Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Bible verses you won't hear at Church
Comments
-
-
Sorry for the delay in responding, I had to wait for the admins to change my subversive screen name, then my wife and I were travelling to our holidays with my daughter and her girlfriend/partner.Can you explain something? Are these proposals your own personal views or an official position of your organisation. You see, the thing is that I can't find any mention of these proposals on your website. Further, EAI made {URL snipped because I can't post URL's - I'll refrain from any puns in case they get taken seriously} which contains none of what you speak of above. It simply contains the same old fallacious, dishonest and mistaken arguments that we have seen time and again.
I'm not going to spend hours answering everything that you've cut and pasted, but since the issue of EAI's approach to same sex marriage is already under discussion in this thread I'll elaborate somewhat. Like most people, the members of our organisation consider what is going on in society and, based on the information they see and hear, their views can change and evolve.
I recently took over the role of Executive Director of Evangelical Alliance Ireland. Part of my brief is to redefine the organisations 'voice' and deal with public announcements, the media etc.
EAI is not a papacy that can presume to make dogmatic pronouncements on every detail of life. We represent several hundred churches and a few thousand individuals who share certain common beliefs and values. The very nature of evangelical Christian belief (based on a personal experience of Jesus Christ and on one's own interpretation of the Scriptures) means that trying to organise evangelicals, just like organising atheists, would be akin to herding cats.
Therefore I am taking the approach of encouraging debate and dialogue within our movement, and seeing disagreement and dissent as a sign of healthy thinking rather than as a problem. We have some in our ranks who are pretty homophobic, and we have others who are in favour of gay marriage and can't see what all the fuss is about. The majority lie in between those two extremes - they hold to a definition of marriage that is not sufficiently broad to include same sex relationships, but they also want the rights of all members of society to be respected and don't want anyone to be discriminated against or marginalised.
Therefore we are working on a discussion document (which most likely will be published in book form before next year's referendum) in which I reiterate the core values that we are trying to uphold, and which puts forward my proposal that Civil Partnerships should apply equally to all, and that marriage should be returned to the community as a non-legal rite of passage which all are open to practice as they see fit. That would be true marriage equality. We have invited a range of people to respond to and participate in this document - evangelical Christians, those of other denominations, theologians, atheists, media pundits and representatives of the LGBT community. The Board of EAI have approved this strategy and it is underway.
So, although EAI are happy for me to take my non-legislative approach to marriage, it is not their official position. Their official position is that we want to help create a civil discussion on the subject and that we will encourage our members to be a part of this providing that they respect our core values.
Our core values in respect to the same sex marriage debate would include the following:
1. We see marriage as having a unique and special meaning which should not be artificially redefined.
2. We believe in the separation of Church and State. This cuts both ways. The Church should not expect the laws of the land to reflect Church dogma or Christian standards of personal morality, but neither should the State interfere with religious matters in the Church.
3. Evangelical Christians should have compassion for the marginalised and the underdog in society, and therefore we should not support laws or structures that victimise and demean others.
Sometimes evangelicals, like all people, struggle to reconcile and balance our core values. That, except for the extreme dogmatist (religious or secular), is not always easy and we can make mistakes.
For example, when we issued a statement supporting the Civil Partnership Bill we were striving to be true to value number 3 as listed above. We took a terrific backlash in criticism (and loss of funding) because many people felt we had not maintained value number 1.
The submission to the Constitutional Convention was focussing on value 1, so you now want to use that as a stick to beat us with because you feel we haven't honoured values number 2 or 3.
Again, most of the rest of what you posted about same sex marriage is pretty irrelevant to me because I'm not particularly interested arguing with you to try to convince you to share our opinion about the definition of marriage. In fact that's where this whole debate is going wrong. Tolerance does not mean that you expect everyone else to share your view of marriage. Tolerance means that you recognise that people hold different views, that they have the right to disagree with you, and that you seek out a way in which we all avoid trying to ram our views down other people's throats.
I believe that my suggestion that all references to marriage be deleted from the Irish statute book is a fair and just way for people of different views to respect one another. It would produce a much greater marriage equality than the likely wording of the referendum that will be laid in front of the electorate next year.
So, to get back on topic, I originally entered this thread to point out that a verse which was posted as "bible verses you won't hear at Church" was untrue because it is referred to in churches, and done so in a way that encourages Christians to work for the good of society. And, despite Cabaal's untruths about me (which he has signally failed to retract) I contend that EAI's approach to the same-sex marriage debate is good for society. Whether or not you happen to agree with my definition of marriage, are you saying that it is bad for society if people of different opinions engage in civil discussion and try to find a way in which we can respect one another and build a more tolerant society?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Deleted User wrote: »Nick, I'm extremely interested in Evangelical thinking / philosophy.
I don't think this is the correct thread for it, but I'm wondering if you'd be kind enough as to do a Q&A type thread for us on here at some stage? There is a lot of information available (and misinformation) regarding interpretations of scripture / what is verbatim and what is not etc, and I think it could be a very interesting (especially if decorum could be kept) thread that might open up some other thoughts for debate?
I would be very open for that, but I suspect it might turn into a lynch mob.
Imagine you're on a train and you overhear a conversation where people are saying something untrue about someone you know. The wisest course of action is probably to mind your own business. Any intervention, no matter how reasonable you feel it to be, is going to be construed as sticking your nose in where it's not wanted. I'm starting to get that feeling. 0 -
I would be very open for that, but I suspect it might turn into a lynch mob.
Imagine you're on a train and you overhear a conversation where people are saying something untrue about someone you know. The wisest course of action is probably to mind your own business. Any intervention, no matter how reasonable you feel it to be, is going to be construed as sticking your nose in where it's not wanted. I'm starting to get that feeling.
I'm not sure that's quite true. I spent some time in Kentucky in 2009, I was very much a "novelty" in the city I was living in as I was pretty much the only Irish person that anyone in that city had ever met/talked to. I answered their questions and 'morbid' fascination as much as I could, even the frankly crazy questions! ( "Do you know Claire?" for example
). I would contend that an Evangelical poster in A&A is something like that, a 'novelty' amongst the norms, and would hope that if you could find the time to engage with people here it could be a massively mutually beneficial endeavor.
I would hope that if we actually set up a Q&A thread, and a level of respect and honesty was maintained, that the opportunity to bridge an 'information gap' would be very good for this area of boards.ie, and perhaps useful to yourself in terms of what you might look to draw attention to when dealing with skeptics / new members.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Sorry for the delay in responding, I had to wait for the admins to change my subversive screen name, then my wife and I were travelling to our holidays with my daughter and her girlfriend/partner.
No worries, thank you for the detailed reply. There are just one or two more points I'd like to follow up on.I'm not going to spend hours answering everything that you've cut and pasted, but since the issue of EAI's approach to same sex marriage is already under discussion in this thread I'll elaborate somewhat.
None of what I have posted is cut&paste apart from previous posts of mine in other threads, so if you could withdraw that remark I'd appreciate it.So, although EAI are happy for me to take my non-legislative approach to marriage, it is not their official position. Their official position is that we want to help create a civil discussion on the subject and that we will encourage our members to be a part of this providing that they respect our core values.
Sorry, but the highlighted portion above is rather vague, so perhaps you might clarify, is the official position of the EAI reflected in its submission to the constitutional convention or has this been scrapped? Is your proposal regarding non-legislative marriage an unofficial position of the EAI yet to be ratified or are you just hoping that your idea will be adopted? I'm not attempting to be brusk here, I'm just trying to understand the relationship between your proposals (which I find interesting) and the EAI as an organisation.1. We see marriage as having a unique and special meaning which should not be artificially redefined.
Why? I understand why your religion promotes this idea, but since we don't base laws on religion as you have already acknowledged, do you have any non-religious arguments as to why heterosexual marriage deserves special consideration. Definitions change and they change to reflect the actual social reality and not the other way around. Same-sex couples are living together in this country and they do seek legal recognition of this fact. So, therefore why should they not be entitled to call it a marriage. After all, the original meaning of marriage as it came into English is to join and is gender neutral.
2. We believe in the separation of Church and State. This cuts both ways. The Church should not expect the laws of the land to reflect Church dogma or Christian standards of personal morality, but neither should the State interfere with religious matters in the Church.
How is it that you think the state will begin to infringe on religious matters if civil marriage is made available to same-sex couples?
3. Evangelical Christians should have compassion for the marginalised and the underdog in society, and therefore we should not support laws or structures that victimise and demean others.
Who exactly is going to be victimised or demeaned by enacting a law allowing same-sex marriage?The submission to the Constitutional Convention was focussing on value 1, so you now want to use that as a stick to beat us with because you feel we haven't honoured values number 2 or 3.
No, not at all. Point 1 above is a weak, logically fallacious argument and to use your own words should be used as a stick to beat you with in its own right. It is an argument which doesn't stand up to even cursory scrutiny.So, to get back on topic, I originally entered this thread to point out that a verse which was posted as "bible verses you won't hear at Church" was untrue because it is referred to in churches, and done so in a way that encourages Christians to work for the good of society. And, despite Cabaal's untruths about me (which he has signally failed to retract) I contend that EAI's approach to the same-sex marriage debate is good for society. Whether or not you happen to agree with my definition of marriage, are you saying that it is bad for society if people of different opinions engage in civil discussion and try to find a way in which we can respect one another and build a more tolerant society?
No, I don't think it is bad for society to engage in discussion. Of course not. My point is that in order to make progress towards a suitable legal framework we have to have arguments grounded in logical principles which are universally accessible and not based on any one or any one's religion. I think Barack Obama put it rather well here:
This is why I have a problem with your definition of marriage. It does not present any universal logical principle which we can all relate to. At a fundamental level your definition of marriage is tied to your religious view. Can you detail the non-religious reasons why marriage should be defined as one man and one woman?
Now, since you mention getting back on topic, perhaps you could answer the questions I put to you at the end of my post:... the one thing I'd like to know, far from dealing with passages that appear to be difficult on a casual read (i.e. those with barbaric and primitive attitudes), why do churches not deal with the facts which are far more problematic to the overall claims of your religion.
For example, why is it not discussed that the virgin birth "prophecy" is a wilful misinterpretation by the author of Matthew's gospel which takes a quote-mined passage out of context, coupled with a mistranslation and attempts to pass it off as messianic prophecy? Why do churches not deal with the fact that a lot of the scriptural basis for our information about Jesus comes from anonymous and forged writings? Why do churches not highlight the many factual errors made by the Gospel writers when discussing passages intended to be historical accounts (e.g. Mark Chapter 5)? Why do churches attempt to gloss over inconsistencies in the bible with baseless proclamations (e.g. the identification of Bartholomew with Nathanael has no basis in any extant document other than to resolve the discrepancy between John and the synoptics)? Why don't churches deal with the wide gaps in theology between the Old and New Testaments (especially the lack of an afterlife or heaven in the OT and the change in the nature of Satan from OT to NT)?
There are far more fundamental issues with the scriptures than those verses which portray the barbaric and inhumane attitudes of the biblical authors. However, outside the realm of academic scholarship there is no significant attempt made by Chrisitan churches to deal with these issues.0 -
-
-
None of what I have posted is cut&paste apart from previous posts of mine in other threads, so if you could withdraw that remark I'd appreciate it.:
I think you're misinterpreting my words here. My reference to 'cut & paste' referred to the fact that you had obviously not typed out that entire post there and then, so you could hardly expect me to answer, in detail, every point you raised and every question you asked.
Are you thinking that my reference to 'cut & paste' was somehow implying that you were not using your own material - ie some kind of plagiarism?
If that's the case then I unreservedly assure you that was not what I was saying at all, and if my words can possibly be misconstrued in that way then I withdraw them with profuse apologies.
My point is that if you ask me 5 or 6 questions in one post, bearing in mind that other posters are also asking me (as the one Christian participating in this thread) questions. Quite simply, I do not have sufficient free time in a day to answer that number of questions with the depth or comprehensiveness that such questions often demand. So please be understanding if you ask 6 questions in a post and I only respond to one or two of them.Sorry, but the highlighted portion above is rather vague, so perhaps you might clarify, is the official position of the EAI reflected in its submission to the constitutional convention or has this been scrapped? Is your proposal regarding non-legislative marriage an unofficial position of the EAI yet to be ratified or are you just hoping that your idea will be adopted? I'm not attempting to be brusk here, I'm just trying to understand the relationship between your proposals (which I find interesting) and the EAI as an organisation.
The official position of the EAI was that, at the time of the submission to the Constitutional Convention, it did not see the redefinition of marriage to be the best solution to this issue. That remains so. I was not employed by EAI at the time, but I understand that there was a written submission and an oral submission, and they are not identical. It would certainly be a mistake to view every detail of either submission as representative of evangelicals as a whole, or indeed of the membership of EAI.
Meanwhile, the debate has moved on. The Constitutional Convention has finished its work and a referendum is due to be set before the public. The EAI board has given me the go ahead, as new Executive Director, to float my idea of non-legislative marriage as the basis for a discussion document that will allow debate and a free exchange of ideas.
I have not asked, and do not intend to ask, EAI to ratify my proposal or make it their official position. I took this post on the understanding that I would facilitate a free expression of a variety of views, rather than sitting on a throne and issuing position papers on matters where there is no settled evangelical or biblical position.
So, the submissions have not been scrapped. They stand as a record of what certain leaders in EAI felt needed to be said then. My approach is not ratified. It stands as a description of what the EAI Director feels needed to be said now. And I hope the discussion we are facilitating will express a full range of different, and even conflicting, views that our members, and others, feel need to be said.
I'm sorry if you find this vague. EAI's role, as I see it, is not to act as a born-again papacy or to set dogma. Our role is to help evangelical Christians to explore how they can be faithful to their deeply held beliefs, avoid falling into a Christendom mindset where they try to enforce that on others, and to be a force for social justice that stands up for the rights of minorities and the powerless. I believe my proposals are a way to do that - but I'm very cool with the idea that other evangelicals might disagree with me. I'm also humble enough to know that if I listen to different views then I might well find an approach that works better than my own.
I don't actually see the point of having a debate at all if we enter it with our minds made up, our position set in stone, and a determination that nothing can change our minds. (I'm well aware that in the eyes of some in this forum we're damned if we do and damned if we don't - we're either arrogant and intransigent or else we're being vague )Why? I understand why your religion promotes this idea, but since we don't base laws on religion as you have already acknowledged, do you have any non-religious arguments as to why heterosexual marriage deserves special consideration. Definitions change and they change to reflect the actual social reality and not the other way around. Same-sex couples are living together in this country and they do seek legal recognition of this fact. So, therefore why should they not be entitled to call it a marriage. After all, the original meaning of marriage as it came into English is to join and is gender neutral.
I disagree about the idea of 'marriage' being gender neutral as it came into English. The word comes from Latin where it referred to the crossing of grapes in viticulture. The two varieties of grapes were not just mixed together, but were crossbred so as to form a new variety. In other words, 'marriage' does not just refer to two people entering into a legal contract whereby they agree to live together as two separate individuals. It refers to the act described in the Book of Genesis where a man and woman become 'one flesh' and enter a covenant to love one another unreservedly as a lifelong commitment. Anything less than that, be it homosexual or heterosexual, is not marriage in the true sense of the word.
Now, you as an atheist may want to mock this ideal, but the fact remains that is how a great many people view marriage. And we have every right to hold such an opinion.
So, given this definition, marriage is not just some nice social convention. It has a distinct religious and theological meaning. Indeed to Catholics (although not to evangelicals) it is a sacrament. As such I do not acknowledge the right of the State to define marriage as one thing or another. In the same way the State does not have the right to define what is the correct way to take the bread and wine of communion, it doesn't have the right to define what constitutes baptism, and it should keep its nose out of other religious matters of conscience.
I didn't say that it would. It may and it may not.How is it that you think the state will begin to infringe on religious matters if civil marriage is made available to same-sex couples?
I don't know, perhaps you should address that question to someone who claimed that to be the case?Who exactly is going to be victimised or demeaned by enacting a law allowing same-sex marriage?
I mentioned opposition to victimising and demeaning as one of our core values because evangelicals should not support any legislation or practice that does so. In this context it means that we should not support legislation that discriminates against or victimises homosexuals.
It could, however, be argued that our current legislation discriminates against polygamists. The proposed referendum will do nothing to redress this. I abhor the idea of polygamy, but I must say I struggle to find a justification for it being legally prohibited (other than me forcing my religious views on Muslims and others, something I would be loath to do).
So, I guess that my proposal for removing all references to marriage from the statute book would result in a truer marriage equality than if the proposed referendum passes.No, not at all. Point 1 above is a weak, logically fallacious argument and to use your own words should be used as a stick to beat you with in its own right. It is an argument which doesn't stand up to even cursory scrutiny.
In other words you disagree with my view. That's fair enough, I would hardly expect you as an atheist to agree with an evangelical definition of marriage. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that the law should try to cater for people of different views and, where possible, find ways that enable us all to live together in toleration. The stated vision of EAI is that rather than a forced religious dominance of society, or of a forced secularism, that there can be a middle way of mutual respect.
That is what I am advocating. A structure whereby Christians who see marriage as a covenant, Muslims, atheists and same sex couples can all practice marriage as they see fit without interference from the State.No, I don't think it is bad for society to engage in discussion. Of course not. My point is that in order to make progress towards a suitable legal framework we have to have arguments grounded in logical principles which are universally accessible and not based on any one or any one's religion. I think Barack Obama put it rather well here:
Obama did put it well, but unfortunately you are massively misapplying his words in this case.
I am not trying to enforce my dogma on anyone. I am proposing a solution that treats everybody absolutely equally and allows everyone to practice dogma, or reject it, as they see fit. Why is that a problem?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Pherekydes wrote: »Then who do you think Matthew and Luke are dependent on?
Or do you think they witnessed the virgin birth? How?
How did they know Mary was a virgin before, during or after the birth?
P.S. You should analyse the meaning of Matthew 9:9 before considering your answer.
No, obviously neither Matthew nor Luke witnessed the virgin birth.
The most commonly accepted theory is that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, and that there was another document which we call Q (Quelle is German for 'source'). Both Matthew and Luke appear to have used these two written sources. Of course this would also be supplemented by oral traditions and interviews with eye witnesses of the life of Christ. (We know that Luke was a companion of St Paul and would have had access to some of those who accompanied Jesus in Galilee and, possibly, to Mary).
Some New Testament scholars identify Matthew as one of the twelve apostles - but others disagree. If he was, then he would have had access to gather information from Mary, from Jesus' siblings, or from Jesus himself.
Christians, of course, also believe that the Gospel writers were inspired and received revelation from God the Holy Spirit. But I'm not expecting any of the regular denizens of this forum to agree with that one. 0 -
Advertisement
-
I think you're misinterpreting my words here. My reference to 'cut & paste' referred to the fact that you had obviously not typed out that entire post there and then, so you could hardly expect me to answer, in detail, every point you raised and every question you asked.
Are you thinking that my reference to 'cut & paste' was somehow implying that you were not using your own material - ie some kind of plagiarism?
If that's the case then I unreservedly assure you that was not what I was saying at all, and if my words can possibly be misconstrued in that way then I withdraw them with profuse apologies.
My point is that if you ask me 5 or 6 questions in one post, bearing in mind that other posters are also asking me (as the one Christian participating in this thread) questions. Quite simply, I do not have sufficient free time in a day to answer that number of questions with the depth or comprehensiveness that such questions often demand. So please be understanding if you ask 6 questions in a post and I only respond to one or two of them.
I see what you were getting at now. Misunderstanding resolved. I understand that time is a factor for a lot of posters, its just that in my previous experience in dealing with christian posters on boards, the avoidance of questions usually indicates reluctance rather than time pressure.The official position of the EAI was that, at the time of the submission to the Constitutional Convention, it did not see the redefinition of marriage to be the best solution to this issue. That remains so. I was not employed by EAI at the time, but I understand that there was a written submission and an oral submission, and they are not identical. It would certainly be a mistake to view every detail of either submission as representative of evangelicals as a whole, or indeed of the membership of EAI.
Meanwhile, the debate has moved on. The Constitutional Convention has finished its work and a referendum is due to be set before the public. The EAI board has given me the go ahead, as new Executive Director, to float my idea of non-legislative marriage as the basis for a discussion document that will allow debate and a free exchange of ideas.
I have not asked, and do not intend to ask, EAI to ratify my proposal or make it their official position. I took this post on the understanding that I would facilitate a free expression of a variety of views, rather than sitting on a throne and issuing position papers on matters where there is no settled evangelical or biblical position.
So, the submissions have not been scrapped. They stand as a record of what certain leaders in EAI felt needed to be said then. My approach is not ratified. It stands as a description of what the EAI Director feels needed to be said now. And I hope the discussion we are facilitating will express a full range of different, and even conflicting, views that our members, and others, feel need to be said.
I'm sorry if you find this vague. EAI's role, as I see it, is not to act as a born-again papacy or to set dogma. Our role is to help evangelical Christians to explore how they can be faithful to their deeply held beliefs, avoid falling into a Christendom mindset where they try to enforce that on others, and to be a force for social justice that stands up for the rights of minorities and the powerless. I believe my proposals are a way to do that - but I'm very cool with the idea that other evangelicals might disagree with me. I'm also humble enough to know that if I listen to different views then I might well find an approach that works better than my own.
I don't actually see the point of having a debate at all if we enter it with our minds made up, our position set in stone, and a determination that nothing can change our minds. (I'm well aware that in the eyes of some in this forum we're damned if we do and damned if we don't - we're either arrogant and intransigent or else we're being vague )
OK, I'm going to break down how I see things in light of your clarification above. Your proposal while genuinely laudable is unlikely to ever see the light of day. Firstly, it is clear from your own post that there is an uncertainty whether or not the weight of the EAI, such as it is, will be put behind your proposal. It remains, for the moment, your personal position and only carries the weight that being the director brings. This means that EAI has no active plans or possibly even future plans to campaign to get the government to consider this alternative. This means that the nice idea you propose is likely to remain just that a nice idea.
In practice, howver, the government are not likely to change their current infrastructure to incorporate the existing tax, inheritance effects of marriage into the civil partnership structure. This means that they will likely put the question of same-sex marriage to the public directly as a constitutional amendment. This also means that the EAI's and your position on the definition of marriage is likely to shape your response to said referendum. So really your proposal doesn't count for much.I disagree about the idea of 'marriage' being gender neutral as it came into English. The word comes from Latin where it referred to the crossing of grapes in viticulture. The two varieties of grapes were not just mixed together, but were crossbred so as to form a new variety.
I know this is a very minor point but I'm awfully pedantic. The term as I stated previously is gender neutral. Although it does originally refer to viticulture, it actually refers to the process of grafting, i.e. the merger of two grape varieties (not male and female plants) to acquire the characteristics of both (e.g. disease resistance rootstock with high yield vines). It is an asexual method of propagation. So like I said, gender neutral. The meaning of the word is to join, pure and simple.In other words, 'marriage' does not just refer to two people entering into a legal contract whereby they agree to live together as two separate individuals. It refers to the act described in the Book of Genesis where a man and woman become 'one flesh' and enter a covenant to love one another unreservedly as a lifelong commitment. Anything less than that, be it homosexual or heterosexual, is not marriage in the true sense of the word.
Leaving the Genesis reference aside, for a minute, in what way is a marriage between two men or two women characteristically different to a heterosexual marriage? It is a commitment between two people, formed in love and intended for life. Same-sex couples do raise children and have families. What characteristic without reference to a religious text on which we're not going to agree anyway do heterosexual couples possess that homosexual ones don't.
More importantly, however, whatever this characteristic is, why is it important enough that homosexual couples should be denied the right to marry as a result.Now, you as an atheist may want to mock this ideal, but the fact remains that is how a great many people view marriage. And we have every right to hold such an opinion.
OK, let me break this down for you. So far, you have claimed that legislating for same-sex marriage would be bad because it would mean redefining marriage. Now, as I said previously, this is a fallacious argument, whatever way you slice it. Either you believe that the current definition of marriage should be retained because of tradition (argued in the EAI submission), in which case you're making an appeal to tradition, or because it represents an artificial redefinition changing what is currently understood, in which case you're making an appeal to common practice or as above you believe that because a great many people hold this view that it should be retained, in which case you're making an appeal to popularity.
Even if we put all of this aside, though, the argument is still weak. You have said that you oppose legislating for same-sex marriage because it would redefine marriage. Howevever, you haven't offered an argument as to why redefinition is a bad idea other than to appeal to your religious texts.So, given this definition, marriage is not just some nice social convention. It has a distinct religious and theological meaning. Indeed to Catholics (although not to evangelicals) it is a sacrament. As such I do not acknowledge the right of the State to define marriage as one thing or another. In the same way the State does not have the right to define what is the correct way to take the bread and wine of communion, it doesn't have the right to define what constitutes baptism, and it should keep its nose out of other religious matters of conscience.
The State defines certain terms in legislation for its own purposes and not necessarily because they suit any interested party. For example, although most people would probably feel that child is an inaccurate description of a 17-year old, the operational definition of child under Section 3 of the Children Act 2001 defines a child as anyone under the age of 18. Statutes often use terms that may not reflect common usage and most statutes have a list of key terms at the beginning in addition to their definition for the purposes of the act. The fact that the State in its enactments may choose a definition for a term which is out of step with either common usage or your own worldview is irrelevant. It is simply used for the benefit of the State's function and has no impact on the operation of your religion.0 -
-
-
-
Indeed, and I am quite happy that language evolves. If the word 'marriage' naturally evolves to mean something radically different from what it has meant for centuries, and for what it still means for Christians, then so be it. In that case modern Bible translations, and the churches, can simply substitute a different term that more accurately describes what 'marriage' used to describe.Marriage had differing definitions in the past than it does today, as it will in the (near) future.
A Jesuit priest, Patrick O'Riordan, has argued very cogently that this point has already been reached. He recommends that the Irish Catholic bishops should simply abandon the word 'marriage' as having been changed beyond recognition and should use 'matrimony' instead.
I have a lot of sympathy with Patrick's view, but in my opinion the word 'marriage' has not sufficiently evolved naturally for that step yet. If it does so, then I'll accept that in the same way that I understand that the Flintstones theme song about having 'a gay old time' can never again mean what it once did.
But what I do object to is that a word should be redefined artificially for political purposes. That, to my way of thinking, is akin to the concept of 'Newspeak' in George Orwell's 1984. Now, you are perfectly entitled to disagree with me about this, but it would be a bigoted individual indeed who would assert that I am not interested in the good of society simply because I hold a different definition of 'marriage' to them.
I don't think I've said anything contrary to this.The legal meaning most certainly will, whether you like that or not and whether you accept that fact or not.
It is not changing because of a government decision but a decision of the people directly. If they don't agree with you, well that's just too bad.
You can continue to define it any way you want for the purposes of your own religious ceremonies.Exactly, but churches set themselves up as self-appointed guardians of 'morality' and throughout the history of this state have been given undue influence on it. There is still great deference to churches (among politicians far more than the public, these days)
Particularly in the case of the RCC we must be wary that a great many of the people it claims as its members do not agree with the positions it lobbies for
Maybe you should go and find a Catholic to gripe at about this? I've never belonged to the RCC in my life and none of this is relevant to anything I have said.Sure but their opinion should not be accorded any special weight just because it's coming from a church. It shouldn't be accorded any less, either.
I used the word 'interfere' quite deliberately, it goes beyond lobbying, such as threatening to excommunicate TDs and/or denounce them from the pulpit if they refuse to vote the way the church would prefer. Again this is the RCC we're talking about but that is solely because most polticians in this country are at least nominally catholic.
Now you are being contradictory and illogical.
Excommunication is simply a case of a private organisation saying that it will exclude its own members from activities within that private organisation if they break the organisation's rules. Are there any other private organisations that you would restrict from doing this, or is it only the Church that you want to treat as second class citizens.
As for denouncing from pulpits - what business is it of yours or the State's if a private organisation uses its own platform to express an opinion. Are you going to argue that the National Union of Students, for example, should not 'interfere' by addressing political issues from the platform in its meetings? Or will students be allowed rights and privileges that should be denied to nasty Church leaders?
You really don't seem to grasp this separation of Church and State thing very well at all. The Church has as much right to express its opinion, and operate its own internal rules, as any other private organisation. No more, no less - remember?
As for politicians being unduly influenced by or deferential to the opinions of the RCC as a private organisation, then surely the answer to that is to change the politicians. After all, we live in a democracy where those same politicians are chosen by the will of the people. As you said earlier, if you don't like the will of the people in choosing those politicians, well that's just too bad.In other words redefine marriage by removing the concept of civil marriage. My wife and I will become strangers in law. Meanwhile churches will have special privileges because those who desire a marriage ceremony will have no choice but to go to them. This is just wrong on every level.
This is illogical on so many levels.
If you want legal recognition of your relationship with your wife then a Civil Partnership, properly defined and administered, should fulfill all the functions you need. I'm perfectly happy for a Civil Partnership with my wife to be the sole extent of the State's involvement.
(Funny aside here. A number of heterosexual couples in the UK have applied to be joined as Civil Partners - but UK law discriminates against heterosexual couples by denying them access to Civil Partnership. Stonewall, the gay advocacy group, supported David Cameron in opposing giving heterosexual couples equality in this regard.)
Secondly, how on earth do you reach the conclusion that people would have no choice but to go to churches to get married?
This is a funny state of affairs isn't it? The Evangelical Christian in this discussion is the one who wants to give you the exact same rights as a priest to conduct a marriage, and you, as an atheist are the one that seems to be arguing that a non-legislative marriage wouldn't be a marriage unless it was conducted by a church.So, no marriage for anyone who isn't religious
No marriage for same-sex couples because the churches won't allow it.
Religious opposite sex couples are grand though.
And you call that equality?
Here's a wee suggestion. Maybe you should actually read my posts before responding to them? That way you could interact with my actual views instead of making stuff up as you go along and pretending it represents my views.
I have expressly stated that the removal of marriage from Irish law would permit everyone to practice marriage as they see fit - that would include religious groups, atheists, humanists, LGBT groups etc.
I feel like I've strayed into some kind of Twilight Zone where I can advocate such equality and then you claim that means "no marriage for anyone who isn't religious". Truly staggering.The whole area of family law is a mess currently but there are proposals to regularise the situation for both same and opposite sex couples in advance of the referendum. This needs to be done anyway whether it is carried or not.
Marriage confers legal rights, i.e. tax, inheritance, automatic guardianship of children, etc. Legal benefits in return for entering into a binding legal contract.
There's nothing unfair about this provided a same sex couple have the option to marry if they choose, just as an opposite sex couple does currently.
Not every couple who can get married wishes to, not every same sex couple will choose to if the referendum is passed either.
This is about giving choices to people on a fair basis regardless of their sexual orientation.
So, you want the law to discriminate against unmarried couples, but that's OK because they can always become first class citizens by getting married (even if they have no wish to be married).
Meanwhile I am suggesting a solution where married couples, unmarried couples, heterosexual couples and same sex couples all have exactly the same legal rights.
Now, just try one more time to explain how that makes you the champion of equality whereas I am happy to treat anyone as second class citizens.0 -
-
-
Nick, you do make some pretty interesting points but I do think that renaming, altering or deleting the legal aspect of marriage to be a bit of a tough sell. At the moment with marriage we essentially have civil marriage and religious marriage, which in my eyes (if applied to everybody equally) really isn't too bad a thing.
Oh I agree with you. It's more than a tough sell, I don't think my proposal stands a snowball in hell's chance of getting passed. All the major political parties in our State are intent on increasing government control and regulation of people's lives - not decreasing it.
However, bear in mind that this is not some kind of crusade that I've embarked on. I wasn't the one who broached the subject of same sex marriage in this thread. I simply made an observation that evangelical Christians should try to interpret the Bible in such a way as to help them make positive contribution to society.
All the fuss about gay marriage in this thread since then has solely been because a number of posters have made wild and false accusations about me - claiming that I was happy to see people treated as second class citizens, was trying to force my religious views on others, or, most bizarrely, was advocating that only churches should be able to conduct weddings. It was only to respond to these lies about me that I have explained my views on marriage and Civil Partnerships.
I'm a bit bemused about all the fuss. Why do people get so het up just because someone like me, in response to their questions, answers that I happen to hold an opinion that it would be better to have a more complete marriage equality than that currently due to be set before us in a referendum? I think part of the problem is that some posters have preconceived ideas about what a Christian believes, and when you don't fit with their stereotypes it tends to provoke them into wild accusations and bad manners. So, sorry for not being the raving bigot that some expect me to be. 0 -
As for politicians being unduly influenced by or deferential to the opinions of the RCC as a private organisation, then surely the answer to that is to change the politicians.
I'm all for that, but I've only one vote, so I have to put up with it, just as you will after the referendumThis is illogical on so many levels.
If you want legal recognition of your relationship with your wife then a Civil Partnership, properly defined and administered, should fulfill all the functions you need. I'm perfectly happy for a Civil Partnership with my wife to be the sole extent of the State's involvement.
You are being very insulting to civil married couples. Marriage is not exclusively a religious ceremony, it is a legal ceremony with a (strictly optional) religious component.
You want to diminish the status of all civil married couples in order to keep the gays out of marriage.
Disgraceful.Secondly, how on earth do you reach the conclusion that people would have no choice but to go to churches to get married?
Because you just said you want to abolish civil marriage. Therefore only (gay-free) religious marriage will be left.This is a funny state of affairs isn't it? The Evangelical Christian in this discussion is the one who wants to give you the exact same rights as a priest to conduct a marriage, and you, as an atheist are the one that seems to be arguing that a non-legislative marriage wouldn't be a marriage unless it was conducted by a church.
A non-legislative marriage isn't a marriage at all, and what you are proposing is taking rights away from a whole swathe of people who do not wish to, or cannot, contract a marriage in a church.Here's a wee suggestion. Maybe you should actually read my posts before responding to them? That way you could interact with my actual views instead of making stuff up as you go along and pretending it represents my views.
I assure you I have read your posts. If you have failed to express yourself and then claim I am misrepresenting you, I assure you I am not.I have expressly stated that the removal of marriage from Irish law would permit everyone to practice marriage as they see fit - that would include religious groups, atheists, humanists, LGBT groups etc.
A marriage with no legal standing is meaningless. This idea makes no sense at all.I feel like I've strayed into some kind of Twilight Zone where I can advocate such equality and then you claim that means "no marriage for anyone who isn't religious". Truly staggering.
What is a civil marriage with no legal recognition, exactly?So, you want the law to discriminate against unmarried couples, but that's OK because they can always become first class citizens by getting married (even if they have no wish to be married).
Why does your church offer marriage at all then? Why should unmarried couples be viewed as lesser status by god? Isnt' he discriminating against them?Meanwhile I am suggesting a solution where married couples, unmarried couples, heterosexual couples and same sex couples all have exactly the same legal rights.
Yes, none.Now, just try one more time to explain how that makes you the champion of equality whereas I am happy to treat anyone as second class citizens.
Lose that tone please.In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Lucifer MorningStar wrote: »Any more crazy bible verses you can think off ?
Many.
But I clicked more with your thread title than anything else. My experience with the bible as an atheist has been from actually CARRYING one. And I recommend all atheists do this. Have one on you at all times.
Because when I meet Christians in general the one thing I have learned more than anything else is that none of the ones _I personally have met_ have ever actually SEEN.... let alone held..... a bible.
And the most fun... and most consistent reaction...I have gotten from "Christians" that I have met is at the sheer size of the bible. And this speaks DIRECTLY to the title of your thread......
It seems to me.... based solely on my personal anecdote and I hate anecdote so dismiss what I am about to say as readily as I do.... that the majority of Christians have never read or seen a bible. The hear it in school. They hear it in church......
but because they get spoon fed the same cherry picked passages from both locations over and over again they end up with no idea just how much text and material is IN the bible.
And the most fun... and most consistent reaction...I have gotten from "Christians" that I have met is at the sheer size of the bible. They are quite literally shocked to see how big it actually is. It is much bigger than what their pulpit led them to believe.
As an "atheist" I have had more fun getting Christians to sit down and read the bible than I have EVER had converting them to atheism. The former has been much..... much MUCH..... more fertile ground for me than the latter.
Which might be why Atheist Ireland actually run a "read the bible" campaign 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement