Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Cardinal criticises gay marriage plan

Announcements Posted on
Got a question about Student Finance? Ask the experts this week on TSR! 14-09-2014
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Demise)
    Why would 'Jewish' commandments be included in the Christian Bible if they were not to be followed? Why didn't the Church remove such texts centuries ago?
    The answer to your question is included in the quote to which you reply here. Taken from my post #77
    Leviticus gives us an insight into Israelites understanding of the world, so without this book being part of the Canon, it is impossible to appreciate the basic categories in which Israelites understood the world and life as it was during the exodus.
    By way of further explanation, a point I have made on several occasions on differing threads this sub-forum that, to come to an understanding of the Christian message requires an understanding of the Old as well as the New Testaments since the latter if the fulfillment of the former. I quote from an article entitled 'Finding meaning in the Pentateuch' on the website christianitytoday.com
    An important goal in understanding a written text is to discover the "intention of the author." Where is he going with his text? Is there a strategy that lies in the author's composition? Such questions help us discover what the author wants to say in both the details and the whole of his text. The author is like a mystery writer who plants seemingly meaningless details for us to discover and ultimately connect to find their meaning. Only when we discover that meaning in terms of its parts and their relationship to the whole can we say we understand the text.
    I sincerely hope that this helps you understand the importance of the Old Testament (and consequently the old covenant between God and His people) for understanding of the New Testament - representing the New covenant.

    I know this is moving on from the OP, but a point of interest is that very few contributors to debates about Christianity understand neither the concept of God's covenants, nor its relevance to Judeo-Christianity. Maybe someone will be brave enough to explain in a new thread?
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ineluctable)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17249099

    I am not a Catholic, but I do think they have much more sense than liberal Protestants these days. I think he is entirely correct that it would ruin the concept of marriage, which I should add is a sacred religious union. What are your thoughts?
    For the benefit of all those interested in debating this OP...I'm not, incidentally...I link you to Lord Carey's (former Archbishop of Canterbury - and not a Catholic) Petition which, since it has already gained in excess of 100,000, will inititate a debate in Parliament, according to the dictates of the Coalition Government, and irrespective of any proposals for public consultation.

    I'm sure that the reasons for the petition will facilitate debate that emanates from an informed basis: http://c4m.org.uk/

    Furthermore, this quote citing the impressions of those of no faith, and taken from a letter to the editor of The Times in yesterday's edition might give food for thought to widen this debate, taking as it does, the effects on Christian homosexual/lesbians:

    Sir. The debate about gay marriage seems to those of no particular faith to be a question of semantics. A semantic solution suggests itself, which is that all unions not conducted in a place of worship should be deemed to be civil partnerships.
    This proposal would focus debate on the religious context, which is where devout gays should be arguing their case. It is ultimately their responsibility to work for a satifactory accommodation with their church or, if necessary, make a stand and leave it for one more sympathetic.
    Read, digest, cogitate and comment if you wish. Good luck!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    The answer to your question is included in the quote to which you reply here.
    Couldn't you apply that logic to a lot of rules in the Bible as an excuse for not following them? Including the passages that denounce homosexuality? Couldn't you say 'well, the passage doesn't need to be followed, but gives us an understand of x society's practices and understanding of the world'.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The easiest solution would be to give the christians their own version of marriage that is separate to the legal version. You could give it a new word, seeing as the concept of marriage in this country significantly predates christianity.

    Then they can exclude whoever the **** they like from their little ceremonies: gays, blacks, irish, women, whatever, and live happily in their sad little lives of bigotry and hatred
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Demise)
    Couldn't you apply that logic to a lot of rules in the Bible as an excuse for not following them? Including the passages that denounce homosexuality? Couldn't you say 'well, the passage doesn't need to be followed, but gives us an understand of x society's practices and understanding of the world'.
    Yes, you could, were it not for the fact that some of the rules were explicitly excluded by New Testament writings and others were explicity included by New Testament writings. While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.

    And the reasoning for exclusion and inclusion of same did not include the vagaries of societal 'whims' - I use that word in its very broadest terms.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Yes, you could, were it not for the fact that some of the rules were explicitly excluded by New Testament writings and others were explicity included by New Testament writings. While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.

    And the reasoning for exclusion and inclusion of same did not include the vagaries of societal 'whims' - I use that word in its very broadest terms.
    The line between moral requirements and ceremonial requirements is not clear-cut at all. Many of the rules set out in Leviticus, for example, could go either way.
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Demise)
    The line between moral requirements and ceremonial requirements is not clear-cut at all. Many of the rules set out in Leviticus, for example, could go either way.
    Biblical exegesis demands biblical scholarship. Without it, we cannot hope to come to a clear understanding since the Bible is an extremely complex set of books, written over a span of many hundreds of years, by people with very different cultural backgrounds, different languages and different world views. Again I say, to understand the assumptions, the perspectives, the langues, and the customs of the authors requires biblical erudition. That is why we need scholars to interpret for us.

    Maybe you might like to give examples of what you claim is not clear-cut and then we could see how exegesis works in action. For now, I have to go and have something to eat because I haven't had the chance to break my fast from yesterday. I shall check to see what you have said though, providing you quote me to bring me attention to your response. Thank you.
    • 9 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Demise)
    The line between moral requirements and ceremonial requirements is not clear-cut at all. Many of the rules set out in Leviticus, for example, could go either way.
    (Original post by Demise)
    Why would 'Jewish' commandments be included in the Christian Bible if they were not to be followed? Why didn't the Church remove such texts centuries ago?

    The basics of Biblical morality are really not as complicated as is made out. Your claim that commandments that didn't apply to Christians should be removed from the Bible is completely absurd, though. The Bible is viewed, by Christians, as an infallible historical text. Why on Earth should God's covenant with the Israelites be omitted simply because Christians don't keep it?

    Anyway, back to the simplicity I was talking about:
    -God makes a covenant (a deal, if you wish) or three with the Israelites through Moses and others, the terms of which are the 613 commandments to the Israelites.
    -This is a covenant with Israelites and by cultural extension their descendants.
    -Therefore there is no reason for Gentiles (non-Jews/Israelites) to keep the terms; it's not their deal to keep!
    -The council of Jerusalem decides in Acts 15 that Gentiles are to keep some of the law, and which parts they are to keep are specified: they are to "abstain from things defiled by idols and from sexual immorality and from blood."
    -So, the only bits of the old covenant (the 613 commandments) that Gentiles (and therefore - by definition - almost all modern Christians) must keep are the laws regarding sexual immorality (and therefore homosexuality), idols/other Gods and blood.

    Of course the specifics are still debated, but the bare bones are right there. Many of the rules in Leviticus could go either way... but only if Christians did not have another passage telling them exactly which they need to obey. And they do have this passage, so it's not that hard to determine which Israelite laws should still be kept.

    ---

    Wrt gay marriage, I really don't get how it is such a big issue. I don't know if it's true, but the Cardinal claims in OP's original link that homosexual partners already have exactly the same legal benefits as married partners. If he is correct, what's the issue? I don't see why the state shouldn't redefine marriage, but I don't see why it feels the need to do so.

    Actually, would that even be redefining marriage? Where I come from at least, we already talk of homosexuals in civil partnerships as being married. I'm not convinced marriage is defined as only between a man and a woman

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: March 7, 2012
New on TSR

Writing your personal statement

Our free PS builder tool makes it easy

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.