggests that it was not controversial with him either. There is no reason why this should surprise us. Why would we expect the central preoccupations of first-century Jewish rabbis to match (coincidentally) those of 21st century western men and women?
What does it mean to say it was uncontroversial with him? That he had nothing to add. ‘I refer the Right Honourable Member to [what has already been said on the topic].’
(2) The argument from silence can at times be strong (the dog in the nighttime). But it is perilous to rely on it. Mark 7.21 shows Jesus speaking against sexual impurity (as defined by Jews of the day) in general. But he does so only in passing, without any need for emphasis, as his stance is the default one. Who would have questioned it in that day and geographical location? (The Romans, of course – enlightened butchers that they were.)
(3) In no place does Jesus suggest he holds anything but the existing view of the severity of sexual impurity. I think this is correct – if not – chapter and verse wd be good.
(4) At times he stiffens the law on related matters – e.g. divorce in Mark 10.
(5) At other times he strengthens the emphasis on mercy and compassion. He never changes the laws but he does change people’s perspectives on their own reactions to transgressors (Luke 7 and John 8). He doesnt condemn (hallelujah) and he doesnt condone (which is his main difference from modern liberals). He just tells it as it is.
Hope this gives a rounded picture.
Instead of John smiley-sunny, pls read ‘John 8’
So the short answer would be ‘not a sausage’, then?
Shell – What would you want do about gay people ?
Do you not accept that that’s how they are.
All scientific reseatch says that they CANNOT change so why not simply accept them ?
Is your religion so pathetically constraining that you cannot do this ?
I would argue that to subcribe to unproven religious dogma is a weakness. For people who need a crutch to lean on…
Being gay is neither a strength or a weakness. It is a certainly a disadvanage whilst ever the world is full of people like Dr. Shell…
Hi Shaun-
Which scientific research is this? People can do all sorts of things with their willpower. If you are right, this would be about the only life-change impossible for human beings to accomplish.
Re: dogma – you’d need to consult my other comments. I am always making the point that dogma is the enemy of scholarship. Nor am I a fan of religion, I just follow an historical individual.
Hi Joe
Yes, your 10-word summary is a fair precis of my 18 lines…
NOT…
and you know it!!!
A good place to start would be to take my five points and engage with them one by one.
Looking forward to the debate.
(Sorry to be a total beast!)
Christopher Shell: “For all I know, he may never have mentioned it”
Frankly, Christopher, I’d say that that is the crucial line and that it validates Joe’s precis rather nicely.
If you fundamentally object to the gays because 1st century rabbis did, then you’re a bigger fool than I thought. What’s your view on pork?
No cult that is hoping to grow into a religion would mark itself out as the gay cult by countering the prevailing sexual mores. Look at christianity now, where the african bishops are blocking gay bishops in britain because they don’t want to lose converts to the muslims who, they fear, would see christianity as the gay religion.
Wherever there are stupid people you’ll find intolerance and bigotry. All you’re doing is wilfully aping 1900 year-old bigotry, and pretending that you’re better than ignorant bigots because of it.
“Nor am I a fan of religion, I just follow a historical individual” (rather than “an”)
Jesus I suppose you mean. Well, that’s religion in my book. He claimed to be the Son of God. Religious enough ?
Basically you follow all the dogma that is the Christian teachings… which have of course been greatly corrupted over the last 2000 years or so…
One has to examine issues with modern eyes, not historical ones. What relevant was Jesus’s life to ours ? There are some similarities, yes. But did he ever realise that we would be able to travel to the other side of the world, in less than a day ? Did he ever realise we would talk to people at the other side of the world virtually simultaneously ? No! He knew NONE of these things were going to happen. If he really was the son of an all knowing God, he’d have had something to say about our modern way of life, I’m sure.
My bet, too, is that he would have thought that societies persecution of homosexuals, had he a vision of modern understanding of them, and scientific understanding of them was ROTTEN TO THE CORE. I reckon Jesus would have condemned YOU, rather than homosexual people.
All dogma, (which is what you are patently guilty of) does is cause misery.
So lesbians are the two-headed, fire-breathing children of Satan aswell then? Marvellous, I was feeling rather left out.
I do find it laughable that having an ethical basis to who you will do business with amounts to censorship!
The issue here is not that Christian Voice disapproves of homosexuality, but that they conduct vociforpous hate campaigns against homosexuals and those that don’t activly discriminate on grounds of sexuality.
Tom-
It’s be good to assume, for the sake of argument, that Jesus never mentioned it specifically. (Though, of course, it is covered by his unsurprising disapproval of all extramarital sex: Mark 7.21.)
The question then becomes: why did he not mention it specifically? You suggest: because he possibly didnt especially disapprove of it. I suggest: because he had nothing new to say on it, and assumed the default position. The main evidence for this being Mark 7.21.
I have offered evidence for my ‘why’. If your ‘whyt is to be considered on a level with mine, you need to provide eqully good or better historically-grounded reasons for yours. And in particular:
(a) Why do you think Mark 7.21 doesnt cover it? It seems to me to cover it. Clearly if he disapproved of extramarital sex between male and female, he can scarcely have approved of it between same-sex couples when there’s no evidence that
(b) The chances of Jesus and Paul having diametrically opposed views are also small.
(c) If Jesus really had revolutionary views on this topic, or even views at all different from those of his own day and culture, then why didnt he say so?
(d) Don’t you see that the only reason you are wanting Jesus to have any interest in this topic at all is that every age wants Jesus to be a bit like them, and for his interests to be a bit like theirs? That is bad history. We will never stand a chance of understanding him unless we let him be himself and take the trouble to understand his culture, which is far more relevant to the case than our own.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Paul never met jesus. Is this correct?
If so, then I’d say that the chances of them having opposite views on some things are quite high. I understand that jesus wasn’t anti-women, where as paul chucked in a load of stuff about no women priests and such-like (which is the vatican’s basis for their sexist stand to this day). Is this correct? If so, then it rather shows that on some things they did hold different views. Also, what does it matter what Paul said? having never met jesus, his books in the bible are no more worthy of the position of holy documents than the christian voice website.
I don’t give a monkeys if my views chime with jesus’, in fact the point of what i (and others) have been getting at is that jesus didn’t explicitly disapprove of gay sex any more than straight sex, and it’s only prudes and bigots who profess to follow him who seek to persecute the gays, not those who could genuinely describe themselves as christians.
You are clearly very knowledgable about christian scripture, and also clearly disapprove of extramarital sex, and it is this disapproval that, at least in part, forms the basis of your disapproval of gay sex. With these in mind, are you in favour of gay weddings, and if not, why not?
(1) I think it is very unlikely that Paul met Jesus. He seems to have been a high-up Pharisee who studied in Jerusalem, and was moreover based in Jerusalem around the time of the crucifixion. He was a more or less exact contemporary of Jesus age-wise. So his not having encountered/seen Jesus is slightly surprising – but apparently he didnt.
He was so devoted to Jesus that he sought to identify completely with him. Every letter of his bears witness to this. One example: he saw himself as completing the sufferings of Christ in his own body.
(2) Re women: I find it difficult to make any statement about women with which one of them (Jesus or Paul) would have agreed and the other disagreed. Maybe someone else can help here.
(3) ‘Jesus didnt explicitly disapprove of gay sex’ – wow! This dies the death of a thousand qualifications.
-Firstly, the question is not whether he didnt disapprove of it (double negative) but whether he did approve of it. Every cultural consideration points the other way. He didnt explicitly disapprove of child sacrifice either. And there are a thousand other harmful things which, so far as we know, he didnt mention. Homosexual issues were pretty unmentionable in his time and culture.
In any case, in normal circumstances, you’d agree that the argument from silence is perilous.
Don’t you think that Mark 7.21 has quite a lot of bearing on the issue. Here, Jesus assumes that all extramarital sex is out of court.
-Secondly, if he disapproved even of extramarital sex between opposite genders, he is not in the slightest degree likely to have approved of extramarital sex between identical genders. Gay marriage being a concept that no-one in his culture would ever have considered.
I was accepting that. But how about you? gay marriage, yes or no? (nb, this is not a proposal)
Christopher, you seem to be a veritable fount of knowledge about attitudes to same-gender sexuality in first-century AD Roman Palestine. So I’m presuming you have decent primary sources on this matter, rather than just making stuff up and deciding it must be true because it sounds ‘right’ and ‘natural’ and happens to chime with your personal beliefs. Would you care to share them with us?
Tom – a definite ‘no’ – wouldnt even consider it.
Joe – There is one sure thing: had Jewish beliefs on the topic been any different in the first century than in any other century, we would have heard about it.
There is no culture that has recorded the sayings of its first-century sages in such details as the Jews: in the first instance, in the Mishnah, and (building on the Mishnah) in the Talmud, perhaps the most massive book ever written, or certainly at that time.
Some of the main rabbis of the time: Hillel, Shammai, Akiva, Gamaliel.
If there were even one saying that suggested that any of the first-century Jewish sages (who disagreed with each other about many things) had really been 21st century westerners in disguise, we would certainly have heard of it. But they weren’t, any more than we are remotely interested in the preoccupations of 41st century orientals.
So what you’re saying is, again, there’s no actual evidence for any of this, but you like the sound of it, so it’s almost certainly true, ‘natural’, ‘right’ &c&c. Plus my issue was more with sweeping statements like “[h]omosexual issues were pretty unmentionable in [Jesus’s] time and culture” – how on earth can you claim to know this with any certainty?
And I’m intrigued by your implication that approval of same-sex relationships is unique to westerners in the 21st century, which I’d have said was clearly and demonstrably untrue. On what are you basing this?
Chritopher – why not? It would reinforce the concept of fidelity and partnership among the gay community, helping to counter the associations of gayness with promiscuity and attendant increased risk of STDs, one of your beloved (or should that be reviled) ‘negative statistical trends’.
I can’t think of any reasonable argument against gay marriage, so i’d be interested to see if you can.
Tom-
One can’t misuse words in that way. ‘Marriage’ is a gender-specific term. If it ceases to be that, there’s no reason why it should not also cease to be age-specific, or number-specific (leading to three or more getting ‘married’).
Joe-
The very fact that the thoughts of first-century Jews survive in such massive bulk helps us to know what they talked about a lot and what they didnt talk about much, or at all.
It is a fact that approval of homosexual acts is not unique to 21st century westerners. I would never ‘imply’ that it was, since I know very well it is not. (And in any case, we never know what other people are ‘implying’, only what they are actually saying.) Compare the prevailing Hellenistic culture of Jesus’s own day, for example. But 21st century westerners sometimes want to import their own preoccupations into cultures which did not share those preoccupations.
However, my main gripe is that you’re not engaqging with most of the specific points I raised. :o( !!
Well, we could start by wondering whether you’ve quite grasped how fluid ‘life expectancy’ actually is – that, for example, the life expectancy of a 65-year-old may be greater than that of a 20-year-old. Or by looking at what the authors of the paper (based, it should be noted, on data gathered in the late 1980s and early 1990s) whose findings on the life expectancy of gay men you hover around actually have to say. The full article can be found at http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499 –
I would also point out that the life expectancy of black men in both the UK and US is significantly less than that of the male population as a whole. People of Afro-Carribean origins have a much higher rate of certain diseases, most notably sickle-cell anaemia, than the population at large. Do you feel that there should therefore be official discrimination against black people?
Yes – gay life expectancy is improving, for well-documented reasons, thanks to the medical ppl who have worked to counter the inherent risks of their lifestyle.
It is still, given the above figures, presumably appreciably below heterosexual life expectancy.
The black-people thing is a separate matter. There are no lifestyle considerations here, therefore changing their lifestyle would not necessarily produce any difference. This is very different from the situation with the homosexual community.
they can’t change their lifestyle Christopher….. they’re gay…….
That is exactly the question. If a society preaches that point of view, those tempted in that direction will find it nearly impossible to resist. Just like if people preached that heterosexual promiscuity was more beneficial than abstinence, the number of promiscuous would rocket, and the number of those feeling able to resist would drop. A lot of it is about society and social pressures: what is preached to be normal in a given society.
Bear in mind that internet search engines prove conclusively that there are millions of people who are (according to your presuppositions) irredeemably paedophile. It is frequently said (maybe accurately) that they find it extremely difficult to change. Yet you are saying that the mere fact that someone has a strong sexual ‘orientation’ demonstrates that that orientation is ok. The above example shows that it demonstrates nothing of the kind.
Consider drug abusers. They too are engaged in a lifestyle which will knock (on average) years off their lives. They find it at least as difficult to change or abstain as do homosexual people.
Would you argue that it is best if the drug-abusers abstain and the homosexuals do not? There would be no consistency in that point-of-view.