i cant handle when the debate is conducted from
such bigoted perspectives on both sides, it is degrading and
dehumanising. i thought the guardian was above this news of the world
approach to discussion. polarising and
ridiculing wont sort out the debate within the church. the a/bish has
clearly had to make decisions under pressure from some sources, but just
making decisions due to pressure from the press wont make it make
anymore wise and just decisions.
what worries me is not the actual
issues, although they have big consequences for a number of people, it's
the question of how we as the christian communions of various flavours
are handling the debate and it strikes me that we are not acting like
grown ups on either side. i want to vomit when i see how the
creation-evolution debate has been polarised to such ridiculous
extremes. what a stupid way of dealing with things : playing
one-upmanship rather than looking into the issues and the scriptures in a
loving or wise way.
for various reasons i ended up cut off from what
was going on for a number of years and i have come back to it, and am
appalled by some of what i'm seeing. we have at our fingertips the
possibility for all sides to read and understand where other sides are
coming from and nearly instant access to each other to talk to each
other and talk these things through. but instead we are acting like we
are waving placards at each other and having to shout and still not be
heard. we christians think we're so clever but we cant even talk to each
other or agree to differ on some of the non-essentials. i was going to
say mercifully christ isnt in his grave or he would be turning in it,
but i think he's along side people on both sides of these debates
weeping with them. and the reflection he had about the pharisees is
still just as appropriate today. i dont think brood of vipers was
referring to our expression you poisonous snake, but i think a nest of
tiny little snakes is more like you can of worms - twisting around
getting in knots with each other.
what on earth would Jesus do ?
he
would go to lunch with people on both sides i suppose ? he wouldnt
compromise his beliefs - one of the principal of which is treating
people like human beings even if they have to admit they've been doing
things wrong and completely transform their lives. (but haven't all of
us had to do that. when meeting with Jesus we want to.) my contact with
"gays" has so far been entirely positive but my contact with the "gay
scene" has been entirely negative. i cant wholeheartedly agree with
either side of the "argument" and i cant condone how many people on each
side of the argument are talking about each other. i dont think i
expressed that very well in my letter to graham. i think the group who
go to gay pride to hug gays and apologise for how they are treated is
great. i dont think that is sufficient grounds for changing church
policy about marriage tho. it should be the grounds for changing how the
church treats people who are gay full stop. as with ALL the other
misunderstood and overlooked groups. then a thoughtful debate on both
sides about how to deal with certain issues. we dont appear to function
like that.
but i see some of the most thoughtful and kind and open
christian leaders being pushed and manipulated into a hole where they
end up having to "take a stand" - stupid stupid stupid shit situation.
shit shit shit. i sent you my reactions to the debate cos i know you're
very involved in showing care and acceptance to the gay community which
i am totally in agreement with. it upsets me greatly that people on
the extremes will push you and the nice people with you to be for or
anti this or that without allowing you the space to have "yes but"
opinions and are instrumentalising nice people on both sides of the
debate. stupid shit situation.
i have listened to a lot of radio while i
have had to be horizontal and although i have no doubts as to the
sincerity of the gay christian community or lots of so called "bible
believers" i'm afraid i dont trust the different parties of the
homophobic or the gay pride lobby as far as i could throw any of them
and they're both trying to draw people in or character assassinate those
who they cant get in. i find it very worrying. we are being drawn into
traps to serve other people's agendas. do take care. what you're doing
is great. just be careful. the way to train a child soldier is to get
him to kill his own parents. the way other groups enforce loyalty is to
make people take steps they would not want to make against their own kin
so they have no choice but to stick with them. however stupid "the
church" can be is it's not our real enemy. love from liz x
I appreciated Steve Chalke's measured tones in this debate. Care for others was his guiding principle and I think that is a very good point. I think your analysis of communication being like waving placards at each other spot on, so true! We don't often communicate as a church in a civilised way and it is a crying shame.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.oasisuk.org/inclusionresources/Articles/MOIabridged
ReplyDeleteHere's the thing though, as long as Christians lie and say that there is something wrong with being gay - they are digging themselves in a hole and showing how bigoted they truly are, in the Internet age, where everything is recorded. Where it's harder to deny that the movement working to deny gay people equal rights in the West was anything but Christian.
ReplyDeleteDear Jessica, I'm not lying, I'm telling you the truth that in my opinion there is something wrong with all sorts of behaviours. Man on man relationships is a relatively minor theme in the bible. Not caring for the poor, abusing children and women, refusing legal rights to foreigners and slaves, not paying someone who has done a job for you ie treating others in a way that you wouldn't want to be treated yourself - including taking what doesn't belong to you ie someone else's belongings, partner, life, etc : these are all very strong themes. The point I was trying to make above is that I feel that, what ever the issues, Christians should be discussing in a more healthy and contructive way and looking for dynamic resolutions to our differences of opinion rather than legalistic or manipulative pressurising in the press.
DeleteWell, let's see. The Bible actually says that you can abuse women and children... pretty regularly in fact. It makes statements that command tolerance for abuse, as well as making some abuse mandatory. The Bible's way of interacting with your fellow man is so screwed up. If the author of the Bible were alive today, he would be sitting in prison next to Charles Manson.
DeleteNot just that but the Bible actually tells you how hard you can beat your slaves. Apparently, you can only beat your slaves hard enough so they can get up within the first three days after being beaten. (Exodus 21:20-21) Plus, it describes how you can sell your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7-11) and Jesus even reaffirms the practice (Luke 12:47-48).
I say this because even though legalism is the sign of a warped mind - the alternative is cherry picking, because you live in a Westernized nation where, if you did half of what the Bible says you could do - well, not you because you are a woman and the Bible is pretty fucked up when it comes to women - you would probably wind up in the slammer.
Not sure about it saying you can abuse women and children, you don't go into details there and I can't find any references that allow that.
DeleteI do know that one of the reasons they got punished and sent into exile in Babylon in the OT was for not looking after the needy, fatherless and women with no one else to care for them, and foreigners - a megga theme repeated in Isaiah and Amos and Jeremaiah and other of the prophets. Under the original law a woman could also divorce a man if he wasn't looking after her right.
Have you actually read the passages you quote ? If you read the whole of Exodus 21 I think you'll find it's about treating bond slaves right. There are also the laws that forbid vengeance and vendetta by saying when a simple scrap that gives just bruises should be ignored and what injury entitles the victim to compensation. The slave can be beaten it's true, but anything that means they're off work for more than 2 or 3 days means the slave goes free - including the loss of a tooth or an eye. I wish the so called christians in the southern states had read that chapter.
The girl being sold sounds terrible to us, well it is, but these laws give her legal rights. She was probably some sort of concubine but she was to have the same rights as a wife so I don't know if slave is quite the right word. To my knowledge very few of the women who have been sold or who have sold themselves to be sex workers or cheap household or factory labour the world over have anything like as many rights as those girls were given.
The same passage also insists that a male slave has to be allowed to go free after 6 years and if the slave wants to he can insist that the master give him a job for life ! It also specifies the death sentence for kidnap - ie no slave trading. Slavery was a bond to pay off debt by work for those who can't afford to pay back what they owe - it's in lieu of prison and on the whole may well be more humane. I think you have to be pretty twisted to see all this as abusive for slaves - it seems to give them quite a lot of rights.
I don't think you can have read Luke 12 either. It's about a household manager who is left in charge of the work force while the master is absent. Trips could be very long when transport was difficult. The maitre domo beats and abuses the other employees and does no work even though he knows exactly what his master's instructions were. The employer gets back and the man will be severely punished. The next sentence says, however, that the junior employee who hadn't had his instructions directly from the master so didn't know what he should have been doing will only have a mild punishment for having been lazy.
We don't like corporal punishment in our society, with many good reasons, but imprisonment is not neccessarily more humane. These instructions mean that punishment is limited (a principle which it would have been good for almost all English feudal lords to have stuck to) and that it's always fair, not random - eg William the Conqueror laid waste the whole of the north of England because some barons wouldn't bow down to him - every man woman child and animal was killed or starved. Most of them were peasants and had no say over their loyalties and had no rights of any description.
I'm happy to discuss but please would you check you facts. Try www.biblegateway.com to find the Bible in lots of different translations.
It's funny you say that you're not sure about the Bible saying you can abuse women and children - after all, the Bible advocates stoning children who are disobedient (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), .
DeleteDo you have any evidence for this claim?
Actually, I have. And the fact thet Exodus 21 deals with slaves and reaffirms your right to own slaves, which is wrong in and of itself. Plus, last I checked, it looks like slave masters can use wives and children as a means to keep a slave around for life. Also, women sold into slavery do not get to go free as male slaves do. The slave cannot go free unless the master "breaks the eye" or "knocks out the tooth", does not say anything about any other injury, so your interpretation of this passage to make this passage sound better simply does not wash. Where are these laws that entitle the victim to compensation, pray tell? I'm not seeing them in your evil book that justifies slavery. Plus, they were as much a Christian as any other Christian, including the ones that oppose equal rights for gays or the ones that burned Jews and gay in the Holocaust. Last I checked, keeping slaves is not treating them right... so your claim that it's "about treating bond slaves right" also does not wash. Plus, it does not just talk about bond slaves but slaves in general.
If she is being sold, as property, she is a slave, so yes - slave is the right word. What rights are these female slaves being given that somehow makes slavery okay? No, slavery was not just a bond to pay off debt for work, the Hebrew armies were told by Moses that they can take young, unmarried women and girls as spoils of war (Numbers 31:17-18). Plus, what example is there in the Bible of a woman who sold herself into slavery? That's one example of slavery that wasn't to pay off debts - it was simply taking people as spoils of a war. No, slavery is not humane, no matter how much you Christians want to explain away the evil of the Bible. I cannot believe I have to tell people thot slavery is not okay, it truly perplexes me! So, am I twisted to also see the Confederacy as being a country based on inhumane Christian practices? Or how about human trafficking today, is that "more humane" then prison? I'm am floored, that Christians, instead of saying that yes, it is screwed up that the Bible endorses and codifies slavery, but they also go a step further and say that it is not abusive! Owning another human being is, in fact, abusive - no matter how you want to spin it to better sell the evil of your religion. Slavery takes away rights, it does not grant rights.
Have you read Luke 12? What justification is there to beat another human being for not doing what you say? In what world is that okay? It's not fair nor is it humane, it allows people to beat other people for not doing what they say. How the hell is that humane? Plus, just because someone has done worse, that does not mean that you are doing right by holding slaves and beating slaves!
Why don't you check your facts? Why do you think slavery is moral?
I don't think slavery is moral per se. We have a problem here with vocabulary because the OT concept of working as a bond slave to pay off debts for a time limited period as defined by a court, is not at all the same as the concept of kidnapping people from another culture and forcing them to work for free with no legal rights for the rest of their lives.
ReplyDeleteThere are some things in the old testament that I would not advocate necessarily in our society, but I can see that at the time The Law made a pretty good base line for founding a society if applied correctly. Yes, it allows for corporal punishment, but it insists on justice and gives rights and dignity to ppl who in most societies do not have any. Some of the punishments sound harsh, but when applied within a family based relatively stable community the more extreme ones were very rarely applied in practice, but provide a safety net for dealing with occasional dramas. Without some rule of law it just becomes the biggest and strongest always wins like in the Wild West or the law of perpetual vendetta like in Romeo and Juliet.
If we compare like with like I think the Hebrew Law is as coherent and wise as anything else available at the time, and to me still stands as a useful model for creating social stability and mutual respect. What I don't like, I very very don't like is when it's read as odd bits here and there that are supposed to act as some sort of mystical recipe to justify our behaviours - where as it's meant to be read and applied as a whole. In a context where the guiding rule is treat others the way you'd want to be treated yourself, the ultimate sanctions are rarely needed. In comparison to how Romans took and treated their slaves for example, or the Eyptians or even for that matter how some modern employers treat their workers, the obligation to give every person and every animal a complete day off everyweek, paid, is still pretty revolutionary. When King Solomon broke this rule and used forced slave labour (not the bond slave sort) to build the temple it resulted in the break up of the kingdom into Israel and Judah. Again when they started to abuse the weak and poor in society it ended up in the Babylonian captivity. It comes across in lots of the prophetic words that were given leading up to that - if you bully others you'll get given over to even bigger bullies for a while to see how you like it. The people who had been bullied, ie the very poor, were not taken away by the Babylonian invaders but were left to have to land to themselves for the best part of 70 years, that's nearly 2 generations - ie long enough for the original perpetrators to have died out. The law applies even to those who are supposed to be upholding the law if they fail in doing it. That's the ideal, the model.
So, either you do think slavery is moral or you don't but you don't want to admit that the Bible is immoral. Look, it does not matter what the reason is for taking a slave, slavery is slavery. Tell me, why are you trying so desperately hard to justify slavery?
DeleteSo, how was slavery a "pretty good baseline"... By your logic, wouldn't the Confederate States of America have been better than the USA, because the USA was going to go against "god's word" instead of protecting these slave owners' Biblical right to keep, beat and torture their slaves? The Bible does not insist on justice - if a man rapes an unmarried woman in a society that strongly adheres to the Bible, the rapist must pay the father fifty shekels for the girl and then she is forced to marry him! (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) If a married woman is raped, she could be stoned to death if she does not scream loud enough. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24) Futhermore, if a woman is found not to be a virgin on her wedding night, either the parents have to prove her virginity or she is taken to the door of her father's house and the men of the city will stone her to death. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21) If you "curse the king", you will be stoned to death... (1 Kings 21:10) not even Thailand's lèse majesté laws are that hard core!
... But by all means, please tell me how exactly "the Law" made a pretty good baseline for founding a society if applied correctly? Please tell me how exactly it insists on justice and gives rights and dignity to those who don't have any? Not only are the punishments harsh, they are lethal and increadibly unjust. Here is the things though - the harsh punishments were set in stone, it does not matter if it happened infrequently, the fact that this is the response by the people who adhere to "the Law" makes me wonder if they aren't just mentally ill people who really hate women. Nothing could be less safe than a society that follows this law. While I agree that some rule of law is necessary to avoid society falling into chaos, this is simply responding to chaos and madness with more chaos and madness! In this society, the deck is incredibly unfairly stacked against gays, women and foreigners.
For anything available at the time, I would have to agree - it is no less barbaric and evil as any other law at the time. But considering the claim that this law was inspired by a god who is supposedly infinitely wise and infinitely benevolent and infinitely omnipotent, don't you think he would have stopped Moses and said something like "Woah cowboy, what the hell are you doing?" because at the very least, he would see that this law is incredibly evil and would be incongruent with the claims that he is an omnipotent god. The Hebrew Law only stands as a model for creating social stability and mutual respect - as what *not* to do. It paints a picture of a very unjust, evil society that is incredibly misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic and downright evil. It puts people to death over superstition and does not allow for religious tolerance. I may not like the US - but I can at least acknowledge that even US law, as unjust as it is, does not hold a candle to the injustices of the Bible!
Context is another argument Christians love to use (I've been at this long enough to be able to make bingo cards of your arguments...) but I want to ask - what context makes it okay for an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god to allow slavery? Or allow men to sell their daughters into slavery? Or to force a woman to marry her rapist if she is unmarried? Or to stone a woman to death if she is raped because she didn't scream loud enough? What context does it make it okay to stone women who aren't virgins who get married? Or stoning people to death when they "curse the king"? Is there a context that makes any of these things okay... or it is simply that you see that your Bible is immoral and instead of acknowledging it, you try to tell me that there is some sort of context in which any of these laws are okay or just?
DeleteIt does not matter if "the ultimate sanctions" are rarely needed or not - to quote Martin Luther King, Jr. "A threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". The different here is that the Hebrews claim to worship the one true god who is supposedly omnibenevolent and omnipotent... so why is their behaviour akin to the Romans and the Egyptians. It is almost as if the law was not divinely inspired but rather, created whole cloth by a group of men who already invented the god myth. Are you saying that the behaviour of the god of the Bible is no more or less moral than the men who claimed to follow and communicate with him back in the bible days? How did King Solomon break the rule? It seems pretty clear that the rule allowed for slavery, not just bond slavery (as you Christians love to claim to try to get away from the fact that the Hebrew Law is incredibly immoral and unjust).
In short, your ideal sucks and is inhumane. Q.E.D.
The OT records the "good bits" of the Jewish history AND the "bad bits".
ReplyDeleteIt's all there to be learned from but not necessarily copied. The New testament clearly displaces some of the old laws including most food hygene rules and all religious rituals. The only ritual that's explicitly retained is the Passover which was always a family meal held in a home and not a temple practice anyway. Jesus talks a lot about worker/employer relationships and practices and if you read it all I think you'll find that he expects very high standards of employers/masters and when he tells stories about God as a master/employer he portrays him as bending over backwards to be fair and merciful, but not stupid.
I've found it interesting having this discussion with you, Jessica, but I shall have to draw this particular part of it to a close for the moment as I feel we're going round in circles on this subject. If you would like to chat about anything else, please feel free. This blog post was originally my reaction to people "shouting at each other" and not treating each others views respectfully and politely. I don't expect everyone to agree, in fact I hope we don't otherwise we'd be part of a sect with no thinking allowed which I for one would hate. I'm glad you expressed your view and that has enabled me to further explain my standpoints on some issues. Liz x
Yes, so are you saying that the Law is one of the "Bad bits"?
DeleteYes, but to emulate the law and to try to claim that it was moral is to ignore the atrocities that it commanded. The New Testament does not displace any of the law... do you not read your Bible? Jesus clearly says in Matthew 5:18 - not one jot or tittle will pass from the Law until ALL is accomplished. Jesus is still 1,940 years late to his own "second coming" (which, let's face it, even if you do believe the story - that's a pretty big hint that he ain't coming back). Not only that, but Jesus failed to meet the Jewish requirements for the Messiah, which are outlined pretty clearly. I would refer you to Jews for Judaism, a group of Jews that fight back against Jews for Jesus. They have a pretty big handbook of why these people, who believe a very similar version of malarkey to yours, don't subscribe to *your* brand of malarkey: http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/documents/booklets/the-jewish-response-to-missionaries-english/
Actually, he commands that slaves should be obedient to their masters. He portrays god as he is - a stupid, evil, vengeful, wrathful monster that is not opposed to changing the rules of the game (the very existence of Christianity proves this) and if this is true, shouldn't all the people in the Abrahamic faiths be a part of the Baha'i faith now? I'm not joking, the Baha'i faith is the latest iteration of the Abrahamic faith, having originated in 1844 with the Báb's declaration of his mission in Shiraz, Iran. It is the newest Abrahamic faith that is a complete branch off the tree. Mormonism isn't, because it retains it's connections to Christianity - even if it added the Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine & Covenants and the Book of Mormon to the Bible?
I hope one day, you see the light as I did and come to a realization that your religion is evil, immoral and ultimately, untrue. I don't expect everyone to agree with everything I say, but at the very least, I do expect everyone to say the sky is blue when it is... We can have different opinions, but let's agree on the facts.
Actually the sky isn't blue, although it looks to us as if it might be some days.
DeleteI don't agree with you on the things you say are facts. You have your interpretation, that is up to you if you choose to continue to believe what you say.
I don't wish to spend any more time on this discussion. I hope you find something more constructive to do with your time other than going round knocking without anything constructive or helpful to offer in it's place. I could also wish that you will be more polite in how you express yourself. Also more thoughtful in how you express your antagonism to my views. This is my blog and I express my opinions. I may or may not be wrong, I don't know, but I have spent many years thinking about it and the net effects for me and many that I know have been very positive. I've seen nothing in your arguments and particularly not in the way you state them that attracts me to your point of view. Thank you for coming. This thread is now closed.