59 thoughts on “A Modest Proposal

  1. Gerv,

    I won’t try to attack your proposal on the grounds of morality, though it deserves a certain look from this point of view too: how can murder (capital punishment) be justified to prevent murder (killing of embryos). But I won’t go into that.

    Instead, I’m challenging your proposal on practical grounds. I believe that your proposal will not have the expected results, in fact it will have the exact opposite ones.

    If the proposal were enacted in Britain, I submit that there will be massive emigration to countries that are less restrictive on sexual matters, say France, or Sweden or the Netherlands. This is because, all things being equal, people like to live in a freer country, not in a more restrictive one.

    This would have catastrophic effects to the economy, both on the short term and on the long term. Any improvements to the moral condition of the remaining populace would vanish immediately in the face of degrading health-care, education, infrastructure, and creeping poverty. And, more importantly, there would be no chance of revival for generations to come.

    *) Many businesses would have to shut down immediately, because of the lack of work force. Even more businesses would shut down in the following months, because they depend on the businesses that would have closed previously. The Great Depression of the 1930s would be repeated. Unemployment and poverty rates would soar.

    *) Less economic activity means less money going into the national and local budgets. That means infrastructure, health, education, will suffer severely.

    *) It’ll be the _young people_ who will be fleeing. There would be a spectacular imbalance of young versus old people. That means fewer NI contributors versus a constant population of NI beneficiaries, therefore the National Insurance scheme will break down in a matter of months. Even if the remaining populace will father 10x more children than before(!), it will take at least three generations to regain the age balance.

    *) A severe brain drain would occur. It will be the _more educated_ people who will be fleeing, because they value freedom more than people with only average education. If you’re wondering how the USA got the edge over the USSR in the Cold War, this might be a reason: bright people prefer freer countries.

    Having fewer bright people leads to less technological advance. That is, Britain would soon be out-paced by other countries, thereby creating more of an incentive for the British to move away to such a country. Britain would have to abandon its service-oriented economy, and revert to farming and manufacturing, thereby effectively becoming a third-world country.

    Is it worth it?

  2. Relax, this is obviously a parody. I’m just wondering what event caused Gerv to write it…?

  3. Recently it was found 95% of Americans have had premarital sex… iirc the rates have typically been found to be slightly higher in Europe than more prudish America for both engaging in sex, and for younger people to engage in sexual acts.
    http://edition.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/19/premarital.sex.ap/

    So effectively, 95%+ of any countries citizens should be behind bars. Even the most totalitarian states have been unable to imprison such a high percentage of their populations.

    Studies showing children only thrive in married households do hold their flaws. Evidence is shown by generations following both WWI, WWII and the US civil war among many other periods where a generation of men were an endangered species. This results in a generation that go through most or their entire childhood being raised either by 1 parent, a care taker (if the remaining parent works), relatives, etc. etc. If these studies were truly correct… society would have completely collapsed dozens of times. There is no real evidence to show people raised during these time periods really have any social, behavioral or even moral problems compared to others.

    However there is a fair amount of documentation, going all the way back to the bible (irrefutable) that people tend to fall for things that are forbidden. Among other places, Adam/Eve falling for the Apple is a good example. The biblical explanation is that it’s a flaw in man (and one of the things that separates us from the divine). More modern analysis says it’s simply based on the human emotion of jealousy and greed. We are jealous we can’t have something, and greed makes us want it. The forbidden is always coveted. The impossible even more so.

    One could say that this divine flaw has it’s advantages. Man made it to the moon, conquered the high seas, made many breakthroughs in science, and continue to do so. Just because it’s “impossible” or “forbidden” (by physics) doesn’t mean man won’t work for it. Heck this internet form of communication is a perfect example of that.

    To be flawed is to be human. The difference between moral and immoral is the willingness to improve throughout a lifetime.

  4. You know, this could easily have come from any of a number of “well respected” high profile lunatics in the US, members of the Religions Wrong such as Fallwell or Robertson. The fact Gerv can so accurately channel them scares me on many levels, not the least of which is that the normally sensible English are obviously not immune to the craziness of American Fundies… God Save The Queen indeed. :)

  5. …just to elaborate on that, exaggerating one’s own position is absolutely not what the original modest proposal was about. And if one is going to pick some barbarous proposal to highlight the issue, it’s probably best making one up instead of grabbing one which is not only still practiced around the world and present in Western history but which was, in fact, inspired by roughly the same (religious) grounds. Unless of course the whole point is that one is trying to talk onesself out of one’s belief system.

    – Chris

  6. Chris: I’m not trying to parody Swift, I was trying to adopt his style and approach for a different issue. That’s entirely different to parody. (And I make no claims to have his literary talent.)

    I don’t understand how you characterise the essay as “exaggerating my own position” – making extra-marital sex a capital offence is nowhere near my own position. Like Swift, my position can be determined from what I briefly suggest and then dismiss near the end – in his case, the evils of the oppression of landlords in the penultimate paragraph, in mine, the need for Christians to rise up and show the world that there’s a better way.

    I’d also like you to back up with examples your attack on Christianity of saying that it’s responsible for making extra-marital sex a capital offence somewhere in the world or in history. Hint: Islam is not “roughly the same religious grounds” as Christianity.

  7. I don’t understand how you characterise the essay as “exaggerating my own position” – making extra-marital sex a capital offence is nowhere near my own position

    Yeah, I’m not really sure what I was on about here. I seem to have gotten tangled up and actually thought you’d genuinely blamed the breakdown of the family unit on premarital sex in the past. My bad.

    I’d also like you to back up with examples your attack on Christianity of saying that it’s responsible for making extra-marital sex a capital offence somewhere in the world or in history. Hint: Islam is not “roughly the same religious grounds” as Christianity.

    Bah, if it’s not the gays then it has to be Islam, huh. It turns out that no, I wasn’t actually comparing you to the Taliban. Extramarital sex includes adultery, right? Now, I’m not exactly a religious scholar, but two seconds on Google was enough to come up with a place where the Bible says things involving adulterers and, errr, stones.

    – Chris

  8. If you actually take the Bible seriously, extra-marital sex should be punished by death. God is clear about sin. If you don’t take the bible seriously, why call yourself a Christian? Fundamentalism is irrational and evil. Religious moderation, despite being less evil, is even more irrational than fundamentalism! If you think you have the capacity to ignore large portions of your holy book, and adopt the rest as metaphor, then you really don’t have faith in it. By making conscious choices about which dogma to adopt, you are proving that your ethical choices are coming from YOU and not from your holy book. Couldn’t you just as easily adopt the Koran or Grimm’s Ferry Tales as your inspiration for morality? Their ethical lessons are about as good as those from the Bible.

  9. Chris: You’re half right, unfortunatly you missed the important half. Those laws were given to the Jews as part of the Mosaic covenant. It was given to Moses and used as the covenant between God and the nation of Isreal.

    Then a guy called Jesus came around and screwed everything up. According to him, even thinking about a woman lustfully or being angry at a brother meant you were as good as dead. Of course, that means we’re pretty much all screwed, which was his point. Because we’d gotten ourselves in to such a rotten position, he sacrificed himself (on the cross) to offer us a chance for salvation from death (death here isn’t the physical death).

  10. Chris said: I seem to have gotten tangled up and actually thought you’d genuinely blamed the breakdown of the family unit on premarital sex in the past. My bad.

    I certainly blame the breakdown of family life to a large extent on society’s current cheapening attitude to sex, including premarital sex. And I do think that, absent the grace of God, premarital sex makes for more insecure marriages. But I don’t advocate capital punishment as the solution.

    Now, I’m not exactly a religious scholar, but two seconds on Google was enough to come up with a place where the Bible says things involving adulterers and, errr, stones.

    You mean the bit were Jesus, er, rescues a woman caught in adultery from the mob who were intending to stone her by pointing out their hypocrisy?

    Mike said: If you actually take the Bible seriously, extra-marital sex should be punished by death.

    And lustful thoughts should also be punished by death, as Jesus equated the sinfulness of the two (Matthew 5:27-28). In fact, in one sense you are right – such sin will be punished by eternal death and separation from God, unless another takes the punishment in the sinner’s place. But the Bible does not teach that adulterers should be killed; in fact, Jesus rescued one sexually sinning woman from just such a fate.

    Your statement is a false dichotomy; we are not presented with a choice between believing in capital punishment for adultery and ignoring the Bible entirely. The results are often amusing when those who don’t believe any of the Bible tell those who do how they should understand it…

  11. “If you don’t take the bible seriously, why call yourself a Christian?”

    – because christianity is about a lot more than the bible. in fact, if you restrict yourself only to the bible, it becomes very difficult to be Christian – too much of it is open to interpretation, especially 2000 years on. religious moderation is what makes the world go round.

  12. ed: Christianity is about Christ (the clue is in the name) – following him as Lord and Saviour and living as he commands. From what extra-Biblical sources do you get new, original information about him?

    religious moderation is what makes the world go round.

    Arguing for moderation because it’s moderate is argumentum ad temperantiam.

  13. as with all other major world religions, christianity is based not only on texts and linguistic interpretations of them (the various english versions of the bible, for example), but also on hundreds/thousands of years of tradition, inspiration, interpretation, open argument, dead-end heresies, etc. etc.

    time has not stood still since the bible was written, many theological scholars, saints, etc. (far greater than us!) have made notable contributions to christian doctrine since. this is why there is such a thing as the christian ‘church’ (such as it is with many denominations) which extends the bible into the real world. this is not to say that the bible is not authoritative on the subjects that it treats – but in fact most christian religious debate really centres on the meaty issues that are not well treated in the bible, and as i’m sure you are well aware, there is plenty of room for debate on certain contradictions within it.

    i’m not arguing for moderation because it is moderate. lack of religious moderation (not just in the present day but in the past also) can be blamed for far more ills of society than, for example, extra-marital sex. possibly wit hthe exception of those countries that have never been torn to pieces to a greater or lesser extent by religious war (i can’t think of any at the moment, but i’m sure there have been some). governments in most ‘civilised’ countries in the world today mostly seem to take a very moderate generic-religious/moral viewpoint; i don’t think this is purely coincidence.

  14. ed: You didn’t actually answer my question. From what extra-Biblical sources do you get new, original information about Christ? If there aren’t any, I would suggest that any “Christians” who say you don’t need to take the Bible seriously aren’t following Christ very closely.

    Those theological scholars and saints you invoke for the most part made their contributions to Christian understanding based on Scripture.

    in fact most christian religious debate really centres on the meaty issues that are not well treated in the bible, and as i’m sure you are well aware, there is plenty of room for debate on certain contradictions within it.

    The Reformation, where Catholicism and Protestantism parted ways, was about the nature of salvation (among other things), and the disagreement continues to this day. I would expect that salvation would be a subject extremely well treated in the Bible. The Bible is sufficient; it tells us all we need to know for life, salvation and godliness. If something is “not well treated” (an expression which itself erroneously suggests the Bible is some sort of religious instruction manual), that probably means it’s not all that important.

    I think mike was making half of a good point when he said “Religious moderation, despite being less evil, is even more irrational than fundamentalism!”. I assume from his statements that he’s not a Christian, but he can see that half-measures make no sense. Jesus can’t be sort of God, or God some of the time. He either is God who is the way, the truth and the life, and demands your life, your soul, your all or he isn’t.

  15. interesting that you should mention the reformation – i think the interesting thing about it is just how similar the catholic and old-school protestant churches are – they have far more in common than just the bible, for example – the order of mass/service, a huge body of hymns/other music, a number of common prayers, use of certain sacraments/ordinances/whatever, history of devout christians known as saints, large body of believers who inspire others etc. etc. etc. in fact walking into a church it could be hard to tell which one you were in.

    as time has gone on, ‘newer’ churches have diverged more and more as differences in opinion [what used to be called ‘heresies'(!)] have become more and more acceptable and common (i.e. in the past splits such as the great schism between catholicism and eastern orthodoxy and the reformation were over relatively minor points when compared against the difference between some christian churches today). these newer forms of christianity tend to be a bit looked down on by the wider establishment of christianity but i think some of them do bring some interesting points of view.

    the single greatest argument against the sole authority of the bible is the number of different churches which now claim to take their authority only from the bible, most of which do follow the text without excessive contradiction.

    certainly looking at it objectively it would be impossible to choose a denomination based solely on what the bible tells you to do (after all, different denominations even use different versions of the text, different languages and different books to form the bible!) – so in practical terms, what people have to go on is what they are exposed to, and the persuasive attempts of other people (who theoretically of course can be considered instruments of God, and of course, may and may not be acting accurately in that capacity). so who is right, and what hellish punishment awaits those who make/made the wrong choice in good faith?

    the contributions of “the church” (exact definitions of who that is vary of course), over the last 2000 years cannot be underestimated in the formation of christianity as it exists today – after all, everyone is basing their faith to some extent on that of those that went before, and those around them. the “extra-biblical new original information about Christ” is all around you, just never quite in the form that one expects, i.e. its not new, and complements the bible.

  16. Parody of Swift or otherwise aside, and even if it might not be your next step or your main concern, why would one be against punishment by the government of sex outside of marriage? God seemed to think such punishments were a good idea for the state of Israel.

    I’m not sure it would wreck our economy (as you of your commenters suggests) if all those who wanted to fornicate emigrated.

  17. If I am permitted to dodge your question by posing another one ;-), God also thought it would be good, at that time, for parents to have their rebellious children stoned (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). If one were for punishment by the government for sex outside marriage, would one also be for that?

    Or, more generally, is Israel’s civil law appropriate for 21st century Britain – not in a “we’ve moved beyond all that now” sense, but in a “we are now a highly Godless society, and our rulers are no longer men of God” sense?

  18. Well, I think we could move towards it.

    I think the sentances are probably maximum rather than minimum or mandatory.

    And all the circumstances need to be taken into account and so on and blah, blah, but basically, if you press me, yes.

    Idealy, of course, it would be great to have a godly society ruled by men of God but a more godly set of rules (and penalties) might be one way of going that way, under God, as the gospel progresses and the preached Word of God triumphs in the power of the Spirit, etc.

    I thought your piece was v clever and well put, by the way, if I may say so.

    Best,

    Marc

    PS. we owe you meals, dont we? When would you like to come and be fed?

  19. * in other words, Gerv, you are happy to dismiss bits of the bible that you don’t agree with because they were only appropriate for israelis, in the past. but you are also happy to suggest that all that is required is the bible, and that any other point of view is straying from the facts.

    * if all those who wanted to ‘fornicate’ emigrated, there would be pretty close to no-one left, and i suspect that those that did leave would be more rather than less likely to be bigger contributors to the economy.

    * the society run by “men of God” has been tried before – the most recent iranian and afghan governments spring to mind, but there have been plenty of christian ones also. look how successful that was.

  20. I’m not sure how much I can contribute here, but I do have a few questions, Gerv (if you permit me asking them here rather than trying to revive some old emails).

    You write:

    He either is God who is the way, the truth and the life, and demands your life, your soul, your all or he isn’t.

    How would you defend your (our?) current lifestyle in light of this? That is, why aren’t we all priests yet, devoting our life to God? Of course, one might say that there are different ways of giving one’s life to God, in which case I wonder how one will know whether one is giving one’s life to God. That is, what is the difference between giving one’s life to God and not doing so? (This question would have been easier to formulate if it were about deciding whether someone else was giving their life to God, but we are told not to judge, so let’s not go that way.)
    Alternatively, there could be just one way of giving your life to God, and I’m just unclear as to how I would distinguish that one way from the many other ways to live your life, I suppose.

    You also write:

    The Bible is sufficient; it tells us all we need to know for life, salvation and godliness.

    Telling us all this is one thing – clearly some people are not interpreting it right (or is there no ‘right’ way of interpreting?).

    A very concrete example, perhaps: Last Sunday, some old friends of mine suddenly showed up at the youth service in ‘my’ Church. They are Christians, but from a more, shall we say, conservative denomination. Traditionally, the service has a moment at the end which is spent in silent prayer, and the lighting of candles with or without a spoken dedication. Our (female) reverend lighted a candle saying “for two women I know, who will get married next week”. Though the comment is perhaps not explicit enough to show this, I’m quite sure my reverend is happy these two women are getting married. Either way, my friends’ faces reflected a mixture of confusion and disapproval.

    If I were to extrapolate these opinions (perhaps not entirely reasonable, but for the sake of the discussion) to endorsing respectively condemning a homosexual relationship based on their (Christian) beliefs, is either of them wrong? Why? (and please don’t just quote scripture on this – it seems safe to assume that those involved know the passages, but still have different ideas)

    It is easy to say that “it’s all there” but it seems clear to me that not everyone agrees on what’s really there. In which case it seems reasonable to me that one considers other things than scripture, such as the opinions of the pope (random example, please don’t take this to mean my opinions are those of Benedict XVI). Mostly because one could expect certain people (priests, monks, bishops, popes, saints, etc.) to have more of an insight in what the Bible meant to tell us than we, humble laity, do. (Please forgive my use of the Catholic terms here, I am simply not familiar with the right English words for the Protestant ones, I guess.)

    That’s plenty of typing for now. I need more of your British humour, I suppose (or more literary knowledge so I would have ‘gotten’ the Swift allusion earlier) – I’ll admit I was quite far into your essay until I realized it wasn’t completely serious. :-)

  21. ed wrote: in other words, Gerv, you are happy to dismiss bits of the bible that you don’t agree with because they were only appropriate for israelis, in the past. but you are also happy to suggest that all that is required is the bible, and that any other point of view is straying from the facts.

    It’s wonderful how you can read my mind like that. You could make a lot of money using that trick in casinos. I am not “dismissing” bits of the Bible, and if I believe that certain parts of the law are not to be followed today, that does not mean that I think “they were only appropriate for Israelis”. The relationship between the old and new covenants is a complex thing. I certainly am happy to admit I don’t understand it fully.

    if all those who wanted to ‘fornicate’ emigrated, there would be pretty close to no-one left, and i suspect that those that did leave would be more rather than less likely to be bigger contributors to the economy.

    Both this point and that of the first commenter assume, of course, that economic development is the highest goal of man, and more important than obeying God.

    From a more practical point of view, of course, you’ve not considered the possibility of the immigration of Christians from other countries.

    * the society run by “men of God” has been tried before – the most recent iranian and afghan governments spring to mind

    You are making the assumption, which I do not share, that the God of Islam is the same as the God of the Bible.

    but there have been plenty of christian ones also. look how successful that was.

    Have there?

  22. Gijs: interesting questions. :-)

    How would you defend your (our?) current lifestyle in light of this? That is, why aren’t we all priests yet, devoting our life to God?

    I would be the first to admit that my current lifestyle only imperfectly matches that of one whose life is devoted to God. In this, as in many things, Jesus is our role model.

    As you say later, one does not have to be a priest to devote one’s life to God. The lives of all Christians should have God in first place as the most important thing; but he calls us to serve him in different ways. How do we know what that is? The Bible gives us good guidance about what living a God-centered life will look like, and we need to be continually comparing our actions to its standard. Galatians 5 is a good (if overwhelming) start:

    The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

    I’ve got a lot to work on…

    Gijs said: If I were to extrapolate these opinions (perhaps not entirely reasonable, but for the sake of the discussion) to endorsing respectively condemning a homosexual relationship based on their (Christian) beliefs, is either of them wrong? Why? (and please don’t just quote scripture on this – it seems safe to assume that those involved know the passages, but still have different ideas)

    In my experience, those who argue that Christians should accept and affirm homosexual activity fall into one of two camps. There are the secularists, who can’t understand why the church can be so backward in refusing to accept what society has come to accept, and how a two-thousand-year-old book can possibly have anything useful to say to us today. I’ll include in this group the liberal Christians who pick and choose which bits of the Bible they feel are worth paying attention to.

    The other group does claim to respect the teaching of the Bible. They spend a lot of time and energy explaining why a few particular individual trees aren’t actually technically in a wood, and don’t look up and see the forest surrounding them (if I may stretch a metaphor). That is, they take the verses in the Bible which explicitly state that homosexual practice is a sin, and come up with a twisted understanding which suggests that their particular brand of homosexual practice doesn’t count. But they don’t engage with the Bible’s wide and clear teaching, from Genesis to Revelation, on the complementarity of men and women, the purpose for which each was created, the role and importance of family and children, and the relationship between Christ and the church which a marriage is a model of.

    In the end, the homosexuality debate is actually a debate about the authority of Scripture. And that’s why the Anglicans (for example) are probably going to split over it eventually – if you have two groups arguing from different premises, they are bound to reach different conclusions a large proportion of the time. It’s also why there is often a correlation between compromise in this area and compromise in other areas where society is pressurising the church to conform to its way of thinking – women with teaching authority in the church, pluralism (the idea that all religions are valid paths to God), and so on.

  23. Maybe Calvin’s Geneva and the Pilgrim Fathers would be examples of societies run by men of God? They did pretty well (economically), I think.

    Surely stable Christian families and lack of sexually transmitted disease, little alcoholism and drug abuse, little excessive gambling, a work ethic, low crime, saving etc would all tend to economic prosperity – as well as the biblical promises that (generally as a rule, other things being equal) God blesses corporate righteousness over time with prosperity?

  24. Gerv, when you say “I’ll include in this group the liberal Christians who pick and choose which bits of the Bible they feel are worth paying attention to.” all you really do is express a personal judgement or prejudice against people who disagree with you. it would be equally valid, and equally rude, in equal measure, to say that you belong to a subset of extremist evangelical ‘christians’ who pick and choose which bits of the Bible they feel are worth bothering and berating other people about, assuming of course that you don’t follow all the chapter and verse about bestiality, not eating certain foods, capital punishment, yadda yadda yadda. it’s not helpful to be so judgemental and use such loaded language to describe something that christians (probably many more people than yourself) have concluded.

    if you are denying knowledge of catastrophic consequences of overly religious government, and claiming that islam is so different to christianity then the examples i stated could not possibly happen in the civilised world, you are severely misguided at best. history is full of stories of religious zeal (some of it even well-intentioned) inspiring disastrous policies. need i remind you that the crusades, the spanish inquisition, colonialism, blah blah blah were all done in the name of christianity? or that all political parties in northern ireland over the last few decades have been run by “men of god” in the finest christian tradition? “Marc Lloyd” has at least made a passable attempt to suggest a couple of minor counter-examples which lasted for short periods of time in relative peace and harmony. power corrupts. only difference is, that at least when secular governments go bad, you’re not arguing against ‘God’.

  25. Gerv, when you say “I’ll include in this group the liberal Christians who pick and choose which bits of the Bible they feel are worth paying attention to.” all you really do is express a personal judgement or prejudice against people who disagree with you. it would be equally valid, and equally rude, in equal measure, to say that you belong to a subset of extremist evangelical ‘christians’ who pick and choose which bits of the Bible they feel are worth bothering and berating other people about, assuming of course that you don’t follow all the chapter and verse about bestiality, not eating certain foods, capital punishment, yadda yadda yadda. it’s not helpful to be so judgemental and use such loaded language to describe something that christians (probably many more people than yourself) have concluded.

    if you are denying knowledge of catastrophic consequences of overly religious government, and claiming that islam is so different to christianity then the examples i stated could not possibly happen in the civilised world, you are severely misguided at best. history is full of stories of religious zeal (some of it even well-intentioned) inspiring disastrous policies. need i remind you that the crusades, the spanish inquisition, colonialism, blah blah blah were all done in the name of christianity? or that all political parties in northern ireland over the last few decades have been run by “men of god” in the finest christian tradition? “Marc Lloyd” has at least made a passable attempt to suggest a couple of minor counter-examples which lasted for short periods of time in relative peace and harmony. power corrupts. only difference is, that at least when secular governments go bad, you’re not arguing against ‘God’.

  26. I think there is a huge difference between Christianity (which seeks to persuade people to faith in Christ) and Islam (which calls for submission, by jihad if necessary) on this score.

  27. Perhaps my use of homosexuality as an example was silly, in the sense that it is a really controversial issue. Gerv, to be honest I sort of knew your personal view was against it, but my main point was that clearly there are (even rougher than your division) two groups here, those who endorse homosexuality, based on their understanding of the bible (which you consider faulty, or nonexistant) and those who condemn homosexuality, based on their understanding of the bible.

    My point is, how would an undecided spectator decide which is right? That is, the bible provides lengthy information about this, and both groups will argue that it really says what they think it says. Perhaps a less controversial issue is that of blood transfusion. Jehovah’s witnesses believe this is wrong. There have been cases in the past where young children did not get live-saving transfusions because the faith of their parents, who were JW’s, said this would be wrong. I don’t know of any other doctrine in mainstream Christianity that argues the same thing as they do. Because the views that it should or shouldn’t be allowed conflict, either the JW’s or the “rest of the Christians” are wrong (logically speaking). Similarly there are all kinds of issues that split the Roman Catholic church into so many other ‘branches’. And yet, John wrote that Jesus prayed for us: “My prayer is not for them [red: the disciples] alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” (John 17:20-22)
    How do you reckon Christianity should solve conflicts like these? And I don’t really want to hear a rationale for your opinion on homosexuality, or why you think other Christians are wrong in their opinions on the matter – what I’m interested in is how, if at all, you would explain such issues in any other way than “you’re all wrong and I am right”.

  28. surely the most useful form of christian ‘society’ is one where everyone has the freedom to sin or not? being forced into a ‘christian’ lifestyle is not the same as believing any of it anyway.

    ideally there would also be a single coherent christian church where all the different denominations made up their differences, decide what a christian lifestyle really is, and then teaach and encourage this. unfortunately, as demonstrated above with the variety of sectarian, anti-gay, anti-sex and otherwise judgmental sentiments that seem to boil to the surface so easily, christians of today in the western world can’t even manage that.

    the muslims have almost exactly the same set of problems with division and strife fuelled by religion, we can learn from them.

  29. OK, hope everyone’s still here :-)

    ed said: Gerv, when you say “I’ll include in this group the liberal Christians who pick and choose which bits of the Bible they feel are worth paying attention to.” all you really do is express a personal judgement or prejudice against people who disagree with you.

    Perhaps what I said was a slight simplification, but I don’t think it’s inaccurate. They’ll dress it up in language about what was appropriate for then may not be appropriate now, and that we’ve continued to get revelations from the Holy Spirit, but the end result is that they ignore the Bible’s clear teaching on many issues because they think that today “we know better”. And will happily agree that this is what they are doing if you ask them. They don’t see any problem with it, after all.

    it would be equally valid, and equally rude, in equal measure, to say that you belong to a subset of extremist evangelical ‘christians’ who pick and choose which bits of the Bible they feel are worth bothering and berating other people about, assuming of course that you don’t follow all the chapter and verse about bestiality, not eating certain foods, capital punishment, yadda yadda yadda.

    I’d be happy to explain to you the Christian position on the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, and how the coming of Jesus modifies our understanding of the Old Testament law. But are you happy to listen and try and understand?

    if you are denying knowledge of catastrophic consequences of overly religious government,

    I’m denying the existence of a single category of “overly religious government”.

    need i remind you that the crusades, the spanish inquisition, colonialism, blah blah blah were all done in the name of christianity?

    If we are going to admit hasty generalisations to the debate, then I’ll respond that the policies of the Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong regimes were all directly driven by an underlying atheism. Such an assertion is at least as true as “colonialism was done in the name of Christianity”.

    ideally there would also be a single coherent christian church where all the different denominations made up their differences, decide what a christian lifestyle really is, and then teaach and encourage this. unfortunately, as demonstrated above with the variety of sectarian, anti-gay, anti-sex and otherwise judgmental sentiments that seem to boil to the surface so easily, christians of today in the western world can’t even manage that.

    The last part of your statement shows that what you really mean is “all the different denominations should agree that ed knows what the Bible teaches better than any of them, and they should just agree with him on what a Christian lifestyle really is”. Given that you aren’t a Christian, isn’t it a touch arrogant to suggest that you should be the one telling us all what to believe?

  30. gijs asked: How do you reckon Christianity should solve conflicts like these? And I don’t really want to hear a rationale for your opinion on homosexuality, or why you think other Christians are wrong in their opinions on the matter – what I’m interested in is how, if at all, you would explain such issues in any other way than “you’re all wrong and I am right”.

    Very good question, and one I had to think about quite hard.

    To begin with, both sides need to be committed to the Bible, as originally given, as the word of God, finally authoritative on all matters to which is speaks. If this is not true, then the two sides have different premises (starting points) – and therefore it’s not surprising if they come to different conclusions.

    [The JWs fall at this hurdle – their translation of the Bible has serious and obvious flaws. Sadly, many individual JWs don’t know this.]

    Then, there needs to be analysis and discussion of the relevant passages in the context of the whole Bible, the story of God’s plan of salvation. This is how Christians have come to an understanding on issues down the ages, from the Trinity onwards. While there is much (possibly unbiblical) fracturing within the Protestant church, the level of agreement about important matters such as the way of salvation is good.

    After that, on other secondary matters, it takes time. After all, we are only about 40 generations from Jesus. It may be thousands of years more before the church comes to one mind on issues like baptism. A measure of humility is required.

  31. Gerv wrote:

    To begin with, both sides need to be committed to the Bible, as originally given, as the word of God, finally authoritative on all matters to which is speaks. If this is not true, then the two sides have different premises (starting points) – and therefore it’s not surprising if they come to different conclusions.

    [The JWs fall at this hurdle – their translation of the Bible has serious and obvious flaws. Sadly, many individual JWs don’t know this.]

    While I’ll readily accept that there are flaws in the JWs’ translation :-) I’m confused as to how you would show this. That is, if we adopt the more neutral position that their translation is “different”, then how would you argue who is right? Translations, unfortunately, are done by people who have an idea about what is supposed to be in the text, and even if they don’t have any ideas about the text, they will have before they finish it. This is what makes them make the decisions they make, and translate how they do. In principle, when translating dead languages in particular (cf. ancient Greek) it is very hard to make both a readable as well as a correct translation. There has to be some kind of trade-off, if only because there are simply no equivalent words for some terms which were normal in ancient Greek.

    Also, you wrote the level of agreement on salvation is good. This is quite ironic given that quite a prominent debate in Dutch history was that between Calvinists and Arminianists, who disagree about precisely that (and still do).

    You might have noticed I’m not actually advocating anything myself. That’s mostly because I’ve given up on trying to do so. I find it very hard, if not impossible, to make a call on what being a “Christian” really entails once you get to the details (you know, after the accepting God and Jesus parts ;-) ). Feel free to stop discussing if you think this is an unfair position. :-)

    PS: maybe my morning math just sucks, but you’re saying we’re 40 generations from Jesus – wouldn’t that mean people get kids when they’re 50? Seems a bit off to me…

  32. Gijs: you argue “who is right” about the way to translate a particular bit of Greek in the same way that you and a friend decide how to understand the words I’m writing now. Unless both of you are post-modern to a quite unsupportable degree, you will agree that I had a particular meaning or range of meaning in mind when I wrote this comment, and that you can together, using your knowledge of English, work out what it is.

    If it turns out your knowledge of English is insufficient, you may wish to look at a dictionary, or other authors who use similar word constructions and work out what they meant from their context, or you may wish to ask someone who has better English than you.

    It may turn out that, even after doing all this, there is still some ambiguity about what I meant. There are instances of this in the Bible – particularly with Hebrew words which are used in one place and no other. But the flaws in the JW translation of the Bible do not fall into this category. For example, in Colossians 1:15-16:

    He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all [other] things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all [other] things were created by him and for him.

    they twice insert the word “other”, which has no corresponding word in the Greek, in order to make the text fit their theology that Jesus was the first created being. The Greek for “all things” is “panta”, which means everything. Here’s a good article on why this translation is incorrect. It uses the principles of Greek and the way the same words and concepts are used in the rest of Scripture. The point about the theological significance of the idea of “firstborn” is the most important, I feel.

  33. >I’ll respond that the policies of the Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong
    >regimes were all directly driven by an underlying atheism. Such an assertion >is at least as true as “colonialism was done in the name of Christianity”.

    reinforcing the point, that all sorts of regimes have historically done whatever they wanted under all sorts of banners, both christian and otherwise – and the christians have been absolutely no better or worse than anyone else.

    >After that, on other secondary matters, it takes time. After all, we are only
    >about 40 generations from Jesus. It may be thousands of years more before the
    >church comes to one mind on issues like baptism. A measure of humility is
    >required.

    there is no question in my mind that all of the different christian churches are drifting further and further apart ideologically. you seem to think the opposite, that they are somehow getting closer despite the increasing number of different denominations, and lack of guidance (that you are prepared to accept) since the bible was written.

    >The last part of your statement shows that what you really mean is “all the
    >different denominations should agree that ed knows what the Bible teaches
    >better than any of them, and they should just agree with him on what a
    >Christian lifestyle really is”. Given that you aren’t a Christian, isn’t it a
    >touch arrogant to suggest that you should be the one telling us all what to
    >believe?

    as far as i’m aware i’m not expressing any of the different christian viewpoints on any subject of lifestyle, just saying that forcing any one system on everyone
    * has historically never improved matters
    * has a prerequisite of deciding which system to choose

    i’m intrigued as to what makes you think i’m not a Christian (incorrectly! lol) and also makes you think i’m forcing some sort of Christian doctrine down your throat (incorrect as far as i know)? i’m trying to offer a balanced view, not least because i think your sort of christianity, with the very best of intentions, does a lot of harm to the image of the religion as a whole.

    your arguments about translations of the bible are a massive understatement and over-simplification. if you aren’t reading a complete original script (not one of those dastardly copies like the dead sea scrolls or anything like that) in hebrew, NT greek, etc as a native speaker of all languages involved from the time they were written, you haven’t got a definitive version. there most certainly isn’t an agenda-free english one, and probably never will be, which means that in some cases, you simply don’t know what was intended. jehovahs witnesses are very very far from being the only ones who stray from the original. different churches can’t even agree on which books should be in/out.

  34. “there is no question in my mind that all of the different christian churches are drifting further and further apart ideologically. you seem to think the opposite, that they are somehow getting closer despite the increasing number of different denominations, and lack of guidance (that you are prepared to accept) since the bible was written.”

    This is not really my experience. Although we continue to see denominations split to some degree, what I have mainly experienced is a growth in non-denominational christian churches that hold to a much more central (and small) set of theological points. Certainly there is quite a (growing) variety in the traditions, methods, and general aesthetics of different churches, but I don’t know anyone that holds those differences have anything to do with theology or ideology.

    So my question is, if there is no question in your mind than what makes you so sure? Can you offer some examples?

  35. well the chirstian church did go more than 1000 years before its first major split (i.e. one that ‘stuck’). and now there are thousands of denominations, by all accounts, growing all the time.

    the full spectrum between mormons, jehovah’s witnesses, quakers, orthodox, scientologists etc. etc. contains a staggering arary of beliefs nowadays – in fact there aren’t many moral or theological issues of any significance that they can all agree on, as far as i can tell.

    catholics make up a big majority, but there are wide variations in how catholicism is practiced worldwide, and these are not getting any smaller.

    the basic problem is that every time someone sticks to their principles in the face of opposition, another group splits off and forms their own version – its simply too easy to form a new denomination nowadays (in the past there would only have been one word for this – ‘heresy’).

    if they can get their act together and come to some understanding with the orthodox churches (there is actually minimal ideological difference between them by today’s standards, and they have taken some steps in this direction) then there might be some hope of the christian congregation as a whole regaining some unity. then again, there are even people around today who call themselves christians but deny that catholics are, and obviously even more so for less popular denominations (see uninformed slagging off of JWs above!), so it will be an uphill struggle.

  36. hmmm . . you provide a very good question, one I will have to think about (and probably learn more about). One immediate problem though – how in the world did you get scientologists in the grouping of Christian churches? I can see why you’re including Mormons and JWs, though I’m not sure whether that’s correct or now. But Scientologists? Did you mean to include them?

    What are the big differences in how Catholicism is practiced? Are these ideological differences or regional / cultural differences?

  37. if they can get their act together and come to some understanding with the orthodox churches (there is actually minimal ideological difference between them by today’s standards, and they have taken some steps in this direction) then there might be some hope of the christian congregation as a whole regaining some unity.

    But unity is not unity unless you are unified around something (i.e. the truth). Let’s do a thought experiment. Start with Protestant evangelical Christianity, for the sake of argument. Now let’s be unified:

    • Include the Quakers – throw away predestination and election
    • Include the liberal Protestants – throw away the ideas of Biblical inerrancy and the supremacy of Scripture
    • Include the Jehovah’s Witnesses – throw away the idea of the deity of Christ
    • Include the Mormons – throw away the finality of the revelation of Jesus in favour of the Book of Mormon
    • Include the Roman Catholics – throw away the idea of justification by faith alone and the prohibitions against idolatry so we can put up big statues of Mary

    So you have a unified church, but what is left to be unified around? The Golden Rule?

    The true invisible church of Christ is unified in Him. I am, praise God, united with millions of brothers across the world, of various denominational labels, who confess the truth revealed in Scripture that Christ is their only Saviour, Lord and God. Exactly who that is, only he knows. But that doesn’t make contending for the truth any less important.

  38. Gerv, apart from giving you the chance to set out a whole load of ridiculous stereotypes about various denominations, your argument about how the church cannot possibly be unified but somehow you are unified with people all over the world could bear some further (rational?) explanation.

    if you are saying that christians worldwide have a lot more in common than the differences between them, then you may well be right, but you appear to contradict yourself pretty severely. can you explain how you can be unified with our overseas buddies, particularly the really primitive ones (in africa and places like that) who have no time for anything except worshipping statues, pointing out errors in the bible, etc.

    p.s. i really can’t say how scientology got in there; ignore that.

  39. I don’t know what stereotypes “ed” has in mind. Gerv’s points are correct as matters of fact aren’t they: Quakers do not believe in predestination and so on.

  40. * the terms “biblical inerrancy” and ‘idolatry’, are used in a context that renders them _completely_ meaningless. they are there purely to be dismissive about viewpoints which are,as it happens, held by a large majority.

    * few, if any, of the differences between branches mentioned are particularly important in the grand scheme of things

    * the argument starts from the wrong end, with historically the most recently invented ‘denomination’ which makes it read in a certain way inevitably.

    no-one could possibly read that argument and think that Gerv was a liberal protestant or a roman catholic.

  41. * the terms “biblical inerrancy” and ‘idolatry’, are used in a context that renders them _completely_ meaningless. they are there purely to be dismissive about viewpoints which are,as it happens, held by a large majority.

    The number of people holding a viewpoint is not an argument in support of it.

    By idolatry, I mean statues like this one of Mary, which I recently saw in Granada cathedral. There is also an enormous gilt throne-like construction at the focal point of the cathedral, with another statue of Mary on top. Exodus 20 says “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them.”

    By Biblical inerrancy, I mean treating the Bible as revelation from God. I don’t think it’s a meaningless term. I also don’t think that it’s a particularly contentious assertion on either side of the liberal/evangelical divide in Protestantism that they have very different approaches to the Bible, or that most liberals would not use the word “inerrant” with regard to it.

    * few, if any, of the differences between branches mentioned are particularly important in the grand scheme of things

    This is your premise; you interpret all other facts in the light of this basic truth. Therefore, any suggestion that the differences are important or large can be dismissed as mistaken or sectarian because it doesn’t fit with your world view.

    So I suggest it is your argument that is starting at the wrong end. The Bible teaches that there will be false teachers; where do you see them today? Or is nobody a “false teacher”; it’s all just unimportant differences?

  42. i’m sure it should be needless to say, that roman catholics do not worship such statues, and nor do orthodox christians worship the many wonderful icons that they tend to have lying around the place.

    one of the many reasons that the term “biblical inerrancy” is so meaningless in this context, is that some of the denominations you mention do not even use the same book. so biblical inerrancy, to mormons, is incompatible with biblical inerrancy to people who rely on the word of king james. or one of the modern translations. etc. they all contain direct contradictions, particularly between new and old testaments (if you can agree on what books are in which testament, of course), as covered previously. so it is all a matter of interpretation.

    it is not that liberals would not necessarily use the word ‘inerrant’ to describe the bible, simply that your use of it to describe your own interpretation (and dismiss that of others) is basically another way of trying to spin the “i’m right, while the large majority of christians who don’t agree with me are wrong” argument. theologically meaningless.

    as for the continual attempts to make more of the differences between mainstream denominations than there actually is, maybe there is a better way to advance the true cause of christianity worldwide, and maybe that is something you should think about.

    i’d like you to consider the possibility that, if
    * false teachers exist as you say
    * there are so many differences between your point of view and misguided majority, as you say
    * God has any say in what happens on earth
    then there are two possibilities.

    either they have been taught by such “false teachers” and God intends to restart christianity almost from scratch, by telling your minority the truth and expecting you to get on with converting the billion-plus (who are so cluelessly worshipping statues, not treating the bible with respect, etc.) to the new christianity (as not foretold in scripture, etc.)
    [side-argument – in which case why not do so from within one of these churches where someone might actually pay attention]

    or, you have been taught falsely and led down a blind alley by the tactic of brainwashing so common in small christian sects.

  43. ed: I didn’t say that Catholics worship statues; apologies if that’s what came across. Their idolatry is that they worship Mary. If you enquire carefully, officially they claim that it’s a different, lesser sort of worship – but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

    Perhaps you’d like to name some of the supposed contradictions in the Bible, and explain how you deal with them as a Christian, and how you decide which bits of the Bible (if any) you can trust?

    I don’t understand your objection to my use of the word “inerrant”. It’s an English word which means “does not contain mistakes”. Some people who call themselves Christians apply it to the Bible; some don’t. Those who do would say that those who don’t are mistaken, and vice versa. I don’t see how I’m using some trick of language to dismiss others – I’m merely pointing out what seem to me to be fairly self-evident facts, admitted by both sides.

    You say that it’s possible that I have been misled by false teaching. Yes, it’s certainly possible. I am happy to discuss particular points of contention with you. To what authority should we appeal to decide who is right and who is wrong? I go to my Bible, which I believe is the word of God and so does not contain mistakes. Where would you go?

  44. if that’s what you really want! a couple of obvious self-contradictions in the bible are presented below, for your perusal, one from each testament.

    i’m quite happy to accept that there are some simple mistakes such as this in the bible, but i don’t personally think that detracts from the message. then again, i’m not the one claiming that such mistakes do not exist. on bigger ‘mistakes’ such as the story of creation, i’ve got my own point of view but i’m happy to accept that other people don’t agree. i don’t think that detracts either, overall. but if you are arrogant/foolish enough to think that your interpretation of the bible is the correct one, and that the book itself is ‘inerrant’, then you had better have explanations for every single such contradiction! if you think you have that, then please go for it, explain away.

    John 19:14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! (15) But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

    Mark 15:25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

    II Kings 8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother�s name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

    II Chronicles 22:2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother�s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

    P.S. what you say about the catholic faith is complete and utter nonsense (for roman catholics at least) as i understand it, but i suppose you think that the use of cliche about a duck justifies sloppy argument not based in fact. as far as i know (and i don’t know much, i must admit), both the official line and the practically observed line, is that Mary is not the subject of catholic worship. maybe you know more?

    it seems a bit perverse to me that one of your principal targets for abuse is both the largest and fastest growing (in the UK at least) branch of your own religion. it is also the branch which is closest to having a peaceful and workable “christian state” as outlined in your original argument – countries such as ireland have a very high saturation of catholics, and braodly but not completely catholic-based laws (which is why terrified 14 year old irish rape victims have to either sneak over the border for an abortion, or get the knitting needles out).

  45. Ed: The reason for the apparent discrepancy in timing is that Mark uses the Jewish timing system, and John the Roman. More details.

    As for the Old Testament example, I think the best explanation is that there has been a copying error. The way that numbers were formed in Hebrew means there’s very little difference between 22 and 42. Fortunately, there is sufficient other information to determine that 22 is the correct number. 2 Kings 8:17 tells us that Ahaziah’s father was 32 when he became king, and died 8 years later at 40. His son can clearly not have been 42 when his father was 40!

    I believe that the Bible was inspired as originally given; while I think that it has been very well transmitted, I do not exclude the possibility of occasional slips of the pen. Does that make a nonsense of the doctrine of infallibility? No, because God was watching over the process, and we can do textual analysis to work out what the original text was with a very high degree of accuracy and certainty. I don’t know of any example of a textual variant where a point of doctrine is at stake. Do you?

    But I am still interested in an answer to my question: how, as a Christian, do you deal with such issues, and how you decide which bits of the Bible (if any) you can trust?

    Regarding the Catholic understanding of Mary, this page from catholic-pages.com is relevant. Mary is defined dogmatically as Queen of Heaven and Earth, and there is growing pressure for her to be dogmatically defined as co-Redeemer (with Christ), i.e. equal with him in his saving work, and the sole mediator of grace – that is, Jesus dispenses his grace only through Mary. Millions of Catholics believe this. If she was a sinful human like us (and the Bible teaches that she was), then “Queen of Heaven and Earth” is an absolutely inappropriate title. There is only one ruler of Heaven and Earth, and it is Jesus (1 Cor 15:25 and other places).

    I’m not sure what your point is about Ireland. As I understand it, their abortion law is in line with official Catholic teaching. A 14-year-old rape victim living in the Vatican (should such a person exist) would not be offered an abortion there either.

    I end by denying entirely your charge of “abuse”. I have disagreed; I have pointed out what I believe to be true facts; but I do not think I have been abusive. Please give examples if you believe otherwise. Or is this another manifestation of the “everyone who morally objects to homosexuality is a homophobe” idea? If I disagree with Catholics, I must be being abusive?

  46. ah, so there are copying errors, but you just ‘know’ what the right meaning is? i wonder what you think about apocryphal books that are included in some bibles and not others? which version of the bible do you even consider to be the ‘correct’ and ‘infallible’ one? there are some pretty wide variations. was the universe created in 7 days? or was it 7 ages? is this a point of doctrine? or just a story? some people seem to think its very important what the distinction is.

    i prefer to take a wider and more general message from the bible, which does not involve criticising others for their sexuality based on very specific passages, and not following other equally specific passages because they are copying errors, or only applied in ancient times, or whatever. maybe that makes me beyond redemption? i don’t know. i don’t think that everyone that objects morally to homosexuality is a homophobe, but (a) a lot of them actually are (b) i think its a rare case when it actually helps anyone to polarise the debate like that on such a minor pastoral issue (c) they are an easy target (d) i think the objections based entirely on the bible are on shaky ground.

    your interpretation of the catholic page reads a lot between the lines. you seem to be adding stuff in that maybe you know from elsewhere, but isn’t on the page? i don’t know enough about that one. its fairly clear to me that catholics (that i know, anyway) don’t believe that Mary holds equal status to Jesus, but is just a part of the picture. i always thought that intercession through the saints (including mary) was simply a form of prayer that led eventually to God. also, isn’t queen a suitable title for someone who is the mother of a king? maybe she should be the “queen mother” of heaven – would that make you happy?

    either way the point is that i think you are straying outside of what is (a) important (b) contained within the bible, to have a pop at people who should fundamentally be “on your side”.

    my point about ireland was just an aside really, but relevant to the (very) original point, about a christian state. they have one (as do the vatican of course, you’re right) – and the moral questions don’t get any easier as a result (well they do, a bit, in the vatican, but then again a lot of things get easier when you only allow celibate men).

  47. Do you think you can bury me so deeply in questions that I’ll just give up and admit you are right? :-)

    i prefer to take a wider and more general message from the bible

    One of the wide and general messages of the Bible is that humanity is sinful (rebels against God). It’s pretty much there wherever you look – throughout the story of the people of Israel in the Old Testament (see Psalm 78 for a good summary), and through the gospels and epistles. What sort of behaviours, attitudes or beliefs would you say are sinful?

    i think the objections based entirely on the bible are on shaky ground.

    What are your alternative sources of authority when deciding a question?

  48. well i keep trying, but you obviously aren’t that keen to answer a straight question.

    humanity is sinful, i am sinful, you are sinful, homosexuals, adulterers, randy teenagers, etc. are all sinful. but their (mostly victimless) crimes will be judged by God. not you.

    i think that having a go on minor social issues such as sexuality is out of order for 2 reasons
    * it is hurtful to others
    * it severely damages the image of christianity.

    a good example of this key second point occurs nowadays in many british universities where the most incredible brand of zealous and misguided ‘modern’ christianity not only puts many students off christianity for life, but also propagates a viewpoint amongst the general public that it is unchristian to drink alcohol, that homosexuals can’t be christians, etc. the recent news story about the legal battle at bristol(?) uni between ‘christian’ union and student union is the message that many people take home about christianity – no wonder most churches are struggling to attract numbers.

    in answer to your q, i have some views on morality that are not drawn from the bible. that means i can take a view on issues such as drugs, the internet, carbon emissions, etc. not touched on by the bible. i can also feel free to view some items in the bible as more important than others, and treat some manifestations of literal bible interpretation (in direct opposition to scientific fact) with the respect they deserve.

  49. You didn’t actually answer my question. I asked “What sort of behaviours, attitudes or beliefs would you say are sinful?”, and you responded with a list of people who were sinful. How do you know they are sinful, if not by their behaviours, attitudes or beliefs? And, if that is how you know, then which behaviours, attitudes or beliefs are sinful?

    but their (mostly victimless) crimes will be judged by God. not you.

    There is no such thing as victimless sin; even if there is no obvious human victim, Christ took the punishment we deserve for our sins, and he is the victim. We should avoid all sin both for this reason, because he commanded it,
    and because it’s inconsistent with our status as children of God.

    You are equivocating on the word “judged”. Yes, God will judge sin in the sense of determining it perfectly and administering punishment for it (to us or to Christ) but that does not exclude us reading the Bible to determine what is God’s will for humanity and, therefore, what is not – and encouraging one another to live in the former way and not the latter. This is a different sense of “judgment”.

    i think that having a go on minor social issues such as sexuality is out of order for 2 reasons
    * it is hurtful to others
    * it severely damages the image of christianity.

    Is the purpose of Christianity to have a good image among those whose values are diametrically opposed to it? Or to make everyone, even those destined to feel God’s just wrath upon them, feel warm and fuzzy and safe?

    This line of thinking could be used to argue that the church should not say anything counter-cultural at all – because someone is bound to be offended and think less of us because of it. Yet Christians are called to be different to the rest of the world. How to square that circle?

    i have some views on morality that are not drawn from the bible.

    Yes, I know :-) But my question is: where do you draw them from? What is your alternative source of authority? Your own thinking and experience? The writings of others? The views of the majority of society?

  50. i wouldn’t presume to know the particular nature of other people’s sins – that’s between them and god, and should stay that way. if it impacts on a victim in a way that i wouldn’t like done to myself, then i wouldn’t approve, and would try to steer clear myself, whether it was written in the bible (e.g. murder) or not (e.g. drug dealing). this is just morality 101. you can argue forever about the exact specifics of hypothetical scenarios, and in a lot of cases you can draw an argument for either side from the bible. but i think the christian message is pretty clear – love one another as i have loved you, forgiveness of even the gravest sin, etc.

    i really don’t think the christian message is as negative as you are always making out. i think it is possible both to live a christian lifestyle and still enjoy life to the full, and i think it more likely that the religion as a whole will spread, grow, move forward, and ultimately succeed in its own mission as laid out for example in mark 16:15. if people are shown this positive example, maybe that will later lead to a seed of belief that will have plenty of time to grow into an increasingly pious view. pushing a strong negative view about all the things people should feel bad about to start with, all the things they should repent/give up/leave behind is in my view almost completely opposite to the spirit in which the new testament of the bible was written.

    in this week’s news is all this stuff about the anglican church supposedly splitting in half on the issue of gay clergy. this is a classic moral dilemma of course, particularly because these guys are given a leadership position within the church which can make the issue that much more divisive. i should reinforce the point that i don’t pretend to have a solution to such issues. however it seems to me to be incredibly petty that any church could split in half in a debate about other people’s specific sins (or lack of them)? what message does this send out? isn’t the church meant to be about belief in jesus christ and his message, rather than racing to cast the first stone at other people? on such a small issuette in the grand scheme of things. this is one of the most frustrating things for me in the whole broken world of christianity, and your angle seems to always be in supoprt of this pedantic division.

  51. i wouldn’t presume to know the particular nature of other people’s sins – that’s between them and god, and should stay that way.

    So you know they are sinful, but not why? Then how can you recognise sinful acts in yourself? And if you can recognise them in yourself, how come you can’t in others?

    The Bible calls us to be discerning about sin, and not to tolerate it – in ourselves, or in others. Being intolerant of sin doesn’t mean being nasty to the sinner, but it does mean making it clear that it’s unacceptable and giving them what help they need to change, with the help of the Holy Spirit.

    i think it is possible both to live a christian lifestyle and still enjoy life to the full

    I more than agree – being a Christian is the very definition of enjoying life to the full. One can’t appreciate the creation without a relationship with the creator. But I think perhaps you have a different definition of “enjoying life to the full”? What were you thinking of, specifically?

    all the things they should repent/give up/leave behind is in my view almost completely opposite to the spirit in which the new testament of the bible was written.

    The first thing Jesus said as he started his ministry was “Repent and believe the good news”.

    Also: “I tell you the truth,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields – and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life.” (Matthew 10:29-30)

    Jesus seems to be encouraging rather a lot of giving up and leaving behind there. I think your mistake is that you see repentance, and leaving the world behind to pursue Christ, as a negative thing. It’s not.

    however it seems to me to be incredibly petty that any church could split in half in a debate about other people’s specific sins (or lack of them)? what message does this send out? isn’t the church meant to be about belief in jesus christ and his message, rather than racing to cast the first stone at other people?

    Absolutely – and, in fact, belief in Christ and his message is what the debate is really about. At heart, they are arguing about the authority (or otherwise) of the Bible. Homosexuality discussions are just the symptom. The same applies to the debate about women in leadership.

    If the Bible is authoritative, then it clearly teaches that sex is reserved for marriage between a man and a woman, and all forms of sex outside that (including adultery, pre-marital sex, etc.) are wrong. But some people do not consider it authoritative – and if you have two people with different bases of authority arguing, it’s not surprising when they reach different conclusions.

  52. i don’t believe or claim, that i can recognise sin in others, most of the time. i just mentioned some possible examples to get the ball rolling. the fact that i can’t doesn’t particularly bother me, in fact i think its better for everyone, including me, that i don’t make too many judgements about them. my bible doesn’t encourage intolerance quite as strongly as the one you’ve obviously been reading.

    you mention the first thing jesus said – well the first thing he did was to turn water into a large amount of wine, but that doesn’t stop methodists, among others, from regarding the consumption of alcohol as something to be avoided. do you agree with them? more importantly, do you believe that such a minor pastoral issue is worthy of a split in the religion of christianity? you seem to be saying that you DO think that about the issues of pre-marital and homosexual sex. well in the latter case, that argument flies in the face of established scientific fact. sexuality is decided by hormones, not personal choice.

    what do you think of the many people who are turned off from christianity altogether by your hard line? are you proud of trying, and it’s their problem if they didn’t listen? or do you view that as a failure?

    either way, your viewpoint of christianity really comes across strongly as saying that someone who does NOTHING whatsoever, is living the most christian lifestyle, by virtue of doing the least stuff wrong (although they do, of course, still ignore biblical advice both to make use of their talents, and to spread the gospel as widely as possible). even saying anything, particularly on any controversial issue, is risking eternal damnation. there is not really a positive message coming out. whatsmore, the penalties of doing wrong sound severe.

  53. Ed: if you are still reading, send me your email address (gerv@gerv.net). That would probably be better than an ever-lengthening blogpost page we both keep needing to check… I suspect “ed at hotmail dot com” isn’t your real one – unless you got in to Hotmail really, really early…