Claire  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> Lovely. A sizable proportion of the CofE have no problem with gay or
>> female ministers. A proportion have a big problem with it. Who's right?

> The more important question is how can it be resolved?

Well, it seems that you answered that later :-

>> If they choose to side-step it by discontinuing whatever service they
>> don't want to provide to all, equally, then that's their choice, of
>> course.

> Exactly their choice was either to break the law or stop what they were
> doing completely.

So, for those who ran the Catholic adoption agencies, their personal 
preference not to treat gay people in the same way as straight people was 
stronger than their desire to help kids in need of homes.

Nice people...

So - it would seem that we're all agreed that the C of E face the same 
choice :- accept gay clergy & female bishops; break the law; or close.

On 2 Nov, 16:22, Adrian  wrote:
> Claire  gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
> > I'm going away for the week now so will have to respond some time when I
> > get back. (although we can't go on for ever).
>
> Enjoy your holiday. Anywhere nice?

Visiting  family.  I have not forgotten your posts just that we both
seem to write a lot!  I will reply though!

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:31:07 -0800 (PST), Claire
 wrote:

>> Remind us again where Jesus said it was wrong to be gay?
>
>1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version)

<snip>

It is fairly easy to cherry-pick passages from a selected translation
of the Bible to "prove" just about anything you want to prove is
"God's will".

It is difficult enough to make an accurate translation of an English
writing made 200 years ago.  Try reading original Shakespear or
Chaucer and see how easy it is to discern the exact meaning of what
they were saying.  The meaning of words change, sometimes very
dramatically, and so unless you know how a word was being used in the
time and place it was written, you can get a completely incorrect idea
of what the writer meant.  Many words also have several different
meanings, and phrases can have a meaning that are completely different
from their literal translation.

What would you take it to mean if you read the passage, "I was pretty
pissed last night and had a row with the other half."?

1) I was angry yesterday and had an argument with my wife
2) I was drunk yesterday and operated a small boat whilst drinking
another ale.

And that's translating contemporary, modern English!  it gets worse
when the ancient writer was being sarcastic or ironic, because it is
unlikely to be apparent that that is the case, and a literal
translation is likely to be the very opposite of its intended meaning.

When the writing in question is over 1000 years old and various parts
themselves span 1000 years, and are in a foreign language, the
probability of making an accurate translation is pretty remote, even
if the translator is completely unbiased.  It gets worse if the
translation is of a translation, and the translators have poitical
motives - which is the case in many of the Bible translation efforts.

The meaning of words and phrases is linked with the culture of the
society the language is used by.  I have read that the word "virgin"
in the English Bible is in fact a translation of a word that referred
to a woman who has never had a menstrual discharge (something that had
great significance to that culture).  Thus it could either refer to a
pre-pubescent girl or to a woman who had been impregnated on every
cycle since puberty (not a rare event in those cultures).  I have no
idea whether that statement is accurate, but it illustrates the
difficulty of translating foreign writings from cultures that we would
find alien.

-- 
cynic

On 4 Nov, 08:24, Adrian  wrote:
> Claire  gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
> > Christians are never really alone
>
> Nor is our MI5-persecuted friend...

Ha-de-ha-ha. Very funny. :-/

On 5 Nov, 09:20, Adrian  wrote:
> Claire  gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
> > I am asking; why should we have different rules in the church for
> > homosexuals compared to any other understandably tempted people trying
> > to live according to teaching?
>
> Don't ask me. Ask the catholic adoption agency who decided to sulk and go
> home rather than have the same rules for gays as everybody else.

Right, so if a man said “this is my wife and here is my mistress” you
would not think this would  undermine him at an interview with a
Catholic adoption agency?

>
> > Well a way to look at that is that if you would not do something you
> > consider to be a sin then why would you help somebody else to who would> You wouldn't catch me eating catfood, either - but I gladly help the cat
> to do so.

Ah so homosexuals are animals? ;-)

>
> >> > I don’t think the error was with the translators as it does not look
> >> > like there was any direct translation into English for the words
> >> > used. Likewise there was not a concept of somebody being “Gay” in the
> >> > sense of an identity so there is no word in the ancient Greek or
> >> > Hebrew.
> >> Can't have been a particularly big issue to worry about back then, eh?
> > Well, it got enough mentions in the Bible!
>
> In the translations, yes.

In its original languages also

>
> It does seem rather odd that something was such a big problem that they
> thought they'd repeatedly condemn people for doing it, yet nobody had
> even thought it worth naming...

They did, there just is not one exact translation it seems.

>
> >> God did have a little yawn and a stretch just after getting up one
> >> morning, think "Mmm. Wonder what I'll do today? I know!" and spend the
> >> next seven days knocking up Earth, mankind, animals etc?
> > Well, I would subscribe more to the theory of inelegant design really.
>
> Ah, is this another one of those "Read the Old Testament in conjunction
> with the Errata" things? Which bits of the "Director's Cut" backtrack
> from the creation lark, then?

Not really no. We are either “fearfully and wonderfully made” or a
cosmic accident. Interestingly ID does not wash with either
literalists or Atheists with a dogmatic belief in empiricism though.
.
>
> >> > And if we do not consider the Bible as authority for our
> >> > understanding then why are we Christians and not Hindus etc, who can
> >> > be very “spiritual”?
> >> Ooh! I know! It's because your Mummy & Daddy were Christians, too,
> > <shrug> My mother is a “lapsed Catholic” and my father a nominal
> > Anglican. My mother was the Christian influence in our home growing up.
> > We went to Girls Brigade at the local Baptist church once a week and the
> > church there once a month, we then went to a fairly religious ecumenical
> > school.
>
> ...and that'll be why you aren't a Hindu, then.

Not being Indian or of Indian decent did decrease the probability of
me being a Hindu yes, however my decision was my own to make.

>
> You've decided that you need some kind of external framework to give your
> life some meaning, and the most obvious port of call is the one you were
> brought up around.
>
> > Why, what was your experience growing up?
>
> Let's put it this way - I'm not a Hindu, either.

And neither are you are Christian, which disproved your theory that we
believe whatever we are taught to. I have read objectively about other
faiths. It took me a long time to commit to being a Christian as I had
many issues (including this one about inherited faith). My decision
was my own however. What decisions have you made about what matters to
you in life then?

On 5 Nov, 01:07, smr  wrote:
> Claire wrote:
> > On 4 Nov, 18:19, Adrian  wrote:
> >> Claire  gurgled happily, sounding much like
> >> they were saying:
>
> >>>>> 1. in this case it seems very unclear what the Bible is saying and
> >>>>> some people are choosing what they understand by it because they do
> >>>>> like a particular message.
> >>>> Typo corrected. HTH
> >>> I don’t think that is a fair reversal of what I said there.
> >> The truth can hurt sometimes.
>
> > So can misrepresentations!
>
> >>> To me it seems clear what was being said. It is not a case of what I
> >>> want to believe – it is just the way it is.
> >> Mmm. That's why you select your church according to whether they share
> >> your preferred interpretation.
>
> > Well I attended a liberal Anglican church for 6 months when I first
> > relocated to my current job. This was on the basis of it being down
> > the road from where I was living at the time and there not being any
> > other churches within easy access. They were lovely people but
> > although I felt very welcome I did not feel this was the church for
> > me. I felt that it was rather “wishy-washy” at times. I have listened
> > to all the arguments, spoken to various people and have weighed up
> > everything I have heard. So it is not as though I have been closed
> > minded and refused to mix which is what you imply. Of course though;
> > “birds of a feather flock together”.
>
> >>>>> 3. Jesus himself condemned the people of his day for using religious
> >>>>> rules and looking down on others in place of faith and repentance.
> >>>>> Whatever our understanding of the Bible we should not fall into the
> >>>>> same trap.
> >>>> Well, quite.
> >>> Glad we agree on that.
> >> Well, you agree in (some of your) words, but clearly not in deeds (and
> >> the rest of your words).
>
> >> Do you not think that saying "Well, I'm quite happy to see <group>
> >> discriminated against, because it says so in the Bible (so long as you
> >> select your interpretation carefully)" is rather going against that,
> >> though?
>
> > Not really because I am not calling for anybody to be mistreated (as
> > the crowds wanted when they were about to stone the woman accused of
> > prostitution), nor am I saying this in a self-righteous, judgmental
> > way. I am asking; why should we have different rules in the church for
> > homosexuals compared to any other understandably tempted people trying
> > to live according to teaching?
>
> If that's the position I'd ask why should we have different rules for
> homosexuals. Isn't /everyone/ tempted and trying to live according to
> Jesus' teaching? This is called Original... I forget, Din? Is it Pin?
> Fin? No, but it's something like that, I'm sure of it

Yes indeed. Should the church have a Adulterers  Pride March or a
Prostitutes’ Pride March, or a Mammon Pride March, or a Gluttony Pride
March. The list is endless? You can see then how two world-views
collide on this issue. You should not be “Proud” and a Christian – we
are told to be humble and submissive to God and to “boast only in the
Lord”

>
> >>> After all we are told the two most important commands are to; "love the
> >>> Lord your God with all your soul, all your strength and all your mind
> >>> and love your neighbour as yourself"
> >> (so long as they're not pillowbiters)
>
> > Well a way to look at that is that if you would not do something you
> > consider to be a sin then why would you help somebody else to who
> > would? How does that love your neighbour as yourself?
>
> I think it depends how narrowly you want to interpret that. More broadly
> - do you want to give someone else the choice to find love in the world
> as you would want be able to yourself (meaning freely etc) or do you
> want them to find love in the world as you literally would (meaning
> (assuming by Claire you're a woman) with a man) ?

I don’t give anybody choices – God does. People do have choices and
all our choices have consequences.

>
> I don't think Jesus wanted us to do everything identically, otherwise
> free will was a right waste of time.

Well, to some extent that has to be true although I question the
extent of free-will we have if God knows before we are born what we
are going to do.

>
> >>>>> 4. It is either the Bible or ourselves who are in error and given
> >>>>> that the Bible is the central basis for our faith in Christ, I would
> >>>>> tend to conclude that disagreements are the result of human error.
> >>>> Could that "error" be on the part of the humans who provided the
> >>>> various translations? Or, even, on the part of the humans who wrote it
> >>>> in the first place?
> >>> I don’t think the error was with the translators as it does not look
> >>> like there was any direct translation into English for the words used> >>> Likewise there was *not* *a* *concept* *of* *somebody* *being* *“Gay”* in the sense of
> >>> an identity so there is no word in the ancient Greek or Hebrew.
>
> >> Can't have been a particularly big issue to worry about back then, eh?
>
> > Well, it got enough mentions in the Bible!
>
> Well, did it? If there's not a word for something how could it be
> mentioned?
>
> Sure it crops up in particular translations written thousands of years
> later on (NIV, for example) but that's because the person making the
> translation goes "right, I reckon this word means 'homosexual'" (oddly
> enough despite there *not being* a Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew word which means
> homosexual) and as someone who studied French at school I discovered
> that just because you reckon a word means something this doesn't mean
> that other people, and indeed the even person who wrote the original,
> share your belief.
>
> Basically, have you noticed that the various English translations of the
> Bible are not identical, either in words or in meaning, despite all
> being scholarly translations of divinely inspired words? Given that
> there are differences some must be wrong. Which ones are wrong?

I notice that the word translated as “homosexual” must have a
different meaning to that for “sexually immoral” since two different
words are used. In legal terms you would be trying to narrowly
interpret the meaning of the rule for your own ends. I do not want to
play lawyers on this!


>
> >>> So was it the writers themselves? Well, I really think you get on shaky
> >>> ground going down that road because the Bible condemns homosexuality at
> >>> several points via several authors claiming insight from God and if we
> >>> are questioning something so overt, what else can we question about the
> >>> Gospels and why should we give it any weight or consideration at all?
> >> So that slightly curling Tesco Value thick-sliced white really DID
> >> suddenly turn into Cod & Chips for five thousand?
>
> > :-) Prove it didn’t. It’s a matter of faith.
>
> Just as, it appears, whether or not the original writers meant what
> various later translators would make of their words.


And there in lies the reason we are unlikely ever to come to an
agreement.

Claire wrote:

>> It's also worth noting that the relationship between the Roman
>> centurion and his slave (see Luke 7) was very likely sexual, though
>> Jesus praised the man's faith and healed the slave without comment; a
>> bit strange for someone who is supposed to say that being gay is wrong.
> 
> 
> It is strange you read meaning into that passage but read out meanings
> in the other passages! ;-)

As far as I am aware, the sexual relationships between centurions and 
their servant boys is quite well-known.



>>> I
>>> just think some good and genuine people get misrepresented as bigots
>>> which is not right, especially if fellow-Christians are involved in
>>> doing that.
>> I don't doubt it. Unfortunately, it is also a sad fact that many
>> bigots try to pass themselves off as respectable Christians ("I must
>> be right, God agrees with me!").
> 
> I agree. The test of that is somebody obsessed with this subject and
> expressing hatred towards homosexual people. 

Indeed. I can think of a few people in that category.

> This has to be wrong
> because firstly God is love and secondly because all sin is condemned
> by God including the other ones people make excuses for. Somebody once
> described how you get Christian Sadists and Christian masochists.
> Christian Sadists go around “holier than thou” condemning other
> people’s sins and bashing them with the Bible. The Christian
> masochists feel like miserable retches and go around questioning
> whether they are really saved and not accepting the gift of Grace
> because they’re just not worthy. 

While it is easy to recognise the former, it can be difficult 
sometimes to avoid becoming one of the latter.

> I think we need a healthy balance –
> not in being able to go around condemning other people (that is not
> love) but to have as full an understanding of teaching as possible.

Of course.


> And assume they mean what is convenient for you! And in all fairness
> we are all guilty of doing that with scripture so I’m not looking down
> on you for it.
> 

Thank you.

-- 
rgds
LAurence
<><
...Dew knot trussed spell chequers two fined awl mist steaks!
---*TagZilla 0.059* http://tagzilla.mozdev.org