How is it moving away from the teachings of Jesus, when he doesn’t even mention homosexuality in any of the gospels?
He doesn’t mention rape either so that must be ok? Jesus always supported the old testament in his sayings. He also condemned fornication. Homosexual acts are fornication.
I love fornicating. Join us, we have cookies.
The cemetrys are full of like minded ones such as you, prematurely yet avoidably cut off due to loathsome disease.
Unfortunately though, it is the fornicators and homosexuals that keep AIDS alive and perpetuate the spread of the disease , even to innocent babies.
So that’s a no on the cookies then? I’ll even put some weed in them to help chill you out. Though I must admit that even with my impressive optimism, even I must admit that nothing short of a lobotomy will help you chill out. Have a great day!
Don’t think there’s enough weed in the world that will chill Keith out.
Homosexual acts are not fornication RB, heterosexual penile-vaginal sexual intercourse outside of marriage is fornication.
The greek word rendered fornication in the bible is ‘pornea’ and refers to any sexual activity with another person/ beast outside of marriage.
You are implying that homosexuals cannot fornicate. You are misled or deliberately obtues…but wrong!
.” Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (revised by F. W. Gingrich and F. Danker, 1979, p. 693) defines por·nei′a as “prostitution, unchastity, fornication, of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse.”
Fornication is a word first used in English in the 1300s and derives from a latin root as opposed to a Greek root. In terms of legal definition, fornication means ” voluntary sexual intercourse between two persons of the opposite sex, where one is or both are unmarried”. So again, the troll is misleading and wrong.
It is fornication whether inside or outside marriage. It is also adultery inside marriage.
Wrong! but then why change the habit of a lifetime …
He supported the old testament except for the bit where he said that he came to rewrite the rules. The new covenant with God and all that.
Not that I am a Christian, Galadriel1010 but I suspect that one of the most important passages in the Bible to a Christian is John 3:16 (and not just for evangelistic purposes). I suspect within the verse the word WHOSOEVER is quite important too – suggesting that no one is excluded. Shame certain bigoted people can’t grasp that. Shame as they given decent Christians a bad name!
Mt. 19:4 – 5 “He (Jesus) answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’ ” God in his word clearly provides special protection to the male-female union, and nowhere in scripture is this protection afforded to any other type of relationship.
Its all made up dear…..
He also doesn’t extend that protection to men who can’t father children. In the translation we have today, at least.
Perhaps the ignorant bigot should actually read the Bible, in which he will discover that “God” is nothing but a mass-murderer. Good riddence to bad rubbish I say! (And no one really cares anyway).
The problem in reality is not so much about “God”, whether or not He/She exists. It is not so much in what is written in the scriptures, because there is no legitimate credible commentary on homosexuality within the Bible that states either homosexuality is wrong per se or that those who commit other sexual sins eg adultery are worse if they are committed by homosexuals than by heterosexuals.
The problem is human interpretation of the texts in a bigoted and hate fuelled manner.
There may be an additional problem of the basis on which belief is found in those texts, but thats a separate philosophical point which I tend to disbelieve but retain some open scepticism over.
It is generally simpler than that, Stu. It usually boils down to people selectively appealing to Biblical texts which appear to support their a priori prejudices while blithely ignoring a host of its other precepts. A hefty dose of ignorance of the book whose authority they claim always helps. I once pointed out to a Bible-basher that his holy book said that killing Babylonian babies was OK by God (Psalm 137 – the verses Boney M didn’t put in their chart hit). He actually didn’t know and was appalled.
Absolutely. There are lots of selective choices of verses.
I have great respect for those who adhere to their religious text and can demonstrate reasonableness in connection to that. They need humility to admit there are issues that are at odds with other parts of the text.
That said, I find the whole religious concept flawed.
I did find it interesting once speaking to a Jehovahs Witness and asking him about the limit of 144,000 people in heaven and where he was going to go since it must be full now …
Indeed, Stu. In fact Christianity in general has this problem, and not just the fervently Apocalyptic branches. There is some evidence in the Gospels and Paul that Jesus and his early followers thought the world was going to end pretty pronto. ‘The night is almost over – it will be daylight soon,’ said Paul magisterially. It, er, didn’t happen – oops.
Peter reads and preaches from the bible every week. This is the reason why he has come to the decisions he has. He has a very deep understanding of the word of God and has struggled with this issue and given years of careful consideration surrounded by biblical scholars. This is the decision of someone who places the bible in unique authority over God’s people, and not someone who places secural and non-christian thinking above the word of God which is the far easier option. To go against what he believes to be the word of God would be to undermine his entire ministry and his own faith.
Jeez, this guy must have such strong hatred of gay people to make this decision.
How very ‘christ-like’ of him.
Good Riddance then. A few less bigots in religion might pass it off as almost acceptable.
Every bigot who leaves brings the church that much closer to Jesus, and makes it a nicer place to be to boot. I’m sure that was one of the things Jesus actually taught about, unlike homosexuality. Some parable about a fruit tree…
I think its good that he’s come to this decision. Ultimately unnecessary, as Im sure if he had dug a little deeper into his faith, he would have reached a realisation that love is love, whether its between a man and woman, a man and a man or a woman and a woman, and would rejoice in that.
But if thats something out of his capabilities at the moment, then the right thing for him to do is resign.
But I have to disagree with him on the feeling that the Church is moving away from the teachings of Jesus. I say its coming in line with them more and more of late.
Besides, even if the IS a departure from the original scriptures, that can only be a good thing. The Church has long since needed to update and get rid of of those scriptures that dont make sense or dont add anything beneficial to the way we live our lives.
What a twat.
Some Presbyterians will always veer too far towards puritanism – it makes them feel better about themselves “Ooooh, look how many laws I’M obeying”. It’s a pity they make up most of these laws themselves.
What is sadder is that he was unable to move past his ignorance to a better understanding of Christ’s message.
Drama Queen. Jesus would never discriminate or hate. Hate is not a Christian virtue. God has tested Dickson’s faith and Peter failed. There is only one love for all of us. God or no God.
Another one that neither knows nor understands Jesus’ message…
How comne he says in Luke 14:28…
King James Bible …
“If any man come to me, and HATE not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”
Always happy to correct a learner!
Don’t Bible scholars say you can picks and choose any verse and present it to mean just about anything you like. They also suggest it is important to look at the Bible and contextualise how it was written. You know there are lots of comments that can be used by the media from politicians etc and out of context they could sound horrific but in context sound reasonable – the same is true to some Bible verses – shame you choose to see them in a twisted and ignorant manner.
Not that the Bible is a text by which I lead my life, thats my choice.
Which verses do you say I have twisted. I will prove you wrong.
Very defensive, Keith
I did not accuse you of interpreting any verse incorrectly (but for clarity nor am I saying you have interpreted them correctly).
I said it is possible to pick and mix your scriptures to meet certain biased viewpoints, and that many eminent theologians accept that this is an abuse of scripture.
If you feel threatened by those comments, perhaps that in itself is illuminating ….
It’s you that is twisted.
Bible reads what “they said he sad” apparently…a gossip club established 325AD in Turkey to fight non obidient Eastern Roman Empire.
Don’t remember anyone asking to be taught you just seem to want ram your agenda down everyones throat.
Do the words piss and off mean anything to you?
Funny how it’s never enough for these zealots to be homophobic themselves. If they can’t convince everyone in their sect to be bigots as well and to put bigoted words into Jesus’s mouth, they stomp off and take their ball with them.
I’m sure he’ll be glad to know there are other sects who are just as intolerant as he is… maybe he should get his resume into Westboro quick, they’ll be looking for a replacement when Fred Phelps finally pops his clogs.
lol westboro….they are just a comedy club surely as no one takes them seriously except themselves. Even then I’m dubious, it’s just about fame and getting the money in like all churches do.
To me as an ex-christian and now a practising witch, I truly believe the judeo-christian church is nothing but a business and that’s it.
The chruch ranges from a business to a community group, and the bigger they are the more capitalist they are. Ironic, considering that the only time Jesus got mad enough to throw things around was when he found people mixing money and religion.
I can tell you that no-one profits from the takings at Hilton church except those in need of practical and spiritual support in Scotland and overseas (charities are the main beneficiaries of the monies receivied).
The old homophobic tradition of the church that Peter Dickson clings to is not supported by scripture.
Your are correct in one regards. The hatred or judgement of anyone based upon any aspect of their life goes against Christ’s teaching. Hate the sin, not the sinner. Although being Gay is not a sin and no-one has suggested it is, let alone Peter Dickson. The hatred of homosexuals is preached from the pulpit will be the last day I go to that church.
I mean, isn’t he just plain old Peter Dickson now he has left the church? What’s with the Reverend stuff now he’s moved off?
He will still be a reverend until his notice period ends. Then it is very likely in a new church he will remain a reverend unless it is not a presbyterian church in which he may become a pastor.
The Church of Scotland is a ‘reformed’ church and has nothing to do with orthodoxy.
Another Martyr bites the dust, huh! :)
Thankfully, the church ethos of “martyrdom” or self-sacrifice will NEVER triumph over the evil/hatred that their organisations actively unleash upon everyone, especially innocent and impressionable homosexual.
DIVIDE AND CONQUER (from within!).. Excellent!
Well well… Quite frankly.. Who gives a toss?
One less bigot with a title, position, pulpit and frock!
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
“Jesus always supported the old testament in his sayings.”
If that’s true how come christians are allowed to eat pork sausages and be uncircumcised as well as observing the sabbath on Sunday instead of Saturday?
You need to educate yourself on Mosaic statute law and moral law. Christians are still under moral law as contained in the old testament but are no longer under ceremonial law. Can’t be bothered to explain in more detail that which I have already explained numerous times to those that dont know the difference between morals and ceremonial statutes.
Its all b0ll0cks anyway.
Oh innit just!!!
If you live in the UK you live under English Law . . .
Not in Scotland you don’t!
Scots Law then – not Canonical law or Biblical law
I was making a point about JohnK’s comment on English law and the UK – my point was not about religion at all (which I abhor, by the way).
If you live in England Wales or Northern Ireland you live under English law, and Scots law in Scotland – not biblical or other archiac laws.
I wasn’t criticizing you, sorry if you took it that way – I was merely not trying to give certain trolls an opportunity to jump on your comment and use it as a feed to speak about canonical law – some of them would …
Sorry I agreed with the jurisprudence element of your comment
I did take your comment the wrong way, but I see what you mean about the trolls and know why you felt you had to leave your comment!
I don’t mean to have a go at you for your original comment, but we Scots can get annoyed at the least wee thing!
They don’t ‘know’ the difference. They define them according to their prejudices.
Total made up lie.
Why? So we can live our lives angry, hateful and bitter like you do?
No thanks. I’m completely at peace with my life. It’s it sad though, you come here with your agenda but it just screams of jealousy coz we’ve cracked the ability to live in peace whereas you just can’t find it in you.
Irony is, you just don’t see it.
“Can’t be bothered to explain in more detail that ”
Good coz I’m pretty sure most of us can’t be arsed to listen.
You are thinking about Jewish law which applied to the Jews before Christ. Jesus made it clear that he came for the gentiles also and they did not fall under the jewish laws. A lot of the Jewish laws related to keeping the body clean and free of impurities, Jesus came to cleanse our souls not our bodies. The Jews as a race were protected and survived by keeping their laws, but Jesus came to offer eternal salvation through belief in him which superseded all the old laws.
My grandparents were life-long Presbyterians as was my father (but not myself) and all three of them were amongst my biggest supporters when I came out (it seems so long ago now). My grandfather had an odd sense of humour and one day quipped “Well in my day Methodists frowned upon holding hands because it might lead to dancing.” It was his way of saying that attitudes do and will change. What was important at one time will one day become irrelevant if not laughable.
Quite. Not long before that a lot of Churches condemned novels for peddling entertaining lies. Fear of competition???
Anything that splits or splinters religious groups serves to reduced religion’s toxic, hate-filled influence on society.
The ex-minister will perhaps feel better, in the name of scriptural integrity, if he can find a Church which condemns lending money at interest, supports slavery, and insists that its members sell all their goods and give the proceeds to the poor. The reality is that he is peeved that parts of his Church no longer uphold his selectively justified prejudices.
The split in the church is about 55:45 in favour of the progressive stance i.e. moving into accepting actively homosexual ministers so it is not a hugh majority on either side of the argument. Many churches are going through the same processes and will decide in due course how to act. Many will leave the CofS and form new churches or join other reformed churches depending on circumstances – it is a challenging but exciting time for the church to get back on course and it has needed desperately to face these difficult issues rather than sweep them under the carpet.
I have no doubt that you are right, and that that detracts not a whit from what I have said about this agonised minister.
“Fornication is a word first used in English in the 1300s and derives from a latin root as opposed to a Greek root. In terms of legal definition, fornication means ” voluntary sexual intercourse between two persons of the opposite sex, where one is or both are unmarried”. So again, the troll is misleading and wrong.”
I have already shown you that the word translated fornication derives from the Greek word Porneia. “Porneia” is the word that was originally penned in Greek in the bible. Porneia means sexual activity of any sort, (including but not exclusive to intercourse between persons regardless of gender. The penalty was rightly death.
In the OT it was also the penalty for women failing to report their own rapes. Is that right, too?
Porneia means sexual activity of any sort … The penalty was rightly death
There’d be no further need to worry about overpopulation at least.
Firstly, I direct you this taken from the Heritage Dictionary:
“The origin of the word, fornication, derives from the Latin. The word fornix means “an archway” or “vault” and it became a common euphemism for a brothel as prostitutes could be solicited in the vaults beneath Rome. More directly, fornicatio means “done in the archway”; thus it originally referred to prostitution.
The first recorded use of the noun in its modern meaning was in 1303 AD, with the verb fornicate first recorded around 250 years later.”
Porneia is a New Testament word used to describe serious sexual offences.
Furthermore, Biblical scholars have stated:
“So “fornication,” which means “human sexual intercourse other than between a man and his wife,” is not really a very good translation for the word PORNEIA. The two terms are similar but not equivalent. Some fornication is not PORNEIA; and some PORNEIA is not fornication.”
There is a discrepancy between the latin and the greek origin of the world in terms..
… of the exact definition of fornication. Nonetheless the legal definition in English which I gave above (“voluntary sexual intercourse between two persons of the opposite sex, where one is or both are unmarried”) is the legal definition applicable in England and Wales, thus a reliable definition.
I found this explanation of the views of porneia vs fornication which might help demonstrate that your interpretation of the definition is erroneous:
“Examples: “Fornication but not PORNEIA” – Unmarried sex between a man and a woman, not otherwise prohibited. “PORNEIA but not Fornication” – Human sexual activity with an animal (bestiality.)”
Although I am not a Christian, I found these notes interesting in responding to your erroneous interpretation of fornication:
Why are you hung up on the word fornication.? The earliest manuscripts were in Greek and used Porneia. Porneia refers to sexual activity of any sort between persons. Therefore this includes homosexuality. Jesus condemned pormeia Matt 5:32), therefore he condemned homosexual sex acts which are always porneia! If you don’rt like the word fornication, use another.
Why are you hung up on the word fornication
Clearly because that’s the word you bleat incessantly and it’s amusing to show how misguided you are! Why don’t you a different word then, Keith?
In the context ofthis debate, Stu is hung up on the wrong word. He should be concentrating on the Greek word Porneia which is the word Christ uttered. The word shows that jesus indeed was against homosexuality since Porneia covers homosexuality..
his obsession with the word fornication on this thread is a strawman
Correction: it is perfectly obvious YOU are the person hung up on the word ‘fornication’ since you mention it repeatedly, one could say obsessively.
And once again, since you can have no definite knowledge (apart from your direct line to him of course, but to most of us voices in the head don’t count) of what words Jesus actually used, you forget the word ‘reportedly’.
Projecting again their Keith, dontcha think??!! – LOL
“In the context ofthis debate, Stu is hung up on the wrong word. He should be concentrating on the Greek word Porneia which is the word Christ uttered.”
Oh c’mon… Jesus would have uttered in Aramaic, not Greek, and the only time Jesus is said to have used anything resembling a pencil was to scribble in the sand while some guys were preparing to stone a women on a charge of ‘fornication’…. as the story goes…. er… reportedly, yea.
And yes, the word fornication appears in nearly every one of your comments, and Stu has shed some light on your illiteracy.
Don’t get mad, just be grateful we take the time to teach you a thing or two.
Far too many people imagine one of their books was written by the Creator of the Universe.
We didn’t start using the word fornication keith, you did. Most of us just refer to it as sex these days. Try using a dictionary that doesn’t predate Samuel Johnson
Indeed. It’s not us who insist on disrupting all story comments so Keith can put US all on the stand and be the reason for debate.
It’s very boring.
I am not hung up on the word fornication. I am concerned about the illegitimacy of your use of language. I am demonstrating what fornication actually means.
As an aside, I have demonstrated that porneia does not have the meanings that you suggest.
Try and be accurate and not twist things.
Isn’t keith a total time waster, like so very many pseudo-religious trolls.
“Isn’t keith a total time waster”
Mmmm, very polite, I would have changed a couple of letters.
I am picking up on an inaccuracy in your argument.
Porneia does not relate to homosexuality nor is it the origin of the word fornication.
You have stated your opinion that it is the case, but not proven it. If you can provide irrefutable evidence then I will show grace and accept your view on that point. Nonetheless, I have found (and shared) evidence suggestive that you are wrong. So as far as “strawman” is concerned I have not misrepresented you – rather exposed your commentary for the inaccuracies you portray
Porneia applies all sexual acts between persons and beasts which includes homosexuality. I am NOT wrong regarding the meanings of por·nei′a, B. F. Westcott in his book Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians (1906, p. 76) says: “This is a general term for all unlawful intercourse, (I) adultery: Hos. ii. 2, 4 (LXX.); Matt. v. 32; xix. 9; (2) unlawful marriage, I Cor. v. I; (3) fornication, the common sense as here [Eph 5:3].” Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (revised by F. W. Gingrich and F. Danker, 1979, p. 693) defines por·nei′a as “prostitution, unchastity, fornication, of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse.” Porneia is understood to involve the grossly immoral use of the genital organ(s) of at least one human; also there must have been two or more parties (including another consenting human or a beast), whether of the same sex or the opposite sex. (Jude 7)
Wow! You can produce one piece of evidence that supports your wrong view and I (so far) have produced one that can refute your claim.
Really proved that then …
Perhaps you also need a lesson in what evidence is?
I am more likely to accept the word of established academics in a variety of fields such as lexicographers, philosophers and theologians (all of which I have provided evidence of) rather than a single obscure theologian …
Get a life you sad idiot.
“Why are you hung up on the word fornication.?”
OMG did I LOL when I read that. Most hilarious comment considering who wrote it.
This coming from one of the worst examples of a human being!
Yawn… are you still going on?
Jesus always supported the old testament in his sayings
His reported action in saving the woman taken in adultery from stoning suggest otherwise.
He also said that the Law was made for man, and not the other way around. Not a precept to endear him to Keith, nor to many others of his self-styled ‘followers’.
He also said that the Law was made for man, and not the other way around. Not a precept to endear him to Keith, nor to many others of his self-styled ‘followers’.
Jesus Christ also warned his followers not to tolerate any professed Christian teacher who minimizes the seriousness of fornication.—Revelation 1:1; 2:14, 20.
All quotations from the NT attributed to Jesus must be treated with caution; attributing to Jesus a quote from an anti-Roman tract written years after his death is ludicrous.
And the writer of that book (of many different versions that didn’t make it into the final version of the bible several hundred years later) was clearly off his trolly or on hallucinogenic drugs. If it ain’t in the gospels he didn’t say it.
Now that you are exposed as being misinformed as to Jesus sayings, including the stoning of the woman, you choose to say ” All quotations from the NT attributed to Jesus must be treated with caution”.
In that case, why did you quotes jesus.? You can not rely on quotes from sources you also disregard.
If as you say, quotes attributed to Jesus quotes are unreliable, it cannot be argued (as one poster has and you support) thet “Jesus would never discriminate or hate. Hate is not a Christian virtue.” since there is no reliable record (as you say) of his sayings. therefore, we have the old testament plus Paul’s and Judes condemnation of homosexuality as a guide. No need or basis for invoking Jesus.
Pure classic projection again Keith, eh?
Jesus Christ also warned his followers
You forgot the words “is reported to have”.
Revelations, really? I’ve had more believable nightmares about being eaten by cheese
The scripture you refer to (John 8:1-11) has been shown to be false and not in earlier manuscripts. Most bibles cite the scripture but include a footnote explaining it’s lack of authenticity.
“His reported action in saving the woman taken in adultery from stoning suggest otherwise.”
The scripture you refer to (John 8:1-11) has been shown to be false and not in earlier manuscripts. Most bibles cite the scripture but include a footnote explaining it’s lack of authenticity.
Oh, my, Keith, are you, as a Biblical fundamentalist, admiting the incoherence and historical malleability and variability of the ‘Bible’?
Will you go so far as to admit that Paul could not have written Hebrews?
Will you concede that his blatant Adoptionist Christology is at odds with the Johannine view of an eternally divine ‘Logos’?
Etc, etc, etc…?
It would appear that Keith is admitting that …
How does he determine whether the love spoken of in the Bible is eros, agape or otherwise ….
Twisting things to suit his bigoted thoughts …
Just correcting your ill informed views. that is all. I am not interested in your diversionary muttering re Paul. IO am not asking that you accept the scriptures, just that you do not misquote aor ascribe saying to Jesus that he never uttered, including saving a woman from stoning.
Don’t blame the bible. blame those that would alter it from it’s original form.
Oh, the bliss, the joy both holy and unholy, of Keith accusing others of diversionary observations!
I have never ascribed anything to Jesus, Keith, and never do; adscription, especially when absurd, I leave to you. I only refer to what Early Church ideologues who probably never knew him claim for him. And you have a bloody cheek to talk about my ‘ill-informed views’. Catch up with some modern scholarship about the origins of ‘Biblical’ writings, ff sake.
Keith is correct in this. However it is the only time in the gospels that Jesus is said to condemn sex outside marriage by saying “sin no more”, but the whole episode was added later. Without it, Jesus never says anything about sexual relationships at all.
How many times does one need to say it> once is enough, just as with the ten commandments.
I usually don’t comment on subject not known to me either. Clever Jesus.
Keith, you just said above that the text is false. That leaves you with zero, not once.
Well so long as it suits you agenda eh, Keith?
Maybe Mr Dickens can now spend more time trying to pry-bar his 19th century head free from being wedged in his arse.
Dickson wouldn’t know “genuine sorrow” if it hit him on the head.
“The elected council at High Church said it was “deeply saddened” by the minister’s resignation and claimed many of the congregation would also leave.”
They’ll probably find him in the nearest public convenience.
Where else ? !
Although this article seems reasonably in perspective, I think (as a member of High Church, Hilton) it has been very misunderstood by a lot of people. At HCH, gay people are just as welcome as anyone else, and worth no less than anyone else, and not looked down on at all (I can think of at least one whose factual details suggest he is gay). What Peter Dickson has thoughtfully found unacceptable in the Church of Scotland is that professional ministers who choose to actively live lifestyles which the Bible teaches against are allowed to continue as main pastoral leaders. For example, he would probably disapprove in just the same way if the Church of Scotland were allowing ministers who were having heterosexual relationships outside of marriage to continue their pastoral jobs.
But then heterosexual ministers are allowed to get married, aren’t they. Gay ministers aren’t. And the Bible doesn’t teach against loving monogamous gay relationships. Fact.
what total bollox !
When will you people get it. Its all made up.
Nowhere in any bible does it mention anything about any of this.
It is a contrivance.
“Traditional orthodox understanding of scripture” carries the weight of centuries of culturally-reinforced prejudice. It would not be missed.
It is a wonder the Reverend hasn’t removed the ‘Dick’ from the son in his name!
…or replaced ‘son’ with head.
I just hope people do not think this is representative of Aberdeen. We have a wonderful, very friendly city here which is the least religious city in Scotland. Fools like this are seen as a very crazy minority.
Someone who studies and carefully considers their position over years and with great struggle can hardly be described a fool. Aberdeen for its size has some of the bigger churches in Scotland so I’m not sure on what grounds the statement about least religious city is based, but perhaps this is true? I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Anyway Aberdeen is very friendly and a good city to live in, and anyone who visits these churches will find eactly that. Noone is unwelcome at Hilton on any grounds and certainly not sexual orientation. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
I am a Bible believing Christian & believe that what Peter says is correct.
There can be no other interpretation of the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality.
Walter Wink who is pro gay writes:
“The Bible clearly considers homosexuality a sin, and whether it is stated three times or three thousand is beside the point. Just as some of us grew up “knowing” that homosexuality was the unutterable sin, though no one ever spoke of it, so the whole Bible “knows” it to be wrong.”
This idea that Jesus loves everyone (which He did) does not translate into having sex with anyone. Indeed the words He uses for love in the Greek are never ‘eros’.
Personally, I try my best as a 42 year old heterosexual virgin (because I have never been married & trust me I DO have a sex drive) to ‘live out’ what the Bible teaches.
Having said all this, I have met many gay people & got on with them very well & am not homophobic or ‘anti-gay’, just believe that the Bible is clear on when & how humans should have sex.
We can play games with definitions if you like, but denigrating the feelings and relationships of gay people on the basis of an arbitrary and selective reading of an ancient book is homophobic enough. The appearance of personal courtesy to gay and lesbian people while devaluing their significant relationships is merely dismissive consdescension and fits the definition pretty usefully, I think, just as white people who are not abusive to black peoples’ faces can still be racist.
You must be aware (or are you?) that the ‘clarity’ of the Bible about when and how to have sex is a much broader business than modern Christians are generally willing to admit. Concubinage, polygamy, forced marriage of enemy women – it’s all OK and not repudiated anywhere.
You are a familiarly pious hypocrite, Steve.
Daft cow! You reckon that anyone that believes the bible is homophobic!!!
Anything immoral should be denigrated should it not. The death and misery caused by sexual deviance of every sort , including homosexuality, speaks for itself as to whether is is right or wrong, moral or immoral. the bibles standard of abstinence till monogamous marriage and the lack of disease amongst those faithful to this standard, also speaks for itself.
You go on however, supporting sexual perversion, deviance and filth. A society that held the bibles standard would be STD free, your standard of acceptance breeds death and disease that kills even innocent babies.
The Bible’s ‘standards’ about sex are not what you selectively edit. It is pointless listing yet again the ‘Biblical’ precepts you simply ignore. You are a liar and a hypocrite.
And your infantile generalisations about death and misery are getting very boring. Just p***s off, would you, there’s a dear?
Well Steve I’m sure you know so much better than the Archbishop of Canterbury who wrote a treatise on why you’re wrong. You’re just formulating an erroneous justification for your inherent homophobia.
You don’t believe everything you read in a newspaper do you? As such, I don’t believe a word of the bible. It was a platform for bigotry and social engineering centuries ago, and it’s used the same way these days as well. The bible was written by man, and saying that you can’t be wrong because a book tells you so is dangerous. Indeed, it’s why we’re in the mess we’re in these days in the first place. I’m not trying to disrespect your religion, but the only way to move forward as human beings is knowing when to admit you’re wrong.
Yep, you just believe what your chosen religious text tell you how to lead your chosen religious lifestyle.
That doesn’t dictate to you know better via your chosen lifestyle over how we are born.
Trouble is you feel you have to dictate your chosen bigotry to all who’ll listen and all those who really don’t want to know and couldn’t care less.
Well Steve, what is a 42 year old virgin doing reading and commenting on the Pink News site? I find such things oh so curious? What is your interest in homosexuality? Are you that horrified of it or maybe you just want to do it but are too scared? So you will go thorugh your WHOLE life, doing socalled what a book written by MEN tells you and when you get to the end, you will be vastly disappointed because there is NO proof that any God exists!
Would you say, then, that you are more comfortable with being rewarded for hatred than with being punished for love?
What’s the “traditional orthodox understanding of scripture?” Is that stoning or drowning or perhaps burning at the stake?
Depends when you ask. Orthodoxy tends to evolve, eventually , with scientific and sociological development. Actually it’s a meaningless word. Just reflects either the majority view or the view at the top of an organisation.
This whole thread reads like a Charles Dickens character development.
Do people like keith really exists?
I suppose the Reverend Dickson is already on the path to Rome, and he will be well received.
Peter is a strong believer in the reformation and the unique authority of scripture (not of men) so Roman Catholicism is the last place he would go. There are many other presbyterian churches where he will be very welcome where God’s word is still preached without bowing to secural and cultural pressure.
right on… extremists of every religion have it in common that they believe one of their books was actually written by the Creator of the Universe which is, ofc, an untestable proposition.
The point is not whether the bible is true or not, the point is if you are a christian the bible is the scripture which guides you. If you do not believe in God or the bible why would you care what happens in churches – it has absolutely no effect on your life. If you don’t believe in God why on earth would you belong to a religion? Its not a selfhelp club. In that regard your comment is neither here no there, choose not to believe, then forget it, this argument will not impact you one little bit, you will never darken the door of a church so why would you expect any say on what goes on inside?
I’m sure nobody here expects any say on ‘what goes on inside’. That doesn’t mean that comment on the selectively hypocritical posturing of religious adepts regarding their variably holy book is off limits, especially when they make disparaging remarks about the ‘secular world outside’ – which in most cases is what permits them to practice their mumbo-jumbo freely in the first place.
Peter’s thinking and remarks are not for the outside, they have been kept within the confines of the church family and kirk session. Only the press have made this public. This issue has not even been preached about from the pulpit. In fact in 10 years at Hilton I have never heard a sermon on homosexuals or indeed any negative comment about homosexuals. This has been a leadership issue from the start, it is not even about gay people, it is about all people within sexual relationships outside commited marriage that are seeking to become ministers. The law currently does not allow for homosexual marriage. Unmarried heterosexuals within sexual relationships are not permitted to seek leadership roles within the CoS either. Gay and lesbian people have always been welcomed at the church and are treated equally to all others, just as women at many churches would not be invited to seek leadership roles, some churches are commited to basing themselves on the early church as documented in the NT.
Sorry, this is a response to your next message, not this one, but there was no ‘post a reply’ link on it -
What you outline in your Church is perfect institutional hypocrisy the equal of anything seen in Anglicanism. The ‘equal welcome and treatment’ for gays and unmarried heterosexuals in sexual relationships while their living and loving makes them specifically unfit for leadership roles simply reveals a cowardly unwillingness to spell out official condemnation of them to their faces. Ditto the absence of any mention of the dogma in question from the pulpit. What is that actually about? Not risking bums on seats or coins in the plate? Not risking public challenge to arbitrary taboos? It is pure humbug to describe this as simply a ‘leadership issue’. The reality is that your Church quite clearly devalues the feelings and relationships of the people concerned if it excludes them from ministry on the basis of some idea of faithfulness to the NT. The point is that, as you have made very clear, it hasnt got the bottle to make this clear to everyone filling its pews in order to keep everything sweet and polite. You are right to say that how your Church is organised is not an outsider’s business: but for goodness’ sake don’t try to defend this pantomime.
Gay people are welcome to take leadership roles as long as they are not in a same-sex sexual relationship. This is not about gay people. Why would so many within the church support Peter’s stance considering he never preaches directly about it. It is because he faithfully teaches the bible. Condemnation of people lifestyles is not what sermons should be about, but challenging people to react and respond to Christ’s calling on their lives, and to get to know Christ through the bible. Teaching of rules and regulations is long gone, and people must get to know Christ and acknowledge what they believe to be right and to pursue this. So many people are in agreement with Peter, no because he has brainwashed them into being homophobic, but because they can see week in week out how faithful he is to scripture. Every decision he has made has been backed up with scripture and left no room for wish washy opinions based upon cultural values etc which are ever changing. Of course, some within the church have been upset, because relatives are gay etc, but this is inevitable and part of life, again they have to understand being Gay is not an issue – it is a natural thing and not a choice so how can it be condemned.
Utter waffle, and none of it directed to any point I have made. The classic patronising humbug of claiming not to have anything against someone while having a great deal against the way they love is repeated; I defy any married heterosexual not to feel personally denigrated were his or her marriage to be condemned in similar terms. And please do not insult my intelligence with hypocrital pieties about ‘faithfulness to scripture’ among people who show no sign of selling all their goods and giving the proceeds to the poor, accepting the validity of slavery, being shocked by women speaking in church, etc, etc, etc….
Women speaking in churches is one area where the church over stepped the mark a while ago, and then, many congregations where forced to leave. I was brought up within the church after this so I hadn’t been forced to make a decision on it, but I believe now the bible is clear on men leading the church. I need to read up about slavery etc as I’m not a theologian but these issues obviously do not relate to the selection and ordination of ministers which is what this discussion is about.
In Matthew 19:21, he tells a young man who asks how to gain eternal life, “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.”
Is this the part of Jesus teaching you refer to? This was a direct challenge to someone who struggled with materialism and Jesus knew this person would not place Jesus above his material goods and therefore could not focus on Christ. Indeed the man went away sorrowful.
OK, James –
have you given everything away to have treasure in heaven (not believed in the atoning blood of Jesus, note – pagan mysticism which would have probably shocked him)? Jesus exhorted all his followers about this, by the way, not just this young tycoon.
Would a slave-owning or -trading minister be acceptable to you? Really ought to be, judging by your view of ‘Scripture’?
And was Jesus an eternally divine ‘Logos’(John) or adopted into divine honours for his obedience (Paul – and really pagan Roman, that)?
Is true religion believing that a first century Rabbi being executed by Romans buys off God’s anger or is it being kind to widows and orphans (James)?
Good luck with all this incoherent guff. Just trying to point out that ‘scriptural integrity’ is logical nonsense. And that people justifying their social prejudices on the basis of it are hypocrites, conscious or not.
Well what I believe is not important here, but my opinion is if you choose to call yourself a believer you should follow the book. If you choose not to believe forget about it and move on. There is no middle ground picking and choosing bits of the bible you like. You clearly are a student of the bible – whereas I am not, I am not involved in bible teaching so cannot cast any bible related judgement on slavery without some reading. Although it was a devout christian william wilberforce who fought to abolish slavery so I may read up to find out how he fought that battle from a christian perspective.
Can you tell me in which package Jesus calls all his followers to give up their possessions? I need to read this is context to find out. In the passage I quoted the young man had an issue and Jesus directly challenged that saying it is very hard for the rich to get into heaven. It is not simply a case of giving money away. The poor can be just as obsessed with money.
I’m not a student of the Bible, James – just aware of some of its incoherences ( it is a HUMAN production), and the way those who claim its authority usually – inevitably – do the picking and choosing you say is not permissible to believers. It is also a very interesting window on Jewish and Christian belief in the Ancient World if you abandon supernaturalist notions of its ‘infallibility’.
Historically, by the way, the notion that being a believer must equal following the book is a late development in Christianity and was not even common amongst the first Protestants. It can hardly be attributed to the Early Church who called it all ‘scripture’ in the first place, as well as endlessly quarrelling over it (no, it didn’t drop out of the sky). Hence the entertaining spectacle of Luther – the inventor of Protestantism – destroying James’ Epistle – a scriptural book – because it doesn’t support the idea of justification through faith.
Can’t find the reference you ask for at present but contextually what is interesting is that Jesus doesn’t tell the rich young man to believe any doctrines to be saved – he must simply keep the decalogue and give up all his dosh. It is, of course, simply an aesthetic version of the Judaism Jesus and the young man had in common. In other words, Christianity and its doctrines are a post-Jesus invention, and most likely related to mainstream Judaism’s hostility to the new cult. Now of course, it is entirely possible – indeed maybe even likely – that Jesus never said a lot of the things attributed to him by his followers with their assorted preoccupations. But that merely reinforces my skepticism of people justifying their values by appeal to an old book instead of just owning them.
Fair enough, you seem to have it sorted. I have struggled with my own bliefs for a long while and am not entirely sorted yet, so I am not resoundly on either side of the fence or the other yet. At least you are sure!
I’m not sure about anything, James, except maybe one – I think we have to have the courage to live our values just because they are ours and not appeal to external authority to validate them. That process is always arbitrary and circular since, inevitably, acknowledgement of any ‘authority’ is an arbitrary choice in the first place, and its claims cannot be based on anything objective or empirical.
“The point is not whether the bible is true or not, the point is if you are a christian the bible is the scripture which guides you. If you do not believe in God or the bible why would you care what happens in churches – it has absolutely no effect on your life.”
If that were true, bible-based homophobia would not have, would not have had, absolutely no effect on my life as a gay man so I have no business reminding christians that faith consists of untestable propositions that assure future generations of ignorance and slaughter because certainty about the next life is simply incompatible with tolerance in this one.
As it happens, bible-based homophobia has had a detrimental effect on my life as a gay man, and I resent being told to mind my own business when I see so-called religious authority interfering with basic human rights.