Lord Mackay of the Scottish Bible Society (SBS): The Bible in Scots Law
I simply found this one bizarre and tantamount to communicating the message that in general Judges and law courts are crap and should look to the Bible to improve.
Do remember that it wasn’t all that long ago that Lord Carey along with a certain Christian legal group were making demands for ‘unfriendly’ judges to stand down in favour of more Christian ‘friendly’ judges.
Thousands of Bibles are being sent to Scottish law courts and judges as part of a campaign urging them to reflect on the Christian virtues of justice and mercy.
But Terry Sanderson, head of the National Secular Society, blasted the scheme saying it “could put the Sharia laws of the Middle East to shame”.
The initiative has been launched by the Scottish Bible Society (SBS) and it is backed by one of Scotland’s most respected legal figures, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
Lord Mackay, a former Lord Chancellor and Lord Advocate of Scotland, wants to highlight the Bible as the “foundational source book for Scotland’s legal system.”
The SBS, of whom Lord Mackay is the honorary president, is also sending an introductory pamphlet to every court in the land.
The pamphlet, entitled The Bible in Scots Law: A Guide for Legal Practitioners, features an introduction by Lord Mackay.
The 83-year-old says: “I believe the teaching of the Bible is vitally important for guidance in daily living for all of us.
“The words and phrases of the 1611 King James version have permeated modern English, and this makes it a valuable book of reference, but the modern version is especially useful in dealing with our day-to-day challenges.
“If we use it in this way, we will soon learn that what it says about human beings is as true today as it was when it was originally written all these years ago.
He added: “The Bible is a unique resource as the foundational source book for Scotland’s legal system.
“The SBS is pleased to have the opportunity to donate a Bible to courts, so that it is readily available for reference in any case which may arise.”
The pamphlet also reminds the courts of the Queen’s acceptance of the Bible as the “Royal Law” during her coronation, and argues that legal professionals should be bound by this.
However, the scheme has angered secularists.
Mr Sanderson said: “What Lord Mackay is proposing could put the Sharia laws of the Middle East to shame.
“He and the SBS make absolutely no concessions to the progress of legal thought over the past two millennia.”
Further media links:
Herald Scotland – Law chief urges Scots courts: consult the Bible in judgments
Express – FORMER LORD CHANCELLOR SAYS ‘USE BIBLE TO JUDGE CROOKS’
August 16th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
“I simply found this one bizarre and tantamount to communicating the message that in general Judges and law courts are crap and should look to the Bible to improve.”
You say that like it’s a bad thing…
August 16th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
The problem is that the courts are not there to uphold the laws of the bible, but the law of the land. I am not sure what bible are trying to do by doing this other than, perhaps, a publicity stunt. I think its another example of the Christian zeitgeist edging towards fundamentalism. The Bible Society would not have done this 10 years ago.
August 16th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
We don’t live in a theonomy Paul.
Also I feel the true purpose of the Scripture is to point us to the reality of Jesus, and only once that is complete, can any real internal change take place.
Certain Christians have been vocally voicing their displeasure over our legal system and view it as biased against them. This has led many to observe that Christians either wish to be above the law of the land, or have segments of this same law tilted in their own favour at the expense of other citizens.
Who would interprete the Scriptures for them? What if they started to use the Old Testament?
It just seems wrong on every level….
August 16th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
The Scottish legal system is corrupt to its very core it needs to be purged and reconstituted as do all the institutions in Scotland.
August 16th, 2010 at 11:17 pm
But shouldn’t we put this in perspective: A retrired Government official who is also a devout Christian uses his position to support the SBS initiative to have Bibles as reference books in Courts. He’s perfectly free ina a secular democracy to do this. It is up to the current incumbents at the Courts to give the matter the consideration it deserves. I expect in all cases these Bbles will just gather dust, but the SBS will be satisfied that they have done a “good” thing.
No big deal. Ironically, if Terry Sanderson had not kicked up a fuss, most of us would never even have heard of the initiative. Another case of the NSS doing Christian Evangelists’ publicity for them. Ironic or what!
August 17th, 2010 at 8:08 am
That’s fair enough Jim…
August 17th, 2010 at 9:02 am
Ah yes, Terry Sanderson, author of such literary gems as The Gay Man’s Kama Sutra and A-Z of Gay Sex – An Erotic Alphabet.
No, I think the Bible is better.
August 17th, 2010 at 9:35 am
Better as a gay sex guide?
Please be clearer about the subject of your sentences!
August 17th, 2010 at 9:43 am
August 17th, 2010 at 9:44 am
British law, historically, has its basis in Christianity, from Alfred the Great on. Encouraging judges to read Bibles will help them understand British law better. Also, particularly in sentencing, judges have discretion. How they apply that is dependent on their understanding of concepts like justice and mercy, and the Bible can help a lot with that.
Also, you assume that a secular democracy is better than a theocracy.
I agree entirely that the Bible is about Jesus, and the key to changing a nation is changing its hearts and minds (worship). But that doesn’t exclude those of judges.
August 17th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Note the hypocrisy when Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill alluded to christian compassion as a prop on releasing the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, remember MacAskill was a lawyer he was saving a rotten legal system from being exposed through al-Megrahi’s appeal.
August 17th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Definitely, Gordon. The Bible tells you not to do it!!
August 17th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Jill,
Surely Terry Sanderson’s books or sexual orientation is not relevant to this discussion. If you do not agree with what Sanderson said then let us know why.
Paul,
It’s questionable to what extent British law is based on Christianity. I would argue that there are common shared ideas, but that these are more to do with common sense and man’s innate sense of morality and fairness. Without the Bble we would still arguably have a similar set of laws.
Do you really believe a theocracy is better than a secular democracy? Would you have Bishops deciding on what is lawful and have us punished for doing anything which did not comply with the Bible? What a scary thought. And it would be going against what makes us British.
Would you want a theocracry even if it meant stoning adulterers, as has literally just happened in a country which the nearest thing to a theocracy.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Goy,
I disagree that the Scottish legal system is rotten. It is admired by many outside Scotland as a model system. Lke any other system it is not perfect, and mistakes are made, but what is it that makes you think it is rotten?
August 17th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
By no means am I saying the British legal system is fully Christian (or ever has been) but the influence is undeniable. The established churches are a big clue.
‘Without the Bible we would still arguably have a similar set of laws.’ – an argument for another place, but as a brief foray, would you describe Sharia law as similar?
Theocracy, at least as I use the term refers to acknowledging that the legal system is based on God’s will. Theocracy as I advocate it is based on the Triune God’s will, as revealed in the Son, Jesus Christ.
However the system is practically set up (eg. established church or not), governors would have an explicit duty to follow the God of the Bible’s will. The church would help them do so.
Democracy is simply a theocracy where demos (the people) are god. Whatever they like, they get. Democracies have brought about punishments as tyrannical as stoning adulterers (eg. Nazi Germany) – theocracies do not have a monopoly in this area.
There are hundreds of further explanations/caveats I need to give but I don’t have the time to write a thesis. I will clarify further if that helps.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Yes, but places that have claimed theocracy have tended to be dictatorships. I am thinking about Geneva. Zwingli had a tendency to be complicit in the drowning of anabaptists.
August 17th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Christendom/theocracy 1.0 had its flaws for sure, but they were by no means confined to Geneva/the Reformers – the alternative Holy Roman Empire was the same. The only places we can fairly compare Geneva with were also theocracies. You could blame some dodgy governance on the theocratic element, or blame it on something else (that it was brand new, had lots of bugs to be fixed, or that killing heretics was the spirit of the age, or they misunderstood how to apply OT laws, etc.). Due to my convictions based on the Bible, I blame it on something else.
August 17th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Jim, I think Terry Sanderson’s sexual proclivities are very relevant. As I have not read his books I cannot vouch for their quality, but they do give a clue to his vested interest in objecting to the Bible. Mr Sanderson might not like the fact that the Bible and the Christian faith has had such an influence on the laws of this nation, but I hardly suppose he can imagine that his own literary efforts would inspire in quite the same way.
One only has to look at the great social reformers of the 19th century to see how, inspired by their faith, they have influenced and shaped many of our laws – William Wilberforce, Lord Shaftesbury, Florence Nightingale, Elizabeth Fry, Josephine Butler – to name but a few. It was the Church that started educating the poor.
A Theocracy is a decidedly unsafe place to be, but it is nonsense to suggest that our liberal and fair laws would have emerged without Christianity. One only has to look at how other kinds of more primitive societies order themselves to see that. We were savages before Christianity came to these isles, and to savages we will return unless the faith is guarded. Humanism takes on quite another meaning to a tribe of cannibals!
It is said that the Christian Church is the only organisation run for the benefit of those who are not its members. There is no question of Christians demanding ‘special treatment’ for themselves. They should not be forced to carry out actions which they do not believe are for the common good.
August 18th, 2010 at 11:23 am
@ Jill: I don’t know if Terry Sanderson is gay, which is what I assume you’re referring to, but I can’t see that as being necessarily connected to his objections to the Bible. After all, there are many gay Christians, gay Christian groups, even gay clergy. You don’t have to be gay to be secular! Or vice versa!
Terry Sanderson is quoted here as head of the National Secular Society, and in that role his statements are not exactly surprising. We do, after all, live a secular society. However I agree with Jim that the courts and judges are unlikely to take a great deal of notice of this initiative. We probably wouldn’t have heard of it until the NSS turned it into a newsworthy controversy.
August 18th, 2010 at 11:54 am
Well said Sophie.
The man’s sexuality is his own business, but that’s fundie evangelicalism for you, generally obsessed with sex and presenting itself as being the persecuted victim. It is enough to turn anyone off Christianity.
From my experience of hardcore fundies, they really believe that this disqualifies a gay person from speaking out about the hypocrisy and bigotry that is espoused by fundie evangelicals and presented by them as God’s word. Us women went through the same thing, and we are only just coming out the other side now.
Thank God for civil secularism otherwise we might now be in some evangelical theocracy, viewed as heretics for declaring that God is love. But then I am a woolley anglo catholic who supports both women Bishops and gay clergy, including practising if they are in a monogamous relationship.
August 18th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
If someone likes doing something that the Bible tells him not to do, that does affect his view of the Bible. Say, if I thought that playing Cricket is fine, good, natural, etc. and the Bible said it wasn’t, that would affect what I said in public about the Bible.
Sanderson’s sexuality is not irrelevant, although you’re quite right that it doesn’t disqualify him from making points. The only problem is that secularism is wrong.
“Thank God for civil secularism otherwise we might now be in some evangelical theocracy, viewed as heretics for declaring that God is love.”
That’s a very strange comment… care to elaborate? Last time, I checked, evangelicals were very happy themselves to say that God is love. Or are you trying to imply that God is love, therefore whatever we choose to call love is perfectly acceptable, regardless of how 1) God has defined love and 2) What he has expressly forbidden? So a love between a man and his sheep would be fair game, for example?
August 18th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Lets reveres this argument. Does my heterosexuality make my view of the bible more relevant or authoritative than someone who is a homosexual ?
If it does then I might be onto a winner here as my heterosexual trump card could help me win a few arguments where my lack of faith is a hindrance.
August 18th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Well, the Bible is clear that we need the Holy Spirit’s help to understand and interpret scripture properly so being a genuine Christian does make someone more authoritative (they are part of the Church, the Kingdom of Priests). Someone pursuing homosex (as opposed to fighting such temptations) is either grieving the Spirit or not part of that Kingdom at all.
That’s not to say that they have nothing to say, nor that they are necessarily wrong. Nevertheless, if we’re going to be Biblical in our answer (which I am seeking to do with all my responses) then there is reason. My point though, is not that Sanderson is gay, but that he’s wrong and making a fool of himself.
August 18th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
So a love between a man and his sheep would be fair game, for example?
Absolutely – read the Gospels. Our Lord loved His sheep, and rejoiced over finding the lost ones.
Paul, care to share what our Lord Jesus Christ says about homosexuality?
August 18th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Phoebs – for sake of clarity I was talking referring to sexual ‘love’ between a man and his (literal) sheep.
Jesus says lots about homosexuality. He is the second person of the Trinity, the Son, he is the incarnate Word of God. The Bible (all 66 books) are inspired by the Spirit (who is in perfect unity with the Son). That includes Romans 1, among other passages.
As for what is recorded in the gospels that Jesus historically spoke on the specific subject of homosexuality, you are right to infer that there is none. However, he did say:
“”You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. ” (Matthew 5:27-8).
You can’t drive a wedge between Jesus and the rest of the Bible. If Jesus was in favour of consensual homosex between committed partners, it’s strange that he never made that clear. Arguments from silence aren’t very convincing.
August 18th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
It’s a bit rich for people to accuse Christians of being obsessed with sex, because the reverse is true. Christians believe sex belongs exclusively within marriage between a man and a woman, end of story. It is the rest of society which is obsessed with sex. When society tries to foist unscriptural sexual practices onto Christians, they are compelled to protest. Not because we are being awkward or want to spoil anybody’s fun, but because we believe what the Bible tells us, having had 2,000 years to prove iteslf! The homosexual lifestyle is notoriously tied up with drugs, alcohol, promiscuity, disease and early death. This cannot be what God wants for his people.
Pheobs, you are confusing love with sex.
I posted my original comment about Terry (Rentagob) Sanderson because it tickled me that someone who writes about sodomy, rimming, fisting, and other unsavoury practices (I wonder what the ‘x’ stands for in the A-Z of gay sex) should see fit to criticise the use of scripture.
August 18th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
@ Paul Huxley: “The only problem is that secularism is wrong.” This is a very disturbing statement. Are you seriously saying we ought to live in a theocracy rather than a democracy? How exactly do you see this working? How would you ensure that it was your form of Christianity that was in power rather than mine, Phoebe’s or Gordon’s?
I was brought up in the tradition of higher criticism so my understanding is that some of what the Bible says is very much more relevant than other parts. Some of it is downright unhelpful and is of purely historical interest. You could otherwise use the Bible to justify profoundly immoral acts.
@ Phoebe: I’m with you on fundie evangelism. Gets me how people who claim that they’re Bible-believing literalists completely ignore the bits that don’t suit their agenda. All Christians do this, of course, but as the rest of us think it’s morally OK, we’re open about it.
August 18th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
@ Jill, You are suggesting that these practices are solely present among homosexuals. Having worked for an HIV/AIDS charity I can assure you that they aren’t. In fact numerically they are more common among heterosexuals because they are in the majority. This has been proved through the research done by health authorities into people’s sexual behaviour.
Also, to suggest that there are people at it like rabbits outside of christendom is plainly rubbish. I am single and I haven’t had any offers of that nature for some considerable time. People in general are not very promiscuous regardless of their religious beliefs. Monogomy is the most usual behaviour.
August 18th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Sophie – by theocracy, I basically mean a nation whose laws are consciously built on God’s revealed will. Theonomy may be a better term. I think this could be brought about in a democracy… it’s the secular bit that I object to. How will I make sure it’s mine? Well, I won’t, God will (in the long run). Evangelical (and pentecostal, if you count them separately) Christianity is growing faster than ever across the world. Liberal Christianity will disappear into the rest of unbelieving culture and be an embarrassing footnote in church history books.
I’m not advocating revolution, or imposing something radical the moment believing Christians get 51% of the vote. I’m proposing that God will change people’s hearts and minds and good will come, in time.
You will, no doubt, have realised that I’m not a fan of higher criticism. You say that a literal reading could be used to justify immoral acts, but you do just that with higher criticism (eg. homosex). How do you objectively define moral without trustworthy revelation from God?
I believe every word of the Bible (at least in the original manuscripts), interpreted in the same manner as the Bible interprets itself. I believe in dual authorship (God and man) with intended meaning. I am not free to be careless with what the authors intended, nor am I free to force my beliefs onto the text.
You say that evangelical fundies (I assume you refer to people like myself) ignore bits of the Bible that don’t suit their agenda. We all do, accidentally, in varying ways with varying consequences. But we can always be challenged on whether our views are misreading scripture, whereas anyone who sees fit to judge the Bible by their own standards is a law unto him/herself. They might as well be reading any other book and picking and choosing the bits they like from there too.
This will get out of hand if I keep on writing comments this long, so apologies. If you’d like to tell me a profoundly immoral act that you can justify by use of the Bible, I’ll be happy to try to show you why it is either a) not immoral or b) not legitimately justified by the Bible.
August 18th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Paul, I have been asking for many years to be shown a biblical text which supports homosex, however obliquely. There isn’t one, otherwise someone would have come up with it by now.
Gordon, I have been researching this phenomenon for a number of years, and you are wrong on most counts (apart from your private life, of course, of which I know nothing!) If we are talking about the West, HIV/AIDS is extremely rare in the white indigenous heterosexual population. With immigrants it is different, as the situation in Africa, for instance, is different.
I don’t intend to go through it all again here, but I have recently posted at length on the St Barnabas blog on this very topic, with all the latest facts and figures, which can be read here.
http://sbarnabas.com/blog/2010/08/03/busting-the-aids-myth/comment-page-1/#comments
(The comments go on to a second page)
I am thankful, though, to hear that you are not involved in the highly destructive gay scene.
August 18th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
When society tries to foist unscriptural sexual practices onto Christians, they are compelled to protest.
Well I am sorry to hear that sodomy, rimming, fisting, and other unsavoury practices are being foisted onto you Jill.
August 18th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
You can’t drive a wedge between Jesus and the rest of the Bible.
Paul sorry to break the bad news to you, but the bible is not part of the Godhead!!
August 18th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
@ Jill: You write “Christians believe sex belongs exclusively within marriage between a man and a woman, end of story. ” This isn’t true. It’s your preferred version, but you do not speak for all Christians. Many churches do not view monogamous same sex relationships as sinful or immoral.
And on the topic of speech, if you take your Bible as literally as you seem to, you’ll know that there’s a great deal more on the role of women than there is on homosexuality. I would love to know how you reconcile the silence enjoined on you in the Bible with your outspoken contribution here. How dare you take Christian men to task or harangue those set in authority over you?
My advice to any woman who want to take a fundamentalist view of the Bible is simple: you’d better shut up.
August 18th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
“”You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. ”
Paul, care to expand on the revelance to homosexuality. i.e. what has this to do with homosexuality. I cannot see homosexual men doing this, can you?
August 18th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
@ Paul Huxley: Thank you, but my little head can just about struggle through… Anyone trying to take the Bible literally finds themselves tied in knots. However watching them try to untangle themselves isn’t as amusing as you might think. Here’s a link to some of the atrocities I mentioned.
Some parts of the Bible should be ignored and are not suitable as a guide to modern living. Typical examples are: laws regulating slavery, restricting the roles of women, ordering genocide, torturing prisoners, allowing the rape of female prisoners of war, requiring the murder of religious and sexual minorities, requiring the burning of some prostitutes alive, and many other activities considered profoundly immoral by today’s ethical standards.
There’s a great deal more. Despite my own faith, I have to agree with Richard Dawkins that the God of the OT is a total psycho and a sadist (which is why I’m not a literalist.)
It tickles me when people insist that marriage must be one man and one woman because “it’s in the Bible” when polygamous marriage (plus concubines) appears to be another popular and divinely approved Biblical option.
Current beliefs and legislation about human rights both in Europe and elsewhere work against fundie ideas. Public attitudes to homosexuality and other key fundie issues are becoming ever more relaxed. Any attempt to impose what you call theonomy, and I’d call dominionism, would meet vigorous legal challenges on a wide number of fronts. I can’t see it arriving here any time soon.
In a recent debate here Steven Underwood wrote something that was true and yet, for a Christian, a sad reflection:
“… secular, liberal welfare states have brought about a far greater fulfillment of the social morality that is supposed to be the property of Christian government! A hundred years ago the churches may have been fuller… but the working class were badly treated and women had few rights. Hence it seems, secular, liberal democracy has come up with the goods of a more caring and equal society than centuries of Christian government. Indeed, if we look across the Herring Pond to the most overtly Christian Western nation, the US, we see far more social problems (high divorce, high teenage pregnancy (esp. in the Bible Belt) violent crime etc.) yet church attendance is 50% whereas it is only 7% in many northern European secular democracy. Hence it would seem the best means of ensuring the hungry are fed and the homeless housed is by the secular welfare state. ”
Extremist Christian views are about as appealing to most people as extremist Muslim views, which they somewhat resemble.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
@ Jill: We don’t usually get as explicit as you have done here. Bit more decorous, generally speaking. However I should perhaps point out that all of the activities you mention are pretty common among married heterosexuals.
Seems to me that if HIV is God’s comment on gays, then lesbians must be his chosen people. Statistically their sexual health is better than married monogamous heterosexual women.
N.B. if, by any faint chance, you’ve been true to your Biblical literalism and stopped airing your opinions in public, you can still probably answer my posts as I’m also just a humble female. I may be wrong – I’m no expert on literalism. But I’m sure someone who knows what her fellow men should do with such certainty is also authority on her own Biblical position. Head covered with your mouth shut, isn’t it?
August 19th, 2010 at 6:40 am
Paul, do not be intimidated by being called a fundamentalist. You can find nothing in your Bible to support homosex; neither can I. But we fundies, together with the countless millions of other fundies through the ages, since Christianity first came to these shores, have – amazingly – failed to turn the country into the theocracy feared by Pheobe.
No, the ‘f’ word is merely a label to pin on those who refuse to unquestioningly support the gay agenda. Yet the people who call us fundies are the very same ones who throw up their hands in horror when one gets down to the nitty-gritty of exactly what is involved in homosex, how it affects the individual, and society as a whole. Well, you can’t fight a battle with both hands tied behind your back, so if people want us to accept that the Christian faith supports homosex they must be prepared for us to find out exactly what is involved, and not be squeamish.
The cult of individualism has taken such a grip that many people are unable to see the bigger picture – the survival of the human race. The moral code set out for us in the Bible is the one which gives us the best chance. Christianity allows freedom of the individual to make whatever choices they want, but we deviate from the biblical model at our peril.
August 19th, 2010 at 7:53 am
Jill
Although we fully support freedom of speech, this is a Christian site, and would ask you to respect this fact by using some decorum. Would you refrain from posting links to pornographically explicit content in future.
Thank you.
Caral
Moderator
August 19th, 2010 at 8:03 am
Sure, Caral, but what you describe as pornographically explicit is what we are being asked to accept! As Christians!
August 19th, 2010 at 8:07 am
I am not convinced there is a homosexual agenda any more than I believe there is a secular agenda. I think people believe in these behind the scenes organised conspiracies because they can’t cope with the majority of people wanting to change. It has always been like this and its a phenomenon that exists outside of Christianity. After World War 2 there was a huge impetus to prevent it happening again which meant greater cooperation between countries via the UN and the EU. People who disagree with that see that as a conspiracy when its just a logical, necessary and popular move.
August 19th, 2010 at 8:13 am
Jill, does the bible proscribe any sexual acts between a husband and wife?
What I want to try and understand is whether your objection is to:
Certain sexual acts.
Homosexual orientation.
Sex outside of marriage.
or
Sex when its sole purpose is pleasure.
I get the feeling from what you have said that you are against homosexual orientation, but that you are also against certain sexual acts within any relationship. If that’s the case then I think its pretty dangerous ground for a biblical literalist because the bible says surprisingly little about the details of sex.
Nobody is forcing Christians into sexual activities they don’t want to do, are they?
August 19th, 2010 at 8:26 am
Just to clarify Caral’s very proper objection to the material I posted which she removed (and to which I object too, by the way, very strongly!) this is material which is already in schools in some parts of the US.
Gordon, to answer this would take a very long time. Suffice it to say that I do not believe in ‘homosexual orientation’ as an identity. There is no mention of homosexuals in the bible, only homosexual practice. ‘The homosexual’ is a relatively modern invention. It is homosexual practice which the bible proscribes. The only alternative to sex within marriage between a man and a woman is chastity. Somehow this seems to have been translated in some people’s minds as being ‘anti-gay’ or ‘homophobic’.
August 19th, 2010 at 8:33 am
Nobody is forcing Christians into sexual activities they don’t want to do, are they?
Exactly Gordon, and no one is asking christians to poke their noses into other people’s bedroom activities either.
As a biblical literalist Jill, should you not be taking to heart what St Paul says in 1 Cor 5:12
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?
August 19th, 2010 at 9:25 am
Poke their noses??? You’ve got to be kidding!! When Gay is thrust at you from every angle, sex and pornography is everywhere – it is impossible to ignore it. People are losing their livelihoods because they do not want their children brought up in this culture. American clergy are being deposed and sued because they refuse to submit to it. I think it is rather the other way around, Pheobs.
August 19th, 2010 at 9:32 am
“Any attempt to impose what you call theonomy, and I’d call dominionism, would meet vigorous legal challenges on a wide number of fronts. I can’t see it arriving here any time soon.” – I’ve explicitly been against ‘imposing’ theonomy in these comments. The point is that hearts will be changed first, so there won’t be imposing, and it won’t happen very soon.
There’s lots of stuff to pick up on in the comments and I don’t have enough time. My general comment would be picking up on this:
“and many other activities considered profoundly immoral by today’s ethical standards.” (Dawkins). One of the many problems with this passage is that it presupposes that today’s ethical standards are correct. They may well be, in some cases, but the Bible judges us, not vice versa. Dawkins can judge whatever he likes by today’s ethical standards, but his criticisms bounce off because they’re just his opinion. And when his ethical standards (presumably) legitimise the kinds of behaviours Jill has outlined for us, then they become quite ignorable.
As for why the adultery passage is relevant; Jesus builds on the commandment ‘Do not commit adultery’ and explains that it goes much further than simply ‘do not have sex with a woman who is not your wife’. It goes as far as the unchecked desire level. If Jesus is being that harsh on heterosexual adulterous thoughts, how much more would he be on homosexual adulterous (which is inevitable) practices?
I’m coming off these comments, as it’s gone on long enough and well off-topic. If you anyone wants to get in contact with serious questions, put my name in front of @gmail.com and it should get there.
August 19th, 2010 at 9:34 am
thrust at you from every angle, sex and pornography is everywhere – it is impossible to ignore it.
In your imagination.
Jill you obviously spend huge amounts of time looking for it, to valid your obsession.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:23 am
@ Jill: I’ve visited the other site you linked to, the St Barnabas Blog, where your posts are even less Christian and more irrational than the ones here.
It seems God has no work on this Earth while Jill is here to do all his judging for him. And what a nasty mind… Your eagerness to condemn is matched only by your prurience. It’s repellent.
Interestingly you appear to focus entirely on male homosexuality. Do lesbians not fire your imagination? I’ve noticed this before with extremists. It’s as though sex doesn’t really happen unless there’s a man involved.
Disapproval of homosexuality is not the same as homophobia. But the visceral disgust and violence of your opinions does qualify as homophobia. You’re completely irrational on the topic.
I’m not one for gambling but I bet myself last night that you’d continue ignoring Biblical precepts for female behaviour. You refer to the Bible for your attitudes to homosexuality, ignore it when it applies to you. All us liberals ask is a touch of consistency…
August 19th, 2010 at 10:23 am
@ webmaster: why are my posts appearing in italics? Please could you get rid of them for me? Thank you.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:47 am
@ Paul Huxley: You wrongly attribute my linked quote to Richard Dawkins. Having made this error, you then argue against Dawkins, which is nonsensical in the circs. You didn’t bother following the link or reading my post.
The quote comes from the Religious Tolerance site, and provides links to the Biblical texts which illustrate its claims. This is why I included it, as it makes light work of what might otherwise take ages.
August 19th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Done Sophie, sorry about that….
August 19th, 2010 at 11:29 am
@ webmaster: Thanks, I knew I could rely on you.
August 19th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Crikey!
To get back to the start of this heated exchange, I made a comment that if Terry Sanderson had not made his comments the story would have sunk staright into obscurity.
Isn’t it ironic that it was Jill’s unsolicited comment about Terry Sanderson’s sexuality that kicked it all off.
Let me say it again. This has has nothing to do with TB’s sexuality and everything to do with his leadership role in the National Secular Society. I am not a homosexual but I would have said something very similar in his position. Sexuality IS irrelevant to his comments.
A lot of Christians complain about ousider’s apparent obsession with criticising Christians on topics realted to sex. As an outsdier myself, it seems that there’s quite enough obsession within the Chruch without any need for outside intervention.
August 19th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
A lot of Christians complain about ousider’s apparent obsession with criticising Christians on topics realted to sex. As an outsdier myself, it seems that there’s quite enough obsession within the Chruch without any need for outside intervention.
Isn’t that the truth Jim…it sickens me frankly…
August 19th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Me too, webmaster, just as I am sickened by the way our children are being groomed for early sex, and also by the way many within the church, as well as without, are colluding with this by covering their eyes and ears.
As insults are starting to fly (not from me!) I shall pull out of this thread now, and hope and pray that the Scottish judges put more faith in their bibles than by the words of Mr Sanderson of that very tiny organisation that makes a great deal of noise, the National Secular Society.
August 19th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
@ Webmaster: I’m glad to hear you say that. I was brought up in a Christianity based on love and tolerance. I was also brought up to see no conflict between faith and science. It must have been a shock when discoveries like the solar system and evolution transformed our view of the Bible’s accuracy on factual matters, but that was a very long time ago.
This horrible gay-loathing – almost a vendetta – is alien to the faith I know and, as you may have noticed, I find it extremely distressing. It’s so vicious, so bullying. Most people want only to love and be loved. I don’t see it matters much which sex the people are. It’s the love that matters.
This nasty episode has made me think more warmly of the NSS. Many British Muslims prize our society precisely because it is secular. I’m starting to feel very much the same. Religious extremism is an ugly thing.
August 19th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
Sophie,
I do agree religious extremism is indeed ugly, and so distressing. What hurts the most, it is all proclaimed in the name of Jeeeeeessus!
It is not the faith that I know, not the God I know. Those of us who are actually in and follow the Faith do suffer, as sometimes we do get lumped together with these science denying, sex obsessed, fundamentalists, I even sympathise (and agree at times) with Dawkins’ stance.
I know we are called to look for our Lord’s goodness and His image in all people. But I’m really tested to my limit with the homophobia, vitriol rantings, and their hearts of stone. Our Lord is gracious though, as I remember…
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
Where charity and love are, God is there.
August 19th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
@ Phoebs: “I’m really tested to my limit with the homophobia, vitriol rantings, and their hearts of stone.”
Me too. It’s heart-breaking but it helps to hear you share your frustration.
August 19th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
You may have already signed off Jill, but if not please do think about the inconsistency of your sayimg “me too, webmaster…”
Please read again my prior post. It was you who brought sex into this thread, without any serous justification.
You might also try to find a single recent quote in which TS uses any arguments against religion that involve sex in any way, despite the fact that he has ample provocation from those write truly horrible things about his sexual orientation.
August 19th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
@Sophie, thank you for being so encouraging.
August 20th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
@ Jim: I didn’t know Terry Sanderson was gay, and can’t see it’s of any relevance.
Perhaps I should re-phrase that. It would never have occurred to me that his sexuality was of any relevance to his work with the NSS before I realised how disgusting his experience of some Christians may have been.