Gays cause Floods (the swines!)

Dades

PDN wrote:

That in no way equates to saying that the homosexuality is linked in any way with the floods.

I'd have to agree without actually having a recording of the interview, it could well have gone down the way you describe it.

I think they key issue is who brought up the whole "sexual regulations" point. If it was the journalist, then I'm right with you. If however it was the Bishop - knowing the context of the topic at hand: 'man taking responsibility for his actions' and the flooding - then there are no excuses IMO.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

So, let me get this clear. Your argument is as follows:
1. The Bishops must have said what was reported because otherwise they would sue.
2. You admit that if they were misquoted and sued then the false quotes would be repeated and reprinted.
3. In that case they shouldn't have made the false quotes in the first place.

Are you being serious?

No my argument is very simple.

!) If the Bishop said what was quoted then he shouldnt be complaining about being caled a homophobe
2) If he didnt he should sue and have the article RETRACTED and a PUBLIC APOLOGY issued
3) Homosexuals dont cause floods - otherwise we would send Graham Norton to Ethiopia to dance until it showered.

JacobM

It seems to me, from the interview, he is explaining floods with science?

In the US it used to be drainage was the problem. Now they shake their fist at the sky again. Lack of discipline.

Homosexuals doing a rain dance may be an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. It is not homosexuality itself that ever caused God to punish the world. It was the attempt to make a way with those whom God did not find abomination in. It could be homos, it could be any number of things.

In such a rigorously regulated, up-tight society it is unlikely loose moral standards are an issue. God does not like crucifixions, buggery, imprisonment, blasphemy, the breaking of the covenant, etc. Those who are not an Abomination will not wantonly break laws. Either there is someone falsely imprisoned, or the social order is contradictory i.e. breaking of the covenant. It is not prudent to assume consummation out of wedlock. Jesus was crucified by popular demand.

Hivemind187

JacobM wrote:

It seems to me, from the interview, he is explaining floods with science?

In the US it used to be drainage was the problem. Now they shake their fist at the sky again. Lack of discipline.

Homosexuals doing a rain dance may be an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. It is not homosexuality itself that ever caused God to punish the world. It was the attempt to make a way with those whom God did not find abomination in. It could be homos, it could be any number of things.

In such a rigorously regulated, up-tight society it is unlikely loose moral standards are an issue. God does not like crucifixions, buggery, imprisonment, blasphemy, the breaking of the covenant, etc. Those who are not an Abomination will not wantonly break laws. Either there is someone falsely imprisoned, or the social order is contradictory i.e. breaking of the covenant. It is not prudent to assume consummation out of wedlock. Jesus was crucified by popular demand.

Sodom & Gomorrah.

Dades

JacobM wrote:

It could be homos, it could be any number of things.

JacobM, you're just arrived so we'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

But if you're going to engage in this debate please keep your terminology such that it will not cause offence. Otherwise you won't be engaging for long.

jtsuited

PDN wrote:

rank lower than drug dealers and pornographers.

what's wrong with pornographers? i'll tell you who i rank the lowest: people who construct a league table of who they hate.

Oh the irony!

While it's possible that the bishops may have been misquoted, they still slipped out a reminder of their unethical and cruel stance on homosexuality.

Galvasean

jtsuited wrote:

what's wrong with pornographers?

I think he was referring to the ones who treat their 'stars' poorly. It is something of an old stereotype at this point. Id hardly say Hugh Hefner is inherently evil now.

Bexz

pH wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xml

Ahh yes, God floods and drowns innocent people because some of us are greedy and immoral, God is in effect a SS squad who executes the entire village because of some resistance in the area.

The sad thing is, these aren't rabid Islamic fundamentalists, or bible-bashing US TV evangelists saying this, these are CoE bishops - the most wishy-washy lovey-dovey religion I know (apologies to Buddhists who think that *they* are).

The real problem with this kind of thinking is that it opens the door for violence as innocent believers genuinely don't want to get caught up in God's punishment when he lashes out at the sinners:

• God hates gays
• Instead of smiting the gays, God is liable to lash out at everyone living around them.
• When God lashes out it gets nasty (think hurricanes, floods and AIDS)
• We certainly don't want to get caught up in that!

-> Let's get those Gays!

(I don't believe in a deity) God apparantley did this flood, yes because, gays sinners and everyone else who is bad. He did this apparantley, to eradicate "sin" and to produce a new perfect human race. Sounds a bit like Hitler, dont you think?!

Dades

Bexz wrote:

Sounds a bit like Hitler, dont you think?!

Godwin's Law strikes!

Talliesin

I've only managed to flood my own garden. And only one garden at a time. I assume this is because I'm bi rather than gay.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Based on my experience of journalists (both of the tabloid newspaper and the TV documentary variety) I believe the interview could easily have gone along these lines.

Reporter: Do you believe these floods are an act of God?

Bishop: I believe that the floods are a consequence of human sin. We have acted irresponsibly in creating global warming and now we are reaping what we sowed.

Reporter: So you are saying that the floods are a judgment from God?

Bishop: I wouldn't use the word 'judgment'. They are a consequence of sin.

Reporter: So the church is now seeing sin in purely environmental terms? Have you abandoned more traditional concepts of sin?

Bishop: No, not at all. We believe that sin is part of the general human condition. You can't separate just one aspect of it and ignore the rest. All of our behaviour needs to change.

Reporter: So you would include the sexual regulations as sinful?

Bishop: I wouldn't want to focus on that one issue, but the regulations are part of a general scene of permissiveness.

Reporter: So God will judge us for it?

Bishop: Again, I don't want to talk of judgment, but biblically you must understand that all sin has consequences. We can't isolate just one aspect of human behaviour. Inequalities in food distribution and the practices of multinational corporations are equally offensive in the sight of God. If we persist in sinful behaviour then we make ourselves liable for judgment.

Headline: BISHOP SAYS GAYS CAUSE FLOODS

Is that what happened? We don't know because none of us were there. The bishops have said they were misquoted, and what I have just described is, in my experience, very possible.

Such an interview certainly justifies the headline "BISHOP SAYS SIN CAUSES FLOODS - FAT CATS, GAYS, POLLUTERS ALL IMPLICATED", which I don't consider much of an improvement. As to the matter of 'judgment' versus 'consequence', that's PR-style weaselling. The bishop doesn't "want to talk of judgment" - he may not want to talk about it, but it's perfectly clear that he's saying it.

As long as one considers homosexuality as a sin, such an attitude certainly says that gays are responsible for flooding - only that they are not solely responsible. The degree of culpability imputed to any given set of sinners is left to the audience, whereas the degree of culpability that gays have for climate change is exactly zero.

The bishop is therefore not only offensive in including sexual permissiveness in his list of things that might have lead to the flooding, but plain flat wrong, and dangerously, cretinously misleading. Climate change is too important an issue for the Bronze Age superstitions - the Bishop may be being misquoted, but he is quite rightly being derided, because his attitudes are 3000 years out of date.

It's interesting that you should put forward such a version as blameless.

regards,
Scofflaw

pH

Scofflaw wrote:

It's interesting that you should put forward such a version as blameless.

PDN seemed to produce a made up conversation between the bishop and the reporter but failed to include in his version the 'quotes' from the original article:

"This is a strong and definite judgment because the world has been arrogant in going its own way," he said. "We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation, as well as the environmental damage that we have caused."

"We are in serious moral trouble because every type of lifestyle is now regarded as legitimate,"

"In the Bible, institutional power is referred to as 'the beast', which sets itself up to control people and their morals. Our government has been playing the role of God in saying that people are free to act as they want,"

"The sexual orientation regulations [which give greater rights to gays] are part of a general scene of permissiveness. We are in a situation where we are liable for God's judgment, which is intended to call us to repentance."

"It has set up dominant economic structures that are built on greed and that keep other nations in a situation of dependence. The principle of God's judgment on nations that have exploited other nations is all there in the Bible,"

etc.

So either the accusation is that the reporter invented these quotes (a very serious accusation - and one to my knowledge that *hasn't* been made) or that theses phrases were used out of context.

So if PDN wants to produce a possible conversation between the two (to show how these phrases have a completely different explanation) he should at the very least include the words and phrases which we know were used.

Either way:
If God is omnipotent then by definition nothing he does can be a surprise for him, so everything he does is intentional (insofar as he can see the ourcome of all his actions)

If God is all powerful then nothing constrains his actions, he doesn't *have* to use crude tools like floods to punish us - he can literally do anything he wants - therefore he *could* just punish the guilty.

If God is 'good', kind and merciful then he *wouldn't* hurt the innocent for no reason, he'd smite the evildoers only - deliberately causing pain and suffering to the innocent is by definition not a 'good' act.

So we're back to Theodicy: any god who would use floods to punish some of the population cannot be both all powerful and good.

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

If God is 'good', kind and merciful then he *wouldn't* hurt the innocent for no reason, he'd smite the evildoers only - deliberately causing pain and suffering to the innocent is by definition not a 'good' act.

So we're back to Theodicy: any god who would use floods to punish some of the population cannot be both all powerful and good.

Hmm. I suppose I see this one from a different angle. I'm a green, and always have been, so I see this primarily from a green angle.

Usually, as you know, I have a soft spot for religion compared to many atheists, but issues like this are practical matters. The bishops are mixing up the causes of climate change with injunctions from a Bronze Age religion. The only possible excuse for them is that it might work, but given how much easier it is to find justification in the Bible for homosexuality-as-sin than pollution-as-sin I think it's a dangerous game. If it has the net effect of convincing people that sexual permissiveness causes climate change, or that climate change is a just punishment of the wickedness of others, then they should keep their mouths shut.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dan719

Talliesin wrote:

I've only managed to flood my own garden. And only one garden at a time. I assume this is because I'm bi rather than gay.

Hey I can't wait to try out my new found powers on people I don't like!:D