Saturday
05Jul2008
CHURCH OF IRELAND TO OUTLAW THE BIBLE?
Saturday, July 5, 2008 at 12:16PM I read that the Church of Ireland Primate Alan Harper has reignited a simmering controversy after suggesting that scientific breakthroughs may mean homosexual relationships are sanctioned by the Church. Archbishop Harper said that if it can be biologically proven that homosexuality is "natural" then the Church must reconsider "what may be a new status for homosexual relationships". What, other than sinners? How theologically challenging!
On reflection though -great idea Archbishop. I think that institutionalising sodomy would be very progressive. But why stop there? Isn't it time we moved on from those restrictive Ten Commandments - just like the Church of Ireland has moved on from those pesky 37 Articles of Faith clerics are supposed to espouse? I've LONG since given up on this sinful church into which I was born and Harper's prattle is more of a death rattle for a once Christian but now openly apostate Church. Go the whole hog and ban the Bible, you KNOW it makes sense.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (99)
Homosexualty is not a sin. Homosexual acts are. But all sins are natural and we all sin. The real issue in admitting it.
Homosexuality is not a sin!
For some people homosexuality is natural. The problem here is not with homosexuals but on those who think Christianity should be an exclusive club for hertrosexuals. For some it will always be exclusive - so keep out the gays - the unwed mums - women in positions of authority - even Chinese dragons.
Human nature is diverse, if the churches cannot embrace it then they'll die out. It's time to get inclusive.
"Human nature is diverse, if the churches cannot embrace it then they'll die out. It's time to get inclusive."
It doesn't seem to be hindering the "church" of Islam!
Thanks for opening up the comments David. I hadn't realized until just now that you had done so. Your Rules of Engagement on the side-bar still specify registration.
Matt - Islam is an exclusive club too. The same comment could be made about them.
Matt,
Thanks - must update them!
test
Existing registered users now have the choice of commenting with or without logging
There actually is an advantage to not logging in- if the speaker has their own website, a reader will be able to see a link to that website by clicking onto the speaker's name.
But if you post a comment as a registered user, you get that lovely 14 minute "grace period" in order to amend a comment just made--one of the best features I've seen on any site.
Doesn't the clerical fascination with homosexuality give one pause? I mean Jesus hardly seemed to be preoccupied with it (and he went around with a bunch of guys). Surely there are more pressing matters in the world and more pressing matters of faith to occupy themselves with.
As Jesus very substantially adhered to the norms of the Old Testament and of the society of whom he was a part, perhaps there was no need to comment on homosexuality.
If he wanted to upend the standards of Leviticus etc on homosexuality he was in a fine position to do so, but never did.
Some Christians of today are pushing an agenda that Christ never did, on an issue that is not "modern" at all but which is as old as humanity itself. They must be much more moral and intelligent than Christ, who was presumably not "progressive" enough to have beat the drum with this thing.
If he wanted to upend the standards of Leviticus etc on homosexuality he was in a fine position to do so, but never did.
What if someone had put to him that it can be biologically proven that homosexuality is natural?
In those days 'natural' was between a man and a woman because right at the beginning of the bible it states to go forth and multiply. But if now it is established that sex between same sex couples is natural to them, biologically predetermined isn't it right for the Anglicans to reflect on that?
Isn't that the evoloution of the church? Can't christianity like ideology evolve? Didn't Adams evolve republicanism or are his new developments on it an abomination to 'true republicanism', a straying away from core principles? Now the Anglicans are in the same position. The development of republicanism as an ideology allowed things to move on, and develop. It's the same with the church. All the christian churches will need to reflect on this at some stage, and either develop or lose the people who are affected by this.
All Harper is saying is that the church needs to take this into consideration and then act on it. Isn't the central message of christianity love? If so why should it outlaw love for same sex couples?
--What if someone had put to him that it can be biologically proven that homosexuality is natural?--
Jesus presumably had a fair knowledge of the nature of things himself, so unless you think of him as a middle eastern philosopher and not the son of God, the "science" spoken of here is going to be a politicized black hole.
Until a few decades ago, the American psychiatrists regarded homosexuality as a mental disorder. After a sustained political campaign,they reversed course. Now apparently its all wonderful, as normal as left handedness.
Any such study is now going to come out with a validation of homosexual normality, because that is the solution that an academic environment will demand. Anyone who even presents the theory that it is abnormal or god help us wrong will be condemned as a bigot,and his career will suffer.
This Harper has already made up his mind. He now only wants some "facts" to back up a conclusion already reached.
if they can find a genetic link in those that commit murder will the church condone that also?
Henry nailed it pretty good with:Homosexualty is not a sin. Homosexual acts are. But all sins are natural and we all sin. The real issue in admitting it.
The only thing I would add is if you are a catholic I'm not a 100% on all other christian religions but you also have to ask for forgiveness
an add on about using register vs non. I prefer to use the registered version because the non makes me do a scrambled letter verification after every comment
Jesus presumably had a fair knowledge of the nature of things himself,
He probably did,but that is not the issue here.
as a man of his times in all those conversations with other men, and his challenging of their ideas - my questiion still has merit. If during those discussions/debates someone had put to him that homosexuality was biologically pre-determined would he have considered it and reflected on it and acted on it? My answer is yes.
Which is what the anglicans are doing, and others will have to follow.
Any such study is now going to come out with a validation of homosexual normality, because that is the solution that an academic environment will demand. Anyone who even presents e theory that it is abnormal or god help us wrong will be condemned as a bigot,and his career will suffer.
Thats a different argument altogether.
Yes, but he was not just a "man of his times", he was the son of God if you believe that. He was a revolutionary actor who challenged wrong ideas and suppositions in many ways.
There's not the slightest evidence that he thought the proscriptions against homosexuality were wrong in any way, and its not honest to try to say 2000 years later than he didn't know what he was talking about ( or not talking about ), that he was just some dumb Palestinian who didn't have the benefit of benefit of some fancy, preordained, Harvard study in 2008.
Either he was the son of God or he was a bloke with an opinion no better or worse than yours or mine. Ifs fine with me if you take the latter opinion, but you absolutely cannot do so and pretend to be Christian. Cannot be done.
Henry nailed it pretty good with:Homosexualty is not a sin. Homosexual acts are. But all sins are natural and we all sin. The real issue in admitting it.
Thats a straw man Troll. Take a homosexual couple living openly in the community, by their very presence together they are proclaiming that they are living in a same sex relationship.
The Bible puts homosexuals in the same category as whores, outside of marriage and into the illicit sex category. Is sex with a mistress outside of marriage a sin - according to the bible it is absolutely a sin, but is it unnatural? No.
According to the bible any sex outside of marriage is a sin, but is it unnatural? No.
Yes, but he was not just a "man of his times", he was the son of God if you believe that.
He was both. Otherwise why did he call himself the son of man.
--The Bible puts homosexuals in the same category as whores, outside of marriage and into the illicit sex category. --
Then why is there any discussion about "gay ministers" or any pretense given to the idea that this behavior is not condemned by Christianity,when it so clearly is?
Then why is there any discussion about "gay ministers" or any pretense given to the idea that this behavior is not condemned by Christianity,when it so clearly is?
To date homosexuality is condemned butthere is a debate going on about homosexuality, which involves gay ministers.
"If during those discussions/debates someone had put to him that homosexuality was biologically pre-determined would he have considered it and reflected on it and acted on it? My answer is yes.
Which is what the anglicans are doing, and others will have to follow."
Which is why the Anglicans are in such trouble within their own Communion.
If the purpose of sex/sexual relations in nature is to procreate, then homosexuality is unnatural. The teachings of the Catholic Church are that the homosexual act is wrong and sinful. You disagree - that is your perogative. I believe that the Church needs to stick to it's core beliefs to survive. The main reason that the Christian Churchs in the West are losing followers is because of the relative prosperity and prolonged Peace.
As mentioned above, what if a gene for murder is found or a gene for paedophilia. Will society then have to accept these acts as natural?
What two concenting adults do in privacy within the Law is their own business. I don't have to agree with it.
The main reason that the Christian Churchs in the West are losing followers is because of the relative prosperity and prolonged Peace
Then why does the church need to stick to its core principles to survive? Will the church survive because of its core principles, or will it survive better when the credit crunch bites hard?
If the purpose of sex/sexual relations in nature is to procreate, then homosexuality is unnatural.
Who said the purpose of sexual relations was to procreate. Do you enjoy sex? But thats not its purpose, its purpose is to procreate, hence it taught women to lie on their backs and think of England.
Procreation is one purpose for sex, but I'm sure we could think of a few others.
The church also tells you the reason for marriage is procreation, is that all marriage is - for procreation. No. Companionship, love etc. Why deny that committment to same sex couples.
Ahem:
John Milton:
Let me give you a little inside information about God.
God likes to watch. He's a prankster.
Think about it.
He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition.
It's the goof of all time.
Look but don't touch.
Touch, but don't taste.
Taste, don't swallow.
Ahaha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is he doing?
He's laughin' His sick, fuckin' ass off!
He's a tight-ass!
He's a SADIST!
He's an absentee landlord!
Worship that?
NEVER!
well said Matt
Matt,
"If the purpose of sex/sexual relations in nature is to procreate"
It isn't. Heterosexual humans clearly have sex for all sorts of other purposes. And for Bonobo chimps sex means everything from 'hello' to 'how about dinner?'.
The purpose of sex/sexual relations in nature is to procreate. That is correct. You Gosh used the word natural (as in nature) so I have picked you up on it.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. If two individuals of the same sex wish to enter into a civil/legal agreement/arrangement that is their right and I am fully supportive of this. However, if the Church does not wish to bless this union that's also fine by me.
Live and let live.
Matt,
"The purpose of sex/sexual relations in nature is to procreate. That is correct."
No it isn't. And it is a silly argument anyway. The purpose of disease in nature is also reproduction.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. If two individuals of the same sex wish to enter into a civil/legal agreement/arrangement that is their right and I am fully supportive of this. However, if the Church does not wish to bless this union that's also fine by me.
That maybe so, but its not all about you. If two committed Christian gay men want the blessing of the Church why should they be told no? Why should your view and the ascendant elite hold sway within the church.
Matt
That's my positon too. The democracy must be free to make any law it chooses to make and if a majority choose to allow a civil wedding for gay couples that's fine with me. I could not attend such an event and the Church must be free to proclaim Christian marriage as a permanent union between a man and a woman.
Henry94
I remember an elderly relative who absolutely refused to attend a civil wedding because the bride had been married before. It was contrary to her beliefs in catholic Ireland. Would that also be your position?
"I remember an elderly relative who absolutely refused to attend a civil wedding because the bride had been married before. It was contrary to her beliefs in catholic Ireland. Would that also be your position?"
It was her absolute right. You may not agree with it but it's your problem.
Matt, the point I was making was that a generation ago, the issue was divorce. Not anymore.
Things have moved on. It will be the same for same sex couples.
"Things have moved on. It will be the same for same sex couples."
Maybe it will, but this is now. People are entitled to their opinions and they must be respected, within reason.
I am advocating tolerance, you are not!
Gosh!
Funnily enough I have been invited to such a thing just this week. A friend is going to have a civil ceremony with a divorced woman.
I can't attend anything purporting to be a marriage for the while her husband is alive. However I would be more inclined to be unavoidably out of town on the day than to inflict my opinion on them when I haven't been asked for it.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Timeless-0-David-Vance/dp/3867870160/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215303656&sr=1-2
I was looking on Amazon for your book David, and noticed a number of other books by a Mr David Vance. You wouldn't happen to like Sports Massages, would you David?
Now that you mention it Seamus, David is you book available in Waterstones? I have a £20 christmas voucher burning a hole in my briches.
David, I think you're talking about two different topics all rolled up in church doctrine, tradition and sex.
Sodomy is defined as anal, oral or bestial sex. Plenty of married heterosexual couples engage in the first two - the third is just wrong on a whole host of gross levels. There are millions of church married average folks committing strange consensual acts nowadays that the biblical authors might find pretty appalling and definitely sinful.
The church, any church, should not feel pressured by societal changes or current fashions to abandon their fundamental traditions regarding marriage. They are under no obligation to conduct, condone or facilitate gay marriage and I find it rather odd that some are moving in that direction.
I think we will see gay civil marriage normalized over the next ten to twenty years, but the churches don't have to embrace that phenomenon and shouldn't feel pressured to do so. Their decisions to hold to Biblical traditions should be respected.
Male homosexuality can never be "natural". A simply study of the sexual organs involved clearly show that homosexual intercourse is totally unnatural - hence the use of lubricants etc. I do not wish to be anymore explicit but this demonstrates that male homosexuality is totally unnatural
Ken,
"Male homosexuality can never be "natural". A simply study of the sexual organs involved clearly show that homosexual intercourse is totally unnatural - hence the use of lubricants etc."
Medical intervention can never be "natural". A simple study of the diseases involved clearly shows that medical intervention is totally unnatural - hence the use of drugs and surgery etc.
Meanwhile a simple study of other species shows that homosexuality is natural. Female bonobo chimps greet each other with homosexual acts. Not a lubricant in sight. It must be all that sex education they get.
A simple study of the diseases involved clearly shows that medical intervention is totally unnatural
I was not referring to homosexuality as a disease!! i was making the point that heterosesxual intercourse is facilitated by natural lubricity in each of the organs involved. In other words men and women are created for heterosexual relations. The fact that homosexuals need lubrication would indicate that the human body was not made for that type of relationship.
If one delves further and I have no wish to be too explicit, the membranes in female organ is made to suit heterosexual intercourse, where as the same cannot be said of homosexual relations. In any event, how can an organ used for the disposal of human waste from the body and totally unrelated to procreation, be classed as a "sexual organ?" Quite revolting really.
Ken,
"I was not referring to homosexuality as a disease!! "
Sigh. I didn't say you were. The point is only that whether something is natural or not is irrelevant. Many natural things are generally regarded as bad (disease, death), and many unnatural things are generally regarded as good (medicine, surgery).
You've also missed daphne's point which is that many heterosexuals also engage in anal intercourse. So unless you wish to argue that you're OK with lesbianism, same sex kissing, male on male oral sex, etc then maybe you should find a better argument.
Sorry Frank, the whole basis of Alan Harpur's argument is whether homosexuality is a natural act.The crucial point is whether homosexuality is a natural or abnormal activity. Lesbianism is not natural as they require man made devices to facilitate their union. Anal sex, whether male on male or male on female is just as unnatural as are the other perversions you mention.
You cannot get past the point that heterosexual sex is perfectly natural as the human body was made and intended for it. Homosexuals, cannot say that.
Personally, what two consenting adults do in private is a matter for them, but their agenda is to place their activity on par with heterosexuality.
We see the so-called "gay" clergy, totally obsessed with advancing homosexuality rather than concentrating on the calling which they allege they have.Black crows can never be white.
I think my argument is a better one than suggesting medical intervention is equivalent to the use of a plastic penis!
Ken,
"Lesbianism is not natural as they require man made devices to facilitate their union"
You need to get out more.
"You cannot get past the point that heterosexual sex is perfectly natural as the human body was made and intended for it."
The human body isn't made or intended for anything. But this means that celibacy is an abomination too, yes?
"Homosexuals, cannot say that."
Sure they could. What's that prostate gland doing there?
"The human body isn't made or intended for anything."
Now we are descending into the ridiculous. None are so blind.... The human body is formed in the way it is to perform many tasks and is equipped for survival and reproduction. Is it really I that needs to get out more, although i do confess that my knowledge of lesbianism is, happily, rather vague.
Celibacy is something which some people chose and are perfectly entitled to do so. That does not mean to say they are not natural heterosexuals - they may have other priorities in life - looking after aged parents for instance. Many people who may have homosexual inclinations chose to remain celibate rather than indulge in an unnatural activity.
To get back to Alan Harpur's theory that if homosexuality is in the genes then so may be other unnatural forms of activity. Paedophilia. Criminality. Serial killing. The Church of Ireland is going to become a rather interesting, if threatening place if Mr. Harpur gets his way. Glad to hear Clive West dismiss his Archibishop as a "false prophet" on radio Ulster this morning.
The homosexual lobby are out to destroy the church and unfortunately Mr. Harpur seems to be a willing accomplice.
Ken,
"Celibacy is something which some people chose and are perfectly entitled to do so."
And so they use their body in a different way than it is, according to you, "intended".
"To get back to Alan Harpur's theory that if homosexuality is in the genes then so may be other unnatural forms of activity. Paedophilia. Criminality. Serial killing."
Celibacy! Engineering! Medicine! Living beyond your 30s!
You cannot get past the point that heterosexual sex is perfectly natural as the human body was made and intended for it. Homosexuals, cannot say that.
Women don't need men to reach a climax, nor do men need women, infact a human being doesn't need anybody else and doesn't need to buy a lubricant. How do you account for that if sex is only intended for reproduction? That alone destroys your argument that natural sex is hertrosexual because otherwise you need a lubricant?
Celibacy is something which some people chose and are perfectly entitled to do so.
Why is it natural to chose no sex if the human body is designed for survival based on reproduction. Celibacy then must be unnatural yet sanctioned by the church as Frank says.
The homosexual lobby are out to destroy the church and unfortunately Mr. Harpur seems to be a willing accomplice.
This is not the fault of the homosexual lobby, but the reactionaries who - again - refuse to acknowledge what science reveals. Infact the reactionaries have already held secret talks with the vatican.
I must confess this has been a bit of a learning curve for me. I had some ideas what homosexuals did with their nether regions, but I didn't know they used them for thinking with.
I admire celibates, homosexual or heterosexual, the most of all for they curb their desires for some purpose they feel more important. The homosexual community of course do not understand the meaning of the word restraint as their vulgar parades demonstrate.Then using an orifice filled with excrement for sexual purposes is not necessarily the height of refinement.
They do not seem to like the pairing of heterosexuality and procreation . No one has told them that women have ovaries and men have testicles.
The spend their lives trying to live a lie that would tell them what they do is normal. "Straight is great". Always was and always will be the case.
As for Mr. Harpur, he has ended any effective ministry he may have had. Rectors are queueing up to ban him from their churches. Even humble curates, with no thought for their own advancement are denouncing him. Even some homosexuals are feeling that he has unnecessarily created a backlash against them. I wonder with what part of his anatomy he thinks?
The homosexual community of course do not understand the meaning of the word restraint as their vulgar parades demonstrate.
You need to be very careful at characterising a whole community like that. That is why Iris Robinson got into the controversy she did. What you have stated is prejudice and not facts for debate.