(Original post by Jester94)
But how could there be a Biblical mandate for deliberately breaking some of society's laws? I get that you don't support abortion/premarital sex/homosexuality, and that your beliefs here are biblically based, but does the Bible really condone/encourage things that would entail breaking laws? Surely there must be some element of adaptation by yourself to see that sometimes, certain things from the Bible aren't applicable at that time. I can't think of any specific hypothetical examples, but surely there must be times?
Many examples encouraging female submission to their husbands appear in the Bible; the majority are admittedly in the OT, which we shall ignore as you believe that is not applicable to you, but in Corinthians, Ephesians and Timothy there are passages stating the same idea, that women should submit to their husbands, or are wicked and evil. Women are traditionally blamed for the fall from the Garden of Eden, a belief which allowed the discrimination against women that we see throughout history, especially when religion played a much more important part in life than it does now.
I would describe myself as on the cusp of feminism; I don't agree with quotas (for anything
, be it disabled people, LGBT people, people of ethnic minorities, not just gender) and think jobs should be achieved based on merit, not what you have (or don't have) between your legs. However, for the time being, quotas may be the only way (unfortunately) to start the process of achieving equality in the working world. What needs to be countered is the perception that men can do certain jobs better than woman; that the upper echelons of the business world are still dominated by men is ridiculous, when there are many just as (if not more) capable women able to do the job. Some career paths still resemble, at the very top, gentlemen's private members' clubs, which is not acceptable.
However, I do not agree with restrictive gender roles and think the evolution and development of these roles has been a good thing, for both men and women. Such rigid gender roles as we saw in previous centuries were damaging, both to individual families and to society as a whole, and I think we are much better off for the lessening of such restrictions.
So do you agree with abortion when the mother's life would be put at risk if the pregnancy was carried out, or is that still unacceptable? I think you rather simplify the reasoning behind abortions; yes, the ability of women to secure abortions when and if required is a sign of female liberation, but women don't get abortions willy-nilly to show off about women's lib. The reasons for abortions are wide ranging and numerous: the pregnancy could endanger the women's health; the pregnancy came about as the result of sexual assault; the women is not psychologically capable of either carrying on the pregnancy or looking after the child, which would mean one more child in the care system etc. Some women/couples feel it would be unfair to have a child in the situation they are in, they don't think they have the means or are in the right place in their lives to be able to give a baby the love and support (financial and emotional) it needs; in other cases, the woman/couple does not want the baby (perhaps the pregnancy came about as an accident). In these situations I think the ability to get an abortion is necessary; it would be unfair to the child to be brought into a family that doesn't want it, can't support it, sees it as an accident etc. At the very least, it would lead to an unhappy childhood, at the worst, intense psychological damage for the child. In other cases, abortions are obtained because a screening has shown that the baby will have some kind of debilitating disease or disability and the parents do not feel they would be able to give a disabled child the extra support it requires, or do not want to bring a child into the world purely for a lifetime of suffering, especially when there is no hope of recovery; again, I think abortions in these cases are justified.
Only male clergy = cultural, no doubt about it.
Yes, some things are absolutely right/wrong for all time, yet some things evolve, the majority's view on homosexuality being one of them. Being with the times or behind the times does not mean all of the time a good thing or a bad thing, but in certain situations it does.
But if God created everything, then perhaps the social evolution and the questioning by some people of the views of the Bible was in his design, a way to show us that the Bible must be adapted to fit the modern day society etc?
I said nothing about actively believing/disbelieving, merely that it is easy to say such a thing after the event has ocurred. I agree with you that the laws were oppressive, though you cannot know what it was like for those who shared similar viewpoints at the time and whether you would have risked punishment for it. Some beliefs are worth it, but I do not think this is one of them.
I agree that it was a breach of privacy by both yourself and the pastoral care professional; just because she was out to people at school, doesn't mean others knew or that she wanted them to know. There are stages in coming out for some people; you start with those you feel most comfortable with, so while she may have been out to her friends, she might not have wanted people like that to find out.
I do think that is a slight generalisation of the porn industry; I'd say it is more in prostitution where you would encounter such problems, though I am not denying their existence in the porn industry, However, I would say they are probably more likely to appear in low budget affairs; certainly, I would imagine the more professionally made ones that conform to industry rules (whatever they may be) are all above board; the actors and actresses have chosen to act, health checks on all involved are carried out, everyone is paid what they have negotiated etc.
Yes, but God also created the sin itself, for he created everything, and he created the predisposition of certain people to sinning and the capacity/ability to do so, he created the trigger for them to start sinning (whatever it may be) and he made it so that these 'sinners' would continue to do so, so I would say God does actually make these people sin, thus homosexuality must, if you use the ultimate creator argument, be created by God (not that I see homosexuality as a sin of course, I'm merely going by your words)