Summer of Schism: Archbishop calls for rethink on gays

Archbishop Alan Harper, Archbishop of Armagh and primate of All-Ireland, has perhaps not received the attention he has deserved since taking over from the high-profile Robin Eames, lead author of the Windsor Report. My mission today is to change that. He has this morning delivered a powerful and, I have to say, rather convincing address making the intellectual case for a new look at St Paul's texts on homosexuality. What is clever is that he has done this, not in the usual irritatingly woolly way we have come to expect from Anglican liberal bishops, but in a rigorous, faithful fashion, drawing directly on Richard Hooker's Lawes on Ecclesiastical Polity. This was of course the exact same text cited with such power by Uganda's primate Archbishop Henry Orombi at Gafcon. You can download the full address here and our story on this is now online. He was speaking at the USPG annual conference at Swanwick. Local clergy have condemned him as a 'false teacher', as the BBC's William Crawley reports on his blog.

The Archbishop is one of 38 primates, most of whom will be at Lambeth.

Here are the most interesting concluding paragraphs:

'I draw attention, therefore, to one of the texts central to the current debate, namely Romans 1.18-27 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, for God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four footed animals or reptiles.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature and not the Creator, who is blessed for ever! AmenFor this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. [NRSV]

Some preliminary observations are in order.First, the passage deals directly with denial or suppression of the truth. The truth in question has to do with the nature and the worship of God. Whether Paul has in mind pagan devotees or apostate former Christians (and it seems most likely to be the latter,) in either case what can be known about God - which itself is something plain to be seen in the creation (In Paul’s words, “understood and seen through the things he has made”,) has been deliberately set aside in favour of the worship of idols represented by images drawn from the created order. Paul, then is very clearly referring to a grave contemporary issue for the Church in Rome.

Second, it is entirely clear that for Paul the created order is identified as of substance and significance in understanding the nature of God – “his power and his divine nature have been understood and seen through the things that he has made.”(v20) Here Paul applies the force of human reason to establish the position he is concerned to advocate. Refining and developing an increasingly deeper understanding of the things that God has made, therefore can only further expose us to a fuller encounter with the power and divine nature of God. The more we know and the better we understand the mechanisms of creation the better our insight into the power and divine nature of God through the things he has made.

Third, Paul declares as part of the narrative of events that “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth.”(v18) The wrath of God is against the suppression of truth. The truth suppressed is about the power and nature of God clearly revealed in creation. Punishment, therefore is visited by God on those who are complicit in the suppression of the truth and that punishment is that they are given up by God “in the lusts of their hearts to impurity to the degrading of their bodies among themselves.”(v24) “Degrading passions” (v26), therefore, are the punishment of God visited upon those who “exchanged the truth about God for a lie.”(v25)

Fourth, those “degrading passions” (v26), are identified as acts of homosexual intercourse: “Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.” (vv26, 27) Two things are notable about this passage. The first is the implication that, having once been persons whose natural expression of their sexuality was to seek intercourse with the opposite sex, now (as a punishment of God) they have “exchanged” what was natural to them to that which is unnatural i.e. they are now defying their natural sexual orientation and doing so as a direct result of the operation of the power of God. The second point is this. Paul’s assumptions about what is “natural” and what “unnatural” are based upon the knowledge and understandings of the time, relying to a degree on the presuppositions of the Old Testament. If, on the basis of additional knowledge and the application of human reason, such assumptions andpresuppositions are shown to be inadequate it will become an absolute requirement to re-visit the definition of what in this area may be described as “natural” and “unnatural”. Indeed, such an outcome would actually be consistent with the witness of Paul in Romans 1, for he is describing the suppression of what was natural and the substitution of what, in the case of those being punished, was unnatural.

Thus, in the case of the passage under discussion, the essentially narrative character of the account rendered by Paul, dealing with a particular situation involving what Paul interprets as the deliberate punishment of God on persons who defy and renounce the truth about Him, and featuring the application of reason and the contemporary knowledge of the time to the activities of persons who appear radically and wilfully to have changed their normal sexual orientation to embrace an orientation that was not originally normal for them, it cannot be held that what is unquestionably Holy Scripture is also a declaration of the Law of God. The only aspect that can be placed in the category of “Law” is the requirement to recognize the truth about God and not to exchange such acknowledgment of truth and the worship that goes with it, for the lie that anything other than the God revealed in scripture and through the created order is worthy of recognition and worship.

Indeed, this is the key, not only to the situation confronted by Paul but also to the situation confronted by the contemporary Church. The issue that confronted Paul and confronts us now is how to get across the damaging futility that will be encountered by those – they are a great majority throughout the world – who defy and deny the truth about God. Paul saw in the depravity of his contemporaries the punishment of God not on account of their depravity (which, Paul says was their punishment not their crime!) but on account of their denial and defiance, which was the sin that counted. 

Romans 1, therefore, provides no declaration of the Law of God in respect of homosexuality and homosexual acts. Reference to such acts is what Hooker might call “by-speeches” in the context of an historical narrative and, as such, not a declaration of God’s Law. Furthermore, Paul, in his treatment of the issues, employs reason based upon the knowledge and presuppositions accessible to him in his day. These may be challenged if the knowledge base changes definitively. It is therefore inappropriate on the basis of Romans 1.18-17 and ff to judge or anathematize persons on the basis of sexual orientation. It will be necessary to scrutinize other sections of scripture in a similar way to discover whether elsewhere there may be established evidence of the Law of God in this matter and I have not attempted to do that in this essay. I remain committed to the view, however, that the tools of analysis which Hooker articulated are essential to our contemporary purpose and are especially relevant for the purpose of distilling the Law of God from the total corpus of Holy Scripture.

Finally, let us be clear on this: it has not yet been conclusively shown that for some males and some females homosexuality and homosexual acts are natural rather than unnatural. If such comes to be shown, it will be necessary to acknowledge the full implications of that new aspect of the truth, and that insight applied to establish and acknowledge what may be a new status for homosexual relationships within the life of the Church.'

Comments

[Rick Beekman]

Ruth;
Sounds like Archbishop Harper has woke up and "Smelled the coffee". Good for him.

Homosexuals can become Members of God's Church by simply turning away from that lifestyle..Repenting. Same thing for All sinners no matter what they have Done in the past. Jesus died on the cross for our atonement. All we have to do is come receive the free gift of salvation by simply trading in our old sinful lifestyle for a new Heaven-bound lifestle.
I'm certain I'll receive the usual group of naysayers and unbeleivers who will challenge what I have stated. John 8 v 32; "And you shall know the Truth and the truth will make you free." amen.

[David Griffiths]

I disagree with the statement that this isn't the usual woolly minded liberal guff. It's pure moral relativism.

http://theshatteredrealm.blogspot.com/2008/07/truth-and-moral-relativism.html

[Huw Richardson]

Thank you for sharing the Archbishop's words and a link to his text. From the snip you've presented, I look forward to reading the whole thing.

I agree that usually such arguments get lost amid "the usual irritatingly woolly way we have come to expect from Anglican liberal bishops", but while the Archbishop may be the first to write this sort of essay from an Anglican point of view, deeply theological points were among the first to be presented in this discussion: Fr John McNeill's landmark "The Church and the Homosexual" (1976) drew on patristics, historical canon law and modern (at the time) science, psychology and Roman church social teaching. Virginia Ramey Mollenkott's equally important work, "Is the Homosexual My Neighbour?" (1978) did the same thing from a more evangelical P.O.V., drawing on a cultural/text criticism school common in mainline (but not liberal, at the time) preaching. One rarely hears either mentioned at all, today. It can seem, sometimes, as if Bp Spong (etc) invented the issue whole cloth with no deeper thought than calling the Bible outdated and tossing it over his shoulder from the pulpit.

The problem seems to be that the topic gets lost - almost instantly - in emotional reaction and counteraction. Fr McNeill was silenced and excommunicated. Ms Mollenkott was cut off by her fellowship and her family - one of whom was a professor at my Christian college in 1982 - were eyed with suspicion, pulled into private conferences at their churches and vetted for doctrinal purity. Thus the deeper arguments get lost - both sides find it easier appealing to rather shallow emotions. "Worse than dogs" and "Homophobes" are only two such examples.

It is, I think, shallow emotions that have bought us to where we are now. I don't think it's too late, though. A deeply faithful, traditional and deeply theological argument can be raised by either side: the question is can we live in communion with each other despite disagreeing on that point?

[Jamie MacNab]

Interesting arguments here. We could always try substituting 'murder' for 'homosexual actions' - just to see how it pans out. Or we might substitute 'wife-beating'. There are lots of nasty things people do which can be considered natural ; and doubless geneticists will duly oblige us with the evidence one day soon.

But the essence of Christian morality, surely, is that we are required to rise above our natural inclinations (see the Commandments for a summary). What does Genesis say about our 'fallen nature'?

[Anon]

If that is what he really believes he needs to stop being a hypocrite and start ordaining gay priests and stop threatening gay priests with discipline as in this 2003 statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Harper_(archbishop)

He also needs to start supporting gay marriage.

He also needs to come clean on what he really thinks of the bible. Here he states that he puts Christ before the bible:

http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2007/08/30/fraudulent-attack-cen-83107-p-7/

So when is Christ right and the bible wrong? When it conflicts with secular culture?

[George Parr]

Mr Beekman, (usual naysayer appears) Hilarious! When are you band of fools going to accept that sexuality is defined in the womb and forms a considerable spectrum for both genders. To carry on denying that is monumentally ludicrous in the face of science. It's like deciding that someone who is left-handed is a sinner in the eyes of God and asking him to repent. You are defining and valuing others simply by your own bizarre beliefs and nothing else.

[Terry Hamblin]

The Archbishop is in error in his exposition of Romans chapter 1. It is true that homosexual acts are declared to be the punishment for idolatory. That has never been in dispute, but he is wrong to imply that for some such acts might be natural. Certainly Paul did not believe such a thing nor is such a suggestion to be found anywhere in Scripture. The Archbishop's opinion means that God's word was wrong in consistently suggesting that such acts are unnatural. He seems to thing that we have discovered something that God was unaware of. Another corollary would be that those who convert to heterosexuality from homosexuality are being punished for their idolatory since their acts now become unnatural according to his interpretation.

Here lies the crux of the problem. It is not that evangelicals have any more against homosexuals than they have against adulterers, gossips and slanderers, the insolent, arrogant and boastful - they are all sinners who can be saved by grace - it's that they are against teachers who think they know better than the Bible what sin is and what God has in mind. The debate is about the authority of Scripture, not about what people do with their naughty bits.

Without the Bible we would know nothing about the saving death of Jesus Christ. If you throw over the Bible as unreliable all doctrine is in danger. You might as well start your own religion, which is what the liberals have done. All we wish is that they would stop pretending that it is Christianity.

[Chas Marks]

I'm not sure I read the article the same way as Mr. Beekman. He seems to have missed a couple points - such as "Romans 1, therefore, provides no declaration of the Law of God in respect of homosexuality and homosexual acts," as well as "It is therefore inappropriate on the basis of Romans 1.18-17 and ff to judge or anathematize persons on the basis of sexual orientation." Indeed – good for the Archbishop and good for the Church to hear this.
Please quit using the Bible to condemn me and my "lifestyle" to hell. My lifestyle - for your information, is one of a loving, committed, monogamous relationship; working in the social service field with children cast off by society; and being an active member of my parish church. I believe Jesus once said something about splinters and planks in eyes. I wish more Christians would take it to heart.

[J Pearce]

Rick,

As I understand it, ABP Harper is arguing that the relevant Biblical texts need to be reinterpreted, such that they cannot be used to definitively conclude that homosexuality is wrong. He also sounds increasingly convinced by the scientific rationale which believes that homosexuality is something that humans have "naturally", and is not just something "learnt".

Therefore, according to Christian moral norms, homosexuality cannot be "sinful" as it is part of a persons being. It is natural.

The conclusion thus is that there is no bar to practising homosexuals in the Church. There is no need to "repent" something considered acceptable by Anglican norms.

I'd wager ABP Harper has a considerably greater understanding of the "truth" than maybe you do, Rick.

[J Pearce]

Mr Macnab, your argument is a non-starter. We are discussing the act of consensual sex within a relationship. Not violence against the person.

I was under the impression that Christian morality wholeheartedly condoned consensual sex within a relationship.

[J Pearce]

Mr Hamblin,

Did God write the Bible? No. And did he sub-edit it? Probably not. Human beings wrote and compiled and edited the Bible. You remember them? Those fallen, flawed, fallible creatures you Christians believe we all are?

Therefore, by definition, Paul can quite clearly be in error. If he was not to know that homosexuality is part of human nature - he obviously didn't - then his jaundiced prejudices can clearly be explained. And discounted for what they actually are.

Innumerable other Biblical tracts are now regarded, even by most Christians, as quite clearly bonkers. Why can't this enlightened approach be applied to Pauls writings? If you believe in this sort of thing, God gave you free will. Part of that gift is to be able to deduce the parts of the Bible which are utterly laughable. Such a shame so many Christians seem completely unable to exercise that faculty.

[George Parr]

'A traditional and deeply theological argument'.

This is just what we need,to clarify the terminology surrounding debates over disenfranchised homosexuals. No need to include the man on the Clapham omnibus at all. A revisionist approach to 'The Church and the Homosexual' or something similar should do it. Then, hugely elitist, treatise writing academics can skilfully direct themselves and their detractors away from their current predicament of being viewed as 'practising homophobes' or 'woolly liberals' and from the knotty depth of abstruse inertia pronounce that they have now unravelled, even solved, the problem.

Its tempting to put it all down to 'shallow emotions', unfortunately the miles of written narrative expressed so far, have approached the issue from every conceivable angle and the entrenched attitudes to it could not be clearer.

[Jamie MacNab]

Hello, J Pearce, There are doubtless many kinds of consensual misdeeds ; shall we give adultery as an example? or sado-masochism? I'm sure you can think of more!

The point I was making was that it is idle thinking to suppose that any 'natural' act is holy or even lawful. Appeals to nature have to be discriminating. I'm sure St. Thomas Aquinas had something to say about that.

[Templar]

The good Archbishop Harper, it seems, just couldn't resist a whack at the Catholic Church while passing by. Like professional anti-catholic Loraine Boettner, he makes a blanket statement that "God has forbidden the use of images in worship". If anyone who likes to "search the scriptures" actually does so, he will find the opposite is true. God forbid the Worship of statues - not the religious Use of them. Instead, he actually Commanded their use in religious contexts.
EX.25:18-20 for those who disagree. And 1 Chr.28:18-19 - where Davids plan for the Temple, the author tells us, is given "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all". Including in the temple Statues of angels. Also Ezekiel 41:17-18 describes graven images in an idealized temple, with "carved Likenesses of Cherobim". And God commands Moses to make [ a graven image]a fiery serpent and set it on a pole; and everyone who is bitten [by a snake]"When he sees it shall live". So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole and if a serpent bit anyone he would look at the serpent and live. It is when people begin to adore a statue as a god that God becomes angry. 2 KGS.18.4.

So just what was Archbishop Harpers point for bringing up an anti-catholic remark that goes all the way back to the Church of Englands invention of the "Roman Catholic" church to distinguish itself from the English Catholics of The Reformation? The Catholic Church does not Condemn Homosexuals. Only the practice thereof. And if they fall, they can be forgiven and remain in the Body of Christ. With true repentence and the Sacrament of Penance - they can be truly holy.

[Dr. Mike Homfray]

Of course Canon Jeffrey John has done much the same before him....and I think more will; express this sort of view.

This will further cement the divide in the church and make the inevitable split even more likely to happen soon.

[Dr. Mike Homfray]

Murder is harmful, my gay relationship is wonderful - and if fundies and their god can't see that, tough.

[pax58]

Ms. Gledhill,
We live in a time when most of us have an appetite for sound bites, from which we form our opinions. Thanks for taking the time to reflect on an issue of great concern to many in the faith community through the lense of a thoughtful leader of the Anglican Church.
As a gay man, I have had a life long journey of faith that has only deepened as I have come to accept my self as a beloved child of God who happens to be gay. Being gay is only one part of who I am, but it is an important part, it has made me alot more compassionate toward others than if I had lived a life without the bigotry which every gay persons faces from the womb.
I just wish the church would be on the front end of God's justice for once, instead of dragging its feet. I am sure in 50 years we will be wondering what all the fuss was about. It is ironic to me, that those who would most like for me and my kind to stay away from the Anglican Church are from groups which received the same kind of bigotry themselves one generation back. Can you imagine an African archbishop 100 years ago who wasn't of European ancestry?

[Rick Beekman]

George Parr;
In your Thinking science says Homosexuals are "Born That way" so need to Repent right?

Then why did Apostle Paul write this in Romans 1 v 24; "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleaness through the lusts of their own hearts to DISHONOR their own bodies between themselves"??
Notice George Paul Stated "God gave them Up"

Want to see it again??!
Verse 26-28 "For this cause God GAVE THEM UP unto vile affections; for even their woman did change the natural use into that which is AGAINST NATURE. And likewise also the men leaving the NATURAL use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another....And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge (Amen to that!) God gave them ovee to a reprobate mind to do those things0which are not convenient"

George I capitalized the important words so you can see for yourself what God through Apostle Paul thinks of this Behavior. You cannot "dance around" the Truth George so why even try by attacking me the messenger?

Chas Marks;
Please read the Bible verses I posted To Mr. Parr. If You want to be led around by The Devil and his lies then so be it. I prefer to point out there is a better way for you to live. If you don't want to change I have no problem with that. Just don't use excuses such as naysaying Holy scripture which as evidenced shows you are living an Immoral lifestyle. You can change if you want it's your choice.

J. Pearce;
Once again you do a Great job of perverting truth; "I was under the impression that Christian morality wholehearedly condoned consenual sex"

What Church teaches that Consensual sex between Same sex marriages or sexual relationships outside of marriage is O.K.?
Let me have their main address and I'll send them some biblical Enlightement.

Science and the Devil and every demon in Hell can try and convince everyone that same-sex marriage or living in a relationship like marriage is alright..but it is not never has been never will be.

[James Redden]

"Without the Bible we would know nothing about the saving death of Jesus Christ. If you throw over the Bible as unreliable all doctrine is in danger. You might as well start your own religion, which is what the liberals have done. All we wish is that they would stop pretending that it is Christianity."

True that, we would know very little (although not necessarily nothing) about the saving death apart from scripture. Nevertheless, the biggest problem I have with evangelicals (and conservative Catholics and Eastern Orthodox for that matter) is that their relationship to the scriptures and authority is a top-down one which eliminates the need to think for themselves and wrestle with the scriptures/Church's teachings. God does not want us to be automotons. Just ask people like Jacob, Abraham and Moses, who constantly debated with God to have mercy on the people around them.

[Margaret]

The Archbishop has been unduly selective in his Bible cherry-picking approach. No scholar would read a passage like Romans 1 in isolation from the rest of the Bible (nor should any Christian for that matter). If you do widen your view to encompass the whole teaching of the Bible then it becomes clear that Paul is talking about the changes that have happened to the world because it was moving contrary to God's will. That is after all the theme of this chapter and the next.

Paul then gives an example of how far people have moved from the model of relationships that is explicit in the Old Testament, and which Jesus taught as continuing whenever he discussed marriage, but most notably in Mark 10. In case people have forgotten Jesus outlined God's intended pattern ---> made them male and female --> man leaves his parents for his WIFE ---> the two become "one flesh" ---> what GOD has joined together let no man put asunder.

The heterosexuality of the model is undeniable. The fact that God does the joining is also undeniable. The fact that nowhere in the Bible has God indicated that he is willing to join homosexual couples is also undeniable -- including (but not only) by the inclusion of homosexual acts in the "banned" list of the old law, and the "sins" list of the the New Testament.

So, in Romans, Paul is contrasting this model of how the world should be if it had been in line with God' intended purpose, with what he saw as a clear example of a failure to follow God's pattern. The exchange is not then of the behaviour of the individual (as the Archbishop suggests) but of the behaviour of people at large.

Now what I would want to know is why an archbishop does not want to consider the whole Bible but rather is wanting to proof-text his way through???

Actually that last question is rhetorical. I know he is wanting to justify what he wants to be right. But you would think he would come up with some original ideas. This "exchange" argument has been around for many years and has failed to get any real scholarly support-- which makes you wonder why an Archbishop didn't do enough research to know that ....)

[David Palmer]

I don't think the question of homosexuality is solely an Anglican affair, and those of us who are not Anglicans don't take Hooker as our authority for interpreting Scripture.

It is not good enough to tackle a single text on a contested subject to the exclusion of others. Thus the author of Romans 1 also said homosexuals along with a notable list of other miscreants (and the understanding is of persons doing various things) would not “inherit the kingdom of God". (1 Cor 6:9,10)

Additionally, his interpretation of Romans 1 is most certainly open to challenge. The leading exponent of the orthodox Christian position is Robert Gagnon - I commend to the A/B's attention Chapter 4 of Gagnon's "The Bible and Homosexual Practice". Gagnon is Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, a school aligned with the UPUSA.

Reading this most certainly reinforces the view that Gafcon has happened just in the nick of time. Let there be a separation and let us see what God thinks of it all.

[Kate]

Good to see the 'courageous' ANON, intent on his mission to divide the Irish church, expose a profound comprehension gap - not to mention the usual attempts at 'anonymous' defamation.

There is no dichotomy or "hypocrisy" here. Armagh merely affirms tradition and custom (for now) whilst engaging in rigorous intellectual examination of texts cited by bigots as scriptural support for their personal hatreds.

It is not possible, of course, for fundamentalists puffed up by their own egos and a medieval literalism to engage in rigorous intellectual examination. Thanks for confirming that perception ANON.

I am proud that my Communion will be represented at Synod by such as Alan of Armagh. A fitting successor to the extraordinary Robin Eames. The Irish have been truly blessed.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

J Pearce, Christianity does "condone" sex within a relationship - it is known as marriage between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, for life.

[robroy]

First and foremost, in behavioral sciences there is no black and white. Thus, it is ridiculous to even consider that a person could be born homosexual or heterosexual - rather it would be shades of gray. If I am 51% genetically heterosexual, 49% homosexual, is it unnatural for me to be involved in a homosexual relationship. Or switch the circumstances...all such irrelevant rot. The Christian point of view is that we are fallen and in need of a savior. Too bad this "bishop" doesn't ascribe to mere Christianity.

Does anyone seriously believe that if we woke up St. Paul or Richard Hooker and asked them if their words justified homosexuality? Or is this was a vulgar distortion? That should be obvious to the dissembling "bishop."

[Julie (Juliet Pain)]

Rick can't read.

[Göran Koch-Swahne]

In essence what the good Archbishop says is that Dr Hooker agreed with Dr Martin's Sola sciptura contra Dr Calvin's, and all other, Indo European and Islamic, concepts of holy scripture.

Or more precisely: it is not allowed to make nonsence into Law. Only that which is formulated as law in the Bible can be law.

[George Parr]

Keep it up Rick! You do more for the cause of rational thinking as the days go by.

For yourself, I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, consider that you may be mistaken! (Oliver Cromwell)

[George Parr]

Does it not bother you Rick that in living your life believing in the existence of devils and biblical absolutism you are in a considerable minority? You are unable to communicate meaningfully with anyone outside of these dubious biblical texts. There are a few around like you, but not many. Is it possible that God is relying on a teaspoonful of obsessives to populate heaven? I wouldn't want them living next door let alone on my right hand!

[Peter]

Ruth, the exciting thing here is that someone on the liberal side of the fence has started to engage with what the bible says, rather than issue lots of rhetoric about "love" (as if it's not the most overstretched word in the English language) and casting evangelicals (of whom I am one)as the villains of the piece. The archbishop's approach is to be welcomed.

That said, his analysis is, I think, unconvincing. Reading through Romans, it is clear that St Paul is giving a passionate and sobering analysis of the whole of mankind's sinfulness - we worship the created not the creator - and the cycles of rebellion & decline that go with it.

Given this massive scale, it looks far-fetched to suggest that Paul stops off in the middle of this to make a nuanced distinction between different types of sexual attraction & behaviour by particular unnamed people in 1st century Rome.

To me (and I'm sure I'm not alone)it reads much more naturally that Paul is saying "godless mankind, across generations, has turned its back on our creator, who in turn has respected our wishes, and allowed us to indulge in more unnatural (ie ungodly)practices, of which homosexuality is one."

Natural & unnatural in this sense seem to mean "against God's intended order", rather than the archbishops's suggestion that natural means "which gender a particular person fancies having sex with".

Also, I'd emphasise that God's anger is a loving anger - parents will understand that it's possible to be very angry with a rebellious child who's wasting their life, but also to love them deeply at the same time.

I agree though, that homosexuality it's not the main focus of this chapter. Indeed, after the passage quoted, Paul immediately goes on to mention other acts and attitudes of evil that, frankly, make me feel uncomfortable because I know I'm guilty of many of them. Thankfully Paul then goes on to describe the amazing forgiveness available through Jesus's sacrifice on the cross.

The archbishop's comments about "by-speeches" are interesting, but in a sense it makes it more conclusive - homosexuality is so obviously wrong to Paul that he doesn't feel any need to focus on it further.

May I encourage readers and posters to take an hour or so to read Paul's letter to the Romans right through. It's easy to fire off opinions about all sorts of things without really knowing your subject, and Romans is a magnificent letter, considered by many the "Magna Carta" of Christianity, and deserves your attention and reflection.

[George Parr]

"to the exclusion of all others for life" Marsh's law of absolute interpretation.

No matter how crippling, how stultifying, how unproductive the relationship has become; no taking into account any forms of mental or behavioural variation experienced over time by either partner; allowing no other circumstantial change; no regard whatsoever for the deleterious effect on suffering children forced to live in what may have become a dangerous, deeply unhappy environment; without allowing any recognition of mistaken belief, youthful immaturity, or unintentional misunderstanding; no allowance for the human love that blesses a letting go, in the face of change; no second chance and no gracious conciliation; no recipe for making better, unions founded on optimism that have become intolerable, distressing and worthless.

There is no compassion or sense here, just a dogged ruination of lives for the less than perfect, a making of beds and lying in them, an blunt and unholy sacrifice to the thoughtless, useless dogma that exists for itself and does not represent one ounce of humanity.

They knew what they were getting themselves into...let 'em suffer, it's what God would have wanted.

[Rick Beekman]

George Parr;

Once again you try to hide from Biblical fact and truth by trying to malign me and others. George you or I or anyone on planet earth past..present..or future can hide or runaway from God and his word. People on here who know the scriptures and know The Lord are in agreement..Homosexuality is a Sin (Like other sins no better no worse)and no amount of human justification will ever change the facts. God said in Malachi 3 v 6 "For I AM The Lord..I change not..." Nor does his word change George (Psalm 119 v 89). Have a Wonderful day!

[George Parr]

Dear Rick, biblical 'fact' for you is an obsessive interpretation of texts expressed as opinion. You must appreciate that not everyone buys it. For people who don't, you are overbearing and barking up the wrong tree. It is ultimately pointless applying a universal rationale, based solely on your own personal beliefs to the actions of others, who are as genuine as you think you are in expressing their own opinions. 'Truth' is a fairly indefinable commodity, possibly excepted by death as a human certainty. You are convincing no-one by repeatedly painting those who disagree with you as 'sinners'.

You have not answered my question over what success you have had with loudly informing gay people in America that they must mend their sinful ways. This is because you have no audience isn't it?

Equally no-one is 'hide[ing] from biblical fact', they just hold different views from you. For example, for me you present as wholly unbalanced and it seems unlikely that any sane person would readily convert to a position based upon your one-track 'logic', pinning his or her hopes on what you are claiming is on offer.

Whilst many do not agree with my position over some of the issues debated here, few people are in agreement with you. You are not even a part of the enormous schism developing between those in the Anglican Church on the edge of your fool's paradise and progressive Christians with a degree of humanity, for whom your hellish demons and lakes of fire are medieval nonsense and too ludicrous to mention.

[Anon]

Kate

It is reported today that scientists have discovered Jesus was a myth.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/05/africa/06stone.php

I trust the good archbishop will inform his flock in the light of this new scientific discovery.

[Robert Ian Williams]

The Church of Ireland was once noted for its Protestantism and conservatism. Indeed they nearly split the communion in the 1880s over starting "Reformed" episcopal churches in Spain amd Portugal

Now we have gay friendly bishops, divorce and re-marriage,womens ordinaton and even the bishops for the first time are wearing mitres.

47 years ago ut was illegal to place a cross on communion table.

[Rick Beekman]

George Parr;
The difference between you and I is; You trust in world Opinion and your finite mind to direct your thinking.
I put my trust in The Lord Jesus Christ and his Word..His teachings.
Even Jesus rebuked the Devil using The scriptures. Never once did Jesus give place to Satan's tirades other then scripture.
Read about it George in;Luke 4 v 1 to 8. This is a great lesson for others who face false beleifs and people with a surly attitude toward those you teach the Gospel...Give it back to them with Scripture which is what I do.
I know not much about the Anglican Church I am learning from what is posted. I see a lot of Division in their teachings. This is certainly something that needs to be corrected within the Church hierarchy and Ministry.
Read this from the Original church; Acts 2 v 42 & 44; "And they continued stedfastly in the Apostle's Doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers. And all that believed were together and had all things common......"
This is the Church Jesus wants..not bickering..debating..arguing.....

[Fr Mark]

Robert Ian Williams: but the C of I has recently been doing rather well, chiefly because of being the sane liberal alternative on an island where the other two big churches are hard-line, unpleasant and alienating young people fast.

[Rick Beekman]

****The Watchman****

Ezekiel 3 v 18 & 19; "When I say unto the wicked thou shall surely die; and thou givest him not warning nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way to save his life the same wicked man shall die in his iniguity but his blood will I require at thine hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked and he turn not from his wicked way he shall die in his iniquity but thou has delivered thy soul."
Thank God for all those worldwide who are "The Watchman" for the blinded..The rebellious People....

[George Parr]

Rick Beekman - so what success are you having in preaching your message to the gays you come into contact with in America? What is their reaction to you? How real is your 'ministry'?

[Oliver Nicholson]

Kate is a bit hard on the Middle Ages when she writes of "fundamentalists puffed up by their own egos and a medieval literalism". Mediaeval folk read the Bible in four ways: literally, allegorically, anagogically and tropologically. Fundamentalism is a relatively modern invention and one of its most annoying features is the simple-minded assumption that Scripture can be read in only one way, like a car repair manual.

[George Parr]

Oliver, Kate makes the point that the current bunch of anachronic commentators, in loudly embracing fundamental ideals are choosing to ignore any other bibical interpretation other than a medieval literal one. If I understand her correctly, she was referring to those who clearly lack the capacity to interpret the bible figuratively or mystically, (or more likely for whom literalism is a dogged political choice); not to varying medieval methodologies. You do very much underline her point however.

[J Pearce]

Mr Macnab, Mr Beekman & Mr Marsh, you will note the words "consensual sex within a relationship" [my italics] as part of my argument.

This is where the entirity of Christianity gets hoisted by its own petard.

Christians demand sex only within marriage - marriage being a legally recognised unit of family and partnership. We now have the equivalent for homosexuals, not to mention secular marriage for the non-religious and of course, every other form of religious partnership (Sikh, Hindu, Muslim…etc etc). There is a virtual smorgasbord of relationship models on this Earth.

So - are you Christians saying that every non-Christian marriage in this world is "sinful"? That, because it fails to adhere to the norms defined only by Christianity, it is therefore meaningless and in fact, "wrong"?

Are you saying that the "sexual content" of a marriage - the positions, the timing, every salacious detail of it - is fair game for Christians to morally speculate upon - and potentially condemn, using some wholly spurious and arbitrary "index" of sexual misdemeanours?

Are you saying that it is morally acceptable to condemn the majority of people on this planet, who will in fact be engaged in a relationship that exists outside of the norms to which Christians adhere?

The answer to those questions has to be "Yes", given the evidence presented on this thread and others.

Which therefore leaves all of you open to perfectly reasonable charges of arrogance, elitism, fundamentalism, totalitarianism, religious oppression, sexual prurience and obsession and general anti-social tendencies.

And you call yourselves Christians?!

Rick, the only perversion of truth going on is the fact that many Christians like yourself operate the most obscene hypocrisy. Being a hypocrit is another way of denying yourself the choice to use free will. You are perverting Gods truth by doing so, are you not?

[David Kemball-Cook]

Reading this for the first time today, it seems that the Archbishop surrenders to science the definition of what is 'natural'. Is this not weakening the authority of the Bible on morality?

As several of your correspondents have pointed out, supposing that (some) scientists do (some) studies and then claim that they have shown that murder is 'natural'. (Other scientists might dispute that conclusion from the same evidence) Would the Archbishop retreat further, and say "OK, murder was just an example ... it does not mean that murder is wrong nowadays"?

Surely Christians cannot let (some) scientists decide what is 'natural' and what is not. Remember also that what some scientists conclude from research findings is not the same as the verdict of science as a whole.

[George Parr]

There are very few people who would choose to compare murder with natural human behaviour based on love, in order to disprove science. You, Mr Kemball-Cook, appear to be one who does. Murder is possibly a natural extreme of human behaviour, since it is avidly supported via our military and sanctioned by the government and our own dear queen. However, for itself, it is of course unacceptable in a rational and civilised society. There is also no 'biblical morality' that is generally acceptable, because we live in a society in which the bible is not generally accepted; and is intepreted very diversely even among Christians. The spectrum of sexual genetics however, is a different matter and undoubtedly applies to all human beings, whatever they might denounce, pronounce upon or deny.

Heaven forbid that society should let (some) Christians decide what is 'natural' and what is not. 'Great Schisms' are far more likely to exist within the confines of religion than ever they are in science, because scientific proof and interpretation, although sometimes arguable, are based on evidential forms of reality whereas faith, as yet, is not and relies on doubt to exist at all.

Amazingly, for some the knotty 'problems' of Anglicans are of absolutely no consequence whatsoever, whilst others, with every good reason, worry about the stinking religious hypocrisy which continues to resonate throughout society, affecting adversely yet more generations of human beings who wisely have chosen to live without it.

[Michael Alexander]

et manet venit sol... and in the morning comes the sun. I feel Christ must have thought on this phrase on many occassions. Don't problems always have a way of regulating themselves especially given good will and time by both ranks of combatants. Those who would leave the communion should think 'how easily can I be replaced?' The void will always be filled as many wait their opportunity to minister. Surely we have much more important issues to confront.

[Rick Beekman]

J. Pearce;

Hypocrite? Who? Explain exactly where I am supposed to be a Hypocrite Mr. Pearce?!

[Ruth M (this is not Ruth Gledhill)]

It's sad that Christians are labelled as hypocrites - mainly because it's often true. All of us are in need of daily cleansing and forgiveness by Jesus. Having said this, it's clear from the Bible that God regards homosexual practice as sin. It's rather amazing to see the Archbishop tying himself in exegetical knots trying to argue otherwise. The Bible makes clear that 'all Scripture is God-breathed' (2 Timothy 3:16) so to argue that a dichotomy exists between God's law and 'by-speeches' is false. Even if it were to exist, in the case of Romans 1 and homosexuality it would be irrelevant, because the 'Old Testament presuppositions' that the Archbishop refers to as underpinning Paul's 'human reason' are, in fact, declarations of God's law (e.g. not lying with a man as a woman because such a thing is an abomination). For those who falsely try to separate the Old and New Testaments, 1 Corinthians 6 makes it very clear that those who practise homosexuality without repenting will NOT inherit the kingdom of God. This is a salvation-barrier, not a lifestyle choice. Paul tells us not to be deceived, and that includes deception by Archbishops.

I love gay people and would love to see more in the Church. But there's no getting away from the fact that Jesus demands repentance from sin. We shouldn't demonise homosexuality and be lax about other sins. But the Scripture is as clear on homosexuality being wrong as it is about the hypocrisy of taking the speck out of another's eye while ignoring the plank in our own.

[Malcolm+]

Scripture is even clearer about usury, but nobody seems to be upset about our complete abandonment of that particular warrant.

[George Parr]

Ruth, just for a moment I warmed to the humanity in your post, but how on earth can you continue down the path that leads to viewing homosexuals as unrepentant sinners? Few today believe that 'normality' is a heterosexual absolute. There is too much evidence to show that a wide range of sexual proclivities exists, defined by genetics. Lesbians are not sinners, they are made that way. In asking them to 'repent their sins' you are asking them all to do the impossible, and burdening them with guilt in the process.

I read that some people find what they perceive the physicality of lesbian or male sex to be as abhorrent; because being at the other end of the sexual spectrum they cannot apply it to themselves and therefore cannot understand it.

None of this has anything to do with love. I am not gay, but I know that there are a myriad of examples of male relationships - for example Benjamin Britten and Peter Pears, which are far removed from the gay 'scene', much like the plethora of heterosexual examples which are not founded on boundless promiscuity.

A lot of what you say I agree with over hypocrisy and demonisation, or pursuing the gay debate to the exclusion of all others. But I cannot see how these ancient biblical interpretations can either be relied on to the ruination of all others or be regarded as infallible or accurate.

(rg writes: George I don't believe homosexuals are 'unrepentant sinners'. Where in the post do I give that impression? Maybe you are talking here to the other Ruth, Ruth M, who recently made a comment which might have given rise to this response.)

[Kate]

Oliver Nicholson - You are welcome to pedantry which must of course, and by definition, insist on precision!

However, a select few (very few) 'educated' individuals in medieval times were equally at home with Greco-Roman philosophy and Judeao-Christian teaching, ergo capable of the 'readings' you list. Greek and Latin were dual vehicles of education denied to the seething masses of the illiterate.

My own reading in philosophy and literature would suggest 'interpretation' or 'translation' of biblical texts, for mass consumption, was entirely literal, absolutist and designed to terrify simple minds. The figurative, the allegorical, and the moral metaphor were entirely the province of an elite.

The analogy is a simple one: 21st century 'missioners' intent on terrifying (and bringing to heel) the uninformed by literal absolutism.

It is unfortunate for those so intent that, before disintegration of the British education many of us benefited from the same classical education afforded only aristocrats or clerics (and not all of those!) in medieval time - see Chaucer: the Pardoner, the Monk, Friar et al.

[George Parr]

Hi Ruth G! I was indeed answering Ruth M, but I think the M was missing when I posted!

[Christopher]

Ruth M, doesn't it ever occur to you in the wee small hours when you think about the way your scriptures have been used to make a misery of the lives of millions of people over the issue of homosexuality, that they are just plain wrong? As Malcolm+ has shown clearly, most Christians, if they think about it at all, now think the scriptures where just plain wrong on usury. We don't even hear the biblically literalist evangelicals trying to weasel their way round it or asking the banks to give them sharia-style mortgages and interest-free savings accounts - how could they since it was their beloved Calvin in Geneva who first allowed lending at the handsome rate of 5%? They must think the scriptures are just plain wrong on lending for interest and Calvin was right. Even the Catholic Church has quietly gone along with Calvin on that one. So, you must surely accept that if scripture is a dead letter on the money-lending issue (without which no Western economy) it might be on others? In fact, it had better be because taking all your Pauline material as a justification for marking out gay people as 'sinners', as you do, renders it the most pernicious nonsense in the history of literature - along with Mein Kampf.

[Rick Beekman]

Malcolm+;
What does "Usury" have to do with a discussion about unrepentent homosexuals?

Let's read about Usury; Leviticus 25 v 36 & 37. Notice the Word "Brother" If I loan my Blood Brother or a Church Brother money God does not want us to charge them "Interest" on the loan. Another verse states "Give and expect nothing in return". Just wanted to have a chance to explain this. You have a Great day!

George Parr;
You addressed Ruth how she could possibly view Homosexuals as "unrepentent sinners" and that there is "Too much evidence" against beleiving they are unrepentent sinners.

Really George? you can provide us with bonafide proof beyond any shadow of a doubt that homosexuals were "born that way"? O.k. show all of us the proof George We are waiting....

[Christopher]

Just so, Rick. That's why Christians never lent to each other right through the Middle Ages. They were forbidden to. So what did they do? They went to a Jewish moneylender who was not their "brother". Haven't you read the Merchant of Venice to see how they thought of the moneylender? At one time the whole of England was in hock to the Jews....till the king expelled them. The history of moneylending is a fascinating and discreditable chapter in the history of Christianity. It compounded the hatred of the Jews that was justified by some lines in the New Testament. Another example of how this text has been used to marginalise people...with holocaustic effect! Read your Bible! Have a great day too!

[Rick Beekman]

Christopher;
I read my Bible every day...Everyday. I stand by what I posted about the Usury law. Rebelious man will always find a way to go around God's laws. It is our rebellious Sin nature we inherited from Adam.
[snip]

[Christopher]

Ruth, question, please. What does [snip] mean? Does it mean you have cut something out or is it just Rick's oddity of expression?

Rick, then you will see that usury was [is?] a sin which is now passed over by every Christian church.

I am sure you read your bible. I should have said critically. But do also read that Shakespeare play I mentioned. You'll find it very instructive and improving, and very entertaining too.

(rg writes: [snip] means I've cut something, usually an expletive or too, although in the latest case it was an entire paragraph or too.)

[George Parr]

Why should I bother to relay to you the wealth of scientific evidence that most of the world takes for granted? You haven't grasped, during exchanges stretching over more than a year, that I am not a Christian!

You, of course, have not a chance of proving that sexuality is absolute and that normative variations are due to infestations of demons, or that it is remotely connected to sin. Why should you ask me to prove anything 'beyond any shadow of a doubt?' You are unable to convince half the world that gods exist, or that your version of godliness applies generally, or that Satan exists or is in some crazy battle with God over the souls of men.

What is certain is that whilst you want common science explained unequivocally, in words of one syllable, in order somehow to firm up your own crazy 'argument', your own faith relies exclusively upon doubt for its existence.

Have a rational day! (He won't!)

[Rick Beekman]

Christopher;
I have no idea why I got (snip) or why my words like (snip) got (snipped)

Maybe I gave you too much rip and got (snip)?? who (snip) knows?

[Rick Beekman]

George;
You stated; "There are a few around like you..but not many"

Praise God George for we "Few"; Jesus said.(Matthew 22 v 14) "For many are called; but FEW are chosen".

And...(Matthew 7 v 14) Jesus said; "Because straight is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life and FEW there be that find it."

[J Pearce]

”Really George? you can provide us with bonafide proof beyond any shadow of a doubt that homosexuals were "born that way"? O.k. show all of us the proof George We are waiting.....”

Funny thing, Rick, we’ve been waiting 2000 years for proof that the Bible has anything to do with God – and isn’t just the product of some feverish theocratic imaginations. Swings both ways, right?

You are a hypocrite, Rick, because you baldly flout your own Biblical axioms whenever it suits your purposes. And you fail to exercise free will. QED.

There are no passages in the Bible where JC pronounces his judgment upon homosexuality – thus by extension, God does not express any judgement either. The only passages in the NT are written from a very flawed human viewpoint and lets face it, they ain’t got anything to do with God. Therefore, by simple deduction, it is not possible (as Ruth M seems to believe) to state with absolute certainty that “God regards homosexual practice as sin”. There is simply no defining evidence to draw this conclusion.

Mind you, she seems to think that the Bible was written by God, so lets not take her too seriously, shall we?

[George Parr]

You heard it first on this forum, R Beekman considers himself to be among the chosen few, so no burning lakes for him then...

Comforting to know that heaven is likely to be peopled with Beekmaniacs. Theocratic imaginations indeed!

[Dr. Mike Homfray]

Indeed, George - it makes Hell all the more appealing.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Sometimes, Rick, I wonder why we bother exchanging views with the likes of our legendary opponents. All we get in return are personal insults and verbal spittle.
Still, I suppose we can always say that we are imitating our Divine Lord and receiving the same treatment for doing so.

[George Parr]

Are you under the impression that you are 'exchanging views' Geoff? So far there are 62 posts on this thread - the above is your sole contribution.

Like Estragon and Vladimir, we could all be waiting a long time for your view, on something or other, to arrive.

[Mary]

George, Geoff used to post a lot on this blog but left in some form of dudgeon when Ruth had to reprimand him for abusing fellow posters. Though he sides with Rick - I suppose that makes him a christian - he hasn't made it a practice of turning the other cheek. In fact he hits back...and sometimes it has seemed, he hits back first.

[Rick Beekman]

Geoff;
I deem it an Honor and Privledge To defend The Word Of God. I also admire Ms. Ruth For allowing us To express our Opinions.

Jesus was also persecuted the status -Quo hated him and all the Good he did for people. This was Our example to follow. No use getting angry with anyone because they don't agree Geoff. The World is full of spiritually-blind people. Pray for Your enemies The Bible Teaches..Do Good to those who despise you. God sees your effort you will be rewarded for your patience.
Our Flesh wants to lash out at those who lash out at us this is natural..but is counter productive. Bless you!

[Rickbeekman]

J. Pearce;
I asked the question to George Parr not you.

However if you feel the urge to confront the issue then let us begin..
First; you stated this Mr. Pearce.."It is not possible with absolute certainty that God considers Homosexuality a sin". Now I agree Jesus never specifically mentioned in Matthew..Mark..Luke..John That HE WAS AGAINST ANY SPECIFIC SIN. He just made it very clear sir that except people REPENT they would die in their sins and be lost.

Is Homosexual behavior a sin?

Genesis 18 v 20; (God tells Abraham ) "And the Lord said Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great..and because their SIN IS VERY GREVIOUS".

Then Abraham bargained with the Lord if God would spare Sodom and Gomorrah For only 10 righteous souls. The Lord agreed. There was not even 10 People who were doing right.

Genesis 19 v 4 to 11 The Homosexuals wanted to get to the Angels of God. Lot offered his daughters to them instead. The homosexuals refused. The Angels inside Lot's house Blinded the Homosexuals.

Mr. Pearce even a five year old knows what was going on And what followed. In fact instead of trying to twist an pervert what it states why not read it and take off your rose colored glasses.

The Spirit of God gave The Apostles what to record and say in the New Testament.

Read Romans 8 v 5-14.

Paul stated this Mr. Pearce; I Corinthians 6 v 9-10 "Know ye not that the UNRIGHTEOUS shall not inherit the kingdom of God? BE NOT DECEIVED; neither fornicators nor nor idolaters nor adulterers nor EFFEMINATE nor abusers of themselves with mankind. Nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nr revilers nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God".
Did you notice Mr. Pearce Apostle Paul included The EFFEMINATE in that list?
God does'nt change his Word to suit "Modern Thinking" or "Political Agendas" or otherwise.

Malachi 3 v 6; "For I am The Lord I change not..."

[alonzoparker]

So, RickBeekman, do you take everything in the Bible literally? And can you explain why God is apparently not very good at writing Greek? Why are his facts frequently wrong? And what happened to the idea that God is love? Care to explain? Finally, you do realize that your English Bible is a translation, and frequently erroneous?

[Dr. Mike Homfray]

And since when have all gay men been 'effeminate' (not that there would have been such a word in terms of exact translation)

The problem is people treating the bible as anything more than what it is - a collection of writings by a group of disparate premoderns who were inspired by their faith to do so.

[George Parr]

Rick, all this is fine if these texts are regarded as infallible instructions. But Mike is right isn't he? Why should we follow the every word of very limited, non-scientific cave-dwellers - and assume that their accounts of religious morality or spiritual history are accurate? We laugh quietly at their earnestly-held beliefs, founded on an immense lack of knowledge, in almost every other respect. Integral to the early spectacle of religious manifestation is a trajectory of human endeavour which serves the spectacle alone.

Is it not a fact that successive generations since the dawn of time have been trying to reduce the terror or uncertainty associated with human mortality by every known means imaginable? The probable myth of Christianity is one in a far longer timeline of imaginings. I am however truly amazed how deeply it has affected the world - but common sense says that its continuance and interpretation in its various forms have been concomitant with human development, trade links, printing, the spread of information and humanist enlightenment in its original meaning.

Nothing in this continuum, from its beginning to the present day, either reveals supernatural deities or enlarges upon them.

[Christopher]

"Genesis 19 v 4 to 11 The Homosexuals wanted to get to the Angels of God. Lot offered his daughters to them instead. The homosexuals refused. The Angels inside Lot's house Blinded the Homosexuals." Rick's translation - not what the Hebrew text actually says.

Rick, apart from whether or not you really believe the whole male population of Sodom excluding the quasi-righteous Lot (how could a righteous man do that to his daughters?), surely you know enough of your own culture to realise what goes on in American prisons? No good-looking young man is safe when he goes to jail. He is likely to be raped and turned into the bitch of one of the 'men'. These men are not homosexuals; on the outside they would kill you for suggesting it. You don't just have to watch episodes of Oz (though I have) to know it is endemic. The authorities turn a blind eye and might even participate, regarding it as part of the punishment. Just read VI. BODY AND SOUL:
THE PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY OF PRISON RAPE at http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/report6.html
or
Prison rape (United States) at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape
or
There's Nothing Funny About Prison Rape in The American Prospect at http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=theres_nothing_funny_about_prison_rape

Respected Christian biblical scholars now accept that the rabbinical commentators, whose scriptures these are, have had a better understanding of what the sins of Sodom were, inhospitality, greed, avarice and the mistreatment of foreigners and strangers. Have a look at http://www.iwgonline.org/docs/sodom.html
What was the sin of Sodom?
A collection of classical Jewish texts
Compilation and commentary by Robert Kaiser.

They included male rape but that was a way of destroying a man's sense of self-respect by shaming him and exercising power over him at his most vulnerable (aka turning him into a 'woman' since women were and still are regarded as lesser than men in the patriarchal mindset. Why else do heterosexual men fear anal-penetration so much - all the 'don't-drop-the-soap-in-the-showers' anxious jocularity when straight men get together?). Do you really think Sodom was a Dead-Sea version of modern San Francisco? Even there, where the homosexual population may have a higher ratio than the 5 in 100 usually regarded as a maximum it is nowhere approaching 100%, yet you expect us to believe it was 100% in Sodom. Just face it Rick, you have to give up the Sodom story as one of your 'core' texts, even though that disappoints some homophobic Christians. If you are interested in the way sodomy became a sexual sin in Christian theology (perhaps on the way borrowing from the way the Qur'an tells the story of Lut) have a read of
The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology (Chicago Series on Sexuality, History & Society) by Mark D. Jordan. I think you will find it will interest you as a seeker after truth.

I want to take this opportunity to say that if I have been rude or insulting to you in our past exchanges I apologise. On another thread I was accused of this by another poster, and though he himself can be very insulting to those who do not agree with him I noticed how well you behaved when subjected to his ire.